Talk:Springfield Park Elementary School

Please do not delete this article. I just am trying to create an article about a school that is in my neighborhood. If it still needs to be deleted could an admin please explain why and I will try to fix it.

This obviously isn't advertising, it's not making provision for services or products not to mention it's not actually a profitmaking organisation/BigHairRef | Talk 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not associated with the deletion request, but wanted to suggest that you look at other articles associated with similar schools for suggestions:

Louis Portal Elementary School

Harvest Elementary School

Freetown Elementary School, Massachusetts

Good luck! Lmcelhiney 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Faculty and Staff information

I've added the faculty and staff information from the school website. Lmcelhiney 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing CSD notice

I'm the one who tagged this page. When I tagged the page, it was on this revision. I still don't think that this page has earned its space in wikipedia. A list of teachers, in my point of view isn't enough. It lacks sources, and the notability isn't demonstrated yet. Nevertheless, a CSD notice isn't needed anymore, I hope that this page will improve in time. Have a nice editing on wikipedia by Snowolf (talk) on 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolf- Agreed! I might have been better to be "stubbed" than deleted, however, there are many ways to get from point 'A' to point 'B'. I just came aboard cause the editor seemed to be struggling... Of course, new articles have the scrutiny, but there are a lot of school articles with less information than this one which are out of the line-of-sight. Maybe this will give others a vision of what they can do to start. Thanks for your support. Larry Lmcelhiney 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After all, I consider myself an inclusionist, so I should be more tolerant than the rules ;-) by Snowolf (talk) on 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False issues of notability

The vandalism of Springfield Park Elementary School is a patent violation of WP:POINT. I don't know what your problem is, as you refuse to provide any justification for your malicious edits. Any notability issues with the article are more than satisfied, and your failure to specify your concerns here regarding the issue demonstrates the malice behind the action. As to the ludicrous claim of a WP:LAUNDRY issue with the article, the article itself states that "A laundry list is a lengthy item by item enumeration". Do you honestly believe that three administrators of a school constitutes a laundry list. Specify your reasons for denying notability or walk away. Alansohn 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To every contributor I offer two mutually-exclusive options: engage in discussion, or brand me a vandal. Nobody gets to do both. There will be no discussion. Chris cheese whine 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any attempt at discussion on your part. You have maliciously edited this article in violation of WP:POINT. Your claims of non-notability lack any support or explanation. You have violated WP:3RR by repeatedly reverting legitimate changes without explanation or justification. You were warned on your talk page and you are being warned here. Alansohn 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see any attempt at discussion because you went ahead and chose option 2. Chris cheese whine 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were repeatedly asked for explanations and you repeatedly refused to provide them. Removal of material without valid explanation or justification is vandalism. Alansohn 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do

This article still needs work, but it already meets WP:V AND WP:N, so it seems that editors' time would be put to better use improving it, rather than debating it.

To do list

~~Year established (& Category)~~
Mascot image
~~Colors~~
Photos (more)
~~School district information~~
Additional extracurricular activities
History
Campus

--Hjal 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that somebody added the school colors. I have replaces my (very) short list of extracurricular activities, moved the chess awards there, and added information about the Junior Achievement program. In the Awards section, I added a legislative resolution that uniquely recognized the school PTA. I have also mentioned the chess awards, Senate Resolution, and the (interesting) German-English program in the lead paragraph.

This article clearly meets WP:V and WP:N and will continue to do so if it is not abbreviated by removing adequately sourced information. I would appreciate it if editors involved in a personal dispute would avoid removing the good-faith efforts of other editors to improve this article.--Hjal 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful copyedits, OTOH, are more than welcome. Thanks.--Hjal 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added recent award in Knowledge Masters Open and Cat:1996.--Hjal 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

Abbreviations need to be explained at the first mention as they will not be understood by an international readership. For instance what are the K-3 and K-5 teams which took part in the chess tournaments? Dahliarose 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Lists of extracurricular activities (with two items) have been deleted from this article, as has a three-person list of administrators. In the case of administrators we were told that the list violated WP:LAUNDRY. With extracurricular activities, the statement "and again with the lists" was used as an excuse for removal. WP:LAUNDRY. Most importantly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat is a project, not a policy, and simply cannot be used as a justification to do anything. The project itself states that The goal of Laundromat is specifically to search and destroy laundry lists, and salvage usable content therein and turn it into well-written text. Unfortunately, no effort was made to "salvage usable content", but rather relevant, sourced material was simply removed in arbitrary fashion. Unless anyone has an objection that can be backed up by a genuine Wikipedia policy, these items have been restored and will be reinserted if removed again. Alansohn 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While he has made a major step forward by acknowledging notability for the article, User:Chriscf has again removed material related to what he has decided are "lists" (see this link for details). We seem to have consensus that this material, which is reliably sourced belongs in this article. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject that would justify the removal of this material or is there any valid reason not to reinsert the material as is. Alansohn 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made no such acknowledgement, and there exists no such consensus. As you have wasted the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion, I will not do so. Chris cheese whine 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all you are engaging in conversation, albeit not addressing any of the issues at hand. Your choice to not reinsert the notability tag you had repeatedly inserted previously is major progress in demonstrating that we have consensus that notability has been demonstrated for this article. As Wikipedia policy requires justification for removal of text, and as consensus makes clear that this information belongs in the article, it will be reinstated. Stating "you had the opportunity to discuss, and you wasted it" is simply an invalid justification. I will take your refusal to explain the removal of the information on extracurricular activities and school administration, or to address the issue in any meaningful fashion, to constitute acknowledgment that the material is valid and appropriate in this article. Alansohn 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. Chris cheese whine 14:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...which contains no explanation. If you cannot justify your actions by reference to specific Wikipedia policy, they will be reverted. Please remember that you have to use actual words to explain your actions. Alansohn 15:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The school's chess team has won two state championships. reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to establish these facts. This establishes notability under WP:SCHOOLS criteria 2: "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level in multiple such areas." The article clearly meets the standards of notability set by this project. As such, the notability tag will be removed. If any user has reason to challenge this explicit claim of notability, no reason has been provided at any point in time on this talk page for this article. If notability is still being challenged, an AfD should be created so that we can get community consensus on the subject. Alansohn 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chriscf has repeatedly inserted an "importance" tag, claiming that "This article lacks information on the notability (importance) of the subject matter." As stated in comments removing the importance tag, "notability has been established via 2 state chess championships documented with WP:RS/WP:V sources; please start an AfD if notability is not satisfied" A more detailed explanation of the explicit claim of notability is provided above. I encourage User:Chriscf to follow Wikipedia policy and create an AfD if there is a genuine belief that notability has not been established. To date, no explanation has ever been provided to dispute the explicit claim of notability, nor has the user followed through with his claims by creating an AfD. Alansohn 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

A neutral third opinion is being sought to address the issues regarding the dispute over application of "Importance" tag and inclusion of details on extracurricular activities and school administration, following the process specified by Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Importance - Notability has been established through documentation of the fact that the school's chess team has won two state championships. reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to establish these facts, which establishes notability under WP:SCHOOLS criteria 2. The "Importance" tag has been removed for this reason. User:Chriscf insists that notability has not been established. Suggestion to create AfD has been refused. Extracurricular activities and school administration details have been added, including appropriate sources. Text was removed as a violation of WP:LAUNDRY, which is a WikiProject, not a policy. When text was reinserted in sentence form, user claimed that material was "unencylopaedic". Alansohn 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion will be entered into, per this edit summary. Chris cheese whine 17:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: I don't think winning the state elementary school chess championship is very notable. It is also only one area and WP:SCHOOLS suggests that the "school has gained recognition at the regional level in multiple such areas." I suggest that the way forward is to submit the page for WP:AFD. Grouse 21:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Unfortunately, the other party has stubbornly refused to participate either in obtaining a third party opinion or in mediation, which might well make this all moot. While I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the relevant criteria and the notability of the current article, I welcome your suggestion of putting this article up for an AfD, and look forward to a successful result and finally putting these issues to rest. Alansohn 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Chris should not re-add {{importance}}, but should submit an AfD instead if he wants to pursue this. I don't understand what justifies not participating in the voluntary parts of the dispute resolution process. Grouse 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]