Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vistamar School

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vistamar School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising. All the sources self-referential, little hope of finding others, no NPOV Melchior2006 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable school Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'ed articles are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Significant write up on it here. [1] The page is indeed very poor (and tbh, it would be no great loss to just delete it). However there may be more sources, now that the school is approaching 20 years old. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I revised the article, adding sources (at least 3 meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG). I also listed another ten potential sources on Talk:Vistamar School, as more evidence of notability, keeping in mind that notability attaches to the subject, regardless of the state of the article. (ProQuest sources are available by signing in first to Wikimedia, then to Wikipedia Library Platform.) Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the article. However, there are not 3 articles that count towards GNG. There is the LA Times article I found and then you have two from the Daily Breeze. These count together - multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG. I think it is the Daily Breeze articles you meant to count, but just in case, I have looked at all the sources you added, and produced this analysis. I am, however, leaning keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As per my comment above, We have two sources towards GNG. I consider "multiple" to mean three or more, to allow a thorough article to be written, but on the basis of the two, and particularly because one of them is in teh LA Times, I am leaning keep. Of course, an LA school is local for the LA Times - but the quality and reach of the source makes this a good candidate for notability. I also found other mentions in ProQuest, such as PR Newswire sources [2] but note the primary news reporting nature of many of these. Nevertheless, on the basis of the sources found to date, my feeling is that more are very likely to exist. Now that the article has been expanded a little, there is also a weak WP:HEY for keeping. I would like to see it expanded further, and I would like one more good source, but I don't see deletion as being a net positive in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Accredditing Commission for Schools [3]		~ Reliable but a primary source	Directory	✘ No
Vistamar School History [4]		Primary source	~ 404 on link so cannot evaluate	✘ No
LA Times [5]		The source is a major newspaper	The article focuses on the school founding as a concept	✔ Yes
Daily Breeze [6] AND Daily Breeze (second occurence - multiple articles from the same source count as one towards GNG) [7]	Local papers (see below) often publish press releases with little alteration, and as such the independence is questionable. In the first case the author is given as Shelly Leachman. [8] A communications officer since 2012, we are old She previously worked more than a decade as a journalist for news outlets across California, covering primarily education[9]. This piece has her byline, and as such it is unlikely it is just a press release. Indeed she seems to have interviewed students for this piece. In the second case the author is credited as Ian Hanigan. Researching the author, I find Ian Hanigan serves as chief communications officer for the Orange County Department of Education, overseeing the Communications and Media Services unit.[10] However he was the Daily Breeze educational journalist until 2006 by the same source. This piece is dated 2005, so it appears he write the piece himself - it has his byline and this was his beat.	Daily Breeze is a local paper with 57,000 circulation, slogan "LAX to LA harbour". This is local coverage only, but still reliable and secondary.	With local sources, the question is whether there is sufficient information to write an article in the source. This criterion is often not well considered, but these articles appear to give the basis for some article. The problem with my analysis is that I don't have Proquest institutional access to these full records and they are not available in newspapers online, so I cannot fully assess whether these are in sufficient depth to meet this criterion. However we have two articles, three years apart, and looking at different aspects, so taken together, I am giving a cautious yes here.	✔ Yes
NCS directory [11]		~ The source is reliable but this is a primary source	Directory only	✘ No
Niche [12]	I am not sure how Niche select schools for listing but will give it a pass on this as it fails on other measures	~ A directory is a type of primary source, and it is not clear how the information is collated. Some is clearly taken from the school's own materials, again primary	Directory listing, and substantial information is copied from the school and is not created by Niche.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment: Sirfurboy, Thanks for providing your analysis in the above table. It's very useful, and I know it's a significant amount of work. Were you able to access the ProQuest sources, yet, that I listed on the talk page? Also, non-local sources are not required for WP:GNG, only for WP:NORG. The latter specifically exempts non-profit educational institutions like Vistamar School: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. I point this out because sometimes editors equate the term private with the term for profit, concluding erroneously that all private schools must meet NORG. Again, thanks for the care and thoroughness of your analysis. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs are primary, routine opening press releases etc., and databases. Even the LA Times is covering the opening and doesn't wash for GNG. Desertarun (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Source analysis table is a help. This isn't a strong keep, but we have just enough I think. Some PROMO concerns with the wording used, but that can easily be fixed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A couple years ago we would not be wasting volunteer time and energy on this debate. The SNG for schools: (a) is it 9-12? (b) does it exist? QED. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - >>"Even the LA Times is covering the opening and doesn't wash for GNG." — This is wholly incorrect. Carrite (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG (as do all American high schools bigger than a breadbox). THIS is LA Times 1/21/2007, p. 200 ("The School as Brainchild"). Carrite (talk) 03:03, 21 May 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.