Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.P. Manson Public 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 a clear no consensus (as usual) -- Joolz 20:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K. P. Manson Public School

Ugly page. We don't want to encourage this kind of thing. Deletion is the answer. Paul 16:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Substub. Nothing but directions. Gamaliel 18:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yellow Pages entry. Pilatus 18:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — small, rural, non-notable middle school. — RJH 18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a requirement for inclusion, and never has been. Nonetheless, the school's involvement in the Canadian National Marsville Program and other robotic programs is interesting and worthy of note. Bahn Mi 19:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is most definitely necessary for inclusion and non-notability is absolutely a criteria for deletion. If it wasn't, my grandmother, my local gas station, my individual 2004 Buick Century, and my law office football team would all have articles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the notability of the topic goes a long way in determining whether or not it falls into that category. Soltak | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • On a similar note, if notability doesn't matter, I wonder why people went to the trouble of creating a list detailing what is and isn't notable. Soltak | Talk 21:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • notability is a sufficient but not a necessary criterion for inclusion. --Vsion 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Vsion has it right. Non-notability absolutely is not a criterion for deletion from Wikipedia, with the exception of articles about people. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into the town (when it exists) --TimPope 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable primary school. Never will be either Dunc|☺ 19:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC) (oh and here come the organised keep votes courtesy of Schoolcruftkeep, sorry I mean watch ...
• Keep I want to encourage this sort of thing, and it isn't a bad article. CalJW 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and encourage similar good articles which establish the distinctive nature of the school. Kappa 21:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Soltak's wonderfully worded views. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have heard it stated that there is a consensus that secondary schools are considered notable and primary schools not, unless there is some special notability about a particular school. This page clearly fails that test. Also, Bahn Mi's assertion that notability isn't a requirement for inclusion just gave me an aneurysm. Bunchofgrapes 22:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa and CalJW. Pburka 23:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, education is noble, schools are notable. --Vsion 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please we should encourage this it is notable too Yuckfoo 01:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Education is noble...so is good parenting...my parents have been very good to me, but I'm not about to make an article on them. And every school is "distinctive," including of course this one, but that isn't a reason to keep an article about it. I remember doing "Lego-Logo" in 6th grade, we made Lego robots do stuff using just our Mac IIe computers. We were standing athwart the future with that stuff. My high school had tons of "notable" stuff going on-Intel competition, "National Recognition" from the Education Department...we were like the mack daddies of Model UN. Would my high school deserve an article? Hell no. Delete this article. Paul 03:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good stub. 267 school article deletion debates have completed this year, but only 37 articles have been deleted as a result of deletion debates. With a deletion rate of less than 15%, it's pretty clear that the proposition that schools are not generally notable doesn't command a consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If an article survives the VfD process it means no more that that there was no consensus to delete it. Implying notability is a long stretch, considering there is a vocal minority whose opinion is that "notability is no criterion for inclusion". Also see your own statement further up. Pilatus 13:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well let me take you through it again, slowly:
    1. We don't delete stuff unless there is a consensus to delete.
    2. If there were a consensus that schools are generally not notable, it would follow that there would be a regular consensus to delete school articles, with a few exceptions that were considered notable.
    3. We look at the results--less than 15% of those listed for deletion have been deleted--and we see that this isn't the case.
  • My conclusion follows. There is evidently no consensus, at least not over the past eight months, that schools are not generally notable.
  • I readily agree there is also no consensus that failure to satisfy various ad hoc ideas of notability is a criterion for deletion, but I don't see how that helps your case. It simply deepens the degree of rejection of the futile project to remove schools from Wikipedia on the grounds of non-notability.
  • And I don't know whether you've considered this yet, but I think I should raise the matter: on any three recent days, more completely new school articles are created on Wikipedia, and are not speedy-deleted, than are listed for deletion or deleted as copyright violations in an average month.
  • On some days the figure is even higher. Today alone, in just a few hours I have recorded the creation of twenty-two school articles. Twenty-three school articles were listed for deletion during the whole of August, and only four of those were deleted. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is a sufficient criterion for keeping. Implying notability from the fact that an article is kept is faulty logic.
  • However, the articles on schools that appear here are not listed because of a lack of notability of the school, they are listed on their own merit (or rather lack of merit) because they typically contain nothing more than basic contact information. I really can't see why the fact that on a sunny day half a dozen such articles are created should prevent anyone from listing them here. There is no counterpart to the "Schoolwatch" project running the "futile project" of expunging school-stubs from Wikipedia, however I can see "Schoolwatch" promoting a degree of very unhealthy factionalism. Wikipedia isn't about fighting a war of attrition. Pilatus 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You say: "Implying notability from the fact that an article is kept is faulty logic." So it would be. Read what I say: "There is evidently no consensus, at least not over the past eight months, that schools are not generally notable."
  • So please address my point, not the point that you wish I had made instead.
  • Well it's your opinion that school articles aren't listed on account of non-notability. So let's look at the facts and see if they match. Looking at a randomly chosen lot of deletion listings from August:
    • Notability explicitly mentioned by nominator: Village Preschool of Saratoga, Duveneck School, Palo Alto Montessori School, Netivot Hatorah Day School, York Hill Elementary School, Court Moor School, Jesuit High School (Portland), Widdifield secondary school, North Olmsted High School, Butler school, King Middle School, Sacred Heart School, St. Catherine's School (Twickenham) Charlotte High School
    • Other:
      • Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois. Nominator said it was a duplicate of an item in a list at another article (!) Most delete voters mentioned notability.
      • Juanita High School. Invalid speedy, nominator made a formal nomination and voted keep. After the copyvio was fixed, delete voters still mentioned notability.
      • Gleneagle Secondary School. "Little possibility of growing beyond what it is now." Again most delete voters mentioned notability.
      • Elementary School. "Just another non-famous elementary school with 62 students." Sounds like notability to me.
      • Kew School. "This primary school no longer exists". Most delete voters cited non-notability.
      • Portland High School. "Article devoid of content" Actually this was one genuine case in which nobody mentioned notability.
  • You say "on a sunny day half a dozen such articles are created". This is simply false. Today it's 46, more like four dozen. If school articles did indeed pose a serious problem for Wikipedia, then pointlessly listing two dozen per month for deletion, and only getting three or four deleted, wouldn't be the way to solve it.
  • You say "I can see "Schoolwatch" promoting a degree of very unhealthy factionalism". I think we'll have to differ on that;Schoolwatch lists no school articles for deletion. But I agree completely that "Wikipedia isn't about fighting a war of attrition" which is why I ask all editors engaged in this savage and ultimately losing battle against school articles to consider ceasing it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I read "non-notable school" as shorthand for "article fails to make the case for itself". For proof, please compare statements here with statements at a Jews' Free School.
  • Consensus is not achieved by asking one party to drop their opinion. Pilatus 09:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, quit trying to get us to "drop [our] opinion" that all schools are inherently notable--Nicodemus75 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 06:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, totally non notable. Few Google hits. This has little or no chance of becoming anything useful. Also per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 08:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd say merge into the Severn Bridge, Ontario article, but that doesn't exist. BlankVerse ∅ 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, lack of notability is not listed as a valid reason for deletion (people excepted). The deletion policy says that non-notable stuff should be handled by merging it into another, broader, article. So, I've created Severn Bridge, Ontario and merged this stuff into it, so redirect to the above article. JYolkowski // talk 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - non-notable school--Nicodemus75 21:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What have we here? An obvious contradiction it appears. In the past, you've stated quite clearly your belief that schools are inherently notable, here, however, you state that this school is non-notable. It appears to me then that you don't actually have a valid philosophy, but are simply trying to make a WP:POINT. Soltak | Talk 21:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yawn. Anyone who is so obtuse as to not recognize the humor in my vote does not merit a further response.--Nicodemus75 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable, per Nicodemus. Jonathunder 22:50, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. See also my comments in similar VfD pages pleading with Nicodemus et al. to create a project with header flags linking to a proper project page where they explain their rationale (I assume they have one) for creating an article on every last primary school in the entire world. (Or so it seems.)---CH (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Through Tony Sidaway's home page I finally found an apparently defunct project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools. What I find weird is that this page entirely fails to explain up front the rationale for going to all the trouble of creating an article on every single school in the entire world. I can see that some of you are willing to do the work and care passionately, but what I don't understand is why you have (as far as I can see) not bothered to explain to everyone else what you are trying to do and why. It doesn't surprise me at all that puzzled readers continue to routinely nominate articles on nonnotable schools for deletion, and I can see that a band of devotees prevent many of these from passing. But why put us through the agony? Maybe if you try you can convince users like me that there is a point to all your hard work.---CH (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• • There is no project to create school articles, the idea is to allow them to develop. Kappa 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And notice we're back to the stupid "Cabal" accusations again. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out that CH couldn't have found a link to the schools WikiProject from my page because there is no link there. At best he found a link from some other page that I happened to link to. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. "Ugly page." "We don't want to encourage this kind of thing." "Deletion is the answer." Talk about biting the newbies; the nominator should be reprimanded. Or beaten with a large trout. —RaD Man (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Naturally, I meant it all in the nicest way possible, with no offense intended towards the person/persons involved in this page. However, deletion remains the answer. Especially if the question involves the phrase "article on a school." Paul 06:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Says nothing that would make it stand out from the tens of thousands of other primary schools in the world. Isomorphic 06:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable Cmadler 14:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Vote and comment: Delete per Isomorphic, Cmadler, Soltak, et al, for my usual reasons. And I have many times considered beating Rad Man and anyone else who acts like him in school debates over the head with a larger trout for always making such snide remarks about the nominators. I would also like to reiterate Pilatus's point that getting people on one side of an argument to shut up is not the way to achieve consensus. (Unless Wikipedia were Communism, in which case it would be.) I'll be watching this debate for a couple more days in case anyone wants/needs me to elaborate further. --Idont Havaname 19:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (I realize that part of my comment violates WP:CIVIL, so that section is now struck. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC))
  • Are you seriously suggesting that someone is trying to get deletionists to "shut up"? Oh for heaven's sake, I've handled some weird shit in the five months during which I've engaged in deletion debates, but the idea that the poor deletionists are being intimidated by the nasty inclusionists is frankly incredible. I've endured the most vile accusations for months without any complaint, but this one take the biscuit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • See my reply to Gateman below. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony is absolutely correct. The very idea that it is inclusionists who are the party ceaselessly trying to get the other side to "shut up" is simply beyond the pale. Deletionists chronically insist that inclusionists give up their position that all schools are notable (or variations thereof) in order to reach some deletionist-defined concensus (which does not and will not exist). AfD/VfD is and has been chronically abused by deletionists who nominate school stubs for deletion within days of creation, knowing full well that the article will be re-written, expanded and especially in the case of secondary schools, 99.9% likelihood that it will survive the AfD process. The real question in all of this, is why do deletionists continue to prosecute a war on school articles by nominating them in this way, and then insisting that those who vote to keep the school articles are those who are "not compromising" or "not concensus building"?--Nicodemus75 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've never nominated a school for deletion, nor do I vote delete on all schools. Please do not attack other editors. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please stop insisting one side or the other is being the "bad" party in the continuing debate. Both sides have tried shoving their view down the throats of the other side since this began and it has gotten us nowhere. Tony and I tried to find a middle ground... now I wish the rest of you would as well.Gateman1997 00:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Gateman. That's exactly what I was getting at. Telling people to quit nominating articles for deletion is no way of achieving consensus or anything of the sort. I've seen editors on both sides of the fence that have blatantly broken WP:CIVIL on multiple AfDs for schools; in my original vote, which I admit was not completely civil, I was rephrasing a previous voter's quite uncivil keep vote ("Talk about biting the newbies; the nominator should be reprimanded. Or beaten with a large trout."). I've since struck that part out of my vote to hopefully calm down the controversy. Conlangs and webcomics have had relatively recent polls regarding the inclusion of articles on those topics, and now a good consensus on those has been hammered out by means of polling. Why shouldn't we do that for schools as well? --Idont Havaname 20:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this fine stub article. It improves the value of Wikipedia for future researchers by it's inclusion. Not only that, it'd be a great entry point for students of this school to join Wikipedia, and I'm sure they'd add useful information. Unfocused 02:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep school stub and give it time to grow. Mindmatrix 19:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. WMMartin 21:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this fine stub. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you think an article is ugly then be bold and make the changes you feel necessary. Silensor 21:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All verifiable permanent public institutions are notable by definition. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep improving Wikipedia with articles like this. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Page not ugly; it is a stretch to call a school non-notable: next thing you know we will have non-notable cities and non-notable provinces, countries, regions, ... --Mysidia (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There already is a consensus on cities. See User talk:Rambot/Delete for a discussion of American cities; this also applies to cities in other countries so that we're not too Americentric around here. --Idont Havaname 14:16, 19 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.