![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems very questionable to me why this "event" - an innocent action by a minor who in no way intended to valorize Nazism and nothing more than questionably motivated and dubiously informed outrage by a rather small group of adults - deserves an entire page on Wikipedia. By comparison, Prince Harry's (both an *adult* of global notoriety and third in line to the throne of a major global power at the time) dressing as a Nazi in public apparently merits a single line in his biography. I proposed yesterday that this article be speedily deleted and was reverted without any justification by an Admin. I seriously urge editors of this article and Admins to consider speedily deleting this article for several reasons.
Finally, I do not see this explicitly stated in Wikipedia policies but to maintain this as a separate article would be to memorialize for the entire Internet/world the innocent "mistake" of a child for eternity. I urge Admins to speedily delete this article and reduce the section on the Tenafly Public Schools page referencing this "event" to a sentence at most in line with the "Prince Harry-Nazi costume" standard alluded to above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattlematrix ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
[e]ven when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.
Appreciate your points. I was unaware of difference between speedy deletion and ordinary deletion. I will propose ordinary deletion, although I feel you are bound to object and therefore nullify this option. If you remain open to being persuaded not to object, I would of course be appreciative. (I will wait to formally propose for deletion in case we can come to a consensus beforehand). To respond to your points:
brief burst of news coverage; there seems to be sustained coverage on the matter. I have to incorporate additional sources/update the article to reflect new developments, but a
brief burstdoesn't seem to fully capture what's going on here.
in many cases fundamentally misrepresents the events, I would ask for you to put forward reliable sources that demonstrate this point is true, or which sources, in particular, that you believe are not reliable here. Again, as I said above
[i]f there's content in it that's not reliably sourced (or that's unverifiable), then it should be removed, but I'd need to see a reason to remove the content (and The Independent is not actually used in a source in this article, just as an aside; the point was to demonstrate that even the UK had picked up on this story by republishing an article from WaPo, and you might want to see WP:HEADLINE regarding why we don't treat headlines to have the same level of reliability of the actual text of the report).
Again, appreciate your points and thank you for the info about articles for deletion. I will follow up with that process.
Day | Number of stories |
---|---|
May 31 | 1 |
June 1 | 27 |
June 2 | 28 |
June 3 | 15 |
June 4 | 18 |
June 5 | 10 |
June 6 | 1 |
June 7 | 2 |
June 8 | 1 |
June 9 | 0 |
June 10 | 0 |
June 11 | 2 |
As these numbers indicate, despite the story only breaking over Memorial Day, the story has already lost sustained interest/coverage. The results are even more desultory when I conducted the same search using Proquest newspaper database; only 16 articles in total were returned for the same search. This was basically a five-day news story at most as far as coverage not connected to the "event" was concerned. I think that reasonably qualifies as a "burst of coverage." The numbers in the table also include articles that are by LexisNexis standards "similar" so this actually overstates the amount of original reporting on the story, which I realize is not itself a measure of significant coverage, but I think is worth bearing in mind. For example, one of the two articles returned in the LexisNexis search for June 11, is simply a link to the other article published on that day.
2. Agree the issue of categorization is not related to notability. I disagree, however, that a student dressing up as part of an assignment on the nature of good and evil as Hitler connotes antisemitism. Instructing a student to portray Samuel Parris in a school production of The Crucible does not qualify as a case of anti-wiccanism. More importantly, however, I am less invested in this issue than the article's existence, but if the article is not approved for deletion, I would hope a better consensus can be found.
this actually overstates the amount of original reporting on the storyis true generally (though it appears to be the case on some days). Some of these missing sources would appear to include the two published on June 10, when the database says that zero publication were made: this source from The Record and this editorial from The Star-Ledger. Similarly, on March 31, the database shows 1 source, though three are cited on this page alone. There's certainly a spike in the coverage when the story first broke, but the fact that Italian regional papers papers aren't providing daily updates on the situation doesn't detract from its notability; as I've stated above, the fact that there's ongoing coverage from reliable sources provides further evidence of notability.
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maugham Elementary School Adolf Hitler assignment controversy redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It seems very questionable to me why this "event" - an innocent action by a minor who in no way intended to valorize Nazism and nothing more than questionably motivated and dubiously informed outrage by a rather small group of adults - deserves an entire page on Wikipedia. By comparison, Prince Harry's (both an *adult* of global notoriety and third in line to the throne of a major global power at the time) dressing as a Nazi in public apparently merits a single line in his biography. I proposed yesterday that this article be speedily deleted and was reverted without any justification by an Admin. I seriously urge editors of this article and Admins to consider speedily deleting this article for several reasons.
Finally, I do not see this explicitly stated in Wikipedia policies but to maintain this as a separate article would be to memorialize for the entire Internet/world the innocent "mistake" of a child for eternity. I urge Admins to speedily delete this article and reduce the section on the Tenafly Public Schools page referencing this "event" to a sentence at most in line with the "Prince Harry-Nazi costume" standard alluded to above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattlematrix ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
[e]ven when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be.
Appreciate your points. I was unaware of difference between speedy deletion and ordinary deletion. I will propose ordinary deletion, although I feel you are bound to object and therefore nullify this option. If you remain open to being persuaded not to object, I would of course be appreciative. (I will wait to formally propose for deletion in case we can come to a consensus beforehand). To respond to your points:
brief burst of news coverage; there seems to be sustained coverage on the matter. I have to incorporate additional sources/update the article to reflect new developments, but a
brief burstdoesn't seem to fully capture what's going on here.
in many cases fundamentally misrepresents the events, I would ask for you to put forward reliable sources that demonstrate this point is true, or which sources, in particular, that you believe are not reliable here. Again, as I said above
[i]f there's content in it that's not reliably sourced (or that's unverifiable), then it should be removed, but I'd need to see a reason to remove the content (and The Independent is not actually used in a source in this article, just as an aside; the point was to demonstrate that even the UK had picked up on this story by republishing an article from WaPo, and you might want to see WP:HEADLINE regarding why we don't treat headlines to have the same level of reliability of the actual text of the report).
Again, appreciate your points and thank you for the info about articles for deletion. I will follow up with that process.
Day | Number of stories |
---|---|
May 31 | 1 |
June 1 | 27 |
June 2 | 28 |
June 3 | 15 |
June 4 | 18 |
June 5 | 10 |
June 6 | 1 |
June 7 | 2 |
June 8 | 1 |
June 9 | 0 |
June 10 | 0 |
June 11 | 2 |
As these numbers indicate, despite the story only breaking over Memorial Day, the story has already lost sustained interest/coverage. The results are even more desultory when I conducted the same search using Proquest newspaper database; only 16 articles in total were returned for the same search. This was basically a five-day news story at most as far as coverage not connected to the "event" was concerned. I think that reasonably qualifies as a "burst of coverage." The numbers in the table also include articles that are by LexisNexis standards "similar" so this actually overstates the amount of original reporting on the story, which I realize is not itself a measure of significant coverage, but I think is worth bearing in mind. For example, one of the two articles returned in the LexisNexis search for June 11, is simply a link to the other article published on that day.
2. Agree the issue of categorization is not related to notability. I disagree, however, that a student dressing up as part of an assignment on the nature of good and evil as Hitler connotes antisemitism. Instructing a student to portray Samuel Parris in a school production of The Crucible does not qualify as a case of anti-wiccanism. More importantly, however, I am less invested in this issue than the article's existence, but if the article is not approved for deletion, I would hope a better consensus can be found.
this actually overstates the amount of original reporting on the storyis true generally (though it appears to be the case on some days). Some of these missing sources would appear to include the two published on June 10, when the database says that zero publication were made: this source from The Record and this editorial from The Star-Ledger. Similarly, on March 31, the database shows 1 source, though three are cited on this page alone. There's certainly a spike in the coverage when the story first broke, but the fact that Italian regional papers papers aren't providing daily updates on the situation doesn't detract from its notability; as I've stated above, the fact that there's ongoing coverage from reliable sources provides further evidence of notability.