This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool
The final sentence of this article, which is tagged as possibly being original research, has a footnote that include the wording "A copy of supporting documentation for the historic site designation for development of this Niagara Public School article has been requested". I don't think that sort of note belongs in an article, but regardless of that, has this request been fulfilled? If so, what does the documentation say? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see you did raise the issue of getting that documentation at the Talk page of the article, as I suggested should have been done in my comment at the 2nd AFD. I agree the note did not belong in the article, and I have removed it. I also removed the two original research tags in the article, as it is not original research to state what is obvious by straightforward interpretation of photographs and maps and so on, per wp:BLUE(?) mentioned in first AFD. I did request the documentation during the 1st AFD, via the national office of the Canadian historic sites organization, but did not receive any. I expect it is available via a Niagara-on-the-Lake library, too. Indeed, what does the documentation say? As I state at the AFD, IMO that should have been determined before opening another AFD. :) Have you taken any steps towards obtaining a copy of the documentation, yourself? --doncram20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging me (or posting at my Talk Page) would have helped me notice the comment. Per the webpage about the historic district, the "LOCATION OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION" is: National Historic Sites Directorate, Documentation Centre, 5th Floor, Room 89, 25 Eddy Street, Gatineau, Quebec. I would indeed like to get the documentation, and I suppose writing to that address is the best next step (I tried calling there without success, I don't remember if I was able to leave a message or not, and I believe I found an email address to try. Another possibility is to visit the city and check at libraries in person. Another is to call libraries there to try to find a helpful librarian.) If I send a written request to that address, would you withdraw the AFD? --doncram20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of a ping, but I presumed that the page was on your watchlist. As I see it, the previous AfD only closed as no consensus because you claimed that sources existed and you would request them. Now you want me to withdraw the current AfD because you claim that sources exist and you will request them. Can you see why I might be reluctant to do so? If the article is deleted and sources subsequently emerge that establish notability, then I would be happy to support undeletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest your withdrawing the AFD because wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP and it is a waste of editors' attention, given basic homework was not done. The situation as it stands now is that the article should be kept, because it is reasonably clear (i.e. we know...) that substantial documentation about the building exists. That was true and still is true. I am not trying to bargain with you to get any advantage for myself in any way. I am trying to help you be courteous to other Wikipedia editors by not forcing their attention to a matter not ready for their attention. And I am being nice about being willing to do what you want (effectively), despite the inappropriateness of using to force another editor to do so. --doncram21:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The basic homework was done last time, and still we don't have sources that demonstrate notability, or indeed any more indication that such sources actually exist. How do you know that documentation about the building (not just the district) exists? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec: I was expanding my last comment, so this repeats some) The source does exist and I did request it. I "know" about the building not just the district from my experience with other (U.S.) historic districts and the fact that there are professional standards in historic preservation that way. I suggest your withdrawing the AFD because wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP and it is a waste of editors' attention, given basic homework was not done. The situation as it stands now is that the article should be kept, because it is reasonably clear (i.e. we know...) that substantial documentation about the building exists. That was true and still is true. I am not trying to bargain with you to get any advantage for myself in any way. I am trying to help you be courteous to other Wikipedia editors by not forcing their attention to a matter not ready for their attention. And I am being nice about being willing to do what you want (effectively), despite the inappropriateness of using the AFD process to force another editor to do so. I don't mean merely to put in a pro forma request, I mean to get the documentation one way or another (another option is to go to the office in Gatineau, which I also possibly could do, as I am likely to be in the area sometime), however and whenever it is feasible and convenient enough. At this point I am ready to go through the inconvenience of writing and snail-mailing a letter. I don't want to bargain with you, but your pressing with the AFD given this matter may wear down my goodwill about this. It's not a huge deal, but AFDs which are "not ready" in my view, do bother me: editors should be cooperating in ways that develop the encyclopedia, not consuming electrons with unproductive debate. I may or may not reply further to anything here. --doncram21:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been four years since the article was created and we still don't have sources establishing notability. How long would you suggest it is reasonable to wait? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
