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 of the debate was Keep. The Land 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a notable institution Nfitz 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - much improved, and as pointed out, notability isn't strictly a criteria Nfitz 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was trying to nom for AfD and you beat me to it. Looks like one of the students is unhappy with the school. (Judging by the writing style, that might be justified...sorry...couldn't resist). --Bugturd Talk 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite I think it would make for an alright stub, but right now it just has ramblings of a disgruntled student. (Spelling will need to be fixed for any possible rewrites though.) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 02:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bugturd and Nfitz. Royboycrashfan 03:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup and Keep Wikipedia:Schools - Notability isn't an issue [1][2]. Just tag with NPOV and clean up. čĥàñľōŕď 03:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are we now going to list every Sunday School on the planet? Nfitz 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh hang on ... perhaps not just a Sunday school. The two links on the article both pointed that way (the first listed only Sunday hours, and the second pointed to a church, but with not details. However this suggests otherwise. I'd still like to get a better feel how big the school is? Nfitz 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Enrollment: 49 Early Ed + 62 Elem + 23 Junior = 134 Total. [3] --Rob 11:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite. Notability isn't an issue, but yikes, this thing is not quality. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 04:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable school, it's got quite an edit history in one day so someone is trying to improve it. Grandmasterka 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve.--Gillespee 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep of course. Jcuk 08:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pending verifiable information on accreditation and government licensing. I'm not clear on whether this is a real school, or just a collection of homeschooled kids in a church program. More signficant than its status, is the verifiability of status, which doesn't seem to exist yet. The links provided don't mean much. Also, I don't understand why the church web site, say nothing of this. I may well be missing something, so correct me if I'm wrong, and I'll happily switch to keep. The one place I could find a little info was at ACSI (which accredits K-12 Christian schools), but that wasn't helpful, as they're listed as a member, but not accredited. So, now I really have no idea what the status of this school is. --Rob 11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Links just show two church services and bible classes. NN even if an ordinary primary school. Marskell 11:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. -ryan-d 13:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, even by stunningly low nn school standards. Eusebeus 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps I misread the policy, but I thought 'cleanup' tagged poorly written articles on valid topics were supposed to be... well... cleaned up, not deleted. Cynical 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't poor writing, or need of cleanup. Nobody can fix this article without verifiable information. Currently, there's no confirmation this church operates this school, as the church doesn't even mention the school it supposedly founded. It's worth noting that the Seattle Times entry for the school, mentions the church's web site, but gives a dead-link. If we can't tell people if the school is currently open, how can we tell them useful information? --Rob 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The schools website seems current. Based on the size of the staff, the enrolement estimate seems reasonable. Not sure where the (now deleted) reference to $450 tuition comes from, as that was what was making me suspicious; for it is listed as $4,125 to $4,550 on the website. I'm tempted to change my vote. Nfitz 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that was quite helpful, as I couldn't find it previously. I now, just found confirmation it is a state approved school, with this PDF document from the state. So, now I'll reconsider my vote (but I still wish to find more independent information). --Rob 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article needs cleanup. Carioca 19:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) The article is not verifiable, so, I removed my support vote. Carioca 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, per Rob. I find the verifiability issues here and the willingness of users to ignore them very troubling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete even with rewrite, I still don't see real notability, at least not that hundreds of thousands of other schools couldn't claim. The references make it clear that it has been mentioned in Seattle-area newspapers; what school isn't frequently discussed in its local papers? Ergot 02:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been cleaned up. Choalbaton 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Based on Seattle press this school has been around for years. Maybe we should allow editors more than one day to build the article. -- JJay 13:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe editors should follow policy and include sources with their contributions, in the first place, and not waste the time of others. --Rob 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was the creator's first contribution.[4] Don't bite the newbies, eh? -Colin Kimbrell 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point Colin Kimbrell. I notice the article was AfD tagged after two minutes. Maybe the editor would have provided sources if someone asked or used the unreferenced template. Of course, AfD is also a great way to welcome new editors... -- JJay 22:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should see the first draft - it was borderline attack Nfitz 01:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems kind of tame to me and might even be true. The last two lines could have been and were dealt with by editing. -- JJay 01:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh, "might be true", doesn't cut it. Verifiably true is the standard. There is something seriously wrong, when somebody makes an unverified statement about an organization, that's not sourced, which could do serious harm to the organizations reputation. Declaring in public an organization has financial problems has a great way of becoming a self-fullfilled prophecy. If somebody decided not to send their kids to a school, or not take a job there, because they read it was closing at Wikipedia, the school would be more than justified in holding us to blame for any such harm. I realize it is a harsh thing to say, but the original version of this article, should never have been written in the form it was, and was of net-negative value to Wikipedia. --Rob 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rob, I know you mean well, but please, try to stay calm for two seconds. See above where I said that editing was the solution. That to me is the better approach as opposed to deleting an article on a school based on a vague unreferenced line on "financial problems". WP:AGF applies to newbies as well, so instead of tagging the article after two minutes, a further option would have been to question the submitting editor. You also need to realize that not everyone has your skills in concocting these school articles. People contribute based on their abilities. Until the wiki completely changes the rules regarding article creation, you are going to have to live with the fact that many articles start as pathetic little stubs that do not meet your lofty standards. That is the nature of the beast. It is a net positive. -- JJay 01:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ...as per nominator? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the new version. Delete from history the original version that contained a *potentially* defamatory claim about the school. Nothing signficant of the original version was used in the current version, so GFDL attribution requirements shouldn't be an issue. --Rob 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with West Seattle or delete. If this is the "much improved" version, I shudder to think of what the original must have looked like (and no, I won't punish myself by looking at the history.) Denni ☯ 01:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merging (such as with West Seattle) only makes sense if there is some coherent treatment within the merged article (see Evanston, Illinois#Private and parochial schools). Sticking a loosely connected fact in an inappropriate way in another article is a disservice to both articles. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand - per above. Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 06:22, 5 February 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.