Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duveneck School (2nd Nom.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duveneck School

See also earlier deletion listing

This page has gone 9 months with no improvement or expansion to show notablity. No notablility appears to actually exist for this school. DELETE per Arguments for school delete Gateman1997 21:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, although I wonder how you consider a school non-notable, yet a fictional starbase that appeared in one episode of Star Trek to be notable (in fact, neither are). Proto t c 21:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment In defense of the Star Trek starbase, it is notable because there are vast legions of Trekkies that are interested in the subject. How many people will ever look up a link to learn about Duveneck School?
  • Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak 21:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know that school. The article is easily expandable. Factitious 22:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I've made a first pass through, adding external links and some basic background information. Really, improving an article is easy if you're willing to spend a few minutes on it. Factitious 22:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too please it is more notable than a fake starbase even Yuckfoo
  • Keep and delist. Nomination made in bad faith, no assumptions necessary. —RaD Man (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:FAITH, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the links, no change in vote. —RaD Man (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, elementary schools of this sort aren't notable enough to keep here in general. This article gives no evidence that it is special or distinct. This link is Broken 01:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Schools/Arguments to Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 01:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable and NPOV information about an enduring institution which already survived one Vfd. I'm confused that the person who created Village Preschool of Saratoga and voted to keep it would also nominate this article for deletion. Kappa 02:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this school in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  • Keep Fortunately Wikipedia has much longer than nine months to grow. Renominate in 90 years if you want. Osomec 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enought in the article to justify inclusion. Maybe if expanded to make it encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Will you help me expand it, then? Factitious 06:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would help matters if nominators could adhere to some standard of accuracy. The article is less than seven months old so it cannot have gone for nine months without expansion. Looking at it I don't see any reason why it should especially need expansion. It's a perfectly good stub, useful in its current form. The nominator's claims about lack of notability are also misplaced; there is no consensus on notability criteria apply schools; many people class public schools as inherently notable. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Unfocused 15:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete indifferentiatable from other schools. --Tim Pope 16:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing to differentiate this school from any other box of students. --Carnildo 18:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete primary school. Dunc|☺ 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable outside local community. Allegrorondo 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE Unless a school is involved in a major event, such as a scandal, a famous educational approach/program, or a school shooting, there is nothing that can ever be said about it. This school, along with thousands of others have a principal, school colors, a location, and classes - and there is nothing that will make them more notable than that. If ONE important event happened their in the history of the school then that makes it notable, but until then, delete. --jonasaurus 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability still not shown, despite plenty of time for that to be demonstrated. Jonathunder 19:11, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  • Comment. It has come to my attention that Gateman1997 is attempting to pack the vote by soliciting votes solely on the talk pages of people he believes will vote to delete. Rather than get into a sterile voting war by emulating this disgraceful and unwikilike campaign, I will simply register my disapproval here while noting that I intend to dispute deletion on WP:VFU on these grounds, should Gateman's underhand activities appear to influence the vote unduly. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Disputing the vote on those grounds is absolutely absurd, not to mention indicative of being a sore loser. Gateman isn't influencing anyone's vote, he's simply bringing it to other Wikipedian's attention. If he chooses to inform those more inclined than not to vote delete, that's his prerogative. Soltak 19:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Feel free to. If it goes to WP:VFU I will dispute the keep on on the grounds that there is an organzied group (Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools and User:GRider/Schoolwatch) advocating and advertising a "keep" vote on no merit contained in this and many other articles.Gateman1997 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The two things are unequal. Anybody can watch schoolwatch,whether he intends to vote delete or keep. There is no electioneering. Here, on the other hand, as one of those solicited says herself, was a case where you went to a past delete voter and asked him if he'd vote delete. You only went to the people you thought would vote the way you wanted. Schoolwatch is public and doesn't go around people's talk pages soliciting votes. I don't think this article will be deleted, however, even with your vote packing. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Gateman and I have reached an agreement on this; we are both focussing our efforts on schoolwatch, which has been edited (and should continue to be edited) to remove anything that might be described as advocacy of either deletion or keeping of listed schools. The archive will continue to be updated but predictions will no longer be made. The parent page has had pro-keep wording removed. We both think this is better than each setting up competing pages that would duplicate effort. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's had nine months to show improvement. Also I think that Gateman's actions are just as valid as Schoolwatch's actions. Gamaliel 19:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually less than SEVEN months, and actually it's a perfectly good article so there's no tearing rush to improve it. Let it mellow at its own pace. See m:Eventualism. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Seven or nine, it's plenty of time either way for some sign of improvement. Gamaliel 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Eventualism is not something I believe in on this site either. Many articles are incapable of being worthwhile even if they were on here for 50 years. This is one of those articles.Gateman1997 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
          • The claim that it has not improved over the last nine (or seven) months is simply false. I expanded the article yesterday, and there's room for a good deal more work to be done. Factitious 06:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • And you've done a good job with what there is. But none of it's notable. The only claim to fame this school has is that it exists. If that is "keep" critera then why don't I have my own article about me. I exist and I serve my community. Gateman1997 07:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
              • What I take issue with is the fact that some people have been voting to delete for the "reasons" that the article hasn't been improved and isn't expandable. Both of those claims are demonstrably false, but the votes based on misinformation continue. Factitious 01:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's clear that you're all arguing apples and oranges. Some people think that school articles should only exist if the school in question is in some way distinguished from other schools; others think most types of school are distinguished enough in themselves, as public institutions, to be notable.
    • On eventualism, I have to say that in my view the whole Wikipedia project is a triumphant vindication of the principle that great things can be built in small, almost infinitessimal steps. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • This is why we need an official guideline or policy established for schools. The two sides will never agree. We need Wikipedia as a whole to set the criteria one way or the other because there obviously is no true consensus right now as most school votes seem to be going 50-50 or close to it. While that may be enough to keep most articles, it's not consensus. Gateman1997 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If there is no agreement, how can we have a schools policy? In general I think it's fair to say that school discussions have been going more like 55/45 against delete for some time now (with particularly interesting articles getting 60/40 and more). I think it's quite possible that there could be substantial change in the long term future, and if this happens then we can talk about a schools policy. Meanwhile it's probably a bad idea to list schools articles for deletion; it's much, much easier to just clean them up. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Chilling effect, anyone? I do not believe comments such as this are either accurate or helpful.
        brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Aaron, I'm basing my comment on sixteen weeks with hardly a single school article deletion, despite there having been over 150 school VfDs. I think I'm on pretty firm ground here. It's accurate. Nominate a few more preschools, perhaps, but I don't think it makes sense to put yourself through all that effort while the situation is as it is presently. That's intended to be helpful. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was solicited to vote in favor of deleting this article, which I resent. Electioneering is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment. Regardless of the outcome of this VfD vote, I intend to merge this article into Palo Alto Unified School District. Kelly Martin 00:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable school. Nandesuka 20:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, not expandable.  Grue  20:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's not expandable, how is it that I was able to expand it? Factitious 06:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable elementary school. DES (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real physical places belong on wiki until drive space becomes an issue (aka maybe never?). All schools are inherently notable as they are influential in the lives of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people.  ALKIVAR™ 02:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete elementary schools per User:ESkog/Schools. ESkog 04:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- "This page has gone 9 (or 7) months with no improvement or expansion", but what's the rush, or end date on completion of this encyclopedia? It's a verifiable, valid article. -- Longhair | Talk 04:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment does how wrong it is depend on who is doing it? [1][2] [3] [4] [5][6][7] - brenneman(t)(c) 04:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whilst I don't want to be spammed with a VfD reminder for every VfD I've ever voted on in the past, I wasn't that offended I received a solicitation, and viewed it more as a good faith human watchlist at work. If it become routine though, I'd probably leave in frustration :) -- Longhair | Talk 05:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    And just when we thought we'd put the solicitation thing to rest above. Someone goes and steps over the line again. I propose this VfD be closed and it be relisted again as I believe that this VfD's vote is entirely tainted (due in part to me and now Yuckfoo). Gateman1997 06:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    I think this is bad for Wikipedia no matter who is doing it. I've asked Yuckfoo to join our voluntary agreement not to engage in electioneering.
    I propose that this VfD be left to run its course and the closing administrator (who of course will not be anyone who voted on it) will be perfectly capable of making his mind up whether it's better for Wikipedia to let it stand or relist it.
    Personally I see nothing to be gained over relisting a single article, though I would not oppose an early relisting of this particular article after this VfD is closed, if it is kept in this particular situation. I would also support an appeal on WP:VFU if it is deleted, though I would not make one in the light of recent events.
    What we do next is about more than one single article, it's about the kind of Wikipedia we want to have. I don't want one in which open vote warfare becomes a commonplace. Whilst I am convinced that such techniques, if practised by both sides, would marginally benefit inclusionism, the effects of such warfare would be to damage Wikipedia and I would not condone that. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Imagine clicking a city entry one day to find a map of all local landmarks with each point leading to an article detailing its place in the community. Let's strive towards this goal. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 10:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 12:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • D, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep please. - Jersyko talk 13:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete. (Weak 2nd choice, merge into an article on the city or school district). Unless an elementary school as been the subject of a court case, or the oldest school in its region, or has had a major state-wide or national news event happen on the campus, the school is inherently unencyclopedic. BlankVerse ∅ 23:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. No Account 00:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. JuntungWu 06:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete this school. -- DS1953 21:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. AlbertR 02:57, 13 August 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Duveneck_School_%282nd_Nom.%29_2762.html"