Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Oaks Secondary 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus; default keep. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be an encyclopedic. Furthermore, no references are provided within the text to support that Chris Hadfield was a graduate of this school, nor can I find anything on Google to validate this claim. {edit} 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article on Hadfield indicates that he's from "Milton District High School." [1]. --Dvyost 05:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a school. Osomec 07:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for being a high school.
Yes, Hadfield went to a different high school, so my vote isn't based on that. --rob 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] - Comment. Those two keep votes really make me want to vote "Delete, just for being a high school". At least try to demonstrate that the school is notable. Show that you've actually thought about this particular article before voting.--inksT 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a waste trying to explain things to some, who don't wish to listen. With any reason I give, you'll say "but that applies to lots of schools". When people nominate tiny municipalities (smaller than this high school), I don't see similiar demands for specifics. The fact a municipality has the same signficance as other municipalities, which are notable, is a reason to keep it. By the same token, its reasonable to beleive this school is as legitimate a topic for an article as most other high schools. You assume, by default, this high school, is as unimportant as any other high school. I, assume, it's as important as any other high school. --rob 10:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't assume that you know what my assumptions are :) Why would I ask for reasoning if I wasn't willing to evaluate the response? Perhaps the problem is that the "schools are inherently notable" argument is extremely weak, and does not stand up to detailed scrutiny. Faced with defeat in a reasoned debate, people voting keep for a school because it's a school invent all sorts of excuses to not justify their position. It is quite obvious from the present state of AfD's that assumptions of inherent notability are doing far more harm then good to Wikipedia.--inksT 21:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a waste trying to explain things to some, who don't wish to listen. With any reason I give, you'll say "but that applies to lots of schools". When people nominate tiny municipalities (smaller than this high school), I don't see similiar demands for specifics. The fact a municipality has the same signficance as other municipalities, which are notable, is a reason to keep it. By the same token, its reasonable to beleive this school is as legitimate a topic for an article as most other high schools. You assume, by default, this high school, is as unimportant as any other high school. I, assume, it's as important as any other high school. --rob 10:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Oakville, Ontario#Education, as there is minimal information in this school's article, and an overview of local education would be more useful. Average Earthman 10:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a logically inconsistant approach. Somebody looking at Category:High schools in Ontario would not expect that some schools were there while other schools were inside the town or school district article. People need to be able find the school, in order to be able add info about it. Also if/when somebody adds a detail, like an actual notable alum, are they going to add that to the town's article instead of a school article? That would make no sense. --rob 11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If a school becomes notable, then and only then should have its own page. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Having notable alumni does not make a school notable in any case. 99.9% of all notable people went to high school somewhere. --Last Malthusian 11:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why respond to a comment, without addressing the point about categories? The prior voter suggested a merge (you want a delete). Now, deletionists, while consistently wrong, are at least consistent. My comment, was about mergers, who wish to toss information, in various places, sometimes in town article, sometimes in district articles, and sometimes in its own article. This makes categories useless for finding information. It's pointless having information in wikipedia, if it's not where it can be easily found. Also, the "crystal ball" reference is silly, since I'm not suggesting we make a prediction in the article. However, we certainly can make allowances for future article improvement, in advance. We should organize information in a way, that allows for it to be found and updated, in an effecicient and reliable manner; which in this case, means a separate article. I don't call that a crystal ball. But, of course, if we blindly mass-delete articles, we needn't worry about organization. --rob 12:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of labels like "inclusionist" and "deletionist" are part of why these AFDs generally fail to generate useful discussion or consensus. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why respond to a comment, without addressing the point about categories? The prior voter suggested a merge (you want a delete). Now, deletionists, while consistently wrong, are at least consistent. My comment, was about mergers, who wish to toss information, in various places, sometimes in town article, sometimes in district articles, and sometimes in its own article. This makes categories useless for finding information. It's pointless having information in wikipedia, if it's not where it can be easily found. Also, the "crystal ball" reference is silly, since I'm not suggesting we make a prediction in the article. However, we certainly can make allowances for future article improvement, in advance. We should organize information in a way, that allows for it to be found and updated, in an effecicient and reliable manner; which in this case, means a separate article. I don't call that a crystal ball. But, of course, if we blindly mass-delete articles, we needn't worry about organization. --rob 12:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If a school becomes notable, then and only then should have its own page. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Having notable alumni does not make a school notable in any case. 99.9% of all notable people went to high school somewhere. --Last Malthusian 11:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a logically inconsistant approach. Somebody looking at Category:High schools in Ontario would not expect that some schools were there while other schools were inside the town or school district article. People need to be able find the school, in order to be able add info about it. Also if/when somebody adds a detail, like an actual notable alum, are they going to add that to the town's article instead of a school article? That would make no sense. --rob 11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the usual reasons. Only assertion of notability was made up, as Dvyost said.This retracted and I apologise for appearing to assume bad faith. I've voted to keep a couple of schools that had some interest attached to them and I guess someone at least made an effort here: however, I can't bring myself to vote for a high school just because someone notable went there. Like I said, most notable people went to school somewhere. Maybe if the school he went to was in some way relevant to what made him notable. Abstain. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you Kappa and Thivierr for citing additional references for Chris Hadfield during my absence. Last Malthusian, doubt me if you will, but please refrain from making any such ignorant personal attacks in the future; it is not WP:CIVIL and directly violates official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Bahn Mi 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you're essentially right I'll refrain from being a pedantic git and pointing out that 'ignorant personal attack' is also a personal attack... er, whoops. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's appropriate to assume good faith, it's also appropriate to assume unverified information is quite possibly false, and shouldn't be included. Initially, I assumed a mix-up between "visiting a school" and "attending a school". When I see a new school article in AFD, before I vote, I try (as best I can) to start with the assumption the school may not even exist, and check to see it's actually real, along with other info (usually that takes mere moments with the school's web site on a district web site). The only mistake "Last Malthusian" made was expressing his cynicism aloud. --rob 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you're essentially right I'll refrain from being a pedantic git and pointing out that 'ignorant personal attack' is also a personal attack... er, whoops. --Last Malthusian 15:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Kappa and Thivierr for citing additional references for Chris Hadfield during my absence. Last Malthusian, doubt me if you will, but please refrain from making any such ignorant personal attacks in the future; it is not WP:CIVIL and directly violates official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Bahn Mi 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. TomTheHand 13:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and please assume good faith because bahn mi has really done a lot of work with schools it is probably a mistake but anyway this school is notable without that person Yuckfoo 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Average Earthman. It's worth mentioning in an article, but it's more useful to keep it as part of a town or school district's article unless significantly expanded. --Idont Havaname 14:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all real high schools. For my reasoning, see this. Xoloz 15:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as no assertion of notability. Nominations like this always go down to no consensus, and just generate needless acrimony and sniping. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep High Schools (I gave up arguing about it.) — RJH 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Secondary schools are notable as per rough consensus. Note that this may have been a bad faith nomination made by a user who has since been banned for having an offensive or confusing user name. Silensor 16:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- sigh I really dislike these arguments precisely because of this. Before pointing fingers at someone for bad faith you should really do your homework first. Edit was a more or less decent editor who just didn't want to change his/her username - this has absolutely nothing to do with bad faith AfD nominations. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - like RJH, I too gave up arguing about it. --Oblivious 19:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why do we feel the need to consistantly bicker as to whether schools matter or not? I reaffirm my statement that all secondary schools are notable, and their articles should be preserved as such. From what I can see the majority of Wikipedians feel that schools should be kept, so I don't see why we keep getting Afd's on them. Makenji-san 22:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is continuous bickering and AfD's, there is no clear concensus, right? So why should we not debate the issue? The only reason schools are so problematic is because people keep using the "inherent notability" argument. Stop holding on to the
stupidconcept that all items in a particular classification have identical properties, and then we can have a reasoned, criteria-based debate, school by school, and the problematic AfD's will end.--inksT 22:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, please. I think that the idea that being a school carries inherent notability is wrong, too, but there's no need to call a belief being advanced in good faith stupid. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. Excuse my language.--inksT 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, please. I think that the idea that being a school carries inherent notability is wrong, too, but there's no need to call a belief being advanced in good faith stupid. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is continuous bickering and AfD's, there is no clear concensus, right? So why should we not debate the issue? The only reason schools are so problematic is because people keep using the "inherent notability" argument. Stop holding on to the
- Delete. It's a box with students in it. Even the article doesn't say anything more about it. --Carnildo 22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Another nomination made to make a point. Kappa
- Assume good faith, please. I don't see any indication that User:Еdit made this nomination out of anything but a good-faith belief that this was an unencyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that's what the nominator believes, but s/he also knows the article won't be deleted and so this AFD is a waste of time. Kappa 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you feel the need to make these AFDs even more needlessly confrontational? It's bad enough as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. If there were fewer of these needlessly confrontational and pointless nominations, we could all be doing more productive things. Kappa 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You've accused the nominator of doing something just to make a point, rather than nominating this for the same reason non-notable bands or people end up on AFD. That is a confrontational statement, and I'd still like to know why you made it. The people who are nominating school articles for deletion are, by and large, random users who feel this or that article meets the criteria for deletion, and I don't see any indication that Edit was acting in bad faith.
I do see that some users on both sides of this debate are starting to succumb to the tendency to see anyone who disagrees on this issue as part of a monolothic bloc with uniform, sinister movites and methods. I'm reasonably sure this isn't the case; TINC, after all. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- I believe that the nominator is familiar with the situation and made this nomination despite knowing it would not achieve consensus to delete. If that is the case, it is an inherently confrontational action. If it is not the case, I apologize. Kappa 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you basing this belief on? Edit registered in the last month, and has only participated in one other school AFD, one which produced a useful dialogue. If making a POINT gets people talking as in that AFD instead of the same old "Keep/Delete per the usual reasons" votes, hell, it's time to ignore all rules! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If Edit followed that discussion, s/he would realize that there is no consensus to delete schools and that this nomination was therefore doomed. You are rather tending to confirm my suspicions: I believe that all established schools are notable enough to be considered part of the sum of human knowledge, you disagree and you plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion. Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never nominated a school article for AFD or VFD, as far as I can recall, and I don't plan to do so in the future; I simply continue to vote delete because I don't want there to be the illusion that there's firm consensus to keep school articles just because everyone interested in conversing about the subject has been chased away from the AFDs. I don't plan on trying to convince you to delete school articles, just to not ascribe bad faith to those who in good faith attempt to delete them. "You plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion" is the sort of thing I was warning about above; you're starting to ascribe uniform motivations and methods to those who share an attribute. There really is no cabal. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If Edit followed that discussion, s/he would realize that there is no consensus to delete schools and that this nomination was therefore doomed. You are rather tending to confirm my suspicions: I believe that all established schools are notable enough to be considered part of the sum of human knowledge, you disagree and you plan to change my mind by continuing to nominate schools and repeat the discussion. Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you basing this belief on? Edit registered in the last month, and has only participated in one other school AFD, one which produced a useful dialogue. If making a POINT gets people talking as in that AFD instead of the same old "Keep/Delete per the usual reasons" votes, hell, it's time to ignore all rules! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the nominator is familiar with the situation and made this nomination despite knowing it would not achieve consensus to delete. If that is the case, it is an inherently confrontational action. If it is not the case, I apologize. Kappa 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (ug - too many stars, LOL) - It's the choice of the people discussing it whether to make it confrentational or not, as its perfectly fine to have a nice debate about the subject (which happens more or less on most AfDs, and is of course what I'd prefer). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have the same debate over and over again? Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are identically notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion.--inksT 01:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe all schools are indentically notable, when did I suggest that? Kappa 01:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll rephrase it if you like: "It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are inherently notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion." Howzat? Instead of sidestepping the issue with pedantry, discuss the point being made.--inksT 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussions might be reasoned and wide-ranging, but the result would be incomplete, biased and semi-random coverage of education. Kappa 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats more like it. An encyclopedia does not need to have full coverage of every school in the world to be "complete" - that's a Yellow Pages standard of "completion". Ideally, it should convey the general principles of organised education, and give more detailed treatment to particularly notable schools. The coverage will be biased, by design, against non-notable schools. Note that including every school by default is also a form of bias (just like the current standards of AfD are biased in favour of keeping). So it's not necessarily a bad thing. Semi-random? I doubt it. Do you mean because AfD's depend in who happens accross them? In which case the solution is to fix the AfD process, as opposed to claiming inherent notability status for schools (which would actually create the bias and inconsistency that you seem opposed to).--inksT 04:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not supposed be a selective encyclopedia, or it wouldn't aim to have every Simpons episode. Including as much valid information is not a form of bias, and in any case bias is only a problem when it removes information that users are looking for. Kappa 04:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is selective - otherwise why are we bothering with AfD? :) To further that point, while there may be an article on every Simpsons episode, there isn't one for every TV show, because not all are as notable as the Simpsons. Including excessive and unnecessary information can indeed prevent people from finding what they want - like the difference between giving someone a page reference from a book, and giving them a library.--inksT 04:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia will accept episode guides for practically any broadcast TV show. Wikipedia is not paper, so useful information can be organised hierarchically instead of throwing it away. Kappa 05:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is also not a junkyard. Not all information is useful.--inksT 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia will accept episode guides for practically any broadcast TV show. Wikipedia is not paper, so useful information can be organised hierarchically instead of throwing it away. Kappa 05:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is selective - otherwise why are we bothering with AfD? :) To further that point, while there may be an article on every Simpsons episode, there isn't one for every TV show, because not all are as notable as the Simpsons. Including excessive and unnecessary information can indeed prevent people from finding what they want - like the difference between giving someone a page reference from a book, and giving them a library.--inksT 04:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not supposed be a selective encyclopedia, or it wouldn't aim to have every Simpons episode. Including as much valid information is not a form of bias, and in any case bias is only a problem when it removes information that users are looking for. Kappa 04:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats more like it. An encyclopedia does not need to have full coverage of every school in the world to be "complete" - that's a Yellow Pages standard of "completion". Ideally, it should convey the general principles of organised education, and give more detailed treatment to particularly notable schools. The coverage will be biased, by design, against non-notable schools. Note that including every school by default is also a form of bias (just like the current standards of AfD are biased in favour of keeping). So it's not necessarily a bad thing. Semi-random? I doubt it. Do you mean because AfD's depend in who happens accross them? In which case the solution is to fix the AfD process, as opposed to claiming inherent notability status for schools (which would actually create the bias and inconsistency that you seem opposed to).--inksT 04:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussions might be reasoned and wide-ranging, but the result would be incomplete, biased and semi-random coverage of education. Kappa 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll rephrase it if you like: "It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are inherently notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion." Howzat? Instead of sidestepping the issue with pedantry, discuss the point being made.--inksT 02:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe all schools are indentically notable, when did I suggest that? Kappa 01:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the same debate. You only think it's the same debate, because you belive that all schools are identically notable. Hence, you always bring the same arguments and reasoning. Actually evaluating each school on its individual merits will produce a reasoned, wide ranging discussion.--inksT 01:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why have the same debate over and over again? Kappa 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You've accused the nominator of doing something just to make a point, rather than nominating this for the same reason non-notable bands or people end up on AFD. That is a confrontational statement, and I'd still like to know why you made it. The people who are nominating school articles for deletion are, by and large, random users who feel this or that article meets the criteria for deletion, and I don't see any indication that Edit was acting in bad faith.
- Please assume good faith. If there were fewer of these needlessly confrontational and pointless nominations, we could all be doing more productive things. Kappa 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you feel the need to make these AFDs even more needlessly confrontational? It's bad enough as it is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Kappa, you're the one here swinging around WP:POINT all the time on practically every nomination. I suggest you take a closer look at your own actions - as we've all got room for improvement. Maybe afterwards you'll find these won't be as confrentational, no? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that's what the nominator believes, but s/he also knows the article won't be deleted and so this AFD is a waste of time. Kappa 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. I don't see any indication that User:Еdit made this nomination out of anything but a good-faith belief that this was an unencyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 00:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a school (for all the usual reasons we keep schools) Trollderella 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I bolded your vote for clarity. Hope you don't mind. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did not base my vote on the issue of Chris Hadfield going there. However, as shown in the article, and at Talk:White Oaks Secondary School it does appear that he did go the school for four years, before going to MDHS, which is the school mentioned in the NASA bio. In fact, seven schools claim him. --rob 02:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep school with a fairly large student enrollment. --Vsion 09:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete schoolcruft. No claim to notability. Dunc|☺ 11:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep School noms are a waste of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another completely nn school. Dottore So 19:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All you deletionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AfD can go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 20:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't you be offended by "All you inclusionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AFD..." What do labels and a confrontational attitude accomplish? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is almost exactly what inks has repeated above and on other pages. Repeatedly stating that the philosophical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak, repetitive, etc. Frankly, I consider the constant re-statement by deletionists that the philosphical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak a personal attack and extremely uncivil.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're labelling people again. There is a difference between asserting the weakness of an argument, and demonstrating it by means of argument, and by pointing to the acrimony that the concept of inherent notability has brought to AfD. If you disagree with arguments against inherent notability, refute them, instead of trying to stifle them by references to civility and NPA guidelines that are frequently violated by both sides. I have always been concerned that the concept of inherent notability with regards to schools is doing far more harm than good, and have yet to see evidence or argument to the contrary.--inksT 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, "the concept of inherent notability" didn't bring this acrimony to AFD, and if it went away today, there'd be towns and webcomics and roads and whatever people start arguing about next. People on both sides are personalizing these debates, and then lashing out in what they see as justified retaliation. Other people lash back, and both people see themselves as aggrieved (and nothing is accomplished in the meantime). Please, remember, there are reasonable people on both sides who hold their opinions and argue in good faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This entire exchange illustrates how pointless all of this "discussion" truly is. The fact is, that those who routinely vote to delete school articles (since you don't like "labelling"), such as inks, come to the debate with an equally pre-conceived philosophy, ie. "Educational instutions are not noteworthy in and of themselves, simply by virtue of their being educational institutitons. Other characteristics of such institutions need to be established in order to consider them noteworthy". This position is every bit as much a pre-conception, and opinion-oriented, inherently unjustified philosophical position as the position held by myself and others that: "Educational institutions by virtue of the importance they hold solely as institutions of learning (public or private) carry a noteworthiness to society and the culture by their existence and delivery of education. No other defining or illustrative characteristics are necessary to establish their noteworthiness and thusly their eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia" (otherwise known as the "schools are inherently notable" view). It clearly, (after hundreds and hundreds of VfD/AfD on schools in the last 2 years) is a matter of opinion over which we fundamentally disagree on the philosophical nature of the issue. Wikipedians accept (for the most part) that *MANY* things are inherently notable: Battleships, Towns (even with miniscule or insignificant populations), Countries, Train stations, Submarines, Simpsons episodes, etc etc etc etc. There simply is no objective standard to determine if and whether schools are inherently notable - either you believe it, or you don't, and most people (even those unwilling to admit it) come to the debate over schools with one or the other position in mind. As to all of the other arguments for and against, we have debated them over and over and over and over and over. They have been regurgitated, re-invigorated, rehabilitated, re-ventilated, swalllowed and re-gurgitated again and guess what - NO FORMAL CONCENSUS EXISTS - gee what a surprise. Whether or not people state "schools are inherently notable" has virtually nothing to do with it. It has to do with a philosophical approach to whether or not schools, in their own right, justify having an article on Wikipedia (just like towns, battleships, countries, pokemons, etc.) or if you believe some other characteristic is required. Saying "schools are inherently notable" is, frankly, just a way of cutting through all the bullshit of these pointless arguments over and over and over and over. We already know that no formal concensus has or will be reached. "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" continue to nominated and continue to vote to delete (all the while knowing the nominations and the votes will fail to get the article delete) and "Those who routinely vote to keep school articles" continue to vote to keep them. 85%-90% of all nominated school articles in the past year have survived the VfD/AfD process and the great majority of them do so because at least a plurality of editors who vote believe that schools are "inherently noteworthy" and thusly deserving of an article. The real acrimony exists because "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" refuse to accept these results and continue nominating school articles for deletion in what is quite clearly a vain attempt to get even one school article deleted (as much has even been stated by one or more of the usual suspects). All tactics have been tried, multi-nominations, mass-nominations, region or country specific nominations, and they all fail. While there may be contention and disagreement over school articles, one thing is an incontrovertable fact - school articles do not get deleted on Wikipedia because they are "non-notable". You may not like the policies or the processes of AfD, or the results that they generate - but that is the way that WP works. Certainly, school AfD pages are not the place to hash out differences of opinion over the AfD process. This is the tool we have - and it is working. The results are so completely overwhelming that it might as well be policy - "School articles are not deleted on WP simply because they are 'non-notable'". You might disagree, but in practice it is already a fact - the best thing at this point is to accept it. Accepting the results over the last year, will end the acrimony over these articles. There can be no question, that as articles continue to not be deleted at AfD that it is pointless to continue nominating them on the basis that they are "non-notable". Nominating a school article that you know, in advance, will never be deleted on the basis of its lack of noteworthiness engenders acrimony and wastes everyone's time (including your own)- EVEN IF YOU THINK IT SHOULDN'T BE HERE. In summary, "Those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" must accept the results - schools simply aren't deleted on WP because they are "non-notable", like it or not, it's a fact.--Nicodemus75 22:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You've overlooked an important distinction - I treat all articles equally, and single out no particular class of article for special treatment. Every article I've voted to delete has failed to prove it is worthy to be here. Every article I've voted to keep, I have done so on its merits. To me, no article is inherently notable, and each has to be individually meritous, be they schools, battleships, or Simpsons episodes. Inherent notability is being used as a crutch to sidestep proper discussion.--inksT 02:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that is balderdash. I doubt very much that you look at an article about a nation-state (like say, San Marino) and make a decision on whether or not it "should" have an article on Wikipedia on it's own merits (and if you do, than the absurdity of your position is manifest). Anyone who sees an article about a nation-state on Wikipedia rightly concludes that it has a place here, irrespective of it's "notability" because it's status as a nation-state confers inherent notability upon it, regardless of it's size, population, impact on world affairs, or any other subjective assessment of it's relative "notability". The assumption made by almost anyone who looks at an article about a nation-state is that it is inherently notable. Even if you do hypothetically assess nation-states in this way, it makes no difference whatsoever. Your insistence that others use your deletion philosophy is condescending and elitist. Other editors are (and should be) free to determine for themselves that certain groups or classes of things (like nation-states) possess inherent characteristics of noteworthiness as a legitimate philosophical approach to building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Your assertion that "your way is superior" is noted, but I just think you are plum wrong. Certain classes of things are inherently notable, and I believe one of those classes of things is schools. To try to suggest that those of us who hold and advance a certain philosophical view about notability in good faith, are to blame for the acrimony in this debate is both false and irresponsible. Despite all of this (pointless) back and forth, your response still refuses to respond or take accountability for the main point of my obscure and lengthy dissertation above in the first place. That is, that "School articles are not deleted on Wikipedia on the basis of being "non-notable"." As I have stated, this is a fact. The obvious question that arises is, "Since schools are not deleted on this criteria, why is it that 'those who routinely nominate and vote for school deletion' continue in their pointless and arguably bad-faith crusade to delete school articles "on their own merits", when it is clearly contrary to what the obvious outcome of these attempts will be? I am not simply trying to be rhetorical here - I am asking for a legitimate explanation from the other side, why they are continuing to nominate and vote to delete in the face of the overwhelming history of VfD/AfD results that demonstrate that school articles simply do not get deleted on the basis of being "non-notable" or being a stub?? Please, please explain what is achieved by repeating this process over and over and over? At this point, "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" aren't even making a point anymore. Of the last 100 or so schools nominated for AfD, the only candidate that was successfully deleted was an article about a school that didn't exist, which was created by an editor who "routinely votes to delete school articles" on the basis of their lack of notability. You think your approach of "determining how to vote on each article according to it's merits" is better than my system? Well good for you. Just tell me what the point of all this is when the school articles in question will not be deleted?--Nicodemus75 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples to Oranges. You're comparing schools to countries. If it were possible to have several million countries in the world, I'm sure we could argue that some are not notable enough to be mentioned here. The point is that if concepts of inherent notability were not used, we could have a reasoned evaluation of each school on it's own merits, and then those that don't deserve an article can be deleted. If schools truly are as important as you assert, what's the harm in dropping inherent notability?--inksT 04:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Substitute "official municipality" for "country", and the example works fine. There are countless municipalities, with a much smaller population than this high school; which are all auto-included. Rather than waste time on pointless AFDs, editors on communities have devoted their time to improving articles. --rob 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, if a municipality with 5 people in it had come up on AfD, I'd vote to delete it as well. I'll state it again - if these subjects are truly so obviously important, why is the concept of inherent notability required to defend them? Finally, you can't accuse me of wasting time if you're also here - by your definition, if there was no opposition to a delete vote, there would be no time "wasted" either :)--inksT 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible micro-agreement: If somebody creates an article for 5 kids in there mom's homeschool, I'll likely delete it. I guarentee you, that you will never, be able to vote delete on multiple real muniicpalities with any real powers, however small they may be (at least in North America). I have wasted time in these school AFDs, mainly at the request of those demanding explanations, that they're not satisified with. But, a vastly greater waste of time would occur, if schools started being deleted. All the time I (and others) spent, creating and improving articles, would be lost. I'm forced to decide which is a bigger waste: time in AFD or loosing the time spent creating/editing school articles. You on the other hand, have no need to waste any time, whatsoever. --rob 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Municipalities, townships, towns, etc. are kept on WP even if they have zero residents - that is settled concensus. Your statement shows your clear willingness (manifest in this very debate) to defy concensus in favour of your own opinion (which is the problem in the first place). As to wasting time, there are a number of areas where your argument is nonsense. First, by deleting articles about schools that are created by editors in good faith, you are wasting those editors' time (there are many of us that have a good faith intention to create verifiable, well-written articles about schools for Wikipedia) and waging a war against those who wish to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools in good-faith on the basis that you (and others "who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools") subjectively find such schools non-notable. The next waste of time, is crying foul everytime someone (like me) who has explained their reasoning on schools a thousand times (ok, a hundred times) to explain and justify every vote on every school. Some of us are tired of screaming at the brick wall that is "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" and just vote bicycle. The next waste of time is your own. Nominating school articles that will not be deleted for AfD is an undeniable waste of time that is only perpetuated in order to make a point. I have asked repeatedly for some justification why nominations and voting and arguing to delete school articles persists, when if nothing else can be agreed upon, it surely could be that as a matter of precedent, school articles are not deleted on WP on the basis of "non-notability".--Nicodemus75 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, if a municipality with 5 people in it had come up on AfD, I'd vote to delete it as well. I'll state it again - if these subjects are truly so obviously important, why is the concept of inherent notability required to defend them? Finally, you can't accuse me of wasting time if you're also here - by your definition, if there was no opposition to a delete vote, there would be no time "wasted" either :)--inksT 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Substitute "official municipality" for "country", and the example works fine. There are countless municipalities, with a much smaller population than this high school; which are all auto-included. Rather than waste time on pointless AFDs, editors on communities have devoted their time to improving articles. --rob 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Apples to Oranges. You're comparing schools to countries. If it were possible to have several million countries in the world, I'm sure we could argue that some are not notable enough to be mentioned here. The point is that if concepts of inherent notability were not used, we could have a reasoned evaluation of each school on it's own merits, and then those that don't deserve an article can be deleted. If schools truly are as important as you assert, what's the harm in dropping inherent notability?--inksT 04:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that is balderdash. I doubt very much that you look at an article about a nation-state (like say, San Marino) and make a decision on whether or not it "should" have an article on Wikipedia on it's own merits (and if you do, than the absurdity of your position is manifest). Anyone who sees an article about a nation-state on Wikipedia rightly concludes that it has a place here, irrespective of it's "notability" because it's status as a nation-state confers inherent notability upon it, regardless of it's size, population, impact on world affairs, or any other subjective assessment of it's relative "notability". The assumption made by almost anyone who looks at an article about a nation-state is that it is inherently notable. Even if you do hypothetically assess nation-states in this way, it makes no difference whatsoever. Your insistence that others use your deletion philosophy is condescending and elitist. Other editors are (and should be) free to determine for themselves that certain groups or classes of things (like nation-states) possess inherent characteristics of noteworthiness as a legitimate philosophical approach to building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Your assertion that "your way is superior" is noted, but I just think you are plum wrong. Certain classes of things are inherently notable, and I believe one of those classes of things is schools. To try to suggest that those of us who hold and advance a certain philosophical view about notability in good faith, are to blame for the acrimony in this debate is both false and irresponsible. Despite all of this (pointless) back and forth, your response still refuses to respond or take accountability for the main point of my obscure and lengthy dissertation above in the first place. That is, that "School articles are not deleted on Wikipedia on the basis of being "non-notable"." As I have stated, this is a fact. The obvious question that arises is, "Since schools are not deleted on this criteria, why is it that 'those who routinely nominate and vote for school deletion' continue in their pointless and arguably bad-faith crusade to delete school articles "on their own merits", when it is clearly contrary to what the obvious outcome of these attempts will be? I am not simply trying to be rhetorical here - I am asking for a legitimate explanation from the other side, why they are continuing to nominate and vote to delete in the face of the overwhelming history of VfD/AfD results that demonstrate that school articles simply do not get deleted on the basis of being "non-notable" or being a stub?? Please, please explain what is achieved by repeating this process over and over and over? At this point, "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles" aren't even making a point anymore. Of the last 100 or so schools nominated for AfD, the only candidate that was successfully deleted was an article about a school that didn't exist, which was created by an editor who "routinely votes to delete school articles" on the basis of their lack of notability. You think your approach of "determining how to vote on each article according to it's merits" is better than my system? Well good for you. Just tell me what the point of all this is when the school articles in question will not be deleted?--Nicodemus75 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You've overlooked an important distinction - I treat all articles equally, and single out no particular class of article for special treatment. Every article I've voted to delete has failed to prove it is worthy to be here. Every article I've voted to keep, I have done so on its merits. To me, no article is inherently notable, and each has to be individually meritous, be they schools, battleships, or Simpsons episodes. Inherent notability is being used as a crutch to sidestep proper discussion.--inksT 02:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this is a contentious subject, but stating that an argument is weak is not a personal attack. (Sorry for the gratuitous italics, but this is very important.) "Your argument is stupid" is uncivil, but it's not a personal attack. "Your argument is weak" isn't even uncivil; it's a strongly-stated disagreement. Everyone needs to distance themselves a bit, and realize that an attack on the position that they hold, however strongly, is not an attack on the person that holds it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're labelling people again. There is a difference between asserting the weakness of an argument, and demonstrating it by means of argument, and by pointing to the acrimony that the concept of inherent notability has brought to AfD. If you disagree with arguments against inherent notability, refute them, instead of trying to stifle them by references to civility and NPA guidelines that are frequently violated by both sides. I have always been concerned that the concept of inherent notability with regards to schools is doing far more harm than good, and have yet to see evidence or argument to the contrary.--inksT 23:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is almost exactly what inks has repeated above and on other pages. Repeatedly stating that the philosophical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak, repetitive, etc. Frankly, I consider the constant re-statement by deletionists that the philosphical position that "schools are inherently notable" is weak a personal attack and extremely uncivil.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:CIVIL in mind please Makenji-san 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't you be offended by "All you inclusionists trotting out the same arguments you trot out on every school AFD..." What do labels and a confrontational attitude accomplish? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per schools argument keep chowells 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zhatt 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the keep arguments ring true --redstucco 08:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And this does?--Nicodemus75 17:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. -- DS1953 15:05, 14 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.