Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwinett County Public Schools

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: 14k, 2d, 1m. -Splash 03:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gwinett County Public Schools now moved to Gwinnett County Public Schools

Non-notability. Mandel 06:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I believe these lists are being created as a response to the attacks of deletionists on school articles. Are you going after them too now? CalJW 14:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No. It's just non-notable. Mandel 14:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the teeny weeny morsel of information there with Gwinnett County. Its daughter article Collins Hill High School, Suwanee should be deleted for non-notability. Dunc|☺ 14:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it needs expansion, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove it. Salsb 15:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think creating stubs are very irresponsible. If you can expand, why don't you do it in the first place? You'll save everyone at the VfD lots of trouble. You can always wait until you have enough information before you start a write-up. Mandel 16:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • You could save everyone the trouble by not nominating reasonable stubs for deletion. By now it should be obvious that school articles automatically survive VfD. Pburka 17:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • "By now it should be obvious that school articles automatically survive VfD." Comment. There obviously isn't any consensus with school articles - they must be dealt with case by case. So how is nominating a one-line stub article for deletion unreasonable? And no, I don't stick around VfD the whole day long like inclusionists. Mandel 17:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll explain it, and you won't find it inexplicable. Creating one-line stubs is irresponsible, given that stubs give little or no information about the subject itself and is much more liable to be deleted. Especially when the creator clearly can improve on it, is just pure lazy, and would need a nudge or two to do so. Some stubs stick around like ugly ducklings for years without anyone capable of doing anything to it. Not that one doesn't want to, we can't because schools are inherently local-based. Creators start them then abandons them, going on to create hundreds and thousands of stubs and sub-stubs. I would call that irresponsible. Mandel 17:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Additional comments. Changed everything I wrote from "stub" to "substub". A stub is defined as 3 to 10 sentences in Wikipedia:Stub. This (an original one-liner) doesn't even qualify. Mandel 18:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • "The location and name of a school district, the name of one of its schools, and the location of its website is perfectly adequate, giving as it does all the resources needed to expand the article." I find it very amusing indeed. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't you think "falsely claim" and "this were true" is something of an oxymoron? How can I "falsely claim" something that were true? Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • The phrase "even if this were true" extends the argument without negating it. Dystopos 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Please don't equivocate. Is it true or not that some stubs lie for years without anyone extending them? So how is this "claim" false? Mandel 21:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • I am not equivocating. On the contrary, I am clarifying, for you, the structure of the argument which you misread as an oxymoron. It is not oxymoronic. When someone says "Even if gas was free I'd still ride my bike" he or she is not denying the cost of gas, but expanding the argument to preclude debate about points that don't matter. In this case, Tony is saying that he doesn't believe your statement about stubs, but that particular disagreement has no bearing on his opinion in this vote, so convincing him about how long stubs lie around won't change his mind. I agree with Tony that the length of time a stub lies around is immaterial, so I don't really have an interest in researching your claim. Dystopos 22:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
            • If I misunderstand you, I apologize. But he accusing me of "falsely claiming" something is charging me with distorting a fact than an opinion. Mandel 22:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, I quote, "This usually means 3 to 10 short sentences." Read Wikipedia:stub and Wikipedia:Substub. If you didn't create this substub, I apologize, but there's no need to claim I created falsehood. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • • Anyone who can read Wikipedia:Stub can see that I did not misquote. I challenge anyone not to find that sentence in the article. Mandel 21:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • "falsely describe" and "even if it was" is an oxymoron. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • The phrase "even if it was" extends the argument without negating it. Dystopos 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm interested in whether or not the article was an original one-liner. If it was, how am I extending a falsehood? Kindly refrain from misunderstanding me. Mandel 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • I quote, again, from the Wikipedia:substub article, "Substubs are usually created by people just because they can, then they leave without looking back." I would call that "abandon". Of course Wikipedians have a responsibility towards what they write in the article; they are expected to provide accurate information and act in responsible manner without trolling etc. I agree with the word "rights", not the word "responsibilities". Please don't deliberately misunderstand me - I don't have time for that. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • If I may, I would like to call for apologies for claiming 1) I propagate falsehood; and 2) that I take some vendetta deletions against inclusionists. I find such "inclusionist" attitude irksome to the utmost. Get a grip, this is my first school deletion article in more than half a year. I also find it repugnant that I'm classed as a deletionist just because I put an original one-liner on for deletion. For goodness sake, please don't bring in political alliances into Wikipedia. I'm neither a "inclusionist" nor a "deletionist". Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are notable, school districts even more so. Pburka 16:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Oh good grief. — RJH 17:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful, expandable article that serves to complete series of U.S. school districts and to be a target for school-stubs. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete I see no evidence of notability or encyclopedic content in this or in most secondary school articles. DES 22:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • • Indeed. An institution with a budget of $1.2 billion, the largest employer in Gwinnett County, with over 23 000 employees, and responsible for the education of close to 150 000 children in 99 schools holds the interest of many a taxpayer in Gwinett County and the interest of the nation in improving the education of the 1 in 5 citizens of Gwinett County who are currently under their educational care. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Excruciatingly obvious keep. School VfD's are oh-so six months ago. —RaD Man (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are as noteworthy as any other comparably-sized business. --Carnildo 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A school district is a notable public institution, and this district is a large one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 'nuf said. DS1953 02:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, stubs on notable topics improve wikipedia's structure and encourage growth. Nomination appears to be a case of WP:POINT making. Kappa 11:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Providing stubs is more productive than nominating them for deletion. Stubs are useful, as several have pointed out. There is no issue of notability here. Dystopos 15:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
• keep please it is our policy to keep these school articles Yuckfoo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there really a policy to keep all school articles? If so, please direct me and other Wikipedians to it, lest we waste our precious time nominating such substubs. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a proposed policy for school articles which contains several rules of thumb which, while not official policy, have been derived from long discussion around which some consensus has formed. I believe that you will find the guidelines will at least encourage more productive uses of our precious time. Dystopos 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Please then post them somewhere where people know of them. At least one recently-made admin has been admonished, by school inclusionists, for a speedy delete. And then there's the "please don't bite newcomers rule". If there is really a change in Wikipedians' perception of school articles, why don't you simply solicit for a vote, then make it a de jure rule? School inclusionists have been known to sit around VfD waiting to snap, voting against any school articles, so I don't think it demonstrates that the community view at large has changed, rather, that "school inclusionists" simply made a more cohesive effort at obliterating school VfD. A much better idea will be to improve the standard of school articles.
      • And for goodness sake please don't bite people who vote against schools. This is getting disgustingly political. Mandel 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • And oh, it's clear from Schools#This_page_is_totally_unacceptable that the debate is far from close. Mandel 21:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:Schools (remainder of comment deleted by Dystopos) Mandel 17:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • See Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. (remainder of comment deleted by Dystopos) DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Let's all be civil and get on with business. Dystopos 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
              • As an outside party I should point out that WP:RPA is ideally (not always) undertaken both under consensus by the voters and by an outside party, or failing that someone from that person's side of the camp. This was not the case here. Myself, I might have paraphrased some of these comments (rather than completely deleting), but it's not like they're any bloodier than the other harsh words school Vfds seem to collect. As it is this unfortunate altercation seems to have driven poor Tony away (he's systematically deleted his comments). In future I strongly advise that you ask a random (and uninvolved) admin, or post on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) if you want a RPA carried out. Garrett^Talk 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• (comment deleted by Dystopos) Mandel 20:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A well-written, one-line article on every school on the planet would be a worthy goal. Mandel, please don't take it so personally. It's normal on Wikipedia for determined power blocs to get their way. I daresay you'll live to see the day that deletionists once more delete all schools for no good reason. Until then, try to stay cool and be happy. Grace Note 00:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep pending cruft reduction (read on), else Merge or Categorise. Please look at this old revision. THIS is what I want from the article. Yes. When a school has an article, add its name and a link to the list. If it doesn't, DON'T. A list of 100+ unlinked names is as pointless to the reader as listing the chapters in The Lord of the Rings, as it tells me nothing. Either link them, or write a stub beneath each, or remove them entirely. I can almost feel the Schoolwatch spittle on my neck as I write this... :) ...but it's not like I said delete--but wait, I did, I said remove the lists of indiscriminate names. I'm all for including stubs of notable schools, and for merging non-notable ones into lists together, but listing school names does not strike me as very useful to the reader; as it is they could easily overlook that one lonely link way in the middle of the page and think the page was devoid of links. Garrett^Talk 01:31, 31 July 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.