Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Anne School (Seattle, Washington)

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 NO CONSENSUS. Shockingly. Amazingly. Unusually. -Splash^talk 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Anne School (Seattle, Washington)

Delete as this does not appear to be encyclopedic material. [edit] 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no notable alumni / no notable discoveries / no notable events / not gonna get deleted anyway - Hahnchen 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable middle school. Pburka 01:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Yellow Pages. Pilatus 01:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools - it verifiably exists. Dlyons493 Talk 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since it does exist and we keep other school articles. --Rschen7754 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What other equally notable schools have been kept? Why not just merge this stub to a broader article detailing education in Seattle, WA? [edit] 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school even though its going to be kept --JAranda | yeah 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's wonderful reasoning. You think an article should be deleted even though you know there won't be consensus! Perhaps you should give having a look at the policy a go? Grace Note 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised that you advise looking at policy while insulting someone. I would think that you would be better off doing one or the other. --Blackcap | talk 06:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Just because he knows his vote not add to the consensus doesn't mean he's not allowed to mention it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you speaking to me or Grace? I don't see how your comment applies to me, but that's who it looks like you're talking to. --Blackcap | talk 16:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This line of reasoning is rather like saying that voting for third parties that have very little hope of winning elections is pointless. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No it's more of a part of the systematic attempt by the schoolcruft gang to indimidate anyone who disagrees with their patently ridiculous views. Dunc|☺ 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It is probabably a good idea to stop promoting the idea that because a large number of editors disagree with you on this subject they must all be involved in a grand conspiracy - lest people conclude that it is you who are the one holding "patently ridiculous views".--Centauri 08:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this is an educational institution which is important to the community it serves. Additional reasons for including this article may be read at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Which only proves we can have an article on Education in Seattle. Just because education is noteworthy doesn't mean a school automatically is too. Merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All schools are important to the community they serve. Inclusion in an encyclopedia suggests something of universal public noteworthiness; elsewise WP would engulf the whole internet. To include it in a ONE-PAGE list of ALL schools in Seattle, on the other hand, would probably be quite useful. Twang
• Keep. Usual reasons. Grace Note 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good substantial stub, no contest. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concise and completely adequate coverage of the topic. Inclusion in wikipedia should be determined by the kind of things people would reasonably hope to find in it. Kappa 07:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Even at this short length it is rambling and padded - "Here is a quote from the St. Anne home page" it says. Better off merging into a wider overview of such schools - possibly to a new Catholic schools in Seattle rather than the Education in Seattle table. Don't waste the time of people reading the pages - all we need from the current article is name, founding date, age range taught and number of students, and you can do that in a table with the rest of the Catholic schools in Seattle (since there are four catholic high schools, I'd assume there are a number of catholic primary schools). The rest is waffle. Average Earthman 09:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The quote is not waffle, it is essential to an NPOV article to represent the school's POV of itself. Kappa 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please do not nominate any more schools. It is a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 09:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, local grocery shops are more important to their community than schools. Can't go to school if you're dead of starvation. Just because something is provided as a public service and involves children or something equally cute doesn't mean it's more important than any local business, or the public gasworks for that matter. Oh lord, forgive us our cruft, as we forgive those who cruft against us, and lead us not into inclusionism, but deliver us from American high schools and garage bands... --Last Malthusian 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please do not merge this the school is from 1923 so it can expand Yuckfoo 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A perfectly good start to an article on this inherently notable school.--Nicodemus75 19:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete primary schools are not deserving of articles in an encyclopedia. Dunc|☺ 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a worthwhile article on a unique school. Do not merge, since it would mean people who do want to find it, won't be able to, while people neither looking nor interested in the specific school will see it mixed in with stuff they are interested in. Those not interested in this article should ignore it, and worry about creating and improving articles they are interested in. --rob 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hahnchen. Marskell 20:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No particualr indication of notability, and this is a primary school, which means I would require rather exceptional notability. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™ 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article about a real school that does not assert that school's importance or significance. Denni☯ 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Why are we still nominating schools for deletion? --Centauri 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. With every single one of the articles listed in the September 21 mass-nomination of elementary and middle school articles now closed as a no consensus keep, the success rate of school deletion listings has dropped from its previous low of 13% earlier in September to 11% now. And from now on nobody on Wikipedia will regard elementary school deletions as a pushover. So far for September, one school article has been deleted for 49 kept. The deleted article was a hoax. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it may almost be time to re-open a wide-ranging debate about Policy. Given the survival of almost all schools at the AfD process, the chronic nomination of schools (particularly mass-nominations) is steering very close to disruptive behavior, going forward. I think the question needs to be put to those that do not believe schools to be notable institutions in their own right, how many elementary schools have to survive the AfD process in order to establish a "rough concensus" that school articles (and stubs) should not be deleted? I'm not merely asking this rhetorically, but how many AfD votes that do not result in article deletion are necessary to establish "rough concensus" to "not delete" (as opposed to a concensus to "keep")? An honest and open debate on that question will soon need to begin, in order to end the abuse of AfD with multi and mass-nominations of school stub articles that will doubtless survive the AfD process. The issue is not whether schools should be debated on "their own merits" but whether or not "elementary schools are non-notable" is a legitimate reason to nominate an article (or 21 of them in one day) for AfD. If a policy can established on that question, then we could actually debate each school on it's merits as an article.--Nicodemus75 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "elementary schools are non-notable" is not a valid reason to put one on AfD, but "this elementary schools is non-notable" is a good reason. However, it's impossible to actually do this at the moment, because of the large "schools are notable by definition" movement. It is clear that the continuing nominations of NN schools for AfD indicate a sizable minority of Wikipedians disagree with the premise that schools are inherently notable. A middle ground is required - as has already been suggested, a page with a table of schools in a particular district (and other misc. info like roll size, founding date, etc.), and any notable schools can be linked to from their entry on that table.--inks 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's that simple. Vegaswikian 06:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Also simple. Why people wage a useless war to fight something wanted by a large portion of the community still baffles me. I don't like or dislike school articles, but I see reasonably that enough folks do such that they will always live. Xoloz 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I thought schools were not to be deleted any more, it wastes time. Let us vote on an offical policy to have schools not be deleted just for being a school article, I'm sure that policy will pass if someone puts it to a vote ;). --ShaunMacPherson 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per User:Twang. This topic is in grave danger of becoming "Keep articles on schools, because we always do, it's tradition", if we just fast forward a few years :) --inks 08:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In grave danger? This has already happened, even if some haven't caught on yet. Because WP embraces consensus (and keeps by default unless ~70% favor deletion), and because enough committed editors care about these articles (claiming schools are public institutions, and ipso facto, notable), these articles will almost always stay. NB: I don't care, really; I don't know whether I think schools are notable, but I understand that enough people do such that a decision has effectively already been taken. Soon enough, indifferent editors like me will understand the same, and this rough keep consensus will become policy. Xoloz 08:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The problems with a broad "keep articles on schools" policy is the inevitable extension to encompass primary schools, kindergardens, creches, technical schools, military schools, vocational colleges, language schools, art schools, schools for the gifted (and not so gifted) and other innumerable variations of organised education. I would personally prefer each article to be debated on its own merits, which happens for just about everything else. A quick look at the comments on this page suggests that I'm not alone here (although I am outnumbered) :)--inks 09:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the fear of extension to kindergartens and language schools is exaggerated. I don't see why you want to debate every single article on wikipedia "on its merits", there are far too many new articles to do that. Kappa 12:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Over the past year the argument has shifted from just keeping all secondary schools, to now keeping primary schools as well- I fail to see why this trend will not continue. The problem with school article votes is that there a lot of people who believe schools are always notable simply for being a school. A minority of the people who bother voting on these articles believe that school articles should demonstrate notability in the same way bands, websites, etc have to (i.e. they should be more notable than the average). This is yet another average school, so delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --G Rutter 20:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I think your belief that there are a lot of people who think kindergartens are always notable for being kindergartens is mistaken. Kappa 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, we now have a majority who think elementary schools are always notable for being elementary schools. Perhaps kindergardens might be a bit of a stretch, but the point regarding "definition creep" is still valid. We debate every other AfD entry on merit, it seems odd to exclude schools from this process.--inks 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
              • We don't debate villages, or universities, or metro stations, or major league baseball players, or pokemons, or Simpons episodes, or battleships... Kappa 00:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Perhaps we should. I Agree to disagree, and appreciate your comments :) --inks 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Kappa, you have not been here long enough to remember when even high schools had to meet notability criteria. At that time, those who expressed concerns that elementary schools would be next on the list if high schools were granted automatic right-to-exist status were pooh-poohed. Look, however, at the last spate of AfD nominations, and the comments made by users such as yourself. I will not be surprised at all when arguments begin to be made for the automatic inclusion of kindergartens and daycares, on the sole ground that they are "inherently notable". This is what I fight. I have no objection whatever to articles on genuinely notable schools. I would have no objection to an article on a genuinely notable daycare or kindergarten either. At the same time, I oppose the blanket inclusion of any public institution. And yes, if I had my druthers, battleships, Simpsons episodes, and baseball playeres would all have to meet entry criteria as well. It is, however, a disingenuous argument that just because they are currently immune from AfD, so too should something else be. (Oh, and trust me, pokemon characters are not all sacrosanct. I've happily seen a few go into the furnace recently.) Denni☯ 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
                • • • • I feel motivated to speak in Kappa's defense here. Kate's tool says he has been here since Sept. 2004, and that you've only been here eight months longer, Denni. No offense, but I do believe it's natural and expected for consensus to evolve, and I think its a bit irrelevant to refer to an older state of affairs that apparently existed 21 months ago, but had dissolved as early as 13 months ago, as if it were of precedential value. On a related note, it seems to me that the "rump" of opposition that continues to fight high schools only serves to promote other schools. Those who oppose schools rarely make any distinction among grade-levels, so why should their adversaries. Xoloz 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
                        • Thanks, but I think Kappa is perfectly capable of speaking in his own defense if he chooses to. Denni☯ 01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                      • Thanks Xolox well put. As I said, I think the fears of people claiming daycares to be "inherently notable" are exaggerated, but the most likely way to create such people is by continually attacking educational institutions as non-notable. The idea that consensus should be torn up on baseball players, Simpsons episodes etc, seems an incredibly retrograde step, exposing every editor who would try to improve such articles to a semi-random threat of deletion. Kappa 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                        • Uh....so you mean to say that if we keep saying X is non-Notable, people will tend to think the opposite??--inks^T 03:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                          • If you keep saying "non-notable, delete" about things that people think should be kept, it will reduce the amount of notability they demand from any topic. Kappa 04:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                            • If you keep saying "notable, keep" about things that people think should be deleted, it will increase the amount of notability they demand from any topic. Nobody wins, and Wikipedia loses. I think consensus is transient and relative to a particular article - to try and extend it to a class of articles results in the current problem. Not all schools (or Pokemon) are created equal.--inks^T 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                              • You could call it "transient" and "relative" but to me it seems a lot like "inconsistent" and "arbitrary". Kappa 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                                • If you agree that consensus is "inconsistent" and "arbitrary", how can you then state that there exists consensus on school articles?? *confused*--inks^T 01:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
                                  • Consensus on a class of articles is more consistent and less arbitrary than semi-random decisions on each one. However, I certainly don't claim consensus exists on schools, the deletionists reject all attempts to build it. Kappa 10:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Dottore So 20:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV information of a school. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a worthwhile mental exercise when considering AfDs relating to institutions is to imagine the subject as a person. In this case, we would have "St Anne's School is a teacher who lives in Seattle. She is five foot four, has brown hair and blue eyes (this is the equivalent of the data on the school's ethnic makeup). She thinks she's a very good teacher." Would that be notable? The fact that the school is a few thousand times bigger than a person makes no odds - zero notability multiplied by a thousand equals zero notability. --Last Malthusian 13:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • that is your opinion lm but not one that really holds up because schools are not humans it is kind of like comparing a can of apple sauce and an apple sauce factory Yuckfoo 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not so much trying to argue notability or lack of, but suggesting a different approach: the question of whether these articles contain any encyclopaedic information. Ethnicity data for a school or an American county may look impressive, but without some kind of "value-added" it's no more useful than someone's eye colour. And my other argument stands: if an entity consists of several thousand people, it means nothing if they're all non-notable. --Last Malthusian 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm concerned ethnicity data for an American country or a school adds a great deal of value. It tells me a lot more about a person or community than eye color does. Kappa 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Why? It's raw data, with absolutely no value. "The high proportion of Hispanics in this school/county has created ethnic tension" or "His blue eyes secured him the role of Inspector Knacker in Crime Drama X" are useful information, but this is completely absent in this case. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Last Malthusian 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I feel I know a person better if I know their ethnic background, and the same for a school or a county. If it was a university in Kazakhstan, wouldn't you like to know what proportion of students were Kazakhs and what proportion were Russian? Kappa 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • you are allowed your own opinion it is just that not everyone agrees with what you on what is or is not notable that is all Yuckfoo 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • People disagreeing with my opinion? On an AfD page? My God, I'd better leave before I permanently damage my health. --Last Malthusian 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • your sarcasm is so heavy I had to use a towel...  ALKIVAR™ 11:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm tired of retyping the same justification for worthless articles being deleted.Gateman1997 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, doesn't assert any notability.  Grue  16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is about a school, not a person, so CSD A7: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" cannot apply.--Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 21:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 21:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge do not keep this non-notable school as is. Reads like an ad too. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As a public service, I make it Delete - 16, Keep - 18, and Merge - 4 as of this line :)--inks^T 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Looks like no chance of deletion, so our efforts are rewarded. Kappa 10:30, 6 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.