Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eirias High School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This school isn't notable, its only claim to fame is seemingly two ex-pupils, neither of whom have an article. The article reads almost exactly like a prospectus, down to the details of the uniform and how it is enforced. Perhaps we ought to have a WikiSchools project for articles like this. Thryduulf 11:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, no need to apply "notability" to high schools. Kappa 13:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So, any reason why we have to apply it to everything else? Chris 20:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- We don't. We apply verifiability.--Gene_poole 23:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- So, any reason why we have to apply it to everything else? Chris 20:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain, for now. Are high-schools notable in and of themsleves? El_C 14:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)Since there is no policy set, I can choose my own standard for, heh, nn hs notability. Delete. El_C 16:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)- That is probably the single most controversial question on VfD. Kappa's opinion is that they are. Mine is that they are not. Hence I'm going to vote delete and watch the other standard votes roll in below. Radiant_* 15:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- The point of a "notability" is to exclude things that are of interest to very few encyclopedia users, things like ordinary people, shops, and amateur bands with no audience. High schools are virtually all large, influential and different enough from each other to be interesting to anyone who wants to know about their local (or catchment) area. Kappa 15:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I see your point, but what would you do about a high school that is small, non-influential and very similar to several other high schools? Radiant_* 19:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I think this kind of high school would be very hard to find, but if it was very similar to several others, they could be merged together. Kappa 21:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, most high school articles I've read on WikiPedia do not in any way demonstrate that said school is influential or different from other schools. So personally, I would be in favor of merging the lot of them (by city or district or something) into an annotated list. Radiant_* 08:22, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I think this kind of high school would be very hard to find, but if it was very similar to several others, they could be merged together. Kappa 21:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- High schools are almost all entirely the same, hardly different enough to be interesting to anyone except the people who attend it. Gamaliel 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I see your point, but what would you do about a high school that is small, non-influential and very similar to several other high schools? Radiant_* 19:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this and all other articles on nonnotable high schools (which in my opinion is a tautology). --Angr 15:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure, because I put a VfD on a nn school a few days ago and no one voted nor commented on it, except one anon that just wanted to be its friend. :) El_C 16:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's because it's not listed on the main vfd page; please see the instructions. (It's there now.) —Korath (Talk) 18:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure, because I put a VfD on a nn school a few days ago and no one voted nor commented on it, except one anon that just wanted to be its friend. :) El_C 16:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Here we go again. High schools aren't inherrently notable. DaveTheRed 18:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, BEEFSTEW score of 3 (ABJ). I'm not counting dress code (trivial) or alumni (which would be under F if they had Wikipedia articles) towards D. —Korath (Talk) 18:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- You don't know who Steve Morgan is? Uncultured bunch. Cacn't be that many schools with a T3, but still not enough to set it aside from every other school in North Wales. Delete Chris 20:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep These nominations of a random selection of school articles are a waste of time. Wincoote 20:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I can't speak for other nominators of course, but my nominations are not random. If I see a school article that imho merits inlcusion, I don't nominate it for deletion. Also, to state the blindingly obvious, I don't nominate articles I'm not aware of. Thryduulf 22:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Gamaliel 23:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Wikipedia policy, as determined by a poll, is that articles on high schools should not be deleted. - SimonP 01:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- That poll was concluded in November 2003 and acknowledged as out of date by October 2004. Thryduulf 02:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone ever saying it was out of date, just that it might need to be reviewed. Moreover no later poll, or even a consistent series of VfD votes, has overturned the 2003 decision. - SimonP 03:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- It is no decision or policy, it is just a poll. Also, it is broken down into levels of notability, and for the more obscure kinds of school, there is a clear majority to delete them. Radiant_* 08:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Polls are perhaps the most widely recognized method for creating official policy. Note that the page states "rather than discuss this repeatedly on VfD every time a school article appears, it would be more sensible to gain a consensus which could be applied to all of them. That's what this page is for." Moreover the only types of schools that have conseunsus for deletion were those with under thirty studetns, preschools, and bulk automated entries. The poll is old, perhaps it would be a good idea to re-run it or a similar poll to show where the current consensus lies. - SimonP 13:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Policy, policy is created by consensus. This poll does show majority votes in a couple of cases, but it does not show any kind of consensus. Therefore it's not policy. Also, it has a total of only 31 voters, which is unacceptably low for the size of Wikipedia. Radiant_* 09:25, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Polls are perhaps the most widely recognized method for creating official policy. Note that the page states "rather than discuss this repeatedly on VfD every time a school article appears, it would be more sensible to gain a consensus which could be applied to all of them. That's what this page is for." Moreover the only types of schools that have conseunsus for deletion were those with under thirty studetns, preschools, and bulk automated entries. The poll is old, perhaps it would be a good idea to re-run it or a similar poll to show where the current consensus lies. - SimonP 13:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- It is no decision or policy, it is just a poll. Also, it is broken down into levels of notability, and for the more obscure kinds of school, there is a clear majority to delete them. Radiant_* 08:15, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone ever saying it was out of date, just that it might need to be reviewed. Moreover no later poll, or even a consistent series of VfD votes, has overturned the 2003 decision. - SimonP 03:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- That poll was concluded in November 2003 and acknowledged as out of date by October 2004. Thryduulf 02:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, etc. Slac speak up! 01:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. School vanity. Not encyclopedic: WP is not a school directory. Jonathunder 03:18, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
- Keep. This irrational anti-school vendetta is geting really tedious. --Centauri 04:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This irrational anti-encyclopedia vendetta is geting really tedious. --
Centauri 04:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The remark immediately above was actually posted by Jayjg, using my signature.--Centauri 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, bad copyediting. Perhaps I should follow your example instead, and simply use boilerplate text to vote on articles, without actually looking at their contents or thinking about them. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg, please refrain from making personal attacks in the future. --GRider\talk 22:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- GRider, please familiarize yourself with what a personal attack actually is; Centauri clearly copied the same Keep text to a number of different school VfDs on more than one occasion, (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]), and clearly believes all articles on schools should be kept, regardless of content. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg , perhaps you should follow my example and provide a consistent thesis in support of your votes, instead of attacking other editors for daring to disagree with your POV.--Gene_poole 23:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, "Gene", I have done exactly that, voting based on Wikipedia policies around notability and whether articles have a chance to become encyclopedic. Thus, unlike "Centauri", sometimes I vote delete, sometimes keep. As for you, "Gene", perhaps you should straighten out just exactly which userid is "Centauri", and which is "Gene Poole"; that way there won't be those embarrassing episodes where you get confused about whether you should respond as "Gene Poole" rather than "Centauri" (or vice versa).[8][9] Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Behavior of this sort is uncalled for. It is improper and impolite to imply that Gene is a sock puppet. It is also rude to suggest that Centauri casts votes without "actually looking at their contents or thinking about them." Perhaps you should consider a Wiki-vacation and cool off before you find yourself on the receiving end of an RfC. --"GRider"\talk 23:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have not stated that Centauri and Gene are sockpuppets; why on earth would you even bring that up, unless you think there is evidence to support the idea? As for your advice about Wiki-vacations and "cooling off", considering that in the past couple of weeks you have become the subject of two RfCs and now an Arbitration, with a suggested injunction to ban you from editing these kinds of pages because of your provocative edits, perhaps it might be wise if you took your own advice. Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is no evidence to support your impolite insinuations. Let me quote back to you what you said just a few lines up: "As for you, "Gene", perhaps you should straighten out just exactly which userid is "Centauri", and which is "Gene Poole"". If you have evidence which supports this insulting suggestion, by all means, please present it now. --"GRider"\talk 17:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did you happen to note the two links I provided following that comment, in which "Centauri" replies to a comment addressed to "Gene Poole" as if he were indeed "Gene Poole", then deletes the comment, realizing his revealing error? Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but I found it to be inconclusive at best. There is a much more lengthy discussion regarding this subject on User:Centauri's talk page. --"GRider"\talk 20:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Did you happen to note the two links I provided following that comment, in which "Centauri" replies to a comment addressed to "Gene Poole" as if he were indeed "Gene Poole", then deletes the comment, realizing his revealing error? Jayjg (talk) 19:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is no evidence to support your impolite insinuations. Let me quote back to you what you said just a few lines up: "As for you, "Gene", perhaps you should straighten out just exactly which userid is "Centauri", and which is "Gene Poole"". If you have evidence which supports this insulting suggestion, by all means, please present it now. --"GRider"\talk 17:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I have not stated that Centauri and Gene are sockpuppets; why on earth would you even bring that up, unless you think there is evidence to support the idea? As for your advice about Wiki-vacations and "cooling off", considering that in the past couple of weeks you have become the subject of two RfCs and now an Arbitration, with a suggested injunction to ban you from editing these kinds of pages because of your provocative edits, perhaps it might be wise if you took your own advice. Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- GRider, while I agree that Jayjg could have phrased what he said more gently, your response is also sailing rather close to the wind. Jayjg, if you beleive that Centauri and/or Gene Poole are abusing sockpuppets and/or behaving otherwise improperly, then I suggest you open an RfC (if you do let me know as I'd be interested in knowing the answer to this). Alternatively, perhaps mediation between the different sides in this debate would be more apropriate? (I admit to not knowing a huge amount about the mediation process). Any further discussion on this matter would probably be best on the talk page. Thryduulf 23:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Behavior of this sort is uncalled for. It is improper and impolite to imply that Gene is a sock puppet. It is also rude to suggest that Centauri casts votes without "actually looking at their contents or thinking about them." Perhaps you should consider a Wiki-vacation and cool off before you find yourself on the receiving end of an RfC. --"GRider"\talk 23:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, "Gene", I have done exactly that, voting based on Wikipedia policies around notability and whether articles have a chance to become encyclopedic. Thus, unlike "Centauri", sometimes I vote delete, sometimes keep. As for you, "Gene", perhaps you should straighten out just exactly which userid is "Centauri", and which is "Gene Poole"; that way there won't be those embarrassing episodes where you get confused about whether you should respond as "Gene Poole" rather than "Centauri" (or vice versa).[8][9] Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg, please refrain from making personal attacks in the future. --GRider\talk 22:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oops, bad copyediting. Perhaps I should follow your example instead, and simply use boilerplate text to vote on articles, without actually looking at their contents or thinking about them. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The remark immediately above was actually posted by Jayjg, using my signature.--Centauri 06:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. Just another notable and encyclopedic school. --GRider\talk 19:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete this article on a random school. Pilatus
- Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Colwyn Bay and delete - Skysmith 10:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable school. --G Rutter 12:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. — Dan | Talk 05:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 19:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 23:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this high school's article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 07:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, highschoolcruft, nn. VladMV ٭ talk 19:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.