Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sage School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. SimonP 20:01, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was - no consensus Radiant_* 08:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Sage School[edit]

One line substub for a non-notable school. The full text of the article is: "The Sage School is an independent school for academicaly gifted students started in the early 1990s. It is located in Foxboro, Massachusetts." JeremyA 19:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • GRider has made an attempt at vote-swinging for this nomination.
    • (Unsigned comment by User:Radiant!)
    • Although IMHO this is true, and although IMHO it is bad conduct on his part, and although treating VfD in this way (as a power struggle among factions) is IMHO bad for Wikipedia, nevertheless I do not think it should be taken into account by the sysop acting on this VfD. I think every vote by a real user should be counted. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think that attempts at organization regaurding votes of interest are inherently "bad conduct". --L33tminion | (talk) 00:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • That's why I said it was my opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a public institution. How is that not notable?--Gene_poole 23:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep public institutions. (well quite a lot of them)Kappa 23:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it isn't public... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That's a usage quibble which shows little understanding of usage. Wincoote 10:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, actually it's a counterargument to Kappa's vote. Radiant_* 13:21, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
          • Gene_poole and Kappa have judged that this particular school should be kept. They choose to articulate a general principle for this judgement. I'm noting that their stated principle—that in their opinion, any "public institution" is encyclopedic—in fact does not apply to this school. They should consider rephrasing their criterion; for example, they could say "In my opinion, all private schools are encyclopedic." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I think you're misinterpreting the use of the term "public". All schools are public institutions, irrespective of whether they are government owned or privately owned, in the same manner all churches, transport companies, telecommunications providers and similar groups are public institutions, because they all service the general community or subsets thereof.--Gene_poole 01:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Well, The Sage School does not service "the general community" [1] but you have a point, and my remark was "a quibble," and this whole subdiscussion is off-topic, and I started it, and I apologize. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good evidence of notability presented prior to expiration of VfD. An online search of the Boston Globe from 1980 to the present turns up only a single hit, a September 4, 1999 real-estate-section profile of Foxboro. The article proper does not actually mention the Sage School. The school is only touched in a "Foxborough at a glance" sidebar, where it is simply listed: "Public schools: one high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools. Other schools: Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical School, private charter school, Sage School." The Boston Herald mentions it twice: in an obituary, and in an article on the Hearld's Black History Month writing and drawing contest in which a Sage School student was a runner-up in the 6th-8th grade division. On this evidence I say that the Sage School does not even have regional notability in the Boston area. I live within fifteen minutes of Foxboro and have never heard of this school. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So now you have heard of it and you want to kick Wikipedia for telling you something you didn't want to know. Better get rid of all these school articles before you accidentally learn something else. What does Wikipedia think it is? A source of information or something? --Zero 02:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Usual rules apply. Unless there is something which sets this school aside from the run-of-the-mill schools, it's got to go. Chris 03:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like a pretty ho-hum K-8 school. Nothing notable. DaveTheRed 06:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, concur with Dpsmith. Radiant_* 08:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Allow for growth. Wincoote 09:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Started in the early 90s? What, the date is lost in the mists of time? Delete a school that doesn't even have regional notability. --Calton | Talk 12:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Dpbsmith. vlad_mv 12:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Dpbsmith. Jayjg (talk) 19:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 01:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 06:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new rewrite. Lookin' good! - Lucky 6.9 07:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an OK stub, apparently paraphrased from the school's website (which is OK). But it's still about a school that is not even notable enough to have received any real mention in the two major regional newspapers (the Boston Globe and Boston Herald) that cover Foxboro. No change in my vote.Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Don't see a problem here. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 23:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 04:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for continuous organic growth and improvement. --GRider\talk 18:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing notable here. Gamaliel 21:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 1) deleting for being a substub is invalid. 2) deleting for "non-notable" is also invalid. That it has already improved since its listing shows there is potential for more growth.  ALKIVAR™ 21:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Others have noted why. --Dittaeva 21:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Substubness is not a deletion reason. Notability is not a deletion reason - verifiability is, if you bother to look at the Wikipedia:deletion policy. There is no on-policy reason to delete this - David Gerard 22:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The article isn't a substub any more... but I have to ask, how can "very short articles with little or no context" be a valid criterion for speedy deletion, yet not a valid criterion for deletion? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability is an established VfD criteria by convention if nothing else. Thryduulf 22:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • merge or delete: If its in an urban area, a catchment of that size is probably moderately notable, if its rural its not notable at all - my school had a ~15mile catchment radius in the much more densley populated United Kingdom, and it doesn't have an article. If its noteworth on the level of the article about the community then merge there, if not just a plain delete will suffice. Thryduulf 22:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 23:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, spammer-supported. —Korath (Talk) 02:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Needs expansion, though. --Zero 02:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Contains interesting information - Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 02:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment. Private institutions aren't on the same level as high schools, IMHO. --Andylkl (talk) 04:19, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Half keep. Relatively new school, but keep none the less. —RaD Man (talk) 08:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Radiant_* 08:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, WINP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:32, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. If the existence of the school is not disputed, then there is no reason that this is not a valid article topic. Notability is subjective, but schools with more than a few students should automatically pass the test. Wiki is not paper. Someone please wake me up when there is finally a policy vote about keeping school articles. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:32, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Would someone please wake me up when we finally have a policy against cut-and-paste votes like the one above. Thryduulf 00:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Something can be a perfectly true fact, yet not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article demonstrates sufficient notability. Samaritan 20:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please explain sufficient notability—as I see it, the article demonstrates that this is a school, not unlike the thousands of other schools that exist in pretty much every town and city around the world. Why would anyone outside of Foxboro, MA be interested in this particular school. JeremyA 03:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The main thing is that it serves exclusively a special learning needs population. It's expandible well beyond directory information to discuss the educational philosophy, practices, etc. it uses with its gifted students; parents, students, educators and interested laypeople could survey and compare it with other schools for the gifted, which range from freeform to uniformed. It definitely helps significance that it draws students from across the Boston MA-Providence RI megapolis, and it helps just barely, on top of that, that it's a private school. Samaritan 05:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. School vanity. Topic not encyclopedic as subject is not notable. Jonathunder 22:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks notable to me. --L33tminion | (talk) 01:00, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Another christian school Saopaulo1 06:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • All schools and other public institutions and facilities such as churches, railway stations, post offices, shopping malls, roads and bridges are notable, without exception. They all have a history that is worth documenting, and that history is always important to someone - even if it's not important to you. This is an encyclopedia people! Keep. --Centauri 07:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If your rationale for your opinion is that "this is an encyclopedia," then why is it that other things that are called "encyclopedias" do not include such material? I think your rationale is that you feel that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopedia within the accepted understanding of that word, but something different. There is a case to be made for that and people make it from time to time, but it is not current policy. By your reasoning, why do we delete articles about real human beings, since you can make a much stronger case for any human being having a history worth documenting that is important to somebody? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Since you cite bridges, I would be interested in your opinion on the Olchfa footbridge article. Thryduulf 13:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr 12:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sage_School&oldid=1138854268"