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 waskeep. JYolkowski // talk 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Country Day School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable "small private school", gets 384 unique Ghits. Article presents nothing that qualifies it under WP:SCHOOLS. wikipediatrix 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, school was notable during prewar progressive education movement. TIME covered its foudner's retirement, called it "one of the most famous of its kind in the U.S". --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most famous of its kind in 1954, that is. Still, that is one independent third-party source that the article lacked (and still does). Got more? wikipediatrix 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not my article, I only just discovered it, and there are generally five days to discuss. Five apparently unpleasant days. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand your response. wikipediatrix 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I don't presume to reply for you, Dhartung, but I intend to write what I think you mean. Wikipediatrix, I think Dhartung was replying to your statement, which could be read as a request directly to Dhartung, "Got more [sources]?" Thus the reply, "It's not my article." --Iamunknown 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something like that. I felt I was being treated as the article creator and scolded for not putting something I'd just found into the article. Anyway, I had (have) the flu and probably didn't need to grouse. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's with the attitude about somebody improving an article. Deletionism is great. It takes just seconds to whip up an AfD that says "non-notable" and it takes just a fraction of a second to type up "delete". Then you just sit on your behind and hope no one notices that the AfD is unjustified. Then when someone actually does some productive work and adds to the article, you can slip in a snotty comment that enough has not been done to meet your standards. If only you could paid for this. Do articles or notability have an expiration date, and if so, do you have a source for this or is this another rule you just made up? Alansohn 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am inclined to delete this article. (This is a comment, not my argument for which course of action to take.) First off, it is my opinion that the burden of citing verifiable sources should be on the part of the contributor of the information to an article, in this case User:DrSatan. Five days is enough time. (Dhartung, my thoughts concerning these five days are exactly yours; very unpleasant. =)) But unless the article establishes notability with verifiable sources, I will be arguing for its deletion. --Iamunknown 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -- I notified User:DrSatan that this article was for deletion. Thus far, DrSatan is the only contributor of content to this article, so I thought it appropriate to notify him. If I have done something unacceptable, please consider contacting me at my talk page. Iamunknown 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all, that's a courtesy that any regular contributor will appreciate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not many schools meet my criteria for keeping, but this one does. It participated in an 8 year study to develop "progressive education" in which the curriculum is made relevant to the problems of society. What is more surprising is that this took place from 1933 through 1941. I added references. Edison 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1933 to 1941 was the height of the influence of the progressive education movement. Like 8-hour days and automatic transmissions, what once seemed new and revolutionary is now just part of the way things are. Thanks for adding to the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why can't we have the dignity to wait, say 24 hours or even a few days or weeks, before we start the train wreck towards AfD, and allow an opportunity for a properly constructed article to be developed. That said, the school has played a major role in influencing education standards in its regional area, through participation in a groundbreaking experiment for alternative admission standards for admission to 200 selective colleges in the 1930's, which would qualify it under the "substantial and unique program, structure, or technique" criterion 4 of WP:SCHOOL. The school was founded in 1919, which qualifies under WP:SCHOOL criterion 2's 50-year standard. And the multiple mentions in major articles in The New York Times over the span of several decades would meet the "multiple non-trivial coverage" qualifications of criteria 1. As such, I believe that it is clear that the article meets and far exceeds the standards for retention of WP:SCHOOLS. Kudos to Edison for finding these sources and making the useful additions to this article. Alansohn 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Noteworthy per Edison's sources, easily passes WP:SCHOOLS3. Shimeru 10:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per mentioned sources. Including them on closure of this AFD only takes slightly more time than hitting a delete button. I see no reason to delete a school whose founder was covered by Times. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a superb, nicely referenced article on a school that qualifies for inclusion per various comments above and based on the numerous essays, defunct proposals and other competing pseudo guidelines on schools at wikipedia. I don't know what motivated an AfD nomination only a few hours after the article was submitted and without any attempt at dialogue. I do know that google hits and the school's size are irrelevant and the nominator's undocumented assertion regarding "notability" has been proven false. Would suggest a withdrawal of the nomination, or a revised argument with at least a token attempt at explaining why it is "non-notable". --JJay 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shimeru and Edison. JoshuaZ 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the article shows notability and unique google hits are meaningless Yuckfoo 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (strong keep) per all of the commenters above. 03:35, 22 November 2006
• Keep per many of the comments already noted above. Passes both WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 15:12, 22 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.