Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Hollow School
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 delete. Haha, made you look. No consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Hollow School
Originally listed as {{prod}}, but tag deleted without reason. The only "improvement" was to add categories, stub tag. It is with a bit of a sigh that I nominate this, knowing the division out there about schools, but I do so only because the prod was removed without any reason or improving the article in any way. Schools are not inherently notable, and elementary schools even less so. Until there is an agreed policy on schools, each article ought to be considered on its own merits and in this case there appears to be none. No basis for notability, importance, or encyclopedic value are evident in this article. Agent 86 08:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This primary school is not notable. DarthVader 10:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Schools are never deleted, they are always notable. SomeStranger(t|c) 11:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, heavy sigh per nom. Schools are not inherently notable, nor does article even try to show notability. Tychocat 11:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete whether or not schools are notable - this article does nothing to assert notability. The school may be a 40 student, created last year one. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not appear to be a notable school, and contrary to the assertions of a certain organised group on Wikipedia... schools are not inherently notable, and there is no precendent for automatic 'keep' votes. Each case should be judged on its own merits. - Motor (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is a primary school for which unlike high schools no precedent has been established as of yet so judging this individual school on it's merits I would say it is NN. Ydam 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability. --InShaneee 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. As you were reluctant to nominate, you could have saved time by not doing so. Honbicot 18:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep usable stubs are cheap. Joeyramoney 19:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How the heck is a secondary school different from a primary school? The people that were last years primary scholars are this years secondary ones, so they serve the same people... Jcuk 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. And let it be said that those of us who were accused of using a strawman argument when we said a couple of years ago that if we allowed middle schools we soon would be allowing articles on elementary schools... were accused unjustly. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete/Speedy delete per my personal application of CSD A7 to all articles, no claim of notability. Morgan Wick 23:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for complete lack of asserted notability (I kinda like Wick's speedy deletion vote). Schools can be notable, but they are not inherently notable. This one, in particular, does not seem notable. -- Kicking222 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Just a stub at this point but these types of articles tend to develop over time. Alternatively, could be merged to Wayland, Massachusetts. I also disagree with the nom regarding the improvement of the article. Adding a cat + stub + link = improvement. Without the cat, the article would be difficult to find. In the future, the nom may want to consider adding stub + cats to articles along with prod/AfD templates. --JJay 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Alex S 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per well established precedent, found at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and well established precedent not to delete school-related articles. Silensor 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such policy and no such precedent. I've asked repeatedly to be pointed to the policy page that says this and nobody has done so. School AfDs are case by case. By all means present arguments for keeping individual schools, but do not cite nonexisting blanket decisions for all schools, because no such decisions have ever been made. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the policy page that says we keep all municipalties, regardless of size (note: there are pages that mention it, but not as policy per se)? Precedent comes from a collection of individual decisions, and doesn't have to be written in one spot. Following precedent allows us to attempt to be consistant. An article should not be deleted arbitrarily, when almost all similiar articles are kept, merely because of the "lottery" of who shows up at AFDs. Participants in each AFD should look at the general past practice. Deletion should be based on policy, guidelines, and precedent. This allows contributors to know, in advance, what they should, and should not create; thus avoiding wasted effort. --Rob 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Thus bringing us back to the beginning. An article ought not be kept arbitrarily because of "precedent". A list of what succeeded and failed in the past is no indication of the merits of this individual article. Until there is a policy in place, school articles need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, asking ourselves the question is it encyclopedic? Or are we simply building a directory? Agent 86 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's encyclopedic and yes it should be kept, obviously. We are building an encyclopedia. --JJay 00:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Thus bringing us back to the beginning. An article ought not be kept arbitrarily because of "precedent". A list of what succeeded and failed in the past is no indication of the merits of this individual article. Until there is a policy in place, school articles need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, asking ourselves the question is it encyclopedic? Or are we simply building a directory? Agent 86 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the policy page that says we keep all municipalties, regardless of size (note: there are pages that mention it, but not as policy per se)? Precedent comes from a collection of individual decisions, and doesn't have to be written in one spot. Following precedent allows us to attempt to be consistant. An article should not be deleted arbitrarily, when almost all similiar articles are kept, merely because of the "lottery" of who shows up at AFDs. Participants in each AFD should look at the general past practice. Deletion should be based on policy, guidelines, and precedent. This allows contributors to know, in advance, what they should, and should not create; thus avoiding wasted effort. --Rob 20:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such policy and no such precedent. I've asked repeatedly to be pointed to the policy page that says this and nobody has done so. School AfDs are case by case. By all means present arguments for keeping individual schools, but do not cite nonexisting blanket decisions for all schools, because no such decisions have ever been made. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep please for the millionth time these are encyclopedic and should be kept Yuckfoo 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no assert of notability. --WinHunter (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - nn school --Jaranda wat's sup 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable to people from Wayland, Massachusetts. bbx 11:54, 23 June 2006 (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.
