Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 keep (no consensus). I came to about 36 delete votes and a bit more than 20 merge or keep votes. At any rate the article, while stile a very short stub which could probably be merged somewhere unless more information is forthcoming, is not a yellow pages entry anymore. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois

Delete. Yes, I know it's about a school. This isn't an article. Listed on cleanup for two months. Nothing more than basic contact info. Same user kept posting an even more sparse entry for the school district earlier today. - Lucky 6.9 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Schools shouldn't get a waiver from the general consensus that 'cleanup' candidates that don't get cleaned up should be deleted. Waterguy 03:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but the understanding I had, from earlier (VfD, so the criteria may have changed under AFd) discussions, was that schools were inherently worthy of an article unless they were closed and unhistorical. Or is that only certain schools ? --Simon Cursitor 07:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Some people believe schools are inherently notable, but it's by no means concensus. This was offered for deletion because it was not an article but just basic contact info and on cleanup for 2 months without any improvement. Any article in such a state should be deleted regardless of whether they are about schools or not. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Hear hear! There are no blanket exceptions to the rules that govern all other articles on Wikipedia. No one has ever said that all schools are not notable, and yet some have not only said that all schools are notable (and inviolate) but that they cannot be nominated for VfD. That is absurd. In this case, a Clean-up article that didn't get cleaned up is a deletion candidate. Geogre 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing seems to indicate this is going to be a good article in the forseeable future. --InShaneee 07:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It was a complete mess so I rewrote it as a stub. It needs a bit of work. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything interesting to say about this school. I'm this --> <-- close to violating WP:POINT and make a crap article about my own school. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Others have done this before. Next door, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chase (school) the usual people went through their usual motions. Pilatus 10:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
What exactly do you expect us to do? ALL attempts at concensus have repeatedly broken down, no amount of my repeating "schools are inherently notable" will ever convince you that they are - I accept that. Constructive debate, discussion, suggestion and concensus building is, and long has been dead. Keep on nominating and we'll just keep on keepin' on.--Nicodemus75 11:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right that continuing to repeat "schools are inherently notable" is completely pointless. I certainly don't believe that all schools are notable but, you know what, I also don't think all schools are non-notable. I don't think pursuing either extreme is a good idea. If I can agree that there are indeed some notable schools (this isn't one of them, by the way) why can't you agree that there are some non-notable ones? Soltak | Talk 22:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This is my problem with the keep at all costs stance too. Worse they are aggressively attempting to keep elementary schools and it will only be a matter of time before day care is in there too. Why are you (Nicodemus75) so unwilling to compromise? There are other ways to do this. The use of lists comes to mind. Some of these schools have so little to write about that a list would be perfect. David D. (Talk) 13:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I appreciate the rewrite attempt, but there's no assertion of notability. There's billions of schools and this one is no different than any of the others. Notability guidelines should affect schools just like they do people. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, every sperm is not sacred. Gamaliel 09:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a high school, Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 10:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The rewritten article remains a directory entry, which like most school stubs fails to assert notability or distinctiveness. Pilatus 10:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all secondary schools are inherently notable. If somebody writes a crap article about their old school then I may add a cleanup flag, but I will vote against any attempt to delete it. I admit I did create an article to illustrate a point myself once, about inclusion of minor party candidates, Anthea Irwin, but nobody has called for it to be deleted. PatGallacher 11:21, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
  • Delete per InShanee. Nandesuka 12:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. High schools are not inherently notable. android79 12:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All secondary schools are not inherently notable! On what basis? Peeper 13:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- DS1953 14:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep High School and up. At least merge content into Elgin Area District U46 on a delete vote. — RJH 14:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per my arguments at Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 15:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A Yellow Pages entry at this point, and this is the rewrite -- written as WP:POINT. I really wish the "OMG you deletionist trolls" ranters would consider articles one at a time, the way we're supposed to do, and not vote whole classes. Geogre 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Geogre your comment about "ranters" doesn't seem very WP:CIVIL. Personally I'm glad that wikipedia considers whole clases of things like villages, universities and major league baseball players article-worthy, it helps to reduce uncertainty and wasted time on Afd. Kappa 16:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Kappa, I do not find your repeated accusations against anyone who nominates a school for VfD civil or productive, so we're even. However, let's get to the fallacy of your position. In fact, all universities and towns are inherently suitable as topics for articles, but not all articles on towns or universities are valid Wikipedia entries. There is no consensus that secondary schools are in the same class as colleges and universities and towns, but the point here is that no one is voting to delete this because it's a school: people are voting delete because the article is uninformative, does not establish (bring forth/explain/celebrate) the notability that you believe is inherent in the institution. It is being voted to delete because it's not a valid article, not because it's an article on a school. Please read the nomination before you encourage people to blindly block vote. Geogre 19:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no obvious difference in article "validity" between this one and Haddersfield, Jamaica, but I'm happy to see that Haddersfield gets a nice consensus keep with no fuss. Kappa 15:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand significantly 207.158.1.209 15:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Note: This anon user has less than 25 edits at this time.
  • Delete currently a sub-stub, adn in no way establishes notablity. Schools are no more exempt for the general requirement of notability than is any other topic, and this one does not seem to make the cut. DES (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nothing more than contact info. If someone actually knows about the school, they can feel free to write a real article at some later time. As Kappa mentioned (if for a different reason), AfD isn't cleanup. If that failed, which it did, then it should be deleted. --Icelight 15:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article no longer contains contact info. Kappa 16:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete or merge into Bartlett, Illinois --TimPope 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I don't accept the argument that a school is notable in and of itself. Unless someone can establish something about this school that merits it having it's own article, this should go. Of course I'd support an inclusion of the stub info in the article on Bartlett, Illinois.--Isotope23 17:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a notable subject. We will get a better article sooner by keeping than by deleting. CalJW 17:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Just what about the subject, beyond "it's a school" makes it "clearly notable"? I, as many others here, do not accept that a school (or any other institution) is ipso facto notable. There must be specific facts which establish notability. I see none here. DES (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete like most schools, nn. Dottore So 17:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the only way to get people to improve crappy little school substubs is to nominate them at AFD, then that's what has to be done. If a few of them actually get deleted, then maybe the people who create crappy little school substubs will spend the extra time that it takes to write a real article on the school so they don't end up wasting everybody's time in an AFD discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 17:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand --Terry 17:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete waste of bytes. Dunc|☺ 18:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand would better serve the interests of our visitors. Silensor 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. --Fang Aili 18:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another non-notable school stub. Cmadler 18:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep and Expand for the same reasons Glenbrook South High School and New Trier High School exist.Larsoner 18:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If most of the article text comes from the "wikiproject schools" tag, then clearly there's not much to say about the subject. --Carnildo 18:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 19:01, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. I might as well get my hands bloody, too. Schools are not inherently notable and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable NPOV information. gren GuReN6 21:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 2005 September 8 (UTC)
  • Merge with Elgin Area District U46 or Bartlett,Illinois, since this has absolutely no relevence whatsoever outside of its particular geographical locality, and there's no point making users click five different pages to get info that could more usefully be contained in one. Not that there is much information here, and no reams of blithering about school mottos, sports teams, school ethos, c-list local celebrities who happened to go to the school etc. etc. are not going to help. Average Earthman 21:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please as usual these schools are important even inherently Yuckfoo 22:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools and previous arguments to delete Soltak | Talk 22:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is difficult to achieve notability in eight years, and the fact that no one is able and willing to expand the article proves so. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, isn't that an argument for leaving it around for a few decades to mellow? We've got a perfectly good stub here. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • To expand this, a look at Special:Newpages shows that since the start of the month some 120, ONE-HUNDRED-AND-TWENTY new school articles have been created. Many of them are very brief stubs similar to the one we have at this article now. Only the most obviously silly ones get speedied--articles created to attack, those giving no context, and so on. Over the past six months, only about 280 articles have been listed for deletion. Of this small number, only a tiny proportion--currently around 40, have been deleted. A few more articles are deleted because they're copyright violations. Just deleting school articles isn't a realistic method of dealing with perceived systemic problems with Wikipedia, such as the belief that there are too many articles about non-notable schools, too many school stubs (or substubs, if you prefer), or too many articles that fail to provide us with an interesting read. The rate of creation and retention of school articles has far outstripped the rate at which this growth can be controlled simply by deleting them. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • A school can achieve notability by producing notable alumni, introducing a novel program, or being involved in a major historical or newsworthy event. The oldest Bartlett High School grads are all under 25 years old, and--as far as we know--none of them are notable. No school program is mentioned in the article, and no link to a news event is provided. Under these conditions, I don't think we should just let it sit for "a few decades" until it becomes notable. Owen× ☎ 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As I've just demonstrated, it's no longer possible to restrict school articles to "notable" schools. In the past eight months AfD has deleted only around 40 school articles, and in the past eight days the new content of Wikipedia has increased (after discounting speedy deletions) by a total of 120 school articles. Copyvio deletions also account for a small number of deletions, but after all that it appears to me that the current rate of growth of school articles on Wikipedia exceeds many times over the rate at which they're deleted.
      • Even if we all agreed, every one of us, that non-notability of schools was a good reason for deleting the articles, we'd have to delete about 15 school articles every day just to keep up with the rate of creation. In the current circumstances, where it's actually quite rare for a school listed on AfD actually to be deleted, this just isn't going to happen. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You are right, the current school AfD mechanism is doomed. I propose a new Speedy Deletion category: {{nn-school}}. Any school not meeting the notability criteria described above should be speedy-deleted. Owen× ☎ 05:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Well look at it this way: if we can't get consensus to delete more than three or four school articles a month, we're not likely to arrive at consensus on a speedy policy for school articles. However desirable you may feel it would be, it's an unattainable goal in the present climate of opinion on school articles. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Worst rational ever. So now the argument to keep schools is that they are being created faster than they can be deleted? Surely you can come up with something stronger than that to excuse the special pleading they enjoy?
        brenneman(t)(c) 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Read it again. Far from a rationale, it's an analysis that shows that school articles cannot be controlled by AfD. Your energies are thus misspent. Also I notice that you again raise the false claim that schools are given special treatment on AfD. They are not. They are listed in precisely the same manner as other articles and editors are permitted to state their opinion on whether the articles are to be deleted, and finally a sysop comes a long, determines whether there is a consensus, and closes the debate. The article is then deleted if there is a consensus to delete it. AfD debates almost invariably result in the school article being kept, especially if the article is about a high school. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge unless expanded. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless this school has historical or social signifigance, it should be delted.Kiwidude 00:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    Why? We are assembling the sum of all human knowledge. What irony that some seek to exclude places that impart that very same knowledge to children! Keep all schools, which are central parts of their communities (yes, keep Wal-Marts too if you think they are equally central) and of enormous importance to the societies that produced us all, even those who feel they are not important enough for this work. It's absolutely preposterous that we have rancid, poorly put together articles about towns with no inhabitants but ought not include articles on schools that educate thsouands of children.Grace Note 02:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't usually get sensitive about comments that probably aren't directed toward me...but I have written an article about a town with no inhabitants, namely Rice, California. I don't consider that particular article to be either rancid or poorly put together. This article was nominated solely on the fact that it started out as an article completely lacking content, one that sat on cleanup for two months. Just my two cents to state that an article about a town with no inhabitants can be encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • My apologies. That certainly wasn't aimed at your article. I meant those godawful Rambot things. As it happens, I believe towns with no inhabitants have a place in Wikipedia. My argument is not that they should go, but that schools should say. Grace Note 06:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, all high schools are significantly notable and should be documented, just as we cover towns and cities of all shapes and sizes, not to mention battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Barring that, Merge. Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Cory Elementary School for discussion of the value of merging. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article as written is not notable. Vegaswikian 05:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment High school blah blah blah big blah blah no information blah blah blah has students blah blah rancid blah blah blah important to someone sometime blah blah blah kilobytes of discussion space squishing the poor article beneath it like a Kliban cartoon blah blah yawnnnn -EDM 05:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    It must be truly terrible to be forced to read this. Grace Note 06:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been rewritten so it is no longer just contact info. Hopefully Wikiproject Schools can expand it. the wub "?/!" 07:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this an article about four walls and a roof that houses students and teachers together for educational purposes? KEEP --Nicodemus75 10:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 14:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: pointless. CDThieme 03:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless, non notable G Clark 03:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, relevant for education in Bartlett. --Vsion 04:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable high school. JYolkowski // talk 13:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. High schools are notable, 2900 is alot of kids in one school, more then some colleges Guerberj 19:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, decent stub. - SimonP 23:54, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable. What is the point? Really, I don't get it, and I can't find an "executive summary" explanation of the rationale on the user pages of the users who seem to vote to keep these, like Tony Sidaway.---CH (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You want an executive summary?
    • 1) some people find the proposition that a high school is not notable every bit as baffling as you appear to find the proposition that it is
    • 2) these articles are battle-tested. 269 nominations processed to day since January 1, 2005. 37 deletions. Deletion rate less than 15% of those nominated. Meanwhile I can tell you as a fact that 158 school articles were created on Wikipedia in the seven days from September 5th to September 11th. That is more than four times, in one week, the number of articles, articles created, that AfD has deleted in eight months.
    • You may think there is a problem. Clearly listing perfectly good articles for deletion on grounds like "not notable" is not the solution, because school articles are being created at such a vastly greater rate than they can be deleted. Notability cannot be anything but an excuse for deletion. All you're doing is venting your anger at the fact that there will always exist articles on Wikipedia that you cannot control. AfD is not a quality control tool, it cannot possibly perform that task. Only editors can do that. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Attempts to mischaracterize editors who vote delete as "angry" and arguments about the rate at which school articles are created/and or deleted fail utterly to address the actual question: why are schools not held to the same criteria as every other article? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • My response to this is: clearly they are being held to the same standard and passing the test with flying colors, and what other word do you use for the mood of someone who continues to complain that there is a problem with schools when Wikipedia tells him loud and clear, over a period of some months, that there is not? Fact: several times more school articles will be created by the end of this month than have been listed for deletion during the eight months January to August of this year. If you think that is a problem, AfD cannot solve it. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Tony while schoolwatch has been very effective at preventing school article deletions, and to your credit, doing a lot of good work trying to improve those articles who will be improving the 158 that got written last week? Are these articles all a couple of lines or are some actually informative? I don't think the fact that people start these article en mass is an indication that they are useful articles' it's more of an indication that they don't have any other useful articles to contribute. If they cared they would do a good job. The strongest argument I have seen for schools, to date, is that it helps wikipedians learn to be productive. School articles are like a 'live' sandbox for developing skills and knowledge about wikipedia itself. I will support that argument. But to say these articles are useful just seems silly. There are much better resources online for this type of information. More to the point such databases do not get vandalised. How often are school articles vandalised and no ones notices? Would anyone even question if I changed stats in a school article. Say '73% of students passed' vandalised to '63% of students passed' a particular assessment exam? It would make a huge difference to prosepective students or parents and worse, when noticed, will reinforce the idea that wikipedia itself is an unreliable source for information. That's not a reputation wikipedia wants to cultivate in my opinon. David D. (Talk) 00:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • What an awful straw man this is. Delete articles because they are subject to vandalism? Are you even remotely serious in proposing that because an article might be a target for vandalism that it ought to be deleted? I have read some whoppers in these debates, but this is the single-most absurd proposition I have yet encountered from those that want to delete or otherwise remove school articles. I am so flabbergasted at this argument that I am not even sure I should bother with a detailed refutation of why this argument is such patent nonsense. If proclivity to vandalism is a valid critera for article deletion, any controversial topic on Wikipedia should be deleted for fear that it might be vandalized. This argument simply leaves in me in shock (I thought I had heard it all). --Nicodemus75 00:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Not sure where you got that straw man from? The argument is not that they are prone to vandalism. The argument is that that there is a high chance the vandalism will go unnoticed and remain to be confused as fact. High profile articles are always on many watchlists and get reverted almost immediately, you knew that of course. David D. (Talk) 01:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Here is an [example] of blatant vandalism that lasted for six days. Do you think anyone would have noticed somthing more subtle? David D. (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • David, if Schoolwatch hadn't bothered to lift a finger these articles would exist. The claim that they're all or even mostly one or two-liners is a canard--I even believed it myself until a few months ago I sat down and watched the creation of some school articles, as they happened, on Special:Newpages, and now you can look at my Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New and check them for yourselves. Some of the best articles on Wikipedia are articles about schools.
        • Tony how can my question Are these articles all a couple of lines or are some actually informative? be misconstrued as an assertion? If you don't want to seriously discuss this issue then fine, it's not my problem if you assume that all users who vote delete are against you. That seems to be the way you all parse questions and comments. David D. (Talk) 01:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  1. Hereford Sixth Form College eight lines and list of the curriculum
  2. Slemish college two lines
  3. Ho Lap College data in a table (list material)
  4. San Antonio Independent School District five lines including one of 15 school districts,including Edison High School, (which rocks!!!)
  5. Greenwich Country Day School four lines
  6. Gordano School three lines
  7. Cornwallis Junior High School one line
  8. Nailsea Comprehensive School six lines
  9. Elgin Area School District U46 list of red links including Bartlett High School, would have been better to just have Bartlett's info in a table format (all three lines of it). Within this list the link to Bartlett High needs to be updated to point to the correct page rather than the disambiguation page.
  10. Caringbah Selective High School six pages
  11. Yishun Town Secondary School this one is not too bad.
  12. Frank W. Cox High School this one is not too bad.
  13. International School of Kuala Lumpur seven lines
  14. Manila Waldorf School one line phone book entry
  15. Coyle and Cassidy High School this is much better
So some of these look pretty good (3 possibly 4 out of 15) but many are in very poor shape. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You're making a compelling argument for putting those articles on your watchlist and helping maintain them, but none at all for deleting them. If you think an article needs nurturing, surely the answer is to nurture it, not kill it! Grace Note 05:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with that but I can't watch all the schools. Also my argument would not be deletion but to maintain the two liner schools in lists with their peer local schools. At least then we get some context. Even if i have them on my watchlist it does not mean I will see a vandals edit, especially if I'm away for a while. Each school needs many people to watch. My sense is there are not many who do it; I could be wrong. Also it would not be my first choice to monitor school articles, I'd rather spend my time trying to catch the misinformed edits in the science pages, as well as improving the pages that need work. I'm happy to help with schools and I'm willing to hear the arguments but knee jerk 'keep' does not seem to be a wise use of limited resources (I know, wiki is not paper, but every page needs user hours and those ARE limited). David D. (Talk) 06:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem you're having is in your assumption that you must take personal responsibility for the whole encyclopaedia and that it somehow reflects on you if you do not. But you don't. It's a wiki. Suggest a project, why not? Perhaps one of the more geeky types would make us a program that showed only school articles that changed, if we were to feed them in. Does Crypto whatsit's thing do that? Although I don't agree that vandalism of school pages is any more a problem than vandalism of other pages (a bewildering variety do get vandalised, usually in a very noticeable way that is caught by RC fiends -- I catch plenty when I'm in the mood), it's no solution to suggest they should not be allowed. Grace Note 05:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I take no responsibility but i know from experience that these school articles will not get attention from the number of eyes that look out for other articles. Subtle vandalism is hard to keep track of and when left unedited means the ....i'm repeating myself nevermind. David D. (Talk) 08:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Vandalism is always visible in the history,even if you don't catch it at the time. Remember that our articles are only supposed to contain verifiable references, so if you encounter a figure that isn't referenced, delete the figure from the article. This is a Wiki, after all. On spotting edits to school articles, it's easy to do this by making a list of school articles and then linking to the "related changes" special page. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Nicodemus, and I think most editors would, that the "vandalism" argument is unworthy of a response. Oh let's just delete the whole encyclopedia in case somebody vandalizes it. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The argument is that that there is a high chance the vandalism will go unnoticed and remain to be confused as fact. David D. (Talk) 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
            • This is almost as absurd as the proposition in the first place. So now the argument is if an article might have what you subjectively have defined for us as a "high chance" of vandalism that goes unnoticed, an article should be deleted??? Quit while you are behind. --Nicodemus75 03:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
              • So misinformation is a good thing? Especially when the same data is easily available at other sites? Almost every one of the articles up for deletion have nothing that is not availabale in the public databases. Have any well written and researched school article ever being put up for deletion? If not then there is no conspiracy against schools as you seem to think. I still see no reason why this types of information (the two liners) is not formatted as a list? David D. (Talk) 03:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Good Lord, David. So now, the criteria for deletion is "the information is available elsewhere"????? I should have just stuck to my guns on your original proposition and not bothered responding. I am definitely done with these "canards"(word of the day thanks to Aaron). (and here I have actually been working on formulating a cogent argument page just for you because of your requests elsewhere - what a waste)--Nicodemus75 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • Well I'd still be interested to see what you have to say. I appreciate you addressing the questions I thought they had been lost in the previous argument. Look, don't see everyone as you enemy. I don't see why these things can't be discussed. Are you trying to win people to support your efforts or not? Ignoring legitimate questions (I hear you laugh) are not going to win you supporters. David D. (Talk) 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Please respond to the actual argument, as opposed to just picking out one tiny bit and focusing only on that. The two unanswered questions are: why are schools judged differently, and why encourage creation of lots of substub articles?
          brenneman(t)(c) 01:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually you are not the person to tell somebody what they are to focus on. We're supposed to make our own minds up about it. Sorry about that. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I did say "please". And if you choose not to offer actual arguments as opposed to this "vandalism" canard, that's up to you.
            brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Agree with Tony about your attempts to have us focus on what you would like us to focus on, "please" or "pretty please" "or sugar on top" or otherwise. However Aaron, to answer your frequently-answered questions (*cough* talk about "canards" *cough*) yet again. A) School articles are not judged any differently from other articles such as towns, cities, battleships, crusiers, destroyers, submarines, firearms, television shows, movies, religious denominations, video games, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. What you and other deletionists want, is to hold schools to the same policy standards as vanity pages about non-notable PEOPLE (which do not constitute all other articles). B)Insofar as creation of stub articles is "encouraged" (*cough* canard *cough*), it is for the same reason that stubs of all other types are created and "encouraged" such as stubs for towns, cities, battleships, crusiers, destroyers, submarines, firearms, television shows, movies, religious denominations, video games, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. To be filled in at a later date, not to be AfD nominated within 3 days of their creation. --Nicodemus75 03:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
            1. You agree that it's fine to simply ignore a question you don't like?
            2. A little bit more civility would not go astray.
            3. Please do not resort to personal attacks such as "deletionist".
            4. See above for why the oft-repeated "let them grow" argument is fallacious.
brenneman(t)(c) 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Now calling someone a "deletionist" is a "personal attack"?? I am done with you Aaron, hopefully Tony is too. Go ride a bicycle.--Nicodemus75 10:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be sad if the idea that terms deletionist and inclusionist are mere insults were to gain a hold. They're very useful terms and, I think, do much to illustrate the extreme divide in viewpoints that exists here. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and nigger is a useful term for clarifying race. Heck, they even call each other that! (Please note that was sarcasm.) Here it is plain and simple: Don't call me a deletionist. Ever. I'd remind you, Tony, that you recently supported a block of someone for calling another editor by their name. Labels only serve to polarize debate, raise tensions, and give excuses to ignore valid points. What happened to "Argue the content, not the contributor?" I'm suprised - are you supporting the egregious incivility Nicodemus75 has delivered above?
      brenneman(t)(c) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Your User Name is "Aaron Brenneman", if you don't like it - change it. Deletionist. --Nicodemus75 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you gents insist on carrying on this quarrel, may I request that you do it on someone's talk page? This AfD is monstrous enough as it is and woe to the poor admin who has to close it. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good advice, but this user has indicated they will not respond on talk pages. In the unlikely event I wasn't clear, it's not my name I object to. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I hearby without prevarication apologise for the above statement. It is clear that the irony/sarcasm intended did not come across. I was completely unaware of the cultural and/or racial backgrounds of those involved, and do not know how I could have been otherwise. I was, and still am, deeply offended by being labled, and am suprised that N75's attacks appear to have passed so seamlessly. But to have unintentionally given insult aids nothing, and I again apologise.
      brenneman(t)(c) 06:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • To whomever is sending me e-mails. I'll include those lynching photos with goats.exc in my "list of things I wish I'd never seen". As you took the time to find my e-mail address, create a new hotmail account, collect those photos, and send them to me, I hope you'll take the time time to read this.
      • My comment was not intended to be taken as a racist comment. It was a parody of Tony's suggestion that I should not be hurt or offended because there existed a group for whom this label was self-applied.
      • I did, and still do, believe that anyone who read my comments without prejudice will see that. However, I understand that I have caused hurt with my comments. I deeply regret this, and do wish I had chosen my words more carefully.
      • While attacks against me as a "deletionist" are hurtful, they do at least have some basis in reality. I do vote delete more than keep. That is no excuse, however, for those who would dismiss myself (and others) as "deletionists". I am more complex than that.
      • Attacks against me as a racist, however, are completely misguided. Please feel free to examine my contributions, as I can offer no further evidence to the contrary.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are more than enough good faith contributors who believe schools are inherently notable to support the articles, and continuous attempts to delete this subset of Wikipedia will only cause bad feelings between them and those they disagree with. It's far from obvious that one side or the other is right, so why not play "live and let live" rather than "forging a stronger enemy" by constantly beating on them? Unfocused 02:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Remember when notability meant something? Paul 06:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually. I've always found it almost entirely meaningless. What meaning it does have seems to be "I don't think it's important myself". If you have another meaning in mind, perhaps you'd share it and explain what difference it would make in an encyclopaedia that includes the "sum of human knowledge". Grace Note 07:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... what about this that says it does matter how many people think/know/care about a subject?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Please do read it and you'll find that it's about what views people have on a subject, in the context of whether to include minority views. It has nothing to say on whether an article should or should not exist in an encyclopedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Ummm... are you asserting that that link does not say the number of people who hold a particular view is important to deciding if something belongs in Wikipedia? Really?
brenneman(t)(c) 08:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It says that the number of people who hold a view is material when deciding whether that viewpoint should be represented when writing a neutral article. For instance one wouldn't need to represent the flat earth viewpoint in an article on the curvature of the earth. But you seem to be mistaking it for a statement about whether the number of people interested in a subject is material when deciding whether an article should be included in an encyclopedia. That's a different argument. You may well be able to make a case and I may well be persuaded by it, but citing the neutrality guideline isn't going to persuade me because it obviously doesn't say what you think it says. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please re-read my comments. You don't know what I think, only what I've typed. What I've typed was very carefully limited in scope. If it wasn't clear (and in the context of this discussion it may not have been) I apologise.
    brenneman(t)(c) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll play. Since, as you correctly note, we can't read your thoughts but only your typing, you're going to have to type why you think that applies here. Even if we had a similar policy for articles, it would amount to "write little about things of little interest and a lot about things of great interest", which is certainly not what you're arguing and would not be as compelling an argument for deletion as it is for pruning rubbish articles. If only you deletionists would do more of that and less of trying to prune the whole work! Grace Note 05:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of no intereest to anyone outside Bartlett --redstucco 10:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've started a new Project sub-page to summarize one of the points raised in this discussion: Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Sidaway ratio. Since the debate here is no longer about Bartlett High School specifically, maybe we should move our discussion to the Talk page. If this is redundant, I'll remove the new page. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Not ready for prime time" apparently [1] Kappa
    • Yeah, sorry about that. Owen gave me the option of deleting and I thought this was better all round. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. I can get all this information from Google, so why replicate it here ? WMMartin 21:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because that's what encyclopedias do. They collect public information into a single article. Should we delete all the Hollywood actor, director and writer articles? That information is all available elsewhere. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All verifiable permanent public institutions are notable by definition. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    I think you should state why you think it's obvious, Ryan. Grace Note 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    Basically, it's a decent stub and all schools such as this are "notable" (as per Centauri). Sorry for the obnoxiousness :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    Well, it's a heated issue. Thanks for giving your reasoning. I think it really does behoove us all to try to remember this is meant to be a civilised discussion. (I await with bated breath the guy who posts some diff from a few months ago when I wasn't civil -- hey, no one's perfect!) Grace Note 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. WP:POINT. Ambi 11:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    Well, that's new! Would you mind explaining? It clearly isn't "obvious" that it requires deleting, and it's less than obvious why that particular policy applies. Grace Note 00:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, School.BillyCreamCorn 23:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Bartlett_High_School%2C_Bartlett%2C_Illinois_e270.html"