Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor North School

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 no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 13:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windsor North School

Nominated by Kapa who I immediately blocked as an impersonator of Kappa. I am finishing the nomination. Most likely a bad faith nomination, but the article is a very short one. My vote is merge with Invercargill. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah I can't find much else about this place, so redirecting seems reasonable (the info is there already). Kappa 11:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote keep after improvements by Grutness. Kappa 14:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Might want to mention that even though the history appears to show Kappa as the only contributor to this article, it was actually made by User:202.74.213.236, under the title Windsor north school. It was then apparently deleted and moved simultaneously. So please don't start spamming Kappa's talkpage asking for an explanation of why he is making such substubs. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, leave a redirect as per Kappa. Proto t c 12:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep unless we are giving no schools their own pages. Very little is on Google, but enough to learn that Roger Stephenson is the principal.
• Keep - Schools are notable too! UniReb 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a one line article, and no one yet has found any information to expand it sufficiently. (Of course, the avenging might of Tony Sidaway may.) Perhaps you could actually look at the article before voting 'keep' unthinkingly. Proto t c 12:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article establishes that it's a school, and as UniReb says, schools are notable. We keep one-line articles on villages, rivers, universities etc for the same reason. Kappa 12:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Kappa. I do look at the articles before determining if it should be kept or not and I felt this particular article can be very much expanded but also kept. Thank you very much!! :-) UniReb 19:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've substantially enlarged the article. Hope it's up to standard now. Grutness...wha? 13:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - based on improvement done since nomination. --rob 14:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 15:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, still not notable per Schools for Deletion.Gateman1997 15:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Thsi is a primary school and nothign in the article in any way indicates any unusual notability as far as I can see. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DES and Gateman.--encephalon | ^ζ  16:52:54, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
• Merge with Invercargill. That's the town it's in and there is an Education section already denoted. NeevaN 17:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are notable. Details about schools should not clutter town articles. CalJW 17:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a lot of work. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this school is really important so why erase it Yuckfoo 17:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Super strong delete - primary schools aren't usually notable. This one isn't an exception. Dunc|☺ 18:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep the rewrite. I'm in the "schools are notable" camp. Brighterorange 18:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Primary schools are not inherently notable, but the article establishes notability. Sdedeo 21:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article contains some small, but notable events. Evil Eye 23:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Klonimus 23:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another unmentionably insignificant school. Dottore So 01:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Most likely a bad faith nomination as already suggested. —RaD Man (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 05:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Being at one time the largest primary school in a province is pretty notable! Grutness...wha? 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Non-notability not established. --Nicodemus75 10:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete ni --TimPope 18:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Enough of this pointless, time-wasting, impositional deletionist nonsense! Keep. --Gene_poole 13:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete old does not equal notable. --Kennyisinvisible 00:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Schools/Delete arguments. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although, given the age of the school, I suspect that there may be an argument for notablity, this article does not make that argument. Cmadler 19:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is fascinating yet sad that there are factions of Wikipedians bent on deleting important school-related articles. Silensor 19:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The same could be said for factions that are bent on keeping some unimportant school articles. It cuts both ways on this issue.Gateman1997 21:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • To a certain extent I must disagree. No rational argument can be made to support the idea that all schools are unimportant, yet there are people voting delete regardless of how well things such as notability and importance are conveyed within the article. Silensor 21:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • While that is true, again look at prior VfD's, we've had people who desire to keep any school, just so long as it's a school (some of them even voted to keep a local grocery store just because it existed). By that logic my house should be kept as an article as learning takes place there and it's multicultural. I'm not defending the 100% deletionists by any means, but I'm also very much against the 100% keep people as well. Neither position is tenable. Gateman1997 23:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest that people continue to nominate any article they genuinely feel should be deleted. Discussion is ongoing and,
    as long as everyone is civil, an AfD aids that discussion. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I suggest that people get on with the business of editing and creating articles. Meaningful discussion has long since ceased and a number of people are no longer civil, an AfD merely exacerbates that lack of meaningful discussion.--Nicodemus75 10:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm going to concentrate my efforts for a few days on cataloguing the current rate of growth of school articles on Wikipedia. I've a feeling that when we all get a clear picture of the raw growth rate we'll all agree that any efforts made on AfD, except those that result in improvement of articles during a discussion, are unlikely to be effective in restraining the growth rate of relatively low quality school stubs.
    • I don't decry the listing of articles on AfD, at least at the reasonable rates that have pertained since the mass nominations of mid-May, but neither do I believe that it's possible to represent the AfD process truthfully as posing a quality control on school articles insofar as it deletes articles of poor quality.
    • I support school AfDs (although I nearly always vote keep) for a different reason: the discipline of the five day discussion followed by a life-or-death decision is useful in focussing attention and driving the research and expansion process of school stubs. Without that process, I don't think so many articles about schools would have attained of good quality in so short a time--some of them only days after first creation. I'm convinced that school articles will nearly all converge to a good quality as the decades pass, and that the number of school articles on Wikipedia will continue to increase for many years to come, but the AfD process has been useful in driving the process and pushing thw quality up early in the game. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Er... did anyone noice the reason I submitted this article to the AFD list? Perhaps if you read my "nomination"... Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for my usual reasons. --Idont Havaname 14:35, 9 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.