Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Hills Middle 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 was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aurora Hills Middle School
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View log)
no assertion of notability Chris 07:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Article as it currently exists asserts notability in terms of academic program and awards received, all documented with reliable and verifiable sources. Additional material will be added. Alansohn 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom: no notability here. (Offering the IB is hardly grounds for such and nor is winning a run-of-the-mill 40K grant.) Another nn middle school per the dissent elaborated at the old school debate. Eusebeus 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Only a small fraction of middle schools offer the IB program, so participation would be a rather explicit claim of notability. As described in the two reliable and verifiable sources provided, the 40K grant was tied to a national award, a fact which seems to have been selectively ignored. These two distinct characteristics make the claim of this being just "Another nn middle school" rather self-contradictory. As WP:SCHOOLS was soundly rejected, its use as a justification for deletion -- or retention -- would seem to be quite meaningless; nor does a link to the rejected proposal provide any useful justification to understand or support your vote. Alansohn 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, that IB argument is nonsense. And please consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS. you have been around here as long as I have, so your comment is disingenuous since you know that every possible angle for inclusion or exclusion was covered at that debate. Note I did not cite WP:SCHOOL as policy or as a guideline, but simply referenced the debate there for NOT including schools. Thanks, Alan, I know you'll agree. Eusebeus 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- A documented claim of being one IB Middle Years Programme school out of 185 nationwide is a rather significant basis of notability that's hard to brush off as "nonsense" without dealing with it in any substantive basis. There clearly are notable middle schools, and each case must be evaluated based on its merits, not on a blanket rejection. despite your insistence that "middle schools are not notable", there was no such agreement on this topic at any time at WP:SCHOOLS, in any of its incarnations. The act of merely pointing to the rejected article -- and not directly referencing the specific portions of the discussion that supports your claim -- makes it impossible for any of us to evaluate using any part of the utterly rejected proposal as a basis for deletion. Alansohn 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, that IB argument is nonsense. And please consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS. you have been around here as long as I have, so your comment is disingenuous since you know that every possible angle for inclusion or exclusion was covered at that debate. Note I did not cite WP:SCHOOL as policy or as a guideline, but simply referenced the debate there for NOT including schools. Thanks, Alan, I know you'll agree. Eusebeus 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Only a small fraction of middle schools offer the IB program, so participation would be a rather explicit claim of notability. As described in the two reliable and verifiable sources provided, the 40K grant was tied to a national award, a fact which seems to have been selectively ignored. These two distinct characteristics make the claim of this being just "Another nn middle school" rather self-contradictory. As WP:SCHOOLS was soundly rejected, its use as a justification for deletion -- or retention -- would seem to be quite meaningless; nor does a link to the rejected proposal provide any useful justification to understand or support your vote. Alansohn 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Just because it is rare or unique doesn't make it notable. What if they were one of only 185 schools in the country that served honey mustard at lunch? I think we need some newspaper articles that demonstrate that the school is notable because it offers this program. For that matter, I think we need WP:A that shows that the program and the organization that designed it are WP:N themselves, as their articles are similarly lacking. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're not claiming that honey mustard in the school cafeteria is equivalent to a rigorous international academic program offered within the school, are you? The sources have been provided; all we've seen so far are variations of the improper just not notable. Alansohn 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am. Until the rigorous international academic program is shown to be objectively notable, it is no more significant to this discussion than the school's offering of condiments. And the program's own website can hardly be used to establish its notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The article already makes the explicit claim of notability for the IB programme. I encourage you to start an Article for Deletion if it is not the case and see how it flies. Again, all we're getting is just not notable votes based on simple dismissal of explicit claims of notability. Let's hear what -- if any -- standard of sourcing that will satisfy you that participation in a rigorous international educational program that under 300 of 95,000 American elementary/middle schools participate in is indeed evidence of notability. Alansohn 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am. Until the rigorous international academic program is shown to be objectively notable, it is no more significant to this discussion than the school's offering of condiments. And the program's own website can hardly be used to establish its notability. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're not claiming that honey mustard in the school cafeteria is equivalent to a rigorous international academic program offered within the school, are you? The sources have been provided; all we've seen so far are variations of the improper just not notable. Alansohn 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because it is rare or unique doesn't make it notable. What if they were one of only 185 schools in the country that served honey mustard at lunch? I think we need some newspaper articles that demonstrate that the school is notable because it offers this program. For that matter, I think we need WP:A that shows that the program and the organization that designed it are WP:N themselves, as their articles are similarly lacking. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Alan, what makes your disingenuousness above particularly galling is that yourself have participated extensively in the school debate, here for example, and you know perfectly well the arguments against school notability put forward by UncleG, JzG, myself and the many others who came to an impasse in that discussion (thanks in part to your intransigence). I am sorry I was unclear. Let me be clearer for you: "I did not cite WP:SCHOOL as policy or as a guideline, but simply referenced the debate there for NOT including schools." If editors need a refresher, they can go to the failed school policy debate and read through the archived talk pages. However, that is a distraction. You know the issue here is one of non-notable triviality. You also know that I (and plenty of others) think most schools are trivial. You also know that your own efforts to set a standard for inclusion in the failed school policy debate collapsed because almost no-one agreed with how low you set the bar. You also know that your attempt to establish notability by citing one or another supposed accomplishment (blue ribbon, IB, what have you) are simply not accepted by those of us who see schools as fundamentally trivial. I am happy you disagree with us on these points, so leave it at that. If you must respond, and I am sure you must, a (perhaps useless) plea: don't indulge your recently displayed taste for incivility and accusation. Perhaps I'm just a sockpuppet, right Alan?? Eusebeus 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will ignore your repeated and malicious personal attacks and basic civility violations, and address the facts. I heartily encourage you to do the same. WP:SCHOOLS was completely, utterly and resoundingly rejected by the entire Wikipedia community. Despite efforts on my part (and that of many others) to achieve a compromise on school notability, this intransigent "no schools are notable" proposal failed on its lack of merits and failure to reach consensus. Yet you are still improperly referring to WP:SCHOOLS as a justification for deletion, stating "Delete per nom and the argument against such schools archives [sic] at WP:SCHOOLS" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenlyon Norfolk School and multiple other AfDs. Referring to WP:SCHOOLS in this manner lends the appearance that there is something in there that supports your case. Again, if there is some specific portion to back up your claim, refer to that precise section of discussion directly, not to the entire failed guideline. In contrast, where the Blue Ribbon Schools Program has been cited, it has been thoroughly sourced as "the highest honor a school can achieve." and as "the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school." Yet we are now told that an award won by a small percentage of schools in this country can be lightly dismissed as a "supposed accomplishment". You have simply not made a case that schools are "fundamentally trivial". I strongly suggest that you make a case that references real Wikipedia policy and guidelines and avoids personal whims and biases. Alansohn 14:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Malicious attacks? Civility violations? I am not the one who makes accusations of bad faith, vote stacking, sock puppetry and canvassing with users who disagree with me and then harass them on their talk pages over imagined slights. You need to understand: consensus doesn't mean agreeing with your point of view, no matter how strongly you maintain it. And berating editors who disagree simply for disagreeing borders on bad behaviour. I reference the debate (note, the debate) in the talk pages of WP:SCHOOLS because it is the best place to see the many and varied arguments laid out against the view that schools are notable. No-one wants to go back to the 100K+ pages that used to be triggered by these AfDs, so it is a useful shorthand. I understand you think my views are wrong, but just as you failed to convince with your arguments at WP:SCHOOLS, so it remains. Eusebeus 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your continued personal attacks are malicious and unacceptable. Nothing in your response addresses the issue at hand regarding the notability of school awards or the use of WP:SCHOOLS as a justification for deletion -- or retention -- of this or any other article. Please read WP:SCHOOLS. It is marked as a rejected proposal, having utterly failed to reach the consensus that "no schools are notable". You have not referenced what portion of the WP:SCHOOLS debate supports your case; yet, you have repeatedly referred to WP:SCHOOLS as reason for deletion (SOURCE: "Delete per nom and the argument against such schools archives [sic] at WP:SCHOOLS" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenlyon Norfolk School) without ever pointing to what portion of it is relevant. Can you point to the consensus reached or not? Wikipedia requires sources and you have not provided any. If you cannot point to the relevant portion, then it is not a "useful shorthand", but a misleading tactic that would require anyone who wants to verify your claim to wade through the "100K+ pages" of discussion to find that your claimed consensus does not exist. If this consensus really does exist at WP:SCHOOLS, please point to it and prove it, which will end this discussion rather quickly. Alansohn 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, this makes me laugh. Where exactly do I suggest there's consensus - that's the point, there is no consensus and rather than rehash the back and forth here, I am referencing the arguments against notability that exist, passim, in the pages of that debate. You keep repeating the same point with increasing hysteria and outrage but it is simply wide of the mark. You are arguing in the midst of your own logical fog. Are you suggesting that in the talk pages of the school debate that there are no arguments made for finding schools unnotable? And gosh, Alan I really am sorry for all those malicious and personal attacks I apparently have made against you. I should have remembered that was unacceptable after having been hauled to ANI. Oh, wait... Eusebeus 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to understand your rationale for deletion, but your responses seem to exclusively revolve around malicious personal attacks. You stated above, "Another nn middle school per the dissent elaborated at the school debate.", arguing that this article should be deleted based on your failed WP:SCHOOLS proposal. You have used this "argument" as justification for deletion here and at several other AfDS. Is there any specific part of this long-rejected proposal that supports your contention that no schools are notable? If the consensus you claim really does exist at WP:SCHOOLS, referencing it and proving your contention will end this discussion immediately. If not, your use of the defeated proposal would be an invalid justification for deletion, and its persistent use at AfDs improper. Alansohn 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, a nonsensical reply. Re-read what I wrote. Why are you referring to it as "my" proposal, btw? Editors weighed in on the question of school notability; it was no-one's specific proposal. And why are you going on about consensus? I note there is no consensus. And why do you keep making reference to personal attacks? Where have I attacked you? Accusations of personal attacks are very serious and should not be your immediate response to people who take the time to respond to these screeds. You are not responding to what I have written and my comments are addressed to that point. Eusebeus 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I encourage you to read through your responses above to see the malice that persists through your writing. Using WP:SCHOOLS as an argument for deletion implies that it has some standing as a basis for deleting articles. It does not. You have stated above that we should "consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS", insisting that there is some agreement on middle school notability that simply doesn't exist, and refusing to point to any part of the discussion that might support your case. Referencing WP:SCHOOLS in these AfDs simply lends an unjustifiably false aura of credence to your argument that no schools are notable, without actually providing any meaningful support. We need to get past the just not notable argument and address specific claims of notability, which has yet to be done here other than simply stating that the claims are not meaningful, despite the inclusion of ample reliable and verifiable sources. WP:SCHOOLS failed, not "thanks in part to [my] intransigence" (as if I, or any other editor, can impose consensus in their desired direction), but because there was no support for the contention you advocated that no schools are notable. If there were some measure of good faith demonstrated that showed that there are some measures of agreed-upon notability for schools, much of this would end. But until some next-generation schools proposal is successfully concluded, referring to the defeated WP:SCHOOLS proposal as justification for deletion is invalid. Alansohn 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, a nonsensical reply. Re-read what I wrote. Why are you referring to it as "my" proposal, btw? Editors weighed in on the question of school notability; it was no-one's specific proposal. And why are you going on about consensus? I note there is no consensus. And why do you keep making reference to personal attacks? Where have I attacked you? Accusations of personal attacks are very serious and should not be your immediate response to people who take the time to respond to these screeds. You are not responding to what I have written and my comments are addressed to that point. Eusebeus 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to understand your rationale for deletion, but your responses seem to exclusively revolve around malicious personal attacks. You stated above, "Another nn middle school per the dissent elaborated at the school debate.", arguing that this article should be deleted based on your failed WP:SCHOOLS proposal. You have used this "argument" as justification for deletion here and at several other AfDS. Is there any specific part of this long-rejected proposal that supports your contention that no schools are notable? If the consensus you claim really does exist at WP:SCHOOLS, referencing it and proving your contention will end this discussion immediately. If not, your use of the defeated proposal would be an invalid justification for deletion, and its persistent use at AfDs improper. Alansohn 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, this makes me laugh. Where exactly do I suggest there's consensus - that's the point, there is no consensus and rather than rehash the back and forth here, I am referencing the arguments against notability that exist, passim, in the pages of that debate. You keep repeating the same point with increasing hysteria and outrage but it is simply wide of the mark. You are arguing in the midst of your own logical fog. Are you suggesting that in the talk pages of the school debate that there are no arguments made for finding schools unnotable? And gosh, Alan I really am sorry for all those malicious and personal attacks I apparently have made against you. I should have remembered that was unacceptable after having been hauled to ANI. Oh, wait... Eusebeus 18:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your continued personal attacks are malicious and unacceptable. Nothing in your response addresses the issue at hand regarding the notability of school awards or the use of WP:SCHOOLS as a justification for deletion -- or retention -- of this or any other article. Please read WP:SCHOOLS. It is marked as a rejected proposal, having utterly failed to reach the consensus that "no schools are notable". You have not referenced what portion of the WP:SCHOOLS debate supports your case; yet, you have repeatedly referred to WP:SCHOOLS as reason for deletion (SOURCE: "Delete per nom and the argument against such schools archives [sic] at WP:SCHOOLS" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenlyon Norfolk School) without ever pointing to what portion of it is relevant. Can you point to the consensus reached or not? Wikipedia requires sources and you have not provided any. If you cannot point to the relevant portion, then it is not a "useful shorthand", but a misleading tactic that would require anyone who wants to verify your claim to wade through the "100K+ pages" of discussion to find that your claimed consensus does not exist. If this consensus really does exist at WP:SCHOOLS, please point to it and prove it, which will end this discussion rather quickly. Alansohn 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- No malice Alan, just my usual incomprehension at your behaviour. Per the above, I said nothing of the kind. I reference the argument archived at WP:SCHOOLS rather than repeat ad nauseam the same arguments again and again as to why schools are (in my view) not notable. What, exactly, about that is not clear to you? Eusebeus 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- My incomprehension at not getting an answer. Let's keep the question simple. What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that justifies deleting all school articles? Can I suggest that you point to some specific section of the "100K+ pages" that supports your case and then create your own little article containing these arguments, say User:Eusebeus/Why I think no schools are notable, so that individuals who might want to examine your claims can make a meaningful evaluation of your claims. Without doing so, referencing WP:SCHOOLS as a delete justification is most unhelpful, if not misleading. While I have tried to indicate why I believe articles justify retention using Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A and WP:N, by your logic I could simply say "Keep per arguments archived at WP:SCHOOLS", which would be equally as valid -- and meaningless -- as the argument you are advocating in reverse. Alansohn 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, actually I would understand that, since I am familiar with the argument you are referencing. Were I not, I would go to Wikipedia talk:Schools and read through the 11 pages of archived discussion which elaborates the differences to be found. I am still not clear what your problem is here. Eusebeus 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's keep it even simpler: What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that justifies deleting all school articles? Alansohn 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Justifies is the wrong term and I think may speak to your issue here. Explains is more apt and frankly anyone reading through only a single page of the archived discussion can see the points being raised. Go read a page or two of the discussion and you will see what I mean. Or read the answers to your own proposals therein. That'll do as well. Eusebeus 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- No answer; just more games. What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that explains deleting all school articles? Alansohn 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Justifies is the wrong term and I think may speak to your issue here. Explains is more apt and frankly anyone reading through only a single page of the archived discussion can see the points being raised. Go read a page or two of the discussion and you will see what I mean. Or read the answers to your own proposals therein. That'll do as well. Eusebeus 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's keep it even simpler: What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that justifies deleting all school articles? Alansohn 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, actually I would understand that, since I am familiar with the argument you are referencing. Were I not, I would go to Wikipedia talk:Schools and read through the 11 pages of archived discussion which elaborates the differences to be found. I am still not clear what your problem is here. Eusebeus 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- My incomprehension at not getting an answer. Let's keep the question simple. What is the argument you are referring to in WP:SCHOOLS that justifies deleting all school articles? Can I suggest that you point to some specific section of the "100K+ pages" that supports your case and then create your own little article containing these arguments, say User:Eusebeus/Why I think no schools are notable, so that individuals who might want to examine your claims can make a meaningful evaluation of your claims. Without doing so, referencing WP:SCHOOLS as a delete justification is most unhelpful, if not misleading. While I have tried to indicate why I believe articles justify retention using Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:A and WP:N, by your logic I could simply say "Keep per arguments archived at WP:SCHOOLS", which would be equally as valid -- and meaningless -- as the argument you are advocating in reverse. Alansohn 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Alan, look at the things people who disagree with the argument in favour of school notability (and you specifically) in this discussion particularly with reference to triviality. I agree with those arguments. I suspect you might disagree, and sobeit, and I suspect you may not even appreciate the point that schools are not notable, and sobeit, but if the standard for consensus is that editors provide a rationale that you, Alansohn, can accept, then you are not working within the spirit of the project. Have you noticed that where you start shouting in defense of your own position, no-one does the same to you? We've been through this before Alan: assume good faith and don't impugn the opinions of those who disagree with you. Can I say that I am heartened that at least you have yet to accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet or vote-stacking, so perhaps we are making some - some - progress. Eusebeus 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we're back to crude, shameless personal attacks. The fact that you refuse to answer a very simple question -- what part of the discredited WP:SCHOOLS proposal are you referring to when you use it as a justification for deleting all school articles -- leaves me rather confused as to the nature of your argument. Even now, you've narrowed your finger to a very broad section of a discussion, but you still have not specified what portion is relevant. That cannot possibly be a good sign. In a discussion where facts, sources and Wikipedia policy are referenced on one side, and "you may not even appreciate the point that schools are not notable" is all that is proffered on the other, is a sign that there is no serious intention to address this issue per Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone should appreciate that. Alansohn 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, having been around as long as you have you know that you cannot simply shout me down by accusing me (falsely) of personal attacks. Or not assuming good faith. Or canvassing. Or any of the other things that comprise your arsenal of choice when faced with honest disagreement. I appreciate your passion in these matters, but your hysterical shouting at me and your wanton imprecations are ineffective, no matter how often you repeat them. To the matter: as you know, from having read those nice archived discussion I pointed to at the beginning, we have WP:N and we have a lengthy discussion of WP:N as it applies to schools and, as pertinently WP:NOT, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; nor is it a directory. I recognise that you think schools are something more than mere directory listings. Let me repeat that. I recognise that you feel schools are notable. And I respect your view. But - note - I disagree. And I'll usually disagree no matter how much guff you can find to flesh out one or another article, although not always since some schools do pass the WP:N threshold. Waving around WP:V and finding various sources, etc... simply fails to convince me that this is encyclopedic. Like the attempt above to claim that somehow offering the International Bac. makes this school somehow notable. I disagree. I simply do not share your point of view. We differ. Indeed, I venture we are not of the same mind. I'm sure you'll enjoy a last word and point out to me that I have failed to provide you with a rationale (reason) that you find acceptable. This is why we fail to achieve consensus - we inhabit a world of diverse viewpoints. That, Alan, is a fine, fine thing, no matter that you habitually equate disagreement with you to be personal attacks. Eusebeus 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Address the issues and stop the continued attacks. All I have done here is ask for your reasoning, and all we have heard is that "no schools are notable". Identifying sources to satisfy the notability policy is what Wikipedia is about. It's not that I don't find your rationale acceptable, it's that you refuse to disclose what that rationale is other than shouting WP:SCHOOLS over and over again. Now that you're referencing WP:NOT, which clause mandates deletion of this article? Alansohn 00:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, having been around as long as you have you know that you cannot simply shout me down by accusing me (falsely) of personal attacks. Or not assuming good faith. Or canvassing. Or any of the other things that comprise your arsenal of choice when faced with honest disagreement. I appreciate your passion in these matters, but your hysterical shouting at me and your wanton imprecations are ineffective, no matter how often you repeat them. To the matter: as you know, from having read those nice archived discussion I pointed to at the beginning, we have WP:N and we have a lengthy discussion of WP:N as it applies to schools and, as pertinently WP:NOT, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; nor is it a directory. I recognise that you think schools are something more than mere directory listings. Let me repeat that. I recognise that you feel schools are notable. And I respect your view. But - note - I disagree. And I'll usually disagree no matter how much guff you can find to flesh out one or another article, although not always since some schools do pass the WP:N threshold. Waving around WP:V and finding various sources, etc... simply fails to convince me that this is encyclopedic. Like the attempt above to claim that somehow offering the International Bac. makes this school somehow notable. I disagree. I simply do not share your point of view. We differ. Indeed, I venture we are not of the same mind. I'm sure you'll enjoy a last word and point out to me that I have failed to provide you with a rationale (reason) that you find acceptable. This is why we fail to achieve consensus - we inhabit a world of diverse viewpoints. That, Alan, is a fine, fine thing, no matter that you habitually equate disagreement with you to be personal attacks. Eusebeus 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Alan, what makes your disingenuousness above particularly galling is that yourself have participated extensively in the school debate, here for example, and you know perfectly well the arguments against school notability put forward by UncleG, JzG, myself and the many others who came to an impasse in that discussion (thanks in part to your intransigence). I am sorry I was unclear. Let me be clearer for you: "I did not cite WP:SCHOOL as policy or as a guideline, but simply referenced the debate there for NOT including schools." If editors need a refresher, they can go to the failed school policy debate and read through the archived talk pages. However, that is a distraction. You know the issue here is one of non-notable triviality. You also know that I (and plenty of others) think most schools are trivial. You also know that your own efforts to set a standard for inclusion in the failed school policy debate collapsed because almost no-one agreed with how low you set the bar. You also know that your attempt to establish notability by citing one or another supposed accomplishment (blue ribbon, IB, what have you) are simply not accepted by those of us who see schools as fundamentally trivial. I am happy you disagree with us on these points, so leave it at that. If you must respond, and I am sure you must, a (perhaps useless) plea: don't indulge your recently displayed taste for incivility and accusation. Perhaps I'm just a sockpuppet, right Alan?? Eusebeus 11:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- At this point, I believe, you now get to inform me that my vote is invalid and should be ignored, right? Eusebeus 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it so hard to stay on subject? Now that you're referencing WP:NOT as your justification for deleting all school articles, which clause mandates deletion of this article? Alansohn 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Allow me to quote someone more articulate than myself on this matter: There are few Wikipedia policies requiring the deletion of anything, so you might as well put that straw man away. More generally, I appreciate and understand your point in favour of retention and I happen to disagree. And I feel that, more than the generica at WP:N and WP:NOT, the extensive discussion that has taken place at WP:SCHOOLS explains why there are those of us who feel that schools are often (not always) unnotable. I urge you, yet again, to be more reasonable and accommodating in your engagements with editors with whom you are not in agreement instead of bandying about accusations of personal attacks. Care for the last word? Eusebeus 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You stated above that we should "consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS". Yesterday's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syndal South Primary School stated that the improvements made to that article were "an attempted stab at notability that, being a primary school, is unavailable to the subject". In light of those unequivocal "no schools are notable, under any circumstances" statements, a move to the awkwardly worded "schools are often (not always) unnotable" is a major step forward. Though I'd still like an answer to the simple question: Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? Alansohn 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, primary and middle schools are unnotable in my view and tend to little more than glorified yellow page entries. For some high schools, however, I'll concede there is the potential to establish notability. As you know, the consensus on the fr.wikipedia is that most schools default to non-notable. There are exceptions, of course, as here (school dates to the mid 16th century; most are treated as here and here. As for the WP:NOT, the comment found there: Wikipédia n’est toujours pas un annuaire de l’Éducation nationale française et n’a pas à accueillir de fiches de présentations d’établissement secondaires dont la notoriété est au grand maximum départementale, et avec des formations définies nationalement. Rien à dire d’encyclopédique. Contribution au savoir proche de zéro. pretty much sums up my feeling about schools generally and WP:NOT and certainly sums up my feeling about schools below high school level. Now, I know that fr. wikipedia is its own place (although we do make reference to WP policy from other langauge wikis from time to time as it is instructive to get an outside perspective), but my point is this: over there they have general consensus against including schools. Thus, is it so unreasonable that there should be lively debate over here with respect to interpreting WP:NOT as mitigating against most schools (viz. un annuaire de l’Éducation as I also noted above)? Can you point to me that section in WP:NOT that says elementary and middle schools default to keep? Anyway, I think this is over, - we have hashed our way through this enough. Although I know that I can look forward to a final salvo from you, no doubt with fresh accusations of personal attacks, so mon cher ami allez-y avec ton dernier mot. Eusebeus 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not just that I didn't know what French policy was, after all, the French Wikipedia is completely irrelevant here. The far larger English Wikipedia -- the one you and I participate in -- has come to no such policy. The effort to impose a "no schools are notable" policy here failed resoundingly at WP:SCHOOLS, despite your efforts. Each and every article must be evaluated based on WP:N and other Wikipedia policy, honestly and fairly applying the agreed upon guidelines to determine if that particular article is notable. I do not believe that all schools default to keep, nor have I ever stated that WP:NOT says so. Unlike your extreme stance, I believe that there is a middle ground that all school districts are notable, most high schools are notable; some middle schools are notable and very few elementary schools are notable; subject to the provision of multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources for each school. Your ability to speak gobbledygook in two languages is impressive, but the question remains: Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? In English. Alansohn 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just one point: I made no effort to impose a "no schools are notable" policy at WP:SCHOOLS, although I intellectually support the efforts of those whose arguments fall into that highly caricatured description. And that, surely, will be the last word. But your point is well-taken: you feel schools are not against the spirit of WP:NOT. Good! Eusebeus 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can caricature WP:SCHOOLS in the manner you prefer, but the essential point is that the "no schools are notable" proposal at WP:SCHOOLS was resoundingly rejected by the English language Wikipedia community. You have stated that this school violates WP:NOT. Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? Alansohn 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just one point: I made no effort to impose a "no schools are notable" policy at WP:SCHOOLS, although I intellectually support the efforts of those whose arguments fall into that highly caricatured description. And that, surely, will be the last word. But your point is well-taken: you feel schools are not against the spirit of WP:NOT. Good! Eusebeus 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not just that I didn't know what French policy was, after all, the French Wikipedia is completely irrelevant here. The far larger English Wikipedia -- the one you and I participate in -- has come to no such policy. The effort to impose a "no schools are notable" policy here failed resoundingly at WP:SCHOOLS, despite your efforts. Each and every article must be evaluated based on WP:N and other Wikipedia policy, honestly and fairly applying the agreed upon guidelines to determine if that particular article is notable. I do not believe that all schools default to keep, nor have I ever stated that WP:NOT says so. Unlike your extreme stance, I believe that there is a middle ground that all school districts are notable, most high schools are notable; some middle schools are notable and very few elementary schools are notable; subject to the provision of multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources for each school. Your ability to speak gobbledygook in two languages is impressive, but the question remains: Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? In English. Alansohn 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, primary and middle schools are unnotable in my view and tend to little more than glorified yellow page entries. For some high schools, however, I'll concede there is the potential to establish notability. As you know, the consensus on the fr.wikipedia is that most schools default to non-notable. There are exceptions, of course, as here (school dates to the mid 16th century; most are treated as here and here. As for the WP:NOT, the comment found there: Wikipédia n’est toujours pas un annuaire de l’Éducation nationale française et n’a pas à accueillir de fiches de présentations d’établissement secondaires dont la notoriété est au grand maximum départementale, et avec des formations définies nationalement. Rien à dire d’encyclopédique. Contribution au savoir proche de zéro. pretty much sums up my feeling about schools generally and WP:NOT and certainly sums up my feeling about schools below high school level. Now, I know that fr. wikipedia is its own place (although we do make reference to WP policy from other langauge wikis from time to time as it is instructive to get an outside perspective), but my point is this: over there they have general consensus against including schools. Thus, is it so unreasonable that there should be lively debate over here with respect to interpreting WP:NOT as mitigating against most schools (viz. un annuaire de l’Éducation as I also noted above)? Can you point to me that section in WP:NOT that says elementary and middle schools default to keep? Anyway, I think this is over, - we have hashed our way through this enough. Although I know that I can look forward to a final salvo from you, no doubt with fresh accusations of personal attacks, so mon cher ami allez-y avec ton dernier mot. Eusebeus 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You stated above that we should "consult the extensive discussions of why middle schools are not notable to be found at the archived discussions of WP:SCHOOLS". Yesterday's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syndal South Primary School stated that the improvements made to that article were "an attempted stab at notability that, being a primary school, is unavailable to the subject". In light of those unequivocal "no schools are notable, under any circumstances" statements, a move to the awkwardly worded "schools are often (not always) unnotable" is a major step forward. Though I'd still like an answer to the simple question: Which part of WP:NOT does this particular article fail? Alansohn 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Allow me to quote someone more articulate than myself on this matter: There are few Wikipedia policies requiring the deletion of anything, so you might as well put that straw man away. More generally, I appreciate and understand your point in favour of retention and I happen to disagree. And I feel that, more than the generica at WP:N and WP:NOT, the extensive discussion that has taken place at WP:SCHOOLS explains why there are those of us who feel that schools are often (not always) unnotable. I urge you, yet again, to be more reasonable and accommodating in your engagements with editors with whom you are not in agreement instead of bandying about accusations of personal attacks. Care for the last word? Eusebeus 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it so hard to stay on subject? Now that you're referencing WP:NOT as your justification for deleting all school articles, which clause mandates deletion of this article? Alansohn 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I said it above: WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Eusebeus 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE lists nine specific categories: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks and annotated texts, 7) Plot summaries, 8) Lyrics databases and 9) Statistics. Which of these categories does this school article fall into? Alansohn 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- ...there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...' (as demonstrated above). Are you suggesting there is consensus for schools? Thanks, btw, for stopping the wanton accusations of personal attacks - as I say, myabe some progress is being made here. Eusebeus 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's ask the question again. You have stated that this article violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which lists nine specific categories that meet the criteria: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks and annotated texts, 7) Plot summaries, 8) Lyrics databases and 9) Statistics. Which of these categories does this school article fall into? The only answer that is acceptable to this question is a number between 1 and 9, though I am willing to accept the title of the section, if that helps. Answers in French or that reference French Wikipedia policy are not acceptable answers, nor are references to other statements you or I have made anywhere else or any other non-answers to this single question. I have not suggested there is a consensus, nor have I stated that at any point in this discussion. All I'm looking for is a straight answer to a very simple question. That will be progress. Alansohn 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, there are (perhaps) 9 classes on which there is general consensus. Respecting other classes, we note that ...there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...'. The point about fr.wikipedia is that it shows the complcated nature of the various arguments. Still, this debate is ongoing, as evinced above and as suggested in WP:NOT. I would also remand your attention to the WP:SCHOOLS debate for a more detailed analysis. Don't dismiss the consensus at fr.wikipedia btw, even if you disagree. Eusebeus 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no consensus, it's NOT part of WP:NOT. It simply doesn't reference schools at all, and its use as a justification for deletion is misleading at best. WP:SCHOOLS showed that there is no consensus that "no schools are notable", despite what the French folks think. It was presented as a proposal and resoundingly rejected. As such, using WP:SCHOOLS or WP:NOT as arguments for deletion are meaningless and counterproductive. If there was an argument that you could present, I'd love to hear it, really. But we haven't heard anything but search for it somewhere in WP:SCHOOLS and you'll find it. Alansohn 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- uh huh. Eusebeus 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- If there is no consensus, it's NOT part of WP:NOT. It simply doesn't reference schools at all, and its use as a justification for deletion is misleading at best. WP:SCHOOLS showed that there is no consensus that "no schools are notable", despite what the French folks think. It was presented as a proposal and resoundingly rejected. As such, using WP:SCHOOLS or WP:NOT as arguments for deletion are meaningless and counterproductive. If there was an argument that you could present, I'd love to hear it, really. But we haven't heard anything but search for it somewhere in WP:SCHOOLS and you'll find it. Alansohn 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- ...there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries...' (as demonstrated above). Are you suggesting there is consensus for schools? Thanks, btw, for stopping the wanton accusations of personal attacks - as I say, myabe some progress is being made here. Eusebeus 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE lists nine specific categories: 1) Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2) Travel guides, 3) Memorials, 4) Instruction manuals, 5) Internet guides, 6) Textbooks and annotated texts, 7) Plot summaries, 8) Lyrics databases and 9) Statistics. Which of these categories does this school article fall into? Alansohn 17:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Would the two of you kindly take this somewhere else? While it is mildly entertaining, it really doesn't belong here. I'd wish you luck with WP:SCHOOLS4, but I think we'd all be better off buying lottery tickets. And I do mean that as civilly as possible. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No signs of notability reaching beyond that of any other middle school. Heather 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Valrith 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The IB program makes it pass notability. I ask the delete !voters to look over the article now that it's been improved.--Wizardman 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete According to the IBP search page, [1] there are 18 schools in Colorado alone which offer the program. [2]00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- redirect to whatever the school's district is. The IB claim is not evidence of notability, not only for the reason as observed above, but is further underlined by the lack of any secondary sources discussing it. The reward received, the Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Program may actually be more of an argument for notability since the grant was $40,000 and the budget for such grants in total is around 2 million (see http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Biennial/124.html ) and so it is one of only about 50 that year to get the grant. However, $40,000 is not that large a grant, 50 is a big number and again we have no reliable secondary sources discussing the matter. Despite protests to the contrary, in general even many of the users who have in the past claimed that all high schools are notable have not made the same claim that middle schools are by default notable. Middle schools at least need to meet WP:N just like everything else. However, we should redirect this and not delete the difs since this school entry has enough info that it would be useful to have to reincorporate in the event that the school does become notable. JoshuaZ 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to district per WP:N. One teacher winning an award does not make a school notable, nor does the IB program. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- keep please this meets notability now with many references plus a international baccalaureate school too yuckfoo 00:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this school has sufficient notability. I see no problem with stub articles that claim no notability being deleted but when you have an interesting, encyclopaedic article such as this I see no way that deletion helps the Project. TerriersFan 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I believe the IB program makes this school notable. I believe many of the points Alansohn made above are correct. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:50, 14 May 2007 (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.
