Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilmington Friends 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wilmington Friends School
In the past two months that this article has been live, no one has felt the need to expand to it at all. I am a student in Delaware and, imo, it is not noteworthy for Wikipedia (especially because there is no content). Perhaps someone would like to provide content for the article, but until that time I recommend that an admin delete. --R6MaY89 19:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a historic school, in fact the oldest school in Delaware established in 1748. [1]. How could it not be noteworthy for Wikipedia? Nom should have just added some info to article. -- JJay 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep very historic and unique school. Normally (at least lately due to WP:SCH) I would say merge something this short. But this a very unique institution which warrants its own article, and substantial expansion of the article. I'm thinking a couple centuries of history will provide ample material for expansion. According to Deletion policy nominations should not be used to deal with articles needing expansion. --Rob 22:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think that if someone is willing to make it into an informative article, it deserves to stay. But as long as it only contains 2 lines of content (year of origination and link to official site) it should not have an encyclopedia entry. If it is in fact the oldest school in Delaware, the article should mention it! As it is, there is no content. BTW, yes, I am the one who started the AfD.--R6MaY89 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view. I myself have suggested that we should make it policy to remove one/two-line sub-stubs (until they're properly written). However, current deletion policy makes clear, that "A stub (but with potential)" and "Article needs a lot of improvement" are not valid reason for nominating an article for deletion, and instead it is to be tagged for improvement. The policy may need to be changed, but an AFD is not the place to change policy. --Rob 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The irony is that because WP:Cleanup is so hopelessly backlogged, the best way to get attention to a borderline article that needs dramatic improvement... is to list it on Articles for deletion. Now the article gets dozens if not hundreds of eyeballs on a highly trafficked part of Wikipedia. Stick a cleanup tag on it and... it'll sit there, waiting. FCYTravis 07:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, this is really a problem. In my dream world we would take substubs and move them out of article space promptly. Maybe they could go to the new Wikipedia:Articles for creation, so people could still see it, and make an real article out of it if they wish. The problem with using AFDs is we're writing many times more text in the AFD, then the article has. It's an absurdly ineffecient system (so many people, writing so much, about how to deal with so little). But, letting things sit in clean-up categories (as you said) isn't working either. A third way is needed, but I don't see much support for it. --Rob 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- The irony is that because WP:Cleanup is so hopelessly backlogged, the best way to get attention to a borderline article that needs dramatic improvement... is to list it on Articles for deletion. Now the article gets dozens if not hundreds of eyeballs on a highly trafficked part of Wikipedia. Stick a cleanup tag on it and... it'll sit there, waiting. FCYTravis 07:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view. I myself have suggested that we should make it policy to remove one/two-line sub-stubs (until they're properly written). However, current deletion policy makes clear, that "A stub (but with potential)" and "Article needs a lot of improvement" are not valid reason for nominating an article for deletion, and instead it is to be tagged for improvement. The policy may need to be changed, but an AFD is not the place to change policy. --Rob 02:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and further expand. I have added more about the history of the school and more could be added. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- keep please this is a historic school Yuckfoo 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep verifiable redstucco 09:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Stifle 02:14, 22 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
