Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashtree primary 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 no consensus - This AFD seems abandoned. After almost a year, I think it's time to close. Rob 05:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have been regarded as no consensus, but I can't find any sign of it being formally closed. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashtree primary school

A primary school with no indication of notability in any form. JFW | T@lk 02:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete JFW | T@lk 02:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that it's a school makes it notable enough for me. It's a legitimate part of "all human knowledge", which is what Wikipedia is supposed to address. Dbenbenn
    • Not according to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Just because something is a true fact doesn't mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Average Earthman 19:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • That same article says: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask youself what a reader would expect under "whatever" in an encyclopedia." For this title, I would expect something about a school, not nothing at all. WWIN is quite clear about what kinds of facts it believes should not be included and gives a list of them.Dr Zen 05:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I should have been clearer - whether the school is suitable for Wikipedia is discussable (my view is elsewhere in this discussion). I was referring to the "all human knowledge" part - Wikipedia is not for "all human knowledge" as much human knowledge is useless to just about everyone else - e.g. you do not need to know what colour my coffee mug is. Average Earthman 15:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 06:50, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 07:02, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yet another notable, encyclopedic public institition.--Centauri 08:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The likelihood that this entry will be edited by multiple users, ensuring its quality and accuracy, is very small. The chances of anyone using Wikipedia as any sort of reference for this school are extremely small. The number of human beings, especially notable human beings, making use of this school is very small. The amount of useful, accurate and relevant information that this article could ever give about this school is very small. The net improvement to Wikipedia resulting from the maintainance of this article is very small. For reasons, delete. Lacrimosus 08:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You could say that about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia. While true, it's no reason for deletion. Dan100 17:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • BEEFSTEW score of -3. Delete. —Korath (Talk) 12:10, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. schools are notable. RustyCale 13:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, garbage. Neutralitytalk 14:18, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No indication that this school stands out from others. Just a building with teachers and students. Geogre 14:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tompagenet 14:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As said, all schools are notable, just like small towns and villages. Nothing particulary amazing about them, they just deserve a bit of info about them on here. We have the space, after all... Dan100 17:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Schools are inherently noteworthy. GRider\talk 19:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is to be kept, then frankly it's as big as it should get (unless it has or produces famous alumni in the future), anything else would be pointless padding. Personally, I'd prefer it if this were the start of a larger Education in Stevenage article (this appears to be the only school name linked to in the main Stevenage article), since an overview of the schools in the area is more useful than large numbers of small separate articles. Average Earthman 19:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a knowledgebase. RickK 20:16, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Could be if there was something particularly interesting about the school, and the article told us what it is, but as it is, I don't see anything of note here. RoySmith 21:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki to Anthony's school wiki if it's up. There just isn't anything notable about this that I can see. If it stays, I rather like Average Earthman's idea. The info wouldn't be orphaned that way. - Lucky 6.9 22:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal Keep; Newfoundglory 23:17, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Stevenage article--it has a 'schools' section already--and delete. A primary school associated with neither notable events nor highly notable alumni (Prime Ministers or monarchs) will never be more than a stub article.
    • Pardon; forgot to sign my commment. I also like Average Earthman's suggestion that Education in Stevenage be split off into another article--if and only if the main Stevenage entry gets to be unweildy. TenOfAllTrades 23:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Scores 10 out of 10 on the ZEEFSTEW test. "Notability" is not a criterion for deletion and even if it was, schools are central to their communities and consequently notable. Keep it.Dr Zen 01:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I appreciate that you don't consider notability a valid criterion, but it is necessary to acknowledge that a multitude of other Wikipedians do, to the extent that it can be considered a community practice. Leading on from that, notability is necessarily linked to the readers of the encyclopedia; otherwise, a five-year-old's favourite toy automatically becomes a high-priority topic, to Wikipedia's external embarrasment, and negligible advantage. Lacrimosus 08:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Some feel that "notability", a slippery concept with no clear definition, should be the standard for inclusion, but I don't see why it is necessary to acknowledge them. They're pretty good at putting that across for themselves. The widespread use of it as a term does not, however, make it an item of policy -- nor is it likely to become one, because it would be very difficult to define. One person's "notable" is the next person's "not notable", as we discover here every day. I don't understand what you are talking about when you discuss the "readers of the encyclopaedia. Our policy page very wisely points out that an encyclopaedia ought to include under each title what a reader would expect to find there. It is also careful to exclude items of only personal note, so a five-year-old's actual toy is excluded (although the type of toy is, rightly, included). I don't see what "external embarrassment" has to do with it. I'd be embarrassed by a Wikipedia that did not believe schools were worthy of inclusion in "all human knowledge".Dr Zen 03:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • "All human knowledge" isn't what we're arguing, as that is clearly not what Wikipedia is for. It is for the relevant, important and notable bits of human knowledge. The argument is whether a primary school is sufficiently worthy on it's own. Average Earthman 15:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -- Jimbo Wales. Tell Jimbo that's not what we're doing. It's certainly what I am doing. Dr Zen 07:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, it's certainly NOT what I am doing, as I don't want to bore everyone on the planet to tears with useless drivel. Come on, are you seriously saying that if someone put on a calendar of what colour underwear they were wearing each day you'd consider that a valid addition? Average Earthman 13:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Methinks you two are talking at cross purposes here. The article in question here is a far cry from narcissistic drivel. On the other hand, it would be easy to construe the "sum of all human knowledge" in a way that is inappropriate to the WP. I've considered that quote as part of my basic understanding of what WP is, too. But I think of the "sum of all knowledge" as different from "all knowledge." Essentially, it's what knowledge boils down to; it's the knowledge you can't get rid of without losing something important. And this article is an example of such knowledge; it's important to understanding the community of Stevenage, and the discourse community constituted by Stevenage people. -- Visviva 15:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Somebody in the WWW 01:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 02:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect with schools section of Stevenage (which as mentioned can be split into Education in Stevenage at a later date when required). Shane King 04:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect as ShaneKing suggests; although worthy of an article, there seems insufficient materiel to warrant a whole one. James F. (talk) 07:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. jni 07:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Stevenage and delete - Skysmith 09:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All schools are notable. Britannica doesn't have the space or editorial resources to cover them all, but Wikipedia has one and will acquire the other. IMO it should aspire to cover everything that is in the next largest encyclopedia and much more as well. Philip 13:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)**Britannica has a website, too. Their website is no more limited in space than Wikipedia's.
  • Delete. For goodness sake, surely we can hold the line at primary schools. Why do people think a school (i.e. building where teachers work) is inherently notable? What's next, preschools? (Unsigned by User:BM —Korath (Talk) 04:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC))
    • Yes but let's get decent articles on all schools first. Schools are central parts of the communities they serve. We can't pretend they don't exist!Dr Zen 03:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So are libraries, factories, refineries, warehouses, harbours, airports, subway and train stations, office buildings, laboratories, shops, military installations, town halls, museums, parks, parks and stadiums, hospitals, clinics, churches, theaters, prisons, and many other places where people gather every day often for hours at a time often in large numbers. Some of these merit Wikipedia articles, based on notability, and some do not. What makes schools "inherently" notable, according to you, while these other facilities have to pass a notability test? --BM 13:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Schools should be handled in context of their community, not necessarily as separate articles. And Mr Zen can always form his own kindergartenpedia - Skysmith 10:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Harbours, airports, subway and train stations often merit their own articles; many already have them. I should think that any notable public institution of which a substantial community has encyclopedic knowledge should eventually be covered on Wikipedia. Whether they should have their own articles depends on the structure and length of superordinate articles. -- Visviva 23:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons well articulated by Lacrimosus. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable school. Indrian 04:41, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Deletion should be reserved for articles which arguably harm our project. I would be happy to support merge and redirect to Stevenage or the hypothetical Education in Stevenage, however. The number of users eager to delete verifiable, valuable content is disturbing. Visviva 23:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The knowledge value of this entry is vanishingly small. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Google II. --Calton 03:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect (or delete) as ShaneKing suggests; it shouldn't have its own article. I agree with BM's second comment. I think schools should have to meet some set of notability requirements, just as fire stations, businesses, or any other type of organization must establish notability. Their specific notability requirements don't have to be the same as those for businesses, but "because it's there" isn't enough. That's enough for cities, but that precident shouldn't necesarily extend to a more granular level. Some might argue that since every school will likely host many thousands of kids during its lifetime, it gains notability by sheer numbers (more than 100 people have heard of it). But any single supermarket will host many thousands of shoppers over time (most of which shop there many times a week for years on end), yet we're not rushing to give each individual supermarket location its own article. - Eisnel 23:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep this article. Yuckfoo 07:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The simple fact that a school is small is no reason to exclude it from an encyclopaedia whose length is not limited. I see absolutely no reason to entirely remove such an article, especially when there are a plethora of articles covering sci-fi tv show characters and their "races"' temperments. Ask yourself if you would delete this article if it were long, in depth and well-researched -- I think not. Many great articles begin as stubs.Zantastik 09:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some additional content and references have been added. I would say it's now a fairly decent stub. I don't suppose that will change the mind of anyone who remains attached to the nebulous notion of notability ... but I mention it nonetheless. ... For this topic, as for so many others where extensive information is not available online, a properly encyclopedic article requires someone with genuine local knowledge. I suspect that there are many folk in Shephall who could contribute just such an article, detailing the role of the institution in local life and politics, and I don't see any reason to assume a priori that none of them will ever join the Wikipedia. -- Visviva 08:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Second choice merge/redir to Stevenage. Niteowlneils 19:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What is "relevant"? What is relevant to some is irrelevant to others. If all "irrelevant" but true information were removed from Wikipedia, there would be one tenth the number of articles. Andrew pmk 23:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion


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.