Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success Academy Charter Schools

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. If someone wants to recreate the page and has a significant history of editing outside of this subject I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Success Academy Charter Schools

[edit]
Success Academy Charter Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a hopelessly promotional article that I find it will be impossible to fix, due to opposition from the principle editor. Others have tried, and always been reverted and I have no desire to get into an edit war myself. The work that the principal ed. has done here and on the article on the founder indicates a clear COI, but that wouldn't matter if it were done properly. As is, it makes a good case against permitting COI editing.

The only rational course seems to me to have it deleted, and started over. At this point I'm too involved to use G11, but I have no objection if someone else wants to. If someone wishes to stubbify, and is willing to maintain it properly & thinks they'll be able, I have no objection either. The problems are detailed very fully with examples on the article talk p., so I summarize here very briefly :

overdetail about utter routine , such as the individual subjects taught and the individual assessments
excessive detail about demographics,growth, teaching methods, school results, schedules, and community involvement
A criticism section entirely devoted to making conclusions that the criticism is not valid
An extremely large number of quotes from the founder about purely routine matters that just need a reference--the apparent purpose is to mention her name as often as possible
using 2 or 3 or more references for individual points where one good one suffices. The sheer number of references is many times that of most articles on subject of worldwide study and importance.
insistence on discussing schools that have not yet opened and may never. These are all primary schools, and the most basic of all criteria for a school is that they have real existence.

I know, of course, that AfD is not really intended for subject conflicts, but sometimes the problem is so great that the article is unmaintainable and remains in a state that is harmful to the purpose of the encyclopedia, in this case, using WP for promotion. We delete promotional articles that can't be fixed, and this is the worst example I know of that remains undeleted. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stub. As one of the coordinators of the Schools Project for several years, although I have a sympathetic view for school articles, and have saved many from deletion, this is perhaps the worst case of blatant promotion I have come across among the thousands of school articles on my watchlist. I fully concur with DGG who also does not look lightly on the deletion of schools, and whether or not there is a clear case for deletion (or stubbing down to a simple lead paragraph), in its current cast it must not be allowed to stay in mainspace. Whatever happens, I will not be the one to improve this article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am its creator and most frequent editor. Its subject is highly controversial and many sources reflect that. The article needs to reflect that and needs to do so neutrally. The article tries to be comprehensive in a way that I think Wikipedia tries to encourage. If some other schools or world-topic articles are not, that is not applicable here. Excessive brevity should not be the terminating point of any article.
An article that accurately states both sides of issues is not promotional. It is NPOV. Apparently, an informative article is said to be promotional, which misunderstands promotionality as discussed earlier and I think not disputed anymore. Promotional tone is not allowed and is not present.
The SA schools group is notable and widely covered in a great many secondary sources, and many are cited in the article.
I have preserved edits with which I disagreed, I have accepted suggestions and applied them to the article even if I doubted their utility (such as with the table for specific schools), I have conformed content to sources (such as when emails were written of as having been revealed through a lawsuit when no lawsuit was mentioned in the source), I have added content I wish was not true but which was sourced even without waiting for any editor to say the specific content should be added, I have explained when I believed an edit should not be performed or kept and explained in terms of policies and guidelines, and I have solicited input via the talk page. The charge that fixes have "always been reverted" is false. The edit history and the talk page show that I have preserved edits but that I have not been a mere secretary. The nominator says he has "no desire to get into an edit war myself"; that is a charge against me and there has been no edit war.
There is no COI and COI editing is already forbidden. If anyone wants to broaden the range of what COI means, that should be brought to the COI guideline or its talk page. I appreciate the invitation to edit elsewhere, and I already do and have for years.
The article is solely about the schools group and has no content other than that, so it is not a coatrack.
The nomination says "problems are ... summarize[d]" to include items being discussed at the article talk page, to include that "a criticism section [is] entirely devoted to making conclusions that the criticism is not valid" when it draws no conclusion at all and does not invalidate reports of criticisms but reports what the sources say on both sides because the article must be neutral, to include "an extremely large number of quotes from the founder about purely routine matters that just need a reference" when references are provided for all quotations, that quotations are from the founder personally is because the school has comments usually being by her (she is the CEO) rather than by many other non-publicist officials (e.g., principals), and we may disagree on what matters are due some weight for this controversial schools group but I have explained why I think they do or deleted them in months past, to include a personal attack on my motive with the false statement that "the apparent purpose is to mention her [Moskowitz'] name as often as possible", to include "using 2 or 3 or more references for individual points" when there never is "more" than 3 and 3 are permitted and needed for controversial matters, and to include "insistence on discussing schools that have not yet opened and may never" when unopened noncontroversial schools were deleted months ago, a hatnote in the article already says they're not there, this was pointed out on the talk page before the nomination, and controversies about certain unopened schools are controversies about the schools group (e.g., on co-location) and thus belong in the article.
Collaboration has been refused by the nominator of this article, who has repeated charges despite their resolution or wrongness, which I have already pointed out. Perhaps he meant to say something else that would have warranted other responses, but he said what he said and a refusal to collaborate, when I have extensively collaborated and avoided ever being an owner, is a refusal of efforts to improve this article within policies and guidelines. I have opened several discussions on the talk page that were not answered by anyone, namely New Tags of February 11, 2013, Propose to Delete Tag For Original Research, Propose to Delete Tag For Promotional Tone, Propose to Delete Remaining Tags, Whether to Reduce Criticisms and Therefore Both Sides, School Types According to Overarching Curricula, Deleting Unopened Uncontroverted Schools, Recent Edits Not By Me, and Propose to Resubsection External Links For News Outlet Link.
Repeatedly, there have been attempts to apply non-Wikipedia standards to this article. I have explained problems with non-Wikipedia goals such as removing neutrality, attempting to restrict which audiences should find the article useful, or moving citations from what they supported to what they did not support (my request that they be moved back was not answered and I did it myself).
G11 has been discussed (see the linked post's second pararaph). It's for nonneutral articles. This article is neutral. G11 speedy deletion does not apply.
A stub would not reflect the range of criticism nor provide the context needed for NPOV except by being silent, which would not reflect the sources. There has generally been insistence that criticisms be reported, not that they be mostly omitted, as a stub would require. Only nearly-trivial criticisms should be omitted and they were, long ago, but a stub would be silent about almost evrything.
An article about K-12 education in New York is a fine idea but its existence would not replace or preclude an article on a subject as notable as this one's. I hope that other schools can be the subjects of more thorough articles, but it takes time to research and write them. Some school articles look to me like the result of either school pride, class assignment, or publicist training exercises but we don't delete them and shouldn't, since they can all be improved and that is why I have tried to work with all editors interested in this one.
Spinning off a subarticle would be a workable solution that was discussed but left open on the point of what portions would be moved into a subarticle and summarized in this one. I'm open to doing that work.
Nick Levinson (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, as creator of the article, you would naturally vote to keep it. However, your TL:DR above is mostly blather, just like much of the content of the article. Just what is it actually notable for? Multiple sources alone do not necessarily accord notability to WP:ORG - they just confirm the statements in the text. I'm sorry for all the hard work you've put into this article and its 472 sources but in its present cast, the article is blatant promotion. Perhaps you could take a look at the neutrality of one of our better mainstream school articles or US School District articles to see how an encyclopedic school entry should appear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR does not apply, partly because when accusations are made they're either right or wrong and if wrong replies are expected and should be extended the same reading as the accusations get. None of my posts are off-point or excessively redundant; I avoided copying much from the talk page although it would have shown problems with this AfD, and instead referred editors to that page. Notability is already well established from dozens of sources in the article; copying them here would be redundant of the article. Sources are supposed to let you "confirm the statements in the text", so that is not a valid criticism; some of them also establish notability.
The Malvern College is interesting, but I have not researched that subject and so do not know what it would say after that. I see it has an entire section called "Year names" and I see not a clue what that means; I first guessed it refers to the 9th, etc., year after founding but I don't know. The lead tells us how much acreage it sits on and the body tells of a variety of its traditions and much about sports, which the Success Academy article hardly goes into. The Malverne article does not mention what grades students enroll for. I don't see any criticisms; perhaps there weren't any in sourcing for the 148 years since its founding, but the Success Academy article reports many for the 7 or so years since its founding, and one result is that the Success Academies are apparently more controversial than Malverne, and, if promotionality were about wanting to go to the school, the Malverne article is the more promotional of the two (not that I would change that regarding content), so it's interesting that you suggest it as a model, although I suggest that the Success Academy article has to continue reporting criticisms because that is required by neutrality policy. I don't know enough about the College (which is apparently not a college, at least in U.S. terms) and perhaps it warrants adding a talk page topic/section there; feel free.
I've seen school district articles, but the ones I recall were mainly just lists of schools with extremely little information about any of them and no criticisms, such as list of high schools in New York City, for which I guarantee you (having seen sources not cited in it) there are criticisms, such as persistently low graduation rates for some of them. Perhaps you were not referring to a school list article I had seen, so please suggest one that you believe is a good model not needing much further development (other than new content).
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected phrasing: 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Re earlier posts:
A person's name is frequently cited, as Moskowitz' is, because statements are attributed, which is required. Many other names are in the article's body for the same reason.
Politics of charter schools in New York are partly covered in charter schools (New York). Because much of the Success Academies' political work is conducted separately from that of other schools and is substantial and controversial, it is reported in this article. If other schools do significant political work of their own, it is probably reportable in the respective articles on those schools.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stub. Initially, I was willing to help repair this article, and made several edits towards that goal. As the article's talk page should demonstrate, that path now seems like far more trouble than it's worth. The page does have extremely serious promotional problems, but its wp:synth and wp:citekill issues also seem like significant obstructions to repairing it. Grayfell (talk) 3:52 am, Today (UTC 7)
Please point to any instance of original research. Wrongful synthesis produces original research, so finding any original research will also find any synthesis that violates that policy. That was not mentioned on the article's talk page except for one mention by me of synthesis you (I assume inadvertently) had introduced and which I corrected over four months ago, but I'm happy to edit out any remaining instance of it if you know of any.
Please acknowledge that in your editorial efforts some of them were erroneous, such as moving citations from statements they supported to statements they did not, a problem I also corrected over four months ago and which was discussed on the talk page (in the paragraph "moving around citations is problematic....").
Promotionality, if it is about tone, occurred in only a few instances and all were corrected long ago, both by one or more other editors (I think including you) and by me. None remain. If promotionality is about comprehensiveness or being informative, that is permissible and is not considered promotion. Most articles may promote interest in and further pursuit of their respective subjects and we could hardly oppose that and still have Wikipedia, at least without deleting nine tenths of it.
The citation overkill essay does refer to having many citations, which this article has, but this article also has a lot of challengeable information that is not of the "sky is blue" type. While I understand the inconvenience to readers of midsentence citations, this sentence (hypothetical and with refs not clickable) is already acceptable for another purpose per a guideline: "Paris is not the capital city of England—the capital of which is London[10]—but that of France,[11] and is widely known as a beautiful city.[12]" As the essay says, "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. This does not apply ... when multiple sources support different parts of a paragraph or passage." In this article's case, the mistaken belief above that synthesis is present generally justifies citing for each sentence or sometimes clause, lest some passages be erroneously deemed unsuppported. This article does not cite mirrors or cite more than three sources for any point. Bundling is possible but no one has offered to do it and still maintain text-to-source integrity; that has been invited and discussed on the article's talk page.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis is, as I understand it, using different sources to advance a specific viewpoint that is not found in an one individual source alone. The problems with this article are all rolled-up into a bundle. The maze of sources are smashed together to form promotional, synthetic conclusions. Since I feel that I have already made my position as clear as I am able in conversation with Nick Levinson, I'm reluctant to spend any more time in that regard. If anyone else has any questions regarding my statement, I would be happy to try to explain further. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You never even alleged synthesis on the article's talk page and I alone voted to keep, not even to stubify. You are therefore preventing discussion of your view of any alleged synthesis. You are making an unsupported charge. In WP:SYNTH, this example is offered as acceptable: "Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references." From this a reader may conclude that Smith and Jones have a dispute about the larger scope of scholarly practice even though one didn't mention the dispute and the other didn't mention the larger scope of scholarly practice; and the example is permitted in an article. The Success Academy Charter Schools article sources many statements but does not draw unsupported conclusions. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment .sp .sp NL asked me on my talk p. to "correct" my nomination,"by posting a separate and affirmative correction or substantiation consistent with my replies." Otherwise I would not have thought it necessary to come here again, for I said everything that needed to be said the first time, and he said nothing here that had not already been refuted. But since he asked:
His statements convince me of the necessity for my nomination: he is out to produce as promotional an article as possible. He has demonstrated this by the clearest sign of promotionalism, puffing up something far beyond its encyclopedic importance, and then refusing to change it, and then defending his refusal at excessive length, ignoring or flat-out denying the obvious problems. As evidence of that, I suggest matching his statements that he has not reverted efforts to fix the article with the article history, and with his comments on the article talk page. As evidence that he uses excessive citations for the same point, look at the article and compare the many citations for specific sentences to see if they add anything. As evidence that he uses the founder's name too much, attribution of material is normally none in the reference, and the quotations themselves are not necessary, for they merely give her view of the importance of her own project: one well-selected quotation where she states her motivations & intentions would have been appropriate, but using a dozen is promotional. As evidence that he misunderstand the purpose of WP, see the essay he refers to, which defends with our practice of not censoring material , such as our material on the Rorschach test or the picture of Mohammed, or plot spoilers. The sentence he quotes on featured articles mentions "major" facts, not everything possible--whether the facts included are major can be seen by inspection, and then one can judge for oneself whether the opinion they are major is a betrayal of sufficient COI to disqualify from editing the article.
I've said enough to show him I am listening; anything more would be excessive and unfair. And unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination stated I had "always ... reverted", which was false; and I did not say I had "not reverted". I reverted or restored some edits and kept other edits and, applying BRD, typically restored or reverted after posting to the talk page for discussion, which was largely ignored. There's no bludgeoning by me. I invited responses and waited, and then acted, as we should.
Following any citation will show what it adds to or supports in the article and no citation is present for which irrelevance to the article or error in providing the citation has been shown.
Attribution is often required to be in the sentences, not just in a reference.
That Moskowitz' "quotations ... merely give her view of the importance of her own project" is incorrect on the face of them; they state particulars about how the schools are run and why, relevant to understanding the subject, and are included with many statements from many other sources.
Promotionality is not the result of how many times anyone is quoted. If the article results in a reader liking or disliking the schools, that is not our concern. Both results are easily obtained by reading the article and Wikipedia does not object to that, so promotionality is being misunderstood or misapplied here, since the promotionality not permitted is that of tone, not that resulting from content. If someone buys Microsoft Windows because of Wikipedia's article, Wikipedia doesn't object.
The essay I linked to makes several points, including the point for which I linked it and it does not contradict it.
I certainly did not include "everything possible". We disagree on what content is nontrivial and on point, and that is what the talk page is for. No consensus was attempted there on many subjects except by me.
I still do not have a COI. My being interested in these schools and willing to do the work of researching, editing, and discussing for the article does not constitute a COI. Wikipedia is not limited to editors who are casual or careless about subjects. It's crucial to be editorially careful, and many of us try to be and should.
You chose not to answer, correct, or try to substantiate regarding an edit war that never existed but which you implied was already present, that I did not cite more than 3 sources for any point when you incorrectly said "3 or more", about the details in the article being relevant to controversies about the schools when editors not in the AfD have said that controversies or criticisms need to be reported (noted on the article's talk page), on the falsity in the allegation that "a criticism section [is] entirely devoted to making conclusions that the criticism is not valid" when it draws no conclusions of its own of any kind but reports from sources and "when reliable sources disagree, [we are to] present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view", which omission of one side does not do, and, of course, we can't omit criticism altogether, as the draft proposed by another editor in this AfD as a start of a stub would do unless developed, or your claim that I presented "schools that have not yet opened and may never" when I had distinguished between those controverted (reportable for NPOV) and those not controverted and had deleted the latter months ago and yet you continued to complain about all of them as if still in the article. This kind of alleging poisons the AfD from its inception.
Nick Levinson (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected a misspelling: 16:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Stubify and start again. A ridiculously bloated and grossly unencyclopaedic article, over-reliant on primary sources. Wikipedia articles are not a repository for every single vague factiod relating to a subject. If promoters of the Schools wish to impose this sort of vacuous waffle on prospective parents etc, that is their business, and they can do it on their own website. It doesn't belong here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not only the length of the article, but the length of the principal proponent's comments, are too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this article is a terrible coatrack. But from my perspective, the first few lines up to and including footnote [4], excluding footnote [1], establish notability and are not overly promotional. This change will take 20 seconds, thus I don't agree at all that it is impossible to fix. Retaining the page history can be helpful to rebuild the article in appropriate language, with relevant content. Sorry to disagree with (at least) two editors that I respect highly, and that I had the pleasure to meet in person. It might only be me, but this AfD smacks of deleting an article as punishment for its creator's conduct issues---which don't belong here, but there. --Pgallert (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I can live with that stubification. If there's another voice who can I'll go ahead and make these changes in parallel with the AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke, pave and rebuild, with or without deletion. This article is a mess, and certainly needs a complete rewrite. Aside from the trivia, pointless micro stub sections and random rambling, the fact that the article spends so much time discussing Eva Moskowitz's thoughts (she is mentioned 131 times by my count), certainly lends me to question POV and indicates this is a likely WP:COATRACK. Resolute 22:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune the heck out of it I trust the author will accept that as needed under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is a lot of pretty trivial "stuff" in it, but AfD is not a substitute for editing. Collect (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Note example pruning which is not quite to "stub" levels. [1]. I suspect the article might end up at 30K perhaps in size. Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and start over. This article has way, way too much detail, and the promotional message is too ingrained into the text to be addressed by editing. As such, this is the rare case where WP:TNT is the best solution. Start again, and limit it to three or four paragraphs for the time being. If this is really such a notable school, it shouldn't be hard to write a brief summary of the most notable facts about it. Only if a neutral article of that length can be maintained should we consider expanding it. Robofish (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school is notable per many NYT mentions. Subject of a book by Stephen Brill [2] as well as a slew of other books and academic article.. [3] noted in NY Daily News, etc. Length is not intrisically a strong reason for deletion - it meets all the Wikipedia guidelines for notability imaginable. April 23 is the turning point in this emotional film about children seeking admission to the Harlem Success Academy, a prestigious charter school in New York City. Skillfully produced, The Lottery presents the disturbing tale of how the luck of a draw in a charter school lottery determines the educational options for thousands of children each year. Even a film. Collect (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone is suggesting the topic is not notable (I agree, it clearly is notable). I think this discussion boils down to what is the best route to getting a good (or even a Good :) ) article out of this: Delete and start over, stub and start over, leave as is and hope for the best, put the article on probation (or not), or some other discussion outcome or combination of outcomes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm viewing this now as article consensus changing or about to, with the forum being AfD rather than the article talk page, and I'm interested in standing back and seeing what other editors do. I found a few more sources (one above and a couple or so via Google Alerts) but I don't plan to edit per them, just keeping URLs on file offline for now. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think consensus is changing, actually. The consensus remains either to reduce it to about 1/10 of the current length (the good edit in which Collect removed 9/10 of the two long paragraphs he worked on was specified by that editor as an example of what was needed thruout), or deleting it and starting over. Everyone agrees that an article is appropriate, and everyone agrees that your editing is indistinguishable from the worst PR editing we've ever seen here. I continue to prefer deleting and starting over; but a viable alternative is to use Revision Delete on the promotional edits according to criterion 5 at WP:REVDEL) "Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete". DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is so over the top promotional and fluffy that we are better with a red link than this article. Someone else can start from scratch then, unburdened by the reams of irrelevant and promotional material that currently buries any potentially useful information that may or may not be there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The nominator states on the talk page, "I have no desire to argue interminably with you or anyone. I'm dealing with it at AfD, so the community can decide".  No, AfD is "articles for deletion", it is not "arguments for discussion".  Another quote from the nominator acknowledges to using AfD improperly, "I do not like to use AfD to force improvements, because that's not its primary purpose, but it does work sometimes."  yes, AfD is not cleanup.  Applicable policy for this AfD is found at WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can read English pretty well, and nowhere in the nom statement do I see an admission of using the process 'improperly'. We should guard against making such sweeping interpretions. That said, the nominator has posed a perfect example of what AfD is also for. There is no way this article can be kept in its present cast and we're here to decide what to do with it. Experienced editors will know that 'keep' and 'delete' are not the only available options for AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence is a non sequitur, since the sentence I quoted was from the talk page of the article.  The second sentence is based on an unfounded premise that the statement is "sweeping"; and when the nominator has used the words "use AfD to force improvements" and there is no policy provided that AfD is to be used to force improvements, there is little left to interpret.  The fourth sentence is the argument of a lynch mob.  Regarding the fifth sentence, experienced editors will know that there are venues on Wikipedia other than AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and restart. That's not always the case; there are (admittedly rare) examples where an article on an otherwise clearly notable subject (such has this) has so many issues with Wikipedia policy that it is simpler to start over. I did have a look at this one as someone with educational experience and the vast majority of it is hopeless. Even the criticism section isn't really one - it is of the format "Criticism A was made, but this was refuted by B, C, D and E" - where B, C, D and E often have a connection to the subject. Having said that, whilst I wouldn't object to deletion and restart, I don't see any reason why it can't be stubbed back to the lead (changing the "according to Moskowitz" something like "Success Charter Schools claim" because it isn't explained who Moskowitz is at that point) plus the opening paragraph of the "Schools" section. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference to Moskowitz did say who she is until a recent edit during this AfD deleted that, but that edit is presumably temporary (not for brevity but for cleanup like that phrasing) and I don't want to be the one to correct it now. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, her name appears in the text of the present article 129 times.(not counting the references) DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With brevity, that number will likely go down. Each naming even before recent edits was justifiable before the changing of article consensus, partly because attributions are supposed to be in the text and partly because other nonpublicist officials of the schools group tend not to appear in sources while she does, often the case with current and former politicians, this one being the CEO; perhaps a different organizational top management would have had teachers and principals speaking more often where we'd be quoting or paraphrasing them, but they weren't and that's not our responsibility. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2013 (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/Success_Academy_Charter_Schools&oldid=1138803155"