Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilmington Montessori School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The article has been heavily improved to meet WP:N and WP:NPOV, consensus changed during the debate towards keeping the article. Note that the nomination has been withdrawn. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilmington Montessori School

Wilmington Montessori School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable school, advertising. Montessori schools are a dime a dozen. Being edited by an editor with an admitted conflict of interest. Corvus cornixtalk 22:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. I don't usually participate in school related AfDs and so don't have a strong sense of what consensus marks as notable in them, but felt compelled to point out that this one may be more notable than the average Montessori school as a result of its distinction of a governor's prize from the state of Delaware for one of its teachers. If the prize had been afforded the school, obviously, I could defend the notability more strongly. I have been involved in the article tangentially since I came upon it tagged for WP:CSD#G11 earlier today. I stripped it of promotional language and advised the creator how to proceed under the COI guideline. Since then, I have attempted to help him further on my talk page. Since my linking to the COI guideline, he has not attempted to enter any promotional text, but only to add a logo. Having myself revised it, I'm (obviously) inclined to think that the text now is no more promotional than that of any other school. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am more confident in my "keep" given the additions to the article. While it would, of course, be lovely to stumble upon a five page profile of the school in the New York Times, this is less likely to happen with smaller organizations, as noted at WP:CORP. I'd be a lot happier if there were clear-cut guidelines to refer to for schools, but in the absence of those, this one does seem notable to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. looks a valid stub. per Moonriddengirl the COI issue has been addressed. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is the subject of a significant published work and thus meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What? There are significant published works about Wilmington Montessori School? Please provide evidence. Corvus cornixtalk 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You probably missed the 'Further reading' section? TerriersFan (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment That section was added in the last day, well after you posted your comment and User:Corvus cornix responded. Anyway, as as I note below, it's pretty clear that none of those refs meets the requirements for WP:N. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment - the Hembreck paper was in and that is a significant paper. TerriersFan (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not meet WP:N as it does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - none are cited in the article and a Google search [1] provides no references. The only claim to notability is that one of its teachers was awarded a prestigious award, but this has no bearing as notability is not inherited - the teacher probably isn't notable enough for an article, so why would this somehow make the school notable? As a side note, I don't see anything which suggests that User:Corvus cornix made this nomination in anything other than good faith - from the evidence presented this is an unremarkable school, and no offence is intended by saying so. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete insufficient information for notability of this one. Elementary schools, of this sort of others, are very rarely notable. DGG (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, elementary schools really need to be exceptional, not just a good school (which I'm sure this one is). Obviously the author's counterargument 1) is of the What about X? variety. Even if there are other notable elementary schools, that does not affect this one, and even if there are non-notable schools with articles, that does not affect this one. Counterargument 2) is more of a comment on the nominator's tone, but obviously saying there are many Montessori schools is not a criticism. There are many Montessori schools, a testament to their success. Counterargument 3) amounts to a claim that "one of the largest" schools is notable, which is debatable, but difficult to prove in any case. Being accredited and complying with the code are base expectations for such schools and not any indicator of notability. Counterargument 4) again invokes accreditations, but these too are not notability as such is available to many schools. Counterargument 5) involves the notability of a teacher, which may or may not exist, but in any case is not directly transferable to the school. --Dhartung | Talk 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


I have added additional sources to the article. For more specifics, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Wilmington Montessori School. Daddy.twins (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • weak keep. Wilmington Montessori School#Further reading does give some evidence of verifiable notability. Re-editing to delete "weak" and add: if only most secondary school articles were this well-produced! --Paularblaster (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)--Paularblaster (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how that's the case: The first ref was written by the current head of the school, presumably while she's been in this job as it's a very recent article, the second was published by what looks to be a closely related educational association, the NY Times story doesn't seem to be about the school and the remaining refs are trivial references on long lists of grant recipients. None of these meets the criteria required at WP:N ("significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"). --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - taken together the references meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lots of trivial references do not add up to notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How do several references which don't meet WP:N add up to somehow meet this guideline? I could probably dig up a bunch of trivial references on myself, and I'm sure not notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Daddy.twins (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Daddy.twins (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep (changed to keep on the basis of the material added since I first commented.) i am not sure the material from the Montessori newsletters are notable, nor is a $10,000 expense for asbestos abatement, nor state-wide awards, but position of the founder of the school, and the environmental grants, are sufficient. It does seem to take a good deal of work to show an elementary school is notable, but I think it's been done in this instance. Good job. DGG (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment It has been a quick learning curve since my first-ever wikipedia post on Saturday morning. I agree that the NYT article on asbestos is non-notable. I had previously removed that entry based on DGG's prior analysis, as noted on the article's talk page. It was added back in by a well-meaning editor. I think that entry should be struck. Also, I intend to strike the state-wide foundation grant refs, since I have come to better understand the importance of WP:N. I think that the national listing that shows the school in the top 50 in the country alongside several very large organizations could probably remain. Likewise, I think that the national grants/awards (Toyota/NSTA, ING) can remain. After reading WP:V#Reliable Sources I am still unsure of the required notoriety of publications. I understand the preference toward "respected publishing houses", but some additional guidance or comments regarding the use of the two separately published magazines would be appreciated. --Daddy.twins (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - as the "well-meaning editor", I think that the asbestos section should stay. The spending of $10k is not notable; what is notable is that the NYT used this school to illustrate an article on a national topic and on that basis it will be of interest to anyone interested in the school. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Added Montessori Life reference that WMS is "Delaware's oldest and largest Montessori school"
    • Henderson, Amy (2004). The Journey Forward. Montessori Life. Retrieved on 2008-02-05. “In addition, as head of Wilminglon [sic] Montessori School, Marie helped to develop Delaware's oldest and largest Montessori school from a one-class program into a 440-student school on a 25-acre campus.” --Daddy.twins (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Based on that (though I don't think the magazine is a reliable source since it has a vested interest in Montessori schools), I think that the school qualifies as notable. Corvus cornixtalk 00:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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.