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 delete. Proto ► 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffing Montessori[edit]

Ruffing Montessori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I initially prodded this article and tag was removed. Prod was the following: "This article fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Notability could be derived from the statement that this is the second oldest Montessori school in the US, however, the only source I could find for that statement is the school's own website." After prod tag was removed I checked again for sources regarding the age of the school and couldn't find any. It appears to be just another non-notable elementary school. Soltak | Talk 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And another article about a school... As usual, we need to see: a reason why the school is notable, and adequate evidence to support this claim. The article includes neither, so fails our basic guidelines. In particular, let's note that being the "second oldest" is not an adequate claim of notability: it is merely an observation of a unique quality, but having a unique quality is not per se notable. I, for example, am the only person born at a particular time and in a particular place: this does not make me notable, merely unique. Being "second oldest" may well be unique, but the principal response from us should be "so what?". We need to know what marks the school out from its peers in a non-trivial way, but the article doesn't say. Delete. WMMartin 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also, of course, the problem that if "second oldest" is notable, so too is "third oldest", and so on. We must beware of the Interesting number paradox. WMMartin 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Soltak. Discussions of school articles on AfD often lead to puzzling questions about notability, but this time it's less so, because the article is so tiny, it's not really informative. No objection to recreating it with interesting content and with some evidence of the school's notability. EdJohnston 19:56, 20 February 2007 (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.