Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chepstow 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chepstow School

Unadulterated rubbish. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, remove nonsense, verify, expand. High schools are notable. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 00:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, as per Purplefeltangel. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I deleted all the vanity nonsense and obvious silliness, but that left one sentence. No claim of notability, no content, no nothing. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As usual, it seems necessary to point out that there is nothing in the deletion criteria about notability. Trollderella 23:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems necessary to also point out that not all of the rules on Wikipedia are written. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        •  ??! Wow. I made up a few myself - you don't know about them yet, because they don't appear anywhere! The first one is 'don't repeatedly list schools for deletion when they never get deleted' - oops! I just wrote it down! Damn! Trollderella 23:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is nothing remarkable about this school. WIKI is more than just a place for trivia lists. Storm Rider 00:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What's the policy on schools?—Gaff ταλκ 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If it is we keep schools because they are an important part of the community, then we should list it as a stub and wait for somebody to expand.—Gaff ταλκ 01:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually there's no "policy" on schools per se. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The policy is "Argue fruitlessly for a week and a half on AFD, then close the AFD as 'No consensus.'" - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What is this page all about then? Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools—Gaff ταλκ 02:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Months and months of arguing fruitlessly, along with an effort to expand school stubs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Then why bother even debating. Keep it and move on to the next article. Probably some internet porn site or fringe political group trying to get an article in here right now. Lets just leave public schools alone. That would make the internet "not suck."—Gaff ταλκ 07:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Welcome to the everburning brushfire war of the month here on Wikipedia. Kibitzing on AFD doesn't take much effort (unless you get too emotionally invested, I suppose), so it's not as if valuable resources are being consumed. Personally, the only reason I still bother to vote on these is because I don't want people to be able to claim that "consensus is clear" just because people have stopped voting on "pointless" AFDs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Yeah it's easy for deletionists to drop by and waste others' time, but it's not so easy if you are trying to help provide information to people with no voice of their own. Kappa 10:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
              • What a great voting rationale.--Nicodemus75 10:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Are polarizing labels and sniping remarks really necessary? I admit I was being a tad snide, but at the expense of the process, not particular Wikipedians.
                As for providing information to people with no voice of their own; which of those people are going to be looking in an encyclopedia for information on a local school in EnglandWales? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
                • They may have relatives there, or be planning to move there, or have a school project about it, or just be interested in education in other places, the way I am curious about schools in Japan and Africa and don't appreciate people trying to deprive me of information about them. Kappa 05:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • The first two cases are examples where contacting the school itself is trivial. The cases after that would be more than served by one good article about "Schools in X region/nation," especially compared to sifting through dozens of stubs and trying to draw some conclusions based on them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is Wales now part of England? I need to pay more attention to the current events page. In answer to your question about who might be looking for articles on schools: if and when wikipedia rises to the level that it hopes to attain, (where people use it as a reference tool containing useful, reliable and detailed encyclopedic articles on important topics), then I could think of any number of situations where a researcher may need to gather information about public schools.—Gaff ταλκ 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't think of a single non-contrived situation where it would be easier or more useful to read an encyclopedia to find out about a local p[ublic school than to simply call that public school. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There may be no "policy" per se, but there certainly is a precedent. 85%-90% of all schools nominated for VfD/AfD in the past year are not deleted. See: Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive.--Nicodemus75 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • True but they haven't been "keep" either. There is no consensus on school articles as 90% of the VFDs show.Gateman1997 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Depends on the school type. Elementaries almost always lack consensus. High schools, are usually kept with a clear majority, and often consensus, especially if complete articles. Also, lets not forget the delete counts include unverifiable schools, including out and out hoaxes by vandals (so the real school keep rate is possibly higher than suggested). --rob 07:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • One thing I think the "keep" crowd has glossed over is the fact that a large majority of the schools that are "no consensus" at closure are actually being voted around 60% for delete. The only reason they are being kept is that there is no supermajority, but the vast majority of schools do have a majority of delete votes.Gateman1997 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant. AfD policy and guidelines are clear that when there is no concensus to delete an article, it isn't deleted. That is the standard, the policy and the precedent. The important aspect of all this, is that as a matter of precedent derived from the practical application of the AfD policies, is that almost all school articles are not deleted.--Nicodemus75 01:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, there's a massive majority for deleting fake hoax schools, like the one you admit to making. School articles with a reasonable amount of content (even if not famous) are likely to get a majority to keep. Sub-stubs are likely to have a majority to delete. That shows people do in fact want school *content*, they're just not happy with articles lacking it. If you look at votes, you'll often see the first few are delete based on a one-line stub, and then keeps after modest improvement. --rob 01:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are not inherently notable any more than every McDonald's is inherently notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • yet you support separate articles for every residential college at every University of California?—Gaff ταλκ 02:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. - Sensor 02:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete the content is Chepstow Comprehensive School is located in Chepstow, South Wales that is not a article --JAranda | watz sup 03:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, this article used to have some nonsense about lighting things on fire and the selection of romance novels in the library, and I deleted all of that. After that, though, this sentence was all that was left. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right, it is a stub.--Nicodemus75 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I saw the old version This could be Speedy in Both the nonsense for of course nonsense and this verison for lack of content. --JAranda | watz sup 03:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Stubs are not defacto speedy candidates - to suggest so is nonsense.--Nicodemus75 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
          • "No content," however, is a speedy criterion. Had I spotted this article on RC instead of AFD, I would have tagged it as a "no content/context" speedy. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
            • "No content" means just that - no content, not some subjective figurative interpretation that really means "some content". This stub always had content, and still does. It is not, nor ever was a legitimate candidate for a speedy deletion.--Nicodemus75 10:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
              • "This is a school in (such and such city)" isn't any content, particularly when the article's title (apparently) isn't even right. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Because school names are quite common, their title should always include the city they are in which makes "School X is a school in Y" a rewording of its title and a speedy candidate. "Arnold Schwarzenegger is an actor" isn't a stub either. But I guess that's where some people differ in opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can come up with a reason why this particular high school is notable. --Aquillion 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Schools are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ. If they're notable then so are garbage dumps, grocery stores and titty bars.Gateman1997 07:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm all in favour of detailed articles about titty bars. :) --StoatBringer 11:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
          • We should start a few really good articles about titty bars and see how fast one of the "keep" people claim it's not worthy of an article.Gateman1997 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Schools are no more inherently notable than bodegas or shopping malls. Stubs exist as placeholders for things that can be expanded; articles whose subjects simply cannot, as they are now, support anything more than a barren stub are always clear cases for deletion. --Aquillion 07:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this (now) perfectly useful stub. Thanks to A Man In Black for contributing to school articles by fixing the content.--Nicodemus75 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't fill this article with the trivia currently in it. I just deleted the silliness. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is my vote, after issuing a few comments previously. Strong Keep. This is a public school. We make the internet not suck, is what I read somewhere. I think that this encyclopedia needs to grant every public school (not necessarily private schools, as for profit schools may be a separate issue), but every public school at least a stub within its vast and sprawling network. If it is not at least willing to do that then I must wonder where it is going.—Gaff ταλκ 06:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Gaff, and also wikipedia:schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 06:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, until someone can start an article that is worth keeping.Gateman1997 07:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If you agree that the topic is worhty of an article, then you should vote keep and expand. Otherwise you are voting to take one step back in order to take two steps forward.—Gaff ταλκ 07:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "No useful content on the subject" is a reasonable reason to vote delete, although in most cases it's better to simply add some useful content. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe the topic is of borderline worthy, however this particular article is not. I'd rather see it killed an replaced later by an editor or editors that want to take the time to create something more then a one sentence stub.Gateman1997 08:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to expand as per Wikipedia:schools/Arguments#Keep. Rather than clogging up the Articles for deletion page with these redundant discussions day after day, let's refocus our efforts on improving these articles. Silensor 07:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • exactly.—Gaff ταλκ 07:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You act as if debating on AFD somehow prevents people from contributing to Wikipedia. It isn't a zero-sum game; discussing and debating on AFD doesn't detract from work on the encyclopedia.
      I'm uncomfortable with this theme of "Stop arguing about this!" The only was consensus is going to be formed is by discussion and debate, and, ideally, AFD is the place for this debate to begin. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then by all means, start expanding some of those stubs and show it's actually possible. School articles that already survived an AFd discussion are likely not to be deleted anytime soon, so if you're scared of your work getting deleted, start there. Also, take a look at our featured school articles and just do it. A lot of the discussion would be moot if there was a real article instead of a substub to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unlike some keepers, I don't mind (don't love, but don't mind) a limited number of selective school AFDs each month. At some point the line does have to be drawn. For instance, I don't support pre-schools or home schools (which have had articles, that had to be deleted). I respect those who use reasonable means, even to delete schools I think should be included. However, a small number of AFDs a month, does a perfectly good job at this. It picks the "worst" for attention. Such limited cases are more likely to either be deleted (though I oppose that) or cleaned up (which is a fine result). However, with masses of schools are nominated, then everybody just repeats the same vote, same words, and nothing is acocmplished. It's interesting how a couple months with the highest nominations actually resulted in the fewest deletes. Huge numbers of nominations is disruptive and pointless. --rob 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh...good thing nobody's mass nominating anything right now, then, I guess. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Uh, there continues to be an excessive number of pointless non-selective nominations. Just because September AFD SPAM averaged two a day, doesn't mean (slightly over) one a day is now ok. --rob 12:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Why are you complaining about this here? This was a good-faith nomination of an article that failed to assert in a verifiable way that the subject existed. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable school. Probably rename since "Comprehensive" doesn't seem to be part of the official name. --rob 07:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 08:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aquillion. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, a school has as much right to have a wiki-page than, say, a movie or whatnot.
  • Keep per schools argument keep chowells 12:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Schools are indeed inherently notable. I nominated it for deletion because there was nothing in the article except drivel which didn't even prove it really existed. -- Necrothesp 12:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are thousands of articles about schools. They almost never get deleted. The school deletionists have lost, but while we wait for the diehards to accept that, a large amount of time which could be put to better use is getting wasted. CalJW 12:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You have been insulting. That was a personal attack. CalJW 01:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I seriously doubt that but if it was I apologize. I was merely trying to point out that factionalizing "school deletionists" is essentially insulting and dismissive to others trying to give their opinion here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What B.S. The claim from "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles on the basis of being non-notable" that being called "deletionists" is a personal attack is the biggest load of horse manure that gets spewed all over these school AfD pages. It simply is not a personal attack to refer to "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles on the basis of being non-notable" as deletionists, any more than calling some of us "keepers", "inclusionists" or "weak" or any of the labels your side comes up with. There are deletionists who routinely vote to delete school articles. Many of the usual suspects in terms of nominations and delete votes are members of the m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. It's a fact. Conversely, very, very, very few of the "keepers" are members of m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.--Nicodemus75 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I was going to rebut but I think the above highlights a lot of the issues people have with AfD in general about factionalizing. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with article on Chepstow CommJohn 12:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So, how would people looking for the school in Category:Schools in Wales know that it is is tucked away in Chepstow, while others are shown in the category? --rob 14:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Delete I can't decide. Molotov (talk)
    16:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with the "high schools should be kept" ideology. Most communities only have one (sometimes they even share on with a neighboring community or two), so they are an important place. Larger cities usually have multiple, but they are notable nonetheless. -newkai | talk | contribs 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a school. It would be nice if people would stop wasteing everyones time by listing these. Trollderella 20:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. "It would be nice" if you would care to check the article history before making snide remarks; if you so bothered you would see that it was actually a load of drivel at the time it was listed! -- Necrothesp 23:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Being a bad article is not a good reason to delete - it's a good reason to improve! Trollderella 23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
        • "No content whatsoever" is a good reason to speedily delete. Please don't make veiled accusations of bad faith on the part of the nominator without looking at the article that was nominated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah ha! Caught you! Your true feelings come out! ;D - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
"Dear Dr. Freud..." Trollderella 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all pods schools of Wales. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another pointless school article that doesn't say much more than you can find on the school letterhead. The fact that the bulk of this "article" is taken up by the school's dress code is further proof that someone can't be bothered to create more than a stub. My bet: a year from now, this article will not have changed by a single word. Denni☯ 02:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletenon encyclopedic.--Dakota 04:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all school noms are wastes of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even though non-notable. per Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes_for_deletion_archive precedent. schools, feel like, and by precedent are, an exception. Especially since this article has been Made Better(tm). ∴ here…♠ 17:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Many of those articles have a majority of non-keep votes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Irrelevant. AfD policy and guidelines are clear that when there is no concensus to delete an article, it isn't deleted. That is the standard, the policy and the precedent. The important aspect of all this, is that as a matter of precedent derived from the practical application of the AfD policies, is that almost all school articles are not deleted.
  • keep please even though this school might not be popular it is still very notable Yuckfoo 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yuckfoo, I challenge you to pull one statement, one statement from this article which demonstrates that this school is notable, never mind "very notable". Come on, just one. Denni☯ 00:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Rogerd 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, why do people keep nominating schools for deletion which no final decision has been reached on whether all schools can be classed as notable. It is surely better to leave all until a decision has been amde as deleting after a decision is easier than re-creating an article where potential information could be lost. Evil Eye 16:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Aha. Somebody else who's rushed in on their high horse to make a comment without bothering to investigate the reasons for nomination thoroughly. Well done! This article was a heap of drivel that hadn't even been given the correct title. I too disagree with deleting schools. However, I will nominate rubbish. -- Necrothesp 18:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • From the article in it's current stae, I can see no reason as to why it has bee nominated, nor why anyone can now deem it suitable for deletion. Maybe in a previous formate the article wasn't what some people thought acceptable, but surely rather than nominating for deletion it would have been no more or less work to have edited the article of the 'offensive' sentences or to have done minimal research to have made the article suitable for inclusion. Evil Eye 01:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- DS1953 talk 14:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What makes this school so special? How many schools are in Wales? Is this one of a very small set? Is this school remarkable for its age, alumni, or academic program? How is this schools different to any other? Alphax τεχ 18:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an excellent illustration of the reasons why encyclopedic overviews of interchangable sets are more valuable than overly-specific individual articles about the members of those sets. An overview can answer these questions, typical of the expectations of an encyclopedia reader, whereas individual articles formed largely of demographic data cannot. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:33, 24 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.