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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article given the newly found sources. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Preparatory School[edit]

Worcester Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Preparatory school lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that. But simply asserting sources exist without proof, particularly with a wholly unsourced article in question, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. No, I think an argument that GNG is met should be based on some evidence. You will note I specifically asked you "What sourcing have you found that suggests this meets GNG?" (My emphasis). Stating it is met without evidence is not helpful at AfD, and I know you are very experienced with AfD and know how this process works. Thank you for now providing one of your sources. I'll review that. But, of course, GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. So are there any others? I could look myself, of course, and I will. But if you are saying GNG is met, and if you can present your evidence, that could save a lot of duplication of effort. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read the Dispatch source above and also looked into who The Dispatch are. The article itself has some very good significant coverage. The most important aspect of finding sources is in showing that an article can be written, and there is plenty of information in that article that could be used to write our article, so on that score it is excellent. On reliability, I think it is good too. It's a newspaper account, but although we only have their word for what we are being told, it has gone through editorial review, and is clearly based on an interview with the headmaster. The interview aspect presents a problem with independence, but it is not a verbatim interview, and this source would be quite acceptable if used carefully alongside other sources. It is reporting in a newspaper, based on that interview, and contains a mixture of primary and secondary sourced information.
So yes, useful for an article, but what it does not prove is notability (which is why we need multiple sources). The piece is published in a paper that is online and traditional paper based for the local area. They have 700 subscribers and serve "Ocean City, West Ocean City, Berlin, Ocean Pines, Fenwick Island and Bethany Beach area since 1984". A local newspaper writing an article about a local school does not demonstrate that the school is notable. At least, not on its own. I'd accept this as one source towards GNG (although strictly it would fail WP:NCORP, but I think that would be overly restrictive for a school). We need a bit more though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my comment was based on the snide comment by AusLondonder Have you even checked the article? A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you, which certainly implied that only what was already in the article was relevant to an AfD discussion and was verging on a personal attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysing other editors comments at AfD and the rationale for them is a long way from a personal attack. If you are suggesting keeping a previously unsourced article then it is common sense to share the sources you locate so they can be discussed and analysed by editors. AusLondonder (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like A comment like this on an article like this simply discredits you are certainly very close to a personal attack. Don't really see how you can deny that. I am not "discredited" by expressing my honest opinion just because you don't happen to agree with it. Just don't make comments like that about other editors and we'll all be happy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing an opinion without evidence at AfD is discrediting on anyone. "Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements." I might add that suggesting a competence issue on my part (This, I'm afraid, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia) is a far more serious personal attack. AusLondonder (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to my previous comment about implying that the current state of the article was all that mattered. I'm sorry if that was not your intent, but it's certainly what it looked like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it's a hyper-local source, for which caution is needed per WP:AUD and the tone gives the impression of a puff piece with North Korean quotes like "has become a pristine landmark of high quality education in the community" and "WPS can boast staggering academic achievements". Additionally, half of the article is just quotes from the headmaster about what a wonderful school it is. AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your work in looking for sources. My only thought is that generally a thesis in this context is effectively a primary source, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. AusLondonder (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is primary for the thesis, which includes the design of the 4th grade social skills curriculum at Worcester, but the introduction and background, especially pages 1-6 are secondary. Other information in there is also secondary. We cannot use the thesis as secondary sourcing for the thesis being made itself - as clearly this is the primary source for the thesis - but in this case this work contains significant background information about the school and its programme. So I think this one definitely counts towards GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (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.