Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakeview Academy

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! 07:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeview Academy

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

Lakeview Academy (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)

Procedural nomination for connected User:Smileykaye per this request at User talk:Donald Albury. The nominating user admits to being paid by the school but appears to have complied with WP:COI in all respects. I have no interest in a specific outcome. BusterD (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I work for the school in question. Since the article about Lakeview was created in 2007 (16 years ago), there has been very little notable sources added to it. Therefore, we believe the article about the school fails to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Smileykaye (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interestingly enough, the connected user vowed to get it deleted because they couldn't get it whitewashed, they originally just wanted to try to remove the information about their founding as a segregation academy. That said, I have not found much in the way of reliable sources. The best source was a master's thesis by (now Dr.) Monica Blair, which contains a good bit of information and could be used to identify a number of offline sources. Unfortunately, as a master's thesis, it was deemed inappropriate for use as a RS. I don't really like to grant the wishes of the racists who want to cover up their sordid past, but I'm not capable of digging into these sources, so maybe it's time to let the racists have their anonymity.
— Jacona (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to say something negative about a user, I would use diffs so if the user wished to respond they'd have evidence to address. If I couldn't provide such evidence, I would avoid making negative characterizations of another user, even a connected one. BusterD (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never make a great lawyer. — Jacona (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I don't believe we should delete an article just because people connected to the subject of the article are uncomfortable with something in the article supported by a reliable source, I am on record stating that this article probably doesn't meet the GNG. - Donald Albury 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of developments, I am withdrawing my support for deletion. - Donald Albury 14:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the coverage of the history of segregation is in itself enough to demonstrate GNG. There is no requirement of a recent demonstration of notability. That argument on its face is simply foolish. 174.212.224.15 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)— 174.212.224.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are sufficient sources, including disallowed primary sources, that establish this school's history. It meets GNG. That not much of note has happened there in the last twenty years is irrelevant. That persons currently associated with the school don't like the article is irrelevant. I'll look in the IRS list. It should be there. Rhadow (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found sources using the search function on The Times of Gainesville, and listed a baker's dozen that can be used to improve the article on Talk:Lakeview Academy. The school's historic bennings as a segregation academy are documented in the master's thesis that Jacona lists above. The sources cited in that thesis, documenting the school's beginnings as a segregation academy, indicate the founder Robert Tether was advised to "downplay the school’s 'race appeal' when marketing it", so it's no surprise it has not yet been found on available partial lists of segregation academies. Even so, plenty of sources exist to qualify the school as a notable subject under WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the sources already in the article I was leaning keep per the general notability guideline; the additional sources — Grand'mere Eugene has listed on the article talk page easily puts it over the line for me. Jacona (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough significant coverage does seem to exist to indicate notability. Not really seeing any compelling argument for deletion. Don't think I've ever seen an entity request its own deletion without having a reason so I suspect that there is more to the story than @Smileykaye: is telling. You said "we" in your statement, were you directed to make these edits by someone else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Smileykaye has complied with policy thusfar as it regards disclosure of COI. They work for the school. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason for why the school wants their page deleted anywhere. Am I missing something? Note that the school spent seven years[1] editing the page and clearly not thinking it should be deleted, so what changed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to that myself. I saw the request on another admin's talk page, an admin who was reluctant to nominate this for deletion. I boldly nommed it per request and thought we could hash it out. I think the cited descriptor segregation academy has something to do with the desire for deletion. History is a fickle and heartless mistress. WP:Presentism makes the descriptor out to be a negative thing. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a negative term in the 1960s and 1970s, what the heck are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to why the school edited the page for seven years and what changed, I can explain that. The technology director of the school spent several years cleaning up student pranks they would add to the school's article. When she left, I was asked to add content to keep the article updated. However, once I was informed by Jacona I could not add information as it was a conflict of interest, I stopped. I thought someone else would keep the article updated over the years, but no one has. Another Wikipedia member suggested it be deleted per the general notability guideline;. As there is very little mentioned about the school, that made the most sense to me. Smileykaye (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smileykaye: what account did the technology director of the school edit under? The identified account (Sondra at Lakeview Academy) never cleaned up a single student prank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back I do not know what account she used. It was not Sondra at Lakeview Academy. It would have been between 2007-2015. I noticed a couple of the posts and brought them to her attention. As the technology director, she handled it. I do not know what methods she used to have the prank listings removed as I was not a part of the process. Smileykaye (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were 2 edits reverting vandalism, made by 2 accounts that were blocked because the usernames contained "admin":
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I said, "we" I meant myself and my boss. I keep her updated on all my activities related to the school so she is aware. When I mentioned what I wanted to do and why regarding Lakeview's article, she agreed. No directive or ulterior motive. Plus, I sometimes have the habit of using the (late) Queen's plural usage of we when referring to myself. Smileykaye (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this source, a thorough masters thesis, references around a hundred other sources that relate to Lakeview Academy, but they are not easy to find as almost all of these are offline, and many of them are maintained at the school itself, which would rather hide their history than embrace it. Jacona (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article has been expanded and sourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the editor who originally added citations to Dr. Blair's theses. I've since come to better understand WP:RS and would not try use a master's thesis as a source for an article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment — Not to worry, BillHPike. Blair wrote from primary sources, most of which are apparently in the Lakeview Academy's archives. Blair describes a series of circumstances, using the logic, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." arriving at the conclusion it was a "segregation academy". However, I've checked and quoted/summarized/paraphrased the online sources available and two books I now have on my Kindle; none so far use that term. I've paraphrased the sources fairly closely, based on reliable secondary sources. Readers can draw their own conclusions. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BillHPike, note that I believe Dr. Blair is including some of this in a forthcoming book - albeit as yet unpublished. — Jacona (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whatever the origins of the article, it has been improved and meets WP:NSCHOOL. - Aoidh (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lakeview_Academy&oldid=1139461532"