Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balmoral middle school
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Balmoral middle school
Notability of this school not asserted. High schools I can understand as being inherently notable, but middle schools? Unless notability is established with verifiable references, I don't see the need to keep this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of minor schools. Contested prod, sent to AfD for a consensus one way or the other. For my part, Delete. Akradecki 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh what a horrible article. They must SHOUT A LOT at that school... :) delete. --Alex (Talk) 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The criteria for schools are WP:SCHOOL, and the criterion to focus upon is the first. The best way to tell whether a school satisfies this criterion is to look for sources and attempt to rewrite/improve the article. I looked. I couldn't find a single source. The only things that I could find were things like this, which is about Louisiana, not Ontario, and this, which is a set of figures used in an example of an XML-based language, which could be made up for the sake of example for all that we know. I couldn't find any press coverage, any independent inspection reports, or indeed anything at all. Even the web site alluded to in the article didn't exist.
Coming, finally, to the web site of the Peel District School Board, this turned out to be unsurprising. There is no such school in the Peel district. There's Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. But this content is of no use to starting that article. Indeed, there's more information about that school in Peel District School Board than could be salvaged from this article. A worthwhile stub on that school would have to demonstrate with sources that there is more to say on the subject than what is already said in Peel District School Board.
There's no point in trying to salvage anything from this. This content is unsourced, redundant to Peel District School Board, and useless. Delete. Uncle G 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete is not notable even when using WP:SCHOOL it fails to make the grade. TheRanger 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as unverified and completely unsalvageable article.--Isotope23 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think that the article should be allowed to improve by the efforts of interested editors, it is plain to see that the subject is notable, and I'm sure editors will be able to verify it. --ForbiddenWord 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Plain to see"? How? It clearly doesn't meet WP:SCHOOLS which is the closest thing to a guideline on WP. Wikipedia's academic reliability/reputation is hotly debated in the press, and one big reason for it is that many editors rely on their opinions or feelings as to what's notable, rather than conforming to established standards. Akradecki 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not think that WP:SCHOOLS is a reliable metric to use in the evaluation of school articles, as it excludes FAR too many schools from having independent articles about them. As such, I think that until such a time as a reliable measure for schools can be found, all nominations of them to AFD should be withdrawn. I don't think the nominators should be forced to apologize or any malice held against them, but it's mostly just a confusion on their part of their understanding of the importance of consensus at Wikipedia. --ForbiddenWord 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SCHOOLS is an excellent metric, because it focuses discussion on sources. Looking for, reading, citing, evaluating, and using sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. As demonstrated above, employing WP:SCHOOLS leads one in short order to the fact that this school does not exist, and has never existed, because it requires one to actually research the subject of the article, rather than to recite dogma. When parroting dogma about inherent notability places one in the very embarrassing position of wanting to keep unverifiable articles with zero useful content, it is time to stop and consider how far astray from being an encyclopaedist simple recitation of dogma has taken one. (Patronizing nominators from such a position only makes it even more of an enbarrassing one to be in, by the way.) I suggest that you discard the dogma, and actually make the effort to research the subjects being nominated for deletion, on a case by case basis, as determining whether the WP:SCHOOLS criteria are not are not satisfied requires one to do. You are clearly replacing doing research with reciting dogma. As you can see from where that has got you, that's wrong. Uncle G 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am not reciting dogma on this subject. What I am saying is that I think that any school, regardless of its nature or population, is notable. I agree that it should be verifiable, but I am not good at finding sources- this is why I mentioned, in my original comment, that the article should be kept until interested and more talented editors than I can find verifiable sources on the subject. I think your accusations of me parroting dogma are entirely unfounded: I feel very strongly on this subject and am unwilling to sit idly by and watch as articles on schools, one of Wikipedia's most precious resources, are deleted outright just because no one has found the proper sources yet. --ForbiddenWord 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- You claim in your first sentence not to be reciting dogma, and then your second sentence is exactly such a recitation of dogma. If you think that this article is a "precious resource", then I suggest actually reading it. It's rubbish. Even had this school existed, this article would have required a complete rewrite from sources. If you think that this is a case of "no-one finding the proper sources" then you clearly have made no attempt to read the rationales given in this discussion. The proper sources have been found. They show that there is no such school. Your "strong feelings" are preventing you from being an encyclopaedist. Discard them, and start doing the research. Parroting dogma instead of doing research doesn't help to build an encyclopaedia. It isn't a valuable contribution. Uncle G 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- What I said isn't dogma. It is my opinion, however, that what I said is true, and it's an opinion shared by many Wikipedia users. I have done research and tried to find information on Google and other general searches, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't an official report by local government on the subject that I don't know how to get to, but some other user does. I think that wanting to keep an article like this is an act of good faith toward the other editors in the name of improving the encyclopedic project. --ForbiddenWord 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- You clearly have not done research, or even read the discussion up until this point, otherwise you would have seen the official source that shows that there is no such school. Wanting to keep an article on a subject that isn't verifiable, and that has no useful content, isn't an act of good faith. It's preserving rubbish for the sake of dogma. It's worsening the encyclopaedia, not improving it. When dogma, which you are parroting, takes one to the point of making one speak in defense of rubbish and outright ignore verifiability and cited sources, then one has completely ceased to be an encylopaedist. Actively working towards including bad content in the project harms Wikipedia. It does not help it. Doing it "in the name of improving the encyclopedic project" does not change that one iota. Uncle G 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- What I said isn't dogma. It is my opinion, however, that what I said is true, and it's an opinion shared by many Wikipedia users. I have done research and tried to find information on Google and other general searches, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't an official report by local government on the subject that I don't know how to get to, but some other user does. I think that wanting to keep an article like this is an act of good faith toward the other editors in the name of improving the encyclopedic project. --ForbiddenWord 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- You claim in your first sentence not to be reciting dogma, and then your second sentence is exactly such a recitation of dogma. If you think that this article is a "precious resource", then I suggest actually reading it. It's rubbish. Even had this school existed, this article would have required a complete rewrite from sources. If you think that this is a case of "no-one finding the proper sources" then you clearly have made no attempt to read the rationales given in this discussion. The proper sources have been found. They show that there is no such school. Your "strong feelings" are preventing you from being an encyclopaedist. Discard them, and start doing the research. Parroting dogma instead of doing research doesn't help to build an encyclopaedia. It isn't a valuable contribution. Uncle G 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am not reciting dogma on this subject. What I am saying is that I think that any school, regardless of its nature or population, is notable. I agree that it should be verifiable, but I am not good at finding sources- this is why I mentioned, in my original comment, that the article should be kept until interested and more talented editors than I can find verifiable sources on the subject. I think your accusations of me parroting dogma are entirely unfounded: I feel very strongly on this subject and am unwilling to sit idly by and watch as articles on schools, one of Wikipedia's most precious resources, are deleted outright just because no one has found the proper sources yet. --ForbiddenWord 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, well, the primary problem is that regardless of there are interested editors or not, this school absolutely fails verifiability. WP:V isn't a non-accepted guideline; it is policy and this article doesn't meet said policy. Furthermore, suggesting all AfD's of schools be withdrawn is not realistic. Even without WP:SCHOOL (which is non-accepted guideline and has about as much bearing as an essay in my opinion), the level of inclusion of school articles in Wikipedia is a contentious topic and based on the fact that there are people who want to keep every WP:V school and people who want to have school inclusion standards, there will never be consensus on this topic. School AfD's are a fact of life at Wikipedia. Regardless of that, WP:V is the basic cutoff that even the most ardent school inclusionists can agree must be fulfilled and this article does not meet that very basic criteria.--Isotope23 18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- My response to Uncle G covers your objections about verifiability. Just because I cannot find one does not mean that the article should be deleted out of hand when another editor may very well come along and find a good reliable source for the article. --ForbiddenWord 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, yes it does... it's not just you that can't find a source here, nobody can. If someone finds a source then the article can be recreated, but we don't leave unverified articles laying around hoping someday, someone will come along and verify it. If something fails WP:V, and I don't mean that the article isn't sourced; I mean no sources exist for the article, then it needs to be deleted. If and when someone finds a source the article can always be recreated. That goes for every article on every subject on Wikipedia, not just schools. --Isotope23 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily the case- the {{verify}} tag exists for that very purpose, to encourage editors to go out and find sources for articles. --ForbiddenWord 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, {{verify}} is fine if some of the information is not verified, but if the basic existence of the subject of the article cannot be verified after a good faith investigation, which Uncle G has done above, there is no reason to leave an article on Wikipedia indefinitely with the hope that this somehow gets verified. Interested parties have the run of the AfD to find a basic source for the existance of this school; if this can't be done it should be deleted as unverified and unverifiable.--Isotope23 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily the case- the {{verify}} tag exists for that very purpose, to encourage editors to go out and find sources for articles. --ForbiddenWord 19:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, yes it does... it's not just you that can't find a source here, nobody can. If someone finds a source then the article can be recreated, but we don't leave unverified articles laying around hoping someday, someone will come along and verify it. If something fails WP:V, and I don't mean that the article isn't sourced; I mean no sources exist for the article, then it needs to be deleted. If and when someone finds a source the article can always be recreated. That goes for every article on every subject on Wikipedia, not just schools. --Isotope23 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- My response to Uncle G covers your objections about verifiability. Just because I cannot find one does not mean that the article should be deleted out of hand when another editor may very well come along and find a good reliable source for the article. --ForbiddenWord 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SCHOOLS is an excellent metric, because it focuses discussion on sources. Looking for, reading, citing, evaluating, and using sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists. As demonstrated above, employing WP:SCHOOLS leads one in short order to the fact that this school does not exist, and has never existed, because it requires one to actually research the subject of the article, rather than to recite dogma. When parroting dogma about inherent notability places one in the very embarrassing position of wanting to keep unverifiable articles with zero useful content, it is time to stop and consider how far astray from being an encyclopaedist simple recitation of dogma has taken one. (Patronizing nominators from such a position only makes it even more of an enbarrassing one to be in, by the way.) I suggest that you discard the dogma, and actually make the effort to research the subjects being nominated for deletion, on a case by case basis, as determining whether the WP:SCHOOLS criteria are not are not satisfied requires one to do. You are clearly replacing doing research with reciting dogma. As you can see from where that has got you, that's wrong. Uncle G 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I do not think that WP:SCHOOLS is a reliable metric to use in the evaluation of school articles, as it excludes FAR too many schools from having independent articles about them. As such, I think that until such a time as a reliable measure for schools can be found, all nominations of them to AFD should be withdrawn. I don't think the nominators should be forced to apologize or any malice held against them, but it's mostly just a confusion on their part of their understanding of the importance of consensus at Wikipedia. --ForbiddenWord 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Plain to see"? How? It clearly doesn't meet WP:SCHOOLS which is the closest thing to a guideline on WP. Wikipedia's academic reliability/reputation is hotly debated in the press, and one big reason for it is that many editors rely on their opinions or feelings as to what's notable, rather than conforming to established standards. Akradecki 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have been looking for any thing to support that this is a real school, from the distict pages to city pages an nothing supports this is a real school! I would hope people are not supporting this with out reading article and doing a basic search for the school. TheRanger 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have made some effort to find verifiable information on this school, but as I have said above, I am not good at finding sources. The reason I want the article kept is for other editors to be given the chance to expand and add to this article, giving it verifiable sources. The appropriate action in that case would be to tag the article with a verify tag, not delete it outright. --ForbiddenWord 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I feel it is clear from this page that several very strong editors have tried to souce this school even using the district site and it is not there. This school was likely placed as a joke. That being said do we cover this article as a hoax that was place on the internet on October 2006? The verify tag is not meet for the whole entry posted as a hoax, that is what the hoax tag is for and it is so taged. TheRanger 19:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have made some effort to find verifiable information on this school, but as I have said above, I am not good at finding sources. The reason I want the article kept is for other editors to be given the chance to expand and add to this article, giving it verifiable sources. The appropriate action in that case would be to tag the article with a verify tag, not delete it outright. --ForbiddenWord 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The school is listed here [1]. The only sign of notability I could find is that the school is used in an example of GML on the w3 website. [2] DCEdwards1966 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article appears to be about Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. According to this page [3], the principal and vice principal listed in the article work here. DCEdwards1966 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I mentioned Balmoral Drive Senior Public School in my rationale. Writing a decent stub on that school would involve starting again, from scratch, with enough sources to hand to show that there was more to be had on the subject than what is already present in Peel District School Board. (Otherwise a simple redirect would suffice.) This content is of no use in that regard. I found no evidence that this is an alternative name for that school, either. Uncle G 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article appears to be about Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. According to this page [3], the principal and vice principal listed in the article work here. DCEdwards1966 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for loads of reasons, but mainly 'cos it is totally non notable (and makes my eyes hurt reading it).... QuiteUnusual 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Whether an article is well written or poorly written , by a six-year old or a 40-year old, the subject must be notable. This is not. Montco 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to re-creation. I would hope that the students and faculty of this school would be embarrassed to see the current version of the article in the edit history. A higher-quality article can be created at a later time. --Metropolitan90 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I will admit that I look at the underlying articles for each of these school AfDs hoping to find as much as I can to justify retaining an article. I don't think this is a hoax, and as DCEdwards1966 and others have divined, I'm sure that it is supposed to be an article for Balmoral Drive Senior Public School. But, I don't see anything here that can justify creating a useable article worth retaining at this point. Hopefully, we can see a workable shell, if not a truly-functional article, for this school to be recreated at some point in the future. Alansohn 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- DELETE. THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO SALVAGE AND THE CONTENT IS NOT VERIFIABLE. BAHN MI 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Catchpole 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Due to the article content, rather than the school. — RJH (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete eyesore and probably nn. Beno1000 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. When the time comes a better article can be written about this school, but there is not reason to retain what we currently have here. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 October 2006
- 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.
