Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School

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.

Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School

Saint Matthew's Episcopal Day School (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)

I feel like this runs afoul of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per
  WP:TNT. If the claim in the lede regarding this school's foundation in the 1800s as a military academy are true, with appropriate research a decent article could be made, and that could include some of the content the nominator objected to (a position I endorse). As it stands it's unsalvageable and cannot remain per BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This article existed with no problem for more than 10 years - until the reference to the sexual abuse case was added and now it is under constant attack. Why? Why does editor suddenly care so much, after 10 years of being fine, it's suddenly unsalvageable? The redirect didn't work so now attack it for deletion? Why suddenly did it become bad? Why is wikipedia working so hard to whitewash child sexual abuse? It happened and it's an important part of the history of the school and the city - exactly what you would expect to have covered in an encyclopedia. We know that there is a paid "reputation management" effort under way at the school, and the initial attack on this article coincided with that effort. Are editors being paid to make this article disappear? I note that one editor suddenly has a significant interest in eliminating this article and keeps coming back to it. Why is he suddenly so fixated on it? Whitewashing child sexual abuse, making them disappear, is a major part of the reason so much abuse continues to happen. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Wikipedia should not be part of that effort, either for $ or because of a belief that child sexual abuse is not important.Markm999 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started adding additional history on the military background of the school and history, as suggested by John from Idegon. It is actually really interesting. This makes the article more robust and expansive than it was in its first 10 years, and that was good enough even then, but it's even better now and will continue to improve. I assume that will resolve this issue. I have to say, it's a darn interesting entry now. Thanks for your suggestions and help to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm999 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Markm999 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several great images highlighting the military history, such as https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt8489q9m2/. I have contacted the San Mateo Public Library to confirm that it is a non-copyrighted images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markm999 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Markm999 (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to reach out to all the child sexual abuse survivor networks and victims' rights networks to have them contribute to this discussion if it would help to fill out this discussion. Let me know. Their voices should be heard before the content is deleted so give me warning if you decide to delete. Markm999 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• notability guidelines and policies on contentious content about living people. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

RosguillThank you. If you know that part of the Silicon Valley now, the idea that there was a military school there is really interesting and hard to imagine, it's fascinating history and connection to the past in a place best known for creating the future. The pictures that I am working on getting are really cool and of major historical significance. I've never seen you involved on this page and absolutely believe that you just had the bad luck of stumbling into this and nothing more. The good news is that your suggestions DID make the article much better, and it will keep getting better. I certainly apologize if my opinions on other editors are wrong. I contribute to a site that publicizes child sexual abuse cases and the forces trying to block that information are strong and have a LOT of $$. There definitely is a reputation management effort under way and a crisis management firm involved. I don't think there is anything contentious about the content. It's unpleasant for sure but not contentious, just facts that suck. Markm999 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an editor (NOT Rosquill) is now whitewashing the page by removing the child sexual abuse content. We're adding this content to a lot of schools that had particularly notable and infamous sexual abuse cases (hint, check out the pages for the LAUSD, Redlands and SDUSD in the upcoming days). Are you going to remove the history of sexual abuse from all schools or just this one? It's important to know. Markm999 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator
  WP:NOTNEWS, without, I think, re-reading NOTNEWS to see if it is applicable. NOTNEWS has four numbered points, and I don't see how any are applicable.

  If nominator, or anyone else, had a concern over how coverage of the sex crime conviction was added to the article I think the responsible policy compliant first step should have been to raise that concern on the article's talk page. I checked. Nada. Geo Swan (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• • Would 1E make more sense, Geo Swan? I removed the sex abuse stuff as BLP violating. No one reverted, or brought discussion on the talk page. Without that, its nothing but a mundane K-8 school which wouldn't normally be considered notable in any way. Ok....so say someone wants to clean up the abuse stuff so it can be used. Now the school isn't any more notable outside that event than it was before, and if the details of the event raise a subject to notability, it's the crime that's notable, not the school. The article is a mess. Although creating an article on the crime would be a reasonable ATD, I'm not certain the crime was notable either. Still think TNT here and start over is the way to go. John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • John from Idegon, you are making highly questionable edits to the article, like these three large excisions [1], [2] and [3]. You had already said, here, that you consider the article unsalvageable. So edits justified by something like WEIGHT severely undermine your position. WEIGHT is an editorial question. Addressing an editorial question strongly implies you consider the article salvageable, after all. Almost every person who weighs in in an AFD, who does not call for keeping the article, give those who do favour keeping the article a free hand, to try to improve the article and address the concerns raised at the AFD, for the full period the AFD is open. The sole defensible exception would be addressing a gross policy violation. BLPCRIME would be an instance of a gross policy violation -- if your claim were credible. But BLPCRIME does not apply to suspects who pled guilty and were then convicted. It only applies to individuals prior to a verdict being rendered. Geo Swan (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - countering the already specious claim the school is only known for one thing, I added coverage to it being attended by three Hawaiin princes, who, from 1883 to 1887, introduced surfing to the Continental USA. Geo Swan (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep It needs a lot of work— not just the way the sex abuse case sprawls across the article, but the part on the associated parish seems to just repeat material about the school for the most part (and the church probably isn't notable, unless it is on the NRHP or had its own crisis). But the school is historic and notable, not just for the one crisis. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the historic information definitely moves this to keep. I agree with Mangoe that all the content on the church is off topic, and there are parts of the sex abuse case that are clearly off topic to the school. Still think it better to move the sex abuse stuff to a freestanding article which can be referenced in the school article via wikilink. The same stuff that's off topic here is what would make an article on the scandal notable. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2020 (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.