Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew's School, Saratoga, California

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 of the debate was 1, 2, 3....uhhhhh (12 keep, 11 delete) No Consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Andrew's School, Saratoga, California

Article was created before I realized there were notability issues that should be taken into account for an article. I've been to this school and it definitely has no notable traits (ie: Events, Alumni, or History). Gateman1997 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. We aren't going to be able to get rid of any schools (hell, we were barely able to see off a nursery school), and by constantly trying all we're doing is generating bad feeling in the community. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh and my vote is Delete, obviously.Gateman1997 19:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please, no more school nominations. I personally think delete, but there's never gonna be a consensus on this, so keep in the spirit of harmony. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • school nominations are senseless, I gave up on them, the last thing agreed on was a homeschool outfit with eight students in Manilla, and even that barely passed. So keep --Isolani 20:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Because as I said it was created in opposition to notability which I was unaware of earlier. And the changes have done nothing to change that.Gateman1997 23:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • So, why didn't you nominate it back when it was just a one-line stub. You voted to delete many other schools as "nn" during that time. Why was this one left alone, until *after* its expansion. --rob 23:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Because I'd forgotten about it until someone brought it up this morning in the Whitman AFD.Gateman1997 23:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator's actions are deconstructive and severely disappointing as of late. Silensor 23:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As have yours been sir.Gateman1997 23:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well that explains all the support you're receiving at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#November_3. For your own sake, I really wish you would refrain from constantly making a public spectacle of yourself. Silensor 00:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • For your sake I wish you'd stop making a fool of yourself as well. You obviously aren't making any friends through your actions. And continuing to pester me about it isn't going to improve that situation.Gateman1997 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not that I think it will do any good. I surely do not see the point in saying something I don't believe as mooted by howcheng above. Keep nominating schools, or wrestlers, or battle ships if you feel it's the correct thing to do. Shouting down dissenting voices is anti-wiki. I do not nominate schools, and I don't go out of my way to find the nominations, but when they show up on my watch list I contribute. It doesn't take long, I am usually polite (well, recently at least), and if people want to keep doing this I'll keep doing it. I think that calls to "stop nominating" while at the same time blocking all attempts to reach some WP:MUSIC-like accord are foul. If there was any sense of compromise, we could avoid all this nonsese. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:40, 3 November 20
  • Keep, if there was any sense of compromise there wouldn't be "delete" votes. Kappa 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That's one view. Another view is if there were compromise some school artiles would be deleted while the majority would not be.Gateman1997 23:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Or that would be only some kept while the majority would not be, or that only schools painted orange would be deleted or something. But sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, why can we not work this out? I'm going to go look at WP:SCH again.
        brenneman(t)(c) 01:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree. It's high time we did what WP:MUSIC did. As weren't not getting anywhere except deeper and deeper into the pit with this.Gateman1997 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; a small private school is plainly not automatically encyclopedic, and nothing in the article claims encyclopedic worth. An interesting entry for a directory of some sort, perhaps, but not for an encyclopedia. --Aquillion 00:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the latest in a string of bad-faith nominations and actions by this editor. This type of behavior is disruptive in the extreme and completely ignores WP policy and guidelines. Creating a stub article which has the sole content of "Saint Andrew's School, is a private co-educational Episcopal Church day school in Saratoga, California" then waiting for another editor to improve it in order to nominate for AfD is outrageous, especially given this editor's previously stated positions on the notability of schools and the value of one-line school stubs. This is preceeded by the creation of hoax schools, preschools, grocery stores, etc. all for the purposes of making a point and being generally disruptive and absuing the AfD process. The claim that the "article was created before I realized there were notability issues that should be taken into account for an article" in August of 2005 is patently false and deceptive, since this editor's views on schools are and have been well publicized long before the creation of this article. I think it is high time for an RfC and conceivably further action to prevent this editor from so callously abusing the AfD process.--Nicodemus75 01:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Find me proof I'd developed a concrete opinion on or before August 10th. Also if you'd bothered to read the posts above you'd realize I didn't nominate this because it had been improved but because it never should have been made in the first place. The improvements were made days ago. I would have nominated months ago had I remembered I'd made this article. Unlike some editors I don't have every single acticle I make on watch.Gateman1997 01:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • With the risk of being self-referential, it's only disrputive if we talk about it. This Afd, for example, was bubbling along nicely before the little screed above. Please, can we simply stop the drama? Make you K or D, perhaps post a quick note about how you feel, it takes under a minute. Contributions like the above do nothing to progress the goals of Wikipedia. If you have concerns about a user's behavior, the appropiate place to raise them is either on the user's talk page or by actually filing a WP:RfC. Do you expect anyone's opinion here to change about this article based upon what you've written, becaue if not than the contribution is clearly misplaced. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable school Bwithh 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I see nothing in this article which indicates that this school is noteworthy. Denni☯ 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as with the thousands of other schools. CalJW 05:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are notable.  ALKIVAR™ 07:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think Gateman needs a hug. —RaD Man (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete crap. They use laptops? yawn. Dunc|☺ 22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Repeatedly, several people have politely requested that you be WP:CIVIL, and yet you blatantly ignore these requests. [2] It would be greatly appreciated if you would not label the time and effort that I and many others proudly invest into these school articles as "crap", let alone other profanities. Bahn Mi 22:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not keep. This is a private, primary school, and should probably be treated as part of a list or part of an article on the district (if there is an applicable district).
    Can we please just talk about this article here, and spare everyone the drama about what Gateman did or didn't do? Open an RFC if you feel he's doing something disruptive, or please stop making accusations. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, this school is independent of the district. It's legally a part of the church. It's regulated by the state, without district involvement. It also directly reports to the appropriate accrediting bodies (whereas the district does this on behalf of public schools under its control). --rob 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay. Then ideally I'd like to see a merge to a list of private schools in the region, with the size of the region depending on the number and size of list entries.
        Also, I'd like a cookie. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ejrrjs | What? 23:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unique school my WP:CIVIL. There's nothing here that's any different from any other school article, apart from that some American football player went there, and if he isn't notable enough for a WP article than nor is his school. And enough with the high and mighty 'nominating school articles is bad faith' stuff. --Last Malthusian 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are important enough for coverage Klonimus 18:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another NN school again. Pete.Hurd 19:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the usual stated reasons --redstucco 10:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this is a very good article so erasing it does not make sense really Yuckfoo 20:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless elementary schoolcruft drivel.--Isotope23 15:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, notable school, wikipedia would be worse without this article Babajobu 10:40, 9 November 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Saint_Andrew%27s_School%2C_Saratoga%2C_California_2c2a.html"