Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Community Schools

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. – Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rochester Community Schools

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of imformation →Journalist >>talk<< 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ad --JAranda | yeah 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. I presume the schools are categorized somehow or other, and that's plenty. -Splash^talk 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Yellowikis, which is a repository of precisely this sort of information (addresses and phone numbers). Andrew pmk | Talk 03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or better still split into separate stubs for each school and allow for organic growth. Kappa 03:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's a first! I'm voting keep on a school-related article! Lousy as this article is, I'd much rather have an article on a school district than each clone school therein. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It was the deletionists who called for school district articles in the first place, and now this one is up for deletion! Obviously this needs cleanup not deletion, and I have marked it as such which didn't take as long as must have been spent nominating it for deletion. CalJW 06:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable. 129.10.244.240 17:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if someone wants to restart it with some real info that would be a fine, but just addresses and phone numbers are not encylopedic. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now, hopefully it will be expanded with maps showing the district and links to the schools will be wikified and completed. --ShaunMacPherson 07:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• KeepEvil Eye 08:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Yellow Wikis if our licenses are compatible (otherwise Delete). Wikipedia is not a repository of addresses. This is not a article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • They are not merely compatible. They are identical. Yellowikis is GFDL. Uncle G 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've transwikified this directory of names, addresses, and telephone numbers to Yellowikis, the Yellow Pages wiki. Please note that other editors have, since the nomination, removed the telephone numbers from the article. Uncle G 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know if an individual school is notable (usually not, I'd say), but I think a school district is. If there's enough information, there's perfectly good reason to let it have its own article. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and let the article evolve. Tag it for clean up. Articles tend to improve over time and we want to encourage participation by newcomers. Joaquin Murietta 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - for heaven's sake, do not arbitrarily create substubs for each school. This organization makes more sense when there isn't more than a paragraph of useful information about any of the parts. ESkog 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep echoing Wahoofive's point that one bad article about a school district is far preferable to a spate of bad articles about wholly inconsequential tubs of mortar. Dottore So 18:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per the idea that school district articles are acceptable compromises instead of having subsubsubstubs on every single elementary school on Earth. FCYTravis 18:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and grab the first person saying it can 'organically grow' and insist they organically add the numbers of students and age grades. Average Earthman 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hard to believe a list of schools has been nominated when this very sort of article is one of the compromise ideas put forward by those wishing to delete school articles. Agree with Kappa that the article should be split.--Nicodemus75 18:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It would only be "hard to believe" if →Journalist was one of those who support such a compromise. Does he? My guess would be he does not. David D. (Talk) 15:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please journalist why are you doing this it does not make any sense Yuckfoo 19:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only because it's preferrable to having a whole slew of articles on individual schools which contain no more information than is here. Denni☯ 01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although the individual school entries part (about 95% of the article) needs cleanup. I disagree with that the schools should be split out to form separate articles, preferably school stubs, if kept, should be merged into articles like this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you do the math, this is much more favorable than the alternative: 20+ worthless sub-stubs. [edit] 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Can be broken out as school articles are made. Silensor 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This will link up the school articles. --Vsion 23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 02:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just say no to school substubs!!!! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• comment It is a copyvio[1].Geni 14:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's just a list of addresses, not a creative work. Kappa 14:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

claimed © 2005 Rochester Community School. We tried the it's just a list of X, not a creative work aproach with the britanica articles list. The lawers consulted were not impressed. The problem is it isn't just a list there has been some slection involved.Geni 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What lawyers? Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Britannica articles are selected, but this is a complete list of the schools. Kappa 14:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is a complete list of schools that fufill a certain criteria. The data has then be organised in a certian way which has been coppied exactly.Geni 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• A certain obvious criterion of being in the district, not a judgement-related criteria of being the most important information to fit in a paper encyclopedia. I rearranged the data, I guess if you want I could add some random schools from other districts, LOL. Kappa 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Kappa flippant responses don't help here. It is a valid point. However, and sorry to harp on this topic again, but wikipedia could have a very good niche with respect to schools if these school district lists made some attempt to clarify hierarchy. In other words, which elementary schools feed into which middle schools into which high schools. Even on the school district official web pages this information is often missing (are hard to find). If wikipedia wants to do something very constructive with regard to schools this type of hierarchy would be excellent and non copy vio. While I'm at it, if these lists are not linked to the pages for the relevant communities and visa versa they are not that useful in wikipedia. The first clean up response on these school pages needs to be creating this type of context. Actually you did a very good job with this regard here. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 7 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.