The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmeadow School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in May 2005, here, but has not improved since. Article does not assert any particular notablity or importance beyond the unsourced claim that the campus is home to the "nationally recognized" Jackson Hearing Center. "Jackson Hearing Center" only returns 146 Google hits, in spite of the fact that there are a number of entities with this name (besides the one in California referenced in this article, there are also Jackson Hearing Centers in Tennessee and Mississippi). If the hearing center is notable (which I doubt), it should have its own article rather than being in this one. Getting back to the subject at hand, this article hasn't been edited since May, and is very badly written (not a reason for deletion; just pointing out that nobody has been working on the article). WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of recent edits strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was up for deletion and was not deleted. If nothing has changed it should not be deleted because nothing has changed. I still think it is notable.Dapoloplayer 19:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article claims to have a nationally recognized hearing center, but provides no sources to back it up. TJ Spyke 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, received state-wide honor in 2006, info and ref. added to article. Accurizer 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets content policies. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, seems rather improved. Only one rather trivial secondary source, but that's more than many school articles have. Shimeru 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no "how is this useful" standard, nor is there a "their (sic) website is more useful" standard. Please refer to any meaningful standard as a basis for your participation. Alansohn 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), all the more egregious in this case, in which the original AfD failed by a significant consensus of 11 keeps to five deletes (if I counted correctly) 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and in fact the school has been covered and article provides relevant references, and 4) receipt of the California Business for Education Excellence Foundation award and coverage of the school and the Jackson Hearing Center meets criterion 1 of media coverage as well as criterion 5 set by WP:SCHOOL, which specifies that Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff., and as such, the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn and above commenters. It is becoming difficult to assume good faith from the nominator in question at this point. 22:38, 14 November 2006
• Speedy keep as this is part of a set of bad faith and disruptive nominations. Silensor 00:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above. Violates the sock policy. --JJay 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.