Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus-Default to keep 11 keep/10 delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brown school

non notable Johntex\^talk 02:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no notable alumni / no important research or discovery / no other assertion of notability - Hahnchen 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is a school and it is notable too so we can include this Yuckfoo 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The school was founded in 1893, and I suspect it has some history and alumni worth mentioning, if it was given some time. --rob 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be expanded to include historical relevance or notability. Otherwise, delete. Compare this Brown school to The Brown School here in Louisville, Kentucky. Some relevance is included in the latter. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Since 1893" indicates a long history with lots of details to be found. A very good school stub so far, and will be improved over time. However, I would encourage anyone feeling bold to move it to a more specific name as soon as one is decided. Unfocused 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 20+ schools are added a day. Nominating one now and again is pointless and mass deletion attempts are heavily defeated. Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - So nobody should nom a school for deletion just because nominating 1 is "pointless" in your view and mass noms are frowned upon? That is ridiculous reasoning. Unless there is a policy that all schools are notable, noms like this are going to happen and should happen until there is a standard set for notabilty of schools. Just because you don't agree isn't reason enough for someone who believes schools are not notable to stop nominating them.--Isotope23 18:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • But the facts that it achieves nothing and creates bad feeling are. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Still, there is no policy to prevent a nom for deletion. I understand where you are coming from CalJW but just because it ruffles a few feathers is no reason to abstain from a nom for AfD. I also disagree with your contention that it achieves nothing: it keeps the issue of school notability alive on the AfD pages. Hopefully this will prompt a discussion where a consensus can be reached pertaining to school notability. Otherwise we will be having this conversation over and over...--Isotope23 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• We also have 100+ articles written on non-notable people and websites every day. The fact they're written doesn't have any bearing on their keepability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Many people believe all schools have notable. We have the upper hand and have established a de facto policy. Schools shouldn't be nominated just as countries shouldn't be nominated. On the other hand almost no-one believes all people are notable and many biographical articles are deleted every day. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How many schools have to survive the AfD process before we can declare that a concensus exists "not to delete school articles" simply because they are about schools? What percentage of nominated school articles must survive the AfD process before we can declare such a concensus? How many poorly-written articles have to be fixed through the AfD process before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to just to fix a poorly written school article rather than immediately send it over to AfD"? How many months of schools surviving the AfD process are needed before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to work together to build the quality of school articles instead of gaming to system in a vain hope to get even one school article deleted"? While these are partly rhetorical questions, I think that those that nominated and vote to delete school articles on the basis that either A) "They are schools and non-notable" and/or B)"This school article is poorly written", should consider answering the questions. How long must the charade of AfD rules-gaming continue?--Nicodemus75 08:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this school has a long history. --Vsion 08:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per its indication of a long history. Note: just because an article is about a school doesn't mean it should never be deleted. It can be just as crappy and non-salvagable as articles on non-popular websites, and pretty much anything else. Don't try to stop people nominating schools just because you don't like it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reason for notability should be something mentioned in the article, not something assumed on general grounds. - Andre Engels 11:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• YP-style stub that no one has bothered to expand. Kill it good. Delete Pilatus 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I suppose I should go around to every school article and add the sentence "A notable institution due to it's committment to education and the expansion of knowledge and effect on the lives of local people" in order to satisfy Andre Engels novel requirement for keeping schools.--Nicodemus75 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You could do that, Nicodemus75, if you wished, but you would likely to your own significant annoyance and regret find that many of us still would vote to Delete with extreme prejudice on the grounds that this school, like so many others, is ineffably and utterly insignificant. Dottore So 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for so obviously demonstrating my point.--Nicodemus75 16:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You're very welcome. Dottore So 16:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no particular indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - meets my second criteria for keeping a school - open since (well) before WWII. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These sort of time wasting exercises can be avoided by either tacking on a {{school-stub}} or merging the article somewhere until it can be expanded. There is demonstrable evidence that school articles are not deleted when nominated here, so it is not unreasonable to ask that people stop nominating these and find something more productive to do with their time. My personal reasons for keeping, in addition to the fact that this school is over 112 years old, are posted at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete-Another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:32 PM ESY

• Keep. -- DS1953 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, four walls and a roof are not inherently encylopaedic. WP:NOT a web directory. Proto t c 10:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete primary school wastes bytes. Made me laugh though for its pitiful unnotability. Send to BJAODN under crap. Dunc|☺
• Keep -- Almost all schools are notable, and so is this one. --Mysidia (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very few schools are notable enough to merit a place in Wikipedia. This article does nothing to convince me this school is any different. Denni☯ 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable public institution. --Centauri 02:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school --redstucco 08:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiable public institution with a yellow pages entry and no notable traits.Gateman1997 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete schools need to be notable to be included. This one is not. U$er 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge if anyone would like to suggest a merge target. JYolkowski // talk 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Denni. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:40, 6 October 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.