Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addison School

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 - kept - SimonP 15:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addison School

Three-sentence, two-line substub on an elementary school. Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:58, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; although I'm no longer a delete-school-articles person, I am still a delete-small-useless-articles person. Linuxbeak | Desk 20:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and merge info to Palo Alto, California. Article does not refute non-notability. Gazpacho 20:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. ESkog 22:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 22:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 22:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, reasonable topic. Kelly Martin 22:50, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Palo Alto, California (unless significantly expanded by end of VfD, of course). JYolkowski // talk 22:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As noted by others above fits the criteria put up by Jimbo Wales for keeping an article on Wikipedia: verifiable & NPOV --AYArktos 00:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded the article to show what a little work can do to even an ordinary elementary school. I have no ties to the school and have never even been to California. Just collected info from the internet. Plenty more info could be obtained by others. Schools are encyclopedic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools. --Unfocused 03:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Three cheers for DoubleBlue for an excellent demonstration, by expanding the stub, of why school stubs should be permitted to grow organically. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 07:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Thank you for the excellent rewrite DoubleBlue. Pcb21| Pete 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent rewrite, now an asset to wikipedia. Thank you DoubleBlue. Kappa 08:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Palo Alto, California and delete - Skysmith 09:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable & NPOV, looks fine to me. -- Lochaber 12:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge with Palo Alto, California. Article contains a lot of trivia. --Carnildo 17:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please stop wasting our time. Oliver Chettle 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Much ado about nothing. And please stop wasting our time trying to save useless articles by adding even more trivia to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Let this stub grow instead of killing it off. --Zantastik 19:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are worthy of inclusion in a great encyclopaedia. User:GRider/Schoolwatch Klonimus 20:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A California elementary school? Not notable/distinctive for any encyclopedia worth the name -- which is a perfectly good criteria despite the invoking of a peculiar interpretation of Jimbo Wales's post. --Calton | Talk 03:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but only because DoubleBlue expanded it. Let's see what it can become instead of shutting it down. Ordinarily, though, I would question whether many elementary can really qualify as encyclopedic. I can name dozens of Illinois high schools, but outside my own immediate area I can only name two elementary schools - Francis W. Parker School and The Latin School of Chicago - and both of those go through grade 12 as well. DS1953 04:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The rewrite by DoubleBlue has made this into an encyclopeadic article, which provides an excellent example of what can be included for elementary/primary schools.--Takver 05:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Adding trivia and fancy boxes to an article does not make it encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia != Triviapedia, infinite storage does not change our charter. Instutional Vanity. Gmaxwell 06:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep Lotsofissues 11:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's both verifiable and written in an NPOV way. Notability isn't a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Radiant_* 13:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is still not a deletion criterion. Needs title that includes location. - David Gerard 22:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia would not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ _(talk) 00:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Improved, yes, but Delete I'm afraid. Nothing really jumps out at me as making this school rise above the pack. Master Thief Garrett 03:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Merge as applicable. Master Thief Garrett 07:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You know, I haven't voted keep on a single one Neutrality has nominated? This shows me one of two things. A: I'm a biased deletionist B: he's doing a damned good job. I'm going with the latter. Master Thief Garrett 03:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Article is no longer the three sentence substub that it was when VfD started. Dshaffer 06:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • 50 lines of unencyclopedic trivia still isn't an encyclopedia article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'll change my vote to delete only after all of the WP articles on Hip hop music have been deleted. Surely this elementary school is more important and notable than the reams of unencyclopeadic trivia on assorted non-notable flash-in-the-pan hip-hop/rap music artists that WP contains! linas 19:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is no longer a stub, and the original argument no longer applies. See Deletion Policy:

The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies.

If somebody feels like adding it again as a VfD, fine, but clearly someone cared enough to try to improve it. Ealex292 23:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Now what did Jayjg just say? That's what I say too. Master Thief Garrett 00:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, if somebody wants to re-add it, go ahead, but the original listing no longer applies, so this VfD should be closed. Open a new one as "unencyclopedic trivia" that doesn't deserve to stay, but the current reason isn't applicable any more - it certainly isn't two lines. Ealex292 00:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. LOL. —RaD Man (talk) 07:44, 19 May 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.