Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holymead Junior 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 keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holymead Junior school

Another quality article about a primary school. Dunc|☺ 20:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep but please send to be cleaned up Yuckfoo 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, another fixable article about a primary school. Kappa 20:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another content-free primary-school article. --Carnildo 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Article might be able to be expanded, but right now it's a schoolcruft stub. Hermione1980 22:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The user who created it only made this one article, and he/she did it more than a month ago. I have difficulty seeing expansion anytime soon, in the meantime it is nearly free of content. --Scimitar 22:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another vanity stub about a primary school. RickK 23:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We should have articles on all schools. CalJW 00:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Until there is a consensus policy, not listing school articles of zero worth like this one on VfD would mean that they would all be kept. No more trash substubs on indistinguishable entities. Authors of these articles aren't even trying to inform or give the slightest indication of what makes their subject worth knowing about. These things should not be kept, as they're not articles, no matter the consensus (to be reached on February 30th, I think) on schools. Geogre 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the mention of the filming of the scene from the Casualty television show doesn't merit a separate article. NatusRoma 03:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even worth a merge. Vegaswikian 06:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even the notability proponents should be satisfied with this because the grounds have been used as a setting for a major TV series. And see WP:SCH on how to aviod these fruitless discussions. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So if my house were to be used as the major setting of a tv series, would it deserve an article? Indrian 04:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean if it were used as the setting of an episode in a major TV series? Certainly! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools belong in Wikipedia. Unfocused 04:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.-Da 'Sco Mon 08:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep RJH 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am once again disguted by the knee-jerk reactions that appear to be on display here. This is not an article, therefore it should not be kept under any circumstances. If the original authors are too lazy to provide any useful information on the subject, more responsible users should not let the page stand and reflect poorly on the project. Indrian 04:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't be too hard on the original authors, they're only kids. Kappa 10:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be an element of extreme immediatism here. Even the original article as VfD'd was an article and gave the school's name, type, location, head teacher's name, a list of teachers and helpers, and a list of classes and clubs. Not bad for preteens, as Kappa says. The article only needed a little cleanup, a task which has been undertaken by Kappa, DoubleBlue and CalJW. The article now contains the Casualty reference and summarises the OFSTED report. It's now a very useful article about this urban primary school and a good refutation of the claim that school stubs are unencyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I know that you and many others consider these additions improvements, and I always admire users who vote to keep and actually make efforts to improve the articles in question, but I do not see these improvements as substanative. Adding more facts about a subject and improving an article can be two very different things. An encyclopedia is supposed to sift through the facts and summarize the important aspects of a topic, not just collect random bits of factual information. This article now has more information, but it still does not provide information that makes it a useful contribution to an encyclopedia. Indrian 17:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with your perception that the article isn't worth keeping and the improvements are nothing much. What concerned me was solely your description of the votes to keep as "knee-jerk reactions" and the suggestion that it was the duty of responsible editors to delete the article. Actually that isn't even consistent with our deletion policy. While I can accept that an article may appear to some to be beyond hope, your comment didn't seem to allow for the fact that other editors do not share your view of this particular article and, making an honest effort to improve the article, don't deserve to be treated with disgust or disdain. We may differ in our opinions, but we are all working towards the same end. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • This I do realize, and I am sorry if my comments seemed a bit too harsh to you. Indrian 18:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 18:51, 15 Jun 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.