Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokomis Regional High 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 KEEP. -Doc (?) 17:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nokomis Regional High School

Read this before issuing the usual carte blanche opinion about schools please. Anyway, this is a one-liner about a school that should not be here - its not notable and clearly no different from any other school out there. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete or Merge. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for regurgitating Denni's previously regurgitated, sorry, tired, deletionist arguments that clearly no one (except your own choir) cares about anyway. --Nicodemus75 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Come, come, be civil. I could replace User:Denni with User:Kappa, and "deletionist" with "inclusionist", and the argument wouldn't look at all out of place. :) --inks^T 00:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem, inks. Nicodemus hasn't been civil since s/he arrived - why should things be different now? Denni☯ 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Pot. Kettle. Black.--Nicodemus75 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • And what would you propose to change this circumstance? I am a fine and decent human being when people don't deliberately set out to push my buttons. I also respond well to civilized invitations to discussion (which is more than 'Schools are inherently notable. The end,') but less well to browbeating and frothing at the mouth. I'll make you a deal - I'll put down my gun if you put down yours. Denni☯ 00:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
          • This is a good start.
            Things get past a good start and start actually getting better on AFD when everyone is a fine and decent person even when they feel that people are deliberately setting out to push their buttons. Someone needs to set their gun down first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
          • No Guns in Schools, please. --Vsion 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I agree with Denni. You, Kappa and a couple others have been rather anti-discussion on these. There are some, such as Xoloz, who are willing to discuss it in a civil manner, but going around accusing people of bad faith, WP:POINT, and factionalizing them is rather disappointing to AfD as a whole. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • anti discussion is my experience too. i happened to vote delete on a few one liners and low and behold you are labelled a deletionist. Even if you try and be constructive their ear plugs are firmly stuck in place. This is less about putting down guns and more about being communicative. David D. (Talk) 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• I would say merge, except there's nothing here. Mention the town in the Newport (town), Maine article. And for crying out loud, please don't say 'expand' unless you're actually going to do it decently and substantially, otherwise we're better off having any info in the town article. Average Earthman 08:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you suggest merging or deleting schools, but you skip right past the AFD for an album which only sold 32 copies. But it's getting all-keep in it's AFD. Why not suggest merging the album into the band article? There are lots of things less signficant than schools, that are kept on wikipedia, without a fight. I know that "non-notability" isn't the real reason for most delete votes on schools, since many less notable things are safe from deletion. --rob 08:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Because I felt like it. You are not required to vote on every single AfD article, and neither am I. And why are you going on about delete votes, I didn't vote delete, I voted merge. Average Earthman 13:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • We are voting here based on the encyclopedic nature of this article and its non-notability. As for the album, supposively its by a band thats notable. However, the argument is simply not valid because nothing is inheritly notable - that's why we're here. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It's relevent because the band (community) is notable enough to warrant an article. Those with a deep interest in the band (community) wish to delve into the subject by reading about individual albums (schools). They feel that the album (school) is an inherent component of the band (community). Information on every album (school) would clogg up the larger article about the band (community). Plus not all those reading about the band (community) care about every album (school). But the dozens (hundreds or thousands) of people who bought the album (graduated the school) would have great interest in the album (school). Therefore the notability of the band (community) means that every album (school) should also be kept. --rob 10:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • That's kind of a fractured analogy. If every album ever published got an article, it might be apt, but they don't. The inclusionists want every school to have an article though, no matter how insignificant and ordinary. As it stands now, some album articles get kept, others get deleted. You can't say that about school articles. Denni☯ 04:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - expand. --rob 08:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, just a question - why do you think this particular school is notable? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more nn schoolcruft. Dottore So 11:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Enough WPians (and I am not one of them) are convinced schools are inherently notable, and they have reasonable arguments supporting their position. Let them have their articles. Xoloz 12:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your cut n' pasted wisdom :) - mind telling me whats so good about this one? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I can cut-and-paste the same argument (I won't insult anybody by calling "wisdom") that I used to reply to your last nearly-rhetorical, semi-sarcastic inquiry. These things get nominated wholesale, I comment wholesale, although I am thinking of putting my rationale on my user page someday. However, I do have a day job. :) Xoloz 13:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Ask and ye shall receive... below I quote from our other exchange:

**And those reasonable arguments would be? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • See #Keep, but briefly, as I understand the arguments, schools are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their formative years. They are generally fixed in location, and often have long histories. They are likely each to attract substantial communities of interest to WP. I don't firmly agree with these points, but I see some value. My high school, for example, was founded in 1970, with an average class size of 1,000 people. It serves a city of 70,000, each citizen likely to know it. It is known across the entire US state, and well-known by adjacent towns, such that I estimate at least 350,000 people know of it and have reason to search for it. In my state, my school is (or was) average (ie. I looked up class size and campus size when enrolled there, and it was in the middle.) 350,000 potential searchers is good enough, arguably. Xoloz 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I do firmly believe, however, that these arguments absolutely distinguish schools from boxes, gyms, bars, factories, and all the other general categories to which the are compared by some here. Generally, most students have at least some interest in their school (if only because they are stuck there in young life when they would rather be outside), and I know most parents have an interest in their children's school. The aggregate community attachment to these places, in my experience, far exceeds community concern for other "buildings," as schools are called here in dimunition by some. Xoloz 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Xoloz 13:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • • It was sarcastic a bit but it was certainly not an insult (far from it). The whole point of it is a criticism of your and other arguments that are arguments about the type of article it is rather then the article itself. I apoligize if you were offended though :). Again, the above arguments are about the type of article it is, rather then the article itself, which I do not believe is a valid argument for keeping a specific article :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's true that this is an argument by type. However, for school-supporters, schools are like real towns (which have become notable ipso facto based on an argument by type.) I know that this is controversial, and I don't even know whether or not I agree with it. However, it is, in my view, a reasonable argument to make, and I am slightly frustrated with school-opponents, who I do feel sometimes unduly belittle these arguments from others.

The reason I will always vote keep for any real high school is that I recognize at least ~30% of our committed editors enjoy these articles, and embrace a reasonable position to explain their notability. In such a circumstance, with WP operating as a consensus forum, I believe any attempt to delete real high schools is less than useful. It doesn't mean anyone is wrong to so nominate; it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong either. But, in a consensus forum, when a static position of "Let's-agree-to-disagree" is reached, the default is (and should be) to keep. I believe we have reached such a stasis, and I will continue to vote, by type, a default keep on real high schools as a method of conveying my belief in this stasis and the relatively low utility of further dispute. Xoloz 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that those arguments could be applied to any local fast-food place for example - and those kind of articles get purged here easily. Having seperate school articles is a lot like having a seperate article for each mcdonalds outlet - sure a lot of people have worked there - maybe even shaped their lives, so to speak - they have served thousands of people, I'm sure. It sure isn't encyclopedic though, much like most of these school articles. As I've said before there are hundreds of these substubs - all the same, just citing the year and principal of the school - nothing worthwhile about most of them. No parent is going to go here for school information because it will at the very least always be outdated and inaccurate, especially now due to the proliferation of these substubs. More morbidly, if you were to make an article about a teacher at one of these schools it would get speedied quite quickly. Deleting a school is good because it encourages someone to write a better article - as if someone was really to rewrite this they would not use any of the current content most likely. Finally, I can almost garuntee you no one "enjoys" articles like this because there is no real information here - plus its just a line... a line :). Giving an opinion of a carte blanche keep based on type of these kind of articles is doing much more harm than good because its discouraging useful debate (heated as it may be), giving people the OK sign to write substubs of just about anything with no real information, and in general encourages article creation without any real encyclopedic content. Of course, I could be wrong on all this :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If one could get ~30%+ of committed WPians (after extended debate like we've had on schools for a long time) to agree in general that every McD's is notable, or that Xoloz' nosehair is notable, it would be worthy of inclusion here under my argument (notwithstanding even my own assessment of my nosehair as useless). WPians decide what belongs in WP, and the system exists with a (admirable, IMO) bias that anything with substantial support stays. That is a consequence of the non-majoritarian nature of the process. It is also a geneal guideline not to delete, but to expand when an article on a noteworthy topic is poorly written. I see no reason this guideline is inapplicable to schools, although they be numerous. And lastly, it is, in my view, unknown whether a poor stub or a blank page is more like to motivate a visitor to write a quality article. Some less experienced WPians simply have a "page-creation phobia," but are not afraid to cleanup and expand; I know I was once one of these newbies. :) Xoloz 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but is it verifiable? We would need proof of this alleged nose hair, and we cannot allow you to take a photo of it yourself as that is original research! :) Garrett^Talk 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if you go over and take a picture of said alleged nosehair, then it's fine! *headdesk* (and Delete). nae'blis _(talk) 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, expand not delete. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Expand it then. You have the link to the website. If you feel this can be expanded usefully, then please do so rather than just saying it would be nice if it was. If you add useful info and it is still merged - well, the useful info will be merged with it. Average Earthman 13:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You expand it. I think it's fine as is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Newport, Maine, in the current substubby state of the article, this amounts to giving it a mention and making a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. If a section about the school begins to overpower the new parent page, why we'll let it split out again. Until then a click through to a single line article is a waste of all our visitors' time. But really, gosh, not this crap again. I've been partly staying away from Vfds Afds because of this annoying bickering. Please discuss THIS ARTICLE, not schools' worthiness!!! I have no time to move it myself, but please shift all this crap to this lonely-looking redlink where you can yell at each other until the sun turns into a hunk of coal. Thank you, and goodnight! Garrett^Talk 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey there, nobody yelled, and it was a pleasant enough debate, albeit on an old topic. AfD's are a place for discussion after all, not just vote tallying. And, thanks to the beauty of wikis, today's one line is tomorrow's FAC. :) Xoloz 18:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete public schools. Gazpacho 16:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this is an inherently notable public high school. Additional rational for why this article can and should be included is provided at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is no indication that this particular school is in fact notable. DES ^(talk) 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable.Dudtz 10/7/05 2:58 PM EST

• keep please this school is notable too but it is strange how an album selling 33 copies is and people think this is not but really both are Yuckfoo 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge Another High School Stub --JAranda | yeah 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because it's an okay stub, but with a Comment: if you think that a certain utterly unrelated record album is NN, why not start an AfD for it directly, rather than confusing the issue here? Steve Summit (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable? For what, existing? Oh, wait, schools are inherently notable, just like I am inherently unique.--inks^T 21:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Any school has the potential to become notable, for one reason or another. The school is iconic of the small American town, and even an attempt at a comprehensive list is well worthy of the minimalist amount of space it would take up. Makenji-san 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Potential to become notable doesn't qualify, something has to be notable now to warrant an article. The question I have is where is the minimalist space best filled - by a separate article, which requires time to load and repetition of format and information, or within the article on the community which the school serves? Average Earthman 13:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , but get rid of that article on the album which sold 33 copies first. Denni☯ 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This constant bickering over school articles is pointless. There is clearly a bloc of Wikipedia contributors who feel that school articles should not be deleted, and this bloc clearly has the votes to stop deletions from happening. Constantly nominating school articles in the vain hope that apathy will set in and you'll manage to sneak one or two articles past this bloc is simply unproductive. Justin Bacon 01:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Keeping Wikipedia free of non-notable articles is a very productive activity. In contrast, voting keep for every little school stub, just because it's a school, is not productive at all.--inks^T 02:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm sure that your short statement has convinced the entire Wikipedia community of the virtue of your position. From this day forward, I suspect that no school article shall go undeleted, due to the poignant and insightful argument you have presented. Justin Bacon 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No need to get all sarcastic on me simply because you are overwhelmed by the incredible work of breathtaking genious (sp?) that is my two line response to your misguided understanding of why some school articles are nominated for deletion. How about you discuss the issue instead? :) --inks^T 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, school articles will be expanded eventually. --Vsion 04:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not the appropriate page to discuss whats in and whats out. Don't you ppl think the AfDs are getting long enough as it is? Continually nominating schools is just trying to make a point, and really unhelpful. As is continually rehashing rehashed and archived arguments. Especially here in AfD. Please stop. </soapbox> Eaglizard 11:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep High Schools — RJH 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article could have been written by bot. No claim of notability, and I don't agree that "It's a high school" is a claim of notability unto itself. I'd vote Keep a million times if it could get rid of the needless acrimony these AFDs engender, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this clearly notable high school. 85% not deleted in a year equals concensus. Don't nominate articles that will clearly survive the AfD process just to make your point--Nicodemus75 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the lion's share of those articles are kept due to a lack of consensus on Wikipedia, and doesn't include school articles merged without resorting to AFD. (Indeed, I think it counts "Merge" results as keep, as well.) It's not fair to say that there's a firm consensus on what to do with school articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the lion's share of school articles nominated for AfD on the basis of being "non-notable" are not deleted. I could care less that you think the process is anaemic because it doesn't achieve the result you like. Schools don't get deleted on WP on the basis of their being "non-notable". It might not be policy, but it is a fact.--Nicodemus75 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Gamaliel 18:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for clean-up. School articles are accepted per now-established precedent. Dystopos 04:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What precedent? This is getting kind of silly :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Per the precedent of every other High School article I've seen put up for deletion. Dystopos 05:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You mean the ones that all go to no consensus closings? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • If there is routinely no consensus to delete, then there's a precedent to keep. In any event, almost all High Schools I've seen on AfD (and I'm using my own recollection here) have been overwhelmingly kept, often with several "speedy keep" votes and a plea to stop nominating schools until a policy emerges from Wikipedia:Schools. If you don't concede that a precedent exists, then just keep my vote "per the usual reasons". Dystopos 13:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep high schools. -- DS1953 04:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please attempt to discuss the issue in a civilized forum instead of making your POINT by nominating for Afd. Kappa 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Nomination does not conform with deletion criteria. Keep. --Centauri 08:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing in the wikipedia entry for this school to indicate to why it should be kept. there are millions of schools in the world. should wikipedia catalog each one? Bwithh 00:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see why not, if a neutral, factual and verifiable article can be written. Trollderella 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And there in a nutshell is the problem. While these articles may be neutral, and they may contain verifiable information, they are pretty much lacking in facts. Sadly, most of these articles will probably never contain more than a probably fairly soon out-of-date principal's name, and the school colors. Anyone coming to the article for some actual information about the school is likely to go away sorely dissatisfied. Denni☯ 04:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would venture to say that this is a problem that can be corrected by contribution more effectively than by deletion. Dystopos 04:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are no facts to add to this (or many other) school articles. Some generic statistics, possible, but no facts. One cannot contribute what doesn't exist. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• keep appears to be a school. Trollderella 00:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be Yet Another Schoolbot Article about Yet Another Indistinguishable School. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 12 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.