Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Zimmerman Elementary 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Author admitted on his talkpage that this article was a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David M. Zimmerman Elementary School

Schoolcruft. Can I say more? Delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes you can. Please be more descriptive in your nomination and explain why you think it's cruft. Cruft is often seen as a derogatory and misused term. Explaining helps to keep the good faith. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

...and strongly believed to be a hoax. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:09, November 30, 2005

• Delete. Non-notable primary school like the hundreds of thousands like it. Unverified and not remotely encyclopaedic. --Last Malthusian 10:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, substub not an article. Doesn't tell us any of the basic details one needs to know about a school. Edit: Isn't verifiable either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless a consensus is someday reached to index every school out there, just doesn't seem notable. --StuffOfInterest 14:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And this is why nominators should do research on schools before they nominate. This article appears to be a hoax, though the nominator failed to uncover this, thus demonstrating that they did not follow our deletion policy (which requires that one, before nominating, determine that the article does not fall under a category that does not require deletion, like a failure of POV, or needing cleanup.) It is a waste of everyones time to nominate articles that will obviously generate controvercy on AFD without doing the requiste research. No vote Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And this is why nominators should do research on schools before they nominate. No, this is why voters should do research on articles before they vote. Or perhaps I should say "robo-vote". --Calton | Talk 01:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nn school. Catchpole 15:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hipocrite --eleuthero 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as empty, and disregard any vote that does not address this particular instance or show familiarity with the article. No "delete per another page" nor "keep per another page": read this particular article and express an opinion on it. Otherwise, you'll vote to keep articles that say, "You are all idiots" but have titles called "Abraham Lincoln Elementary School." Geogre 19:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would request any admin that disregards my vote to contact me personally. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If one wishes merely to refer to wp:sch, then that is fine. However, I feel that once one decides to take on the responsibility of saying "keep" or "delete," one must offer a rationale for that opinion that pertains to the article under debate. No meta page trumps a deliberative page, and, were there to be an actual policy to emerge from that debate (and I believe that it never will), then the decisions would be procedural and, again, not involve motioning for "keep" or "delete." Again, if you vote, rationalize the vote with reference to the article. I note that schools are the only situation where things have gotten so bad that folks are admittedly not even reading the articles and yet proposing that they be kept or deleted. This is against the spirit of AfD, to say the least, and that is why I took the unusual step of urging a disregarding of such motions. Geogre 21:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is imperitive that you read WP:SCH, paying specific attention to Rules of thumb #4. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Isn't rule of thumb #4 one notch above creating a vote-bot? Hipocrite, I don't see how you can consider templated signatures "harmful" and templated votes "constructive" so I am, once again, confused. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Templated signatures cause avoidable load on the servers (see WP:SIG section 3.3].)(Ironically, much like creating a lot of obvious no-consensus AFDs do) Linking to a standard vote does not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please Avoid Personal Attacks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax. Google returns no hits on "David M. Zimmerman Elementary School". How is that possible if school exists? If anybody can show evidence that school does exists, change my voet toe Keep per Hipocrite.Herostratus 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I assure you that if I had googled it prior to nominating I would have tagged it for speedy. I guess I figured it would be pointless without a city & state. damn. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's say the absolute minimum for schools inclusion is verifiability and location. This has neither. Durova 19:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This one smells worse than a week-dead narwhal. No Google hits, no specification anywhere in the article of where the school is located, and this was the user's only page creation: Coach Zed (talk • contribs). I smell a troll and possibly someone making a WP:POINT about knee-jerk school votes. It ain't working for me, this school inclusionist is voting delete. Turnstep 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

comment if Turnstep is correct, then someone should be ashamed of themselves. Pete.Hurd 23:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified. Regardless of interpretation of WP:NOT, WP:V trumps that. Sam Vimes 21:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified and non-notable. Nandesuka 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as a hoax. Gateman1997 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Although as a school deletionist, I hope to God nobody tries to use this to say "there is a clear consensus to delete elementary schools". Although, on the other hand, that would be pretty funny... Lord Bob 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. I'm sure there was a WP:POINT to this, but can't imagine what it was. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I assume the point would be too flush out people who vote without looking at the article itself, similar to the way the McMartin preschool AfD might have. Turnstep 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep this if it is verifiable otherwise we have to erase it Yuckfoo 01:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete does it even exist, where the heck is it? Unencyclopoedic article...if it's that important they can recreate it and at least tell us where it is.--MONGO 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spurious creation as the single edit by probable sockpuppet [User:Coach Zed]. It's too bad there is no probable cause for it, but I'd love to see a checkuser done. Note that although there doesn't seem to be any David M. Zimmerman Elementary School, there are several Zimmerman Elementary Schools (see [1]). ^BlankVerse 07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, probable hoax. Even if this school actually existed, this article would fail because it doesn't tell where the school is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to assume this is a simple vandalism from a new user, rather than a fake account by an established user. Could someone close this AfD and delete now that the location of the school has been revealed? Turnstep 13:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• With that admission on the talkpage I am ready to close this as a speedy delete under WP:CSDG2 and/or G3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 1 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.