Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. No consensus on suitability or validity of listing. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Radman1/keepschools

I did not nominate this for VfD. DO NOT NOMINATE THINGS IN MY NAME! Radiant!Radiant_* 07:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

This was nominated on WP:TFD for the following reason:

Just like the NN template below, this one is used for voting-by-rote. Is that seriously a good use for templates? Does it matter whether the template is in user space or not? User:Netoholic closed that on the grounds that that mechanism is only for entries in the Template: namespace and suggested VFD as the only mechanism for user subpages.

My vote as originally cast at WP:TFD is below. Thryduulf 14:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Restored: Consider it renominated by me. Snowspinner 16:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Dr. Zen has just e-mailed me to ask that it be deleted. I'm assuming that's allowed as it's on a user subpage. He said he doesn't want to be a source of further contention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • If so, I'm willing to accept that since it is his userpage, but how can this be verified? —RaD Man (talk) 06:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Radman, it's not something I'd be likely to make up. ;-) He says you should e-mail him and he'll confirm. I'm assuming you can do that via the e-mail function on his user page, but if there isn't one set up, let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • Done deal, I dropped him an email, gracias. —RaD Man (talk) 01:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note: Radman1 has re-created the template in his userspace; I've put the VfD tag on that and directed it to this discussion. --Carnildo 07:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've deleted Dr Zen's from the top of this page as it no longer links to anything. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] votes originally cast on WP:TFD and moved here by Thryduulf

• Keep, user space. If other people start using it, bitch-slap them. --SPUI (talk) 08:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Other people are using it - check 'what links here'. Radiant!Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • As Radiant! points out, this template is still in active use. It was last used yesterday, in fact. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete VfD is not a voting, but a discussion. Mindlessly slapping templates is against the spirit. Grue 09:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The first words on this page are "This page is for deleting things in the Template namespace". --iMb~Meow 09:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the first words on this page are "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion". This is a template. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we don't have a strict policy for that, but last time I checked Wikipedia was not a court of law. Are you saying we should have User:Templates/Dr_Zen/Templates for Deletion? Radiant_* 12:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was saying, of course, that TFD is for items in the Template: namespace. Since a page in any namespace can be used in the same manner as a template, the line needs to be drawn at the namespace or anything is game for TFD.
• Delete, and this is the proper place for it. Do you really want every one of Radman1's school votes for the last month to have vfd headers on them? —Korath (Talk) 10:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you really want every VfD subpage listed here? They're transcluded, after all. --iMb~Meow 11:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ...there's reason to delete VfD subpages? —Korath (Talk) 12:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • There's a reason to delete a user page that's already included in a bunch of places and not getting in anyone's way, especially considering that the user is no longer active? --iMb~Meow 12:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• I find it appalling that some editors are now putting so little thought into their discussion contributions that they feel able to use templates for them. The fact that this template provides no way to address the article actually being discussed is exceedingly ill-considered. But perhaps the most ill-considered thing is that the editors using this template have not only given no thought to the article being discussed, they haven't thought about the simple consequences of using a template. There's a strong argument to be put forward that any such transcluded votes should be discounted from discussions entirely, for the simple reason that they are unsafe. The person closing the discussion has no idea (without a significant amount of cross-checking work) whether the current content of the template reflects the actual opinion of the person employing it, since someone else could have come along and modified the template contents. (A mildly WP:POINT change would be to modify this template to read "Abstain. The user of this template has unwisely allowed xyr professed opinions in many discussions to be changed en masse with a single edit.") And no, the name of the template is insufficient rationale by itself for some judgements, especially with respect to the decision between a keep-with-merger and a keep. In that way, this is a significant new burden on those who are closing discussions, and arguably crosses the same "too much complex work to determine what the voter's opinion actually is" threshold that the "peculiar votes" crossed. Delete to encourage the use of this template to cease, or, failing that, Modify to read as an abstention vote after substituting in existing uses up to 2005-04-12. Uncle G 14:08, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • My vote above was cast on WP:TFD, and in terms of what deletion means to templates, which involves the process of orphaning the template. As this is now a WP:VFD discussion I modify my vote to Keep and substitute in any existing uses up to 2005-04-12. I confirm my agreement with Netoholic, Thryduulf, Radiant!, and (apparently) SPUI that subsequent transclusion of this template should be discouraged. Votes transcluding it after 2005-04-12 should be considered unsafe and consequently be discounted. (The fact that a big VFD notice has just appeared in the middles of several VFD discussion pages should have brought this issue to the original users' attention forcefully enough for further notice to be considered unnecessary. ☺) I concur with Netoholic that the best course of action is for the users of this template to voluntarily individually orphan it themselves. Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• delete and strike out all votes made using it. Thryduulf 14:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly inappropriate use of user space and the template mechanism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I agree with everything TenOfAllTrades said above. Jonathunder 01:25, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

[edit] votes cast after move to WP:VFD

• Keep - we give wide latitude to user sub-pages, and this same text can be inserted via copy and paste. Essentially, there is no way to stop this sort of thing, so why try. I suggest that the school-deletionists pick their battles more wisely. That being said, on NO occasion should this be used as a template, but only used as with subst: . -- Netoholic @ 14:41, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

With a SUBST? What, so it's impossible to tell that someone is too lazy to even type in their reason for keeping? Snowspinner 17:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Query. What happens to the relevant VfD votes if this template is deleted? Will they then be blank, except for the signature? android↔talk 14:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • They will be left with a red link to that page. At the conclusion of this vote (no matter keep or delete), I would strongly suggest that we inform voters have them immediately correct their votes to use simple text only. I also could assist with a bot that would do the text replacement, but I'd rather the voters fix it themselves. -- Netoholic @ 14:57, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Or, put another way: Largely the same thing that would happen to those votes were Mr Pelican Shit to come along today and vandalize the template to read "Pelican shit. All school articles need more pelican shit.". Uncle G 15:28, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with previous Keep voters. Samaritan 15:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Still Keep, but updating my reason since it is now on VfD. Again, this page is not some sort of menace, since removing it would do absolutely nothing to prevent copy-and-paste voting. --iMb~Meow 15:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My delete above stands. My reasoning for it, which got sidetracked by petty jurisdiction issues, was later articulated quite eloquently by Uncle G; I also refer to Template:Nn's discussion on WP:TFD; it's exactly the same case, and looks to be overwhelmingly deleted. I suspect that this template will be kept only because those inclined to vote keep on everything like its POV better. That aside, all these issues seem to be more a matter for RFC, and neither TFD nor VFD. —Korath (Talk) 15:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate and a slap in the face to what VfD is. This should, frankly, be speedied. Snowspinner 16:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• {{subst:User:Geni/delete}}Geni 16:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I would insist that User namespace be sacrosanct, but this is a Bad Thing for both technical and philosophical reasons:
  • Transcluding multiple votes from multiple users onto the already-large, already heavily-used VfD page represents a substantial unnecessary draw on Wikipedia's servers.
  • Multiple votes may be changed after they are cast simply by editing the template, either by a well-meaning but misguided individual or a malicious vandal. (Both of the above can be avoided by 'subst:'ing, but it is apparent that many template voters are not doing this.)
  • Template encourages copy-paste voting. Knee-jerk votes from editors who don't read the articles in question and can't even be bothered to type a comment themselves are not helpful to building consensus. If you can't be troubled to even find a VfD comment you agree with and write "Keep per reasoning of JohnDoe", what are you doing here?
• --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I too am frustrated by the inclusionist tendency to vote keep seemingly without actually reading or weighing the quality of the article in question. However, disallowing templates will not magically make people change the way they approach voting on schools, nor will it prevent people from merely cutting and pasting in the same vote, nor will it prevent people from merely typing "Keep. School." over and over again. I don't think template security is much of an issue - templates can be abused just like anything else can be abused here. The issue here is schools, and one that should be thrown open to the whole of wikipedia for a final stab at consensus instead of arguing the same issue over and over again. The reason people are using templates is that the same arguments are coming up over and over again, because all of these schools and school articles are almost exactly identical. It is not avoiding evaluating an article, it is a response to the very nature of the issue. Gamaliel 17:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes a mockery of the purpose of VfD. --Carnildo 18:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's such a tempting vandalism target -- I could turn all those annoying "keep" votes into "delete" votes -- or personal attacks! -- with a single edit! --65.101.119.25 18:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and refer to Rfc--I agree with Gamaliel. The fact that something like this even exists is a sign that something has gone wrong over schools that cannot be fixed by vfd. This template won't stop people from cutting and pasting or other tactics, as Gamaliel says. What's really needed is a genuine consensus on school articles, which clearly doesn't exist. It might be impossible, in which case I suppose we get the status quo, but there should be a sustained push from the people who actually care about this on both sides of the issue (read: not me) to come to some sort of agreement and avoid this divisive argumentation. Meelar (talk) 18:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with everything Uncle G said. Dave the Red (talk) 19:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just what we need. A mechinism which would allow the rabid deletionist/inclusionists to vote in a matter of seconds without reading the article in question or the VfD discussion. This is NOT what templates are for, and this is dangerous regardless of where it is. --InShaneee 19:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I am not in favor of using a template to vote, I think this sets a bad precident. User space is supposed to be just that USER SPACE, unless its a direct personal attack or a requested deletion by that user, it should remain inviolate.  ALKIVAR™ 20:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why?Geni 23:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Template voting is not a good idea, but userspace is inviolate unless its a direct personal attack or obviously and egregiously violates wikipedia guidlines.
  There has been a disturbing trend recently, of deletionists targeting the userspace of school inclusionists (I.e User:GRider ) to remove material that they find objectionable. Klonimus 20:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I realize you're still very new here, but you may want to read the relevant pages before incorrectly telling us what they say. Calling people names isn't going to win you any friends, either. —Korath (Talk) 21:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia would be a much more comfortable place if we respected each other's user pages. Kappa 22:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia would be a much more comfortable place if people didn't abuse the deletion processes. Thryduulf 22:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Kappa 22:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur. Klonimus 02:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • ... and yet both these "concur" notes are by users known to be involved in abuse of the deletion processes. Chris talk back 21:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Messing about in personal space is bad, but making a template just for school-keeping is just silly and lazy. I suggest a third alternative: what if VfD could only contain plain text? BigFatDave 22:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Voting via templates. -- Netoholic @ 23:00, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• EXTREME KEEP. None of the votes here are a surprise really. As I just posted over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/St. Joseph's Secondary School, the message remains the same whether it is communicated by way of template or not. The only difference is saving a few bytes of diskspace on Wikipedia's servers. If bandwidth is more expensive than diskspace, then I have no problem creating a macro in lieu of using Dr Zen's template. But the core of the issue here is that someone has nominated yet another perfectly fine template which exists in someone else's userspace — not cool. —RaD Man (talk) 01:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You might be interested to know that I also tfd'd Template:Not notable, which read "*'''Delete'''. Not notable." —Korath (Talk) 12:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you believe all schools are fit subjects for an encyclopaedia then your reason for voting keep is the same on each occasion. You could type exactly the same thing in for each vote. Why deprecate using a template to do it? I do not see the same commenters attacking those who vote: "Delete, not notable" for every school. (I don't see how that is a "discussion", frankly.) There is no difference. I don't believe it's an "abuse of the deletion process". That made me giggle. Naturally, only "the other side" ever abuses anything. It strikes me that VfD causes a great deal of strife and diminshes Wikilove to a great degree. I don't suppose the factionalism, which is, after all, powered by a desire on both sides to reach the same goal (although each side has a different idea of what the goal actually means), is much helped by having a page that encourages its expression. Perhaps you should have approached Dr Zen if you really didn't like his having a template and spoken to him about it, and to those who use it. Have we all forgotten that this is not a warzone and the way to resolve disputes is first and foremost to talk to one another? Grace Note 01:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding contacting the user – I believe it's supposed that Dr. Zen is currently inactive. android↔talk 02:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • He's not as active as he once was, but he is still active. See: Dr Zen's recent contributions. Grace Note is right, this recent maneuver by Radiant & co. should have been used as a last resort, if at all. —RaD Man (talk) 02:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe you are attributing far too much malice to Radiant. After all, he withdrew this nomination after it got out of hand, and has been advocating getting some sort of consensus going on the school issue for some time now. android↔talk 02:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd love to believe otherwise, but this is not an isolated incident. —RaD Man (talk) 03:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Please consider the fact that I did not make this VfD nomination. Radiant_* 11:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
            • Regarding the nominations, this is the sequence as I understand it:
              1. Radiant! nominated the template at TfD
              2. Netoholic closed the discussion there on the grounds that it is explicitly stated that TfD deals only with the Template namespace. This is in the user namespace.
              3. Netoholic put a note on Radiant!'s talk page explaining his actions.
              4. I have Radiant!'s talk page on my watchlist (becuase of our correspondence over the proposed restructuring of Categories for deletion), and saw I saw the message.
              5. I (Thryduulf) then made the VfD nomination, citing Radiant's reasoning from TfD. I did not make it explicitly clear that it was my nomination to VfD, not Radiants, although I felt I had implied this sufficiently, hindsight leads me to believe I was wrong.
              6. At various points the page was blanked, restored, large parts struck out, unstruck, rewritten and reverted, etc. At some point in all this, the vote was closed (I think by Radiant!)
              7. Snowspinner then reopened the debate, and renominated it in his name.
              8. Radiant! removed all attributions to him and doesn't want anything to do with it.
              9. Dr Zen, in whose userspace the template was, emailed SlimVirgin to ask that it be deleted.
              10. RaD Man quieried this, but the upshot was that it was deleted.
              11. Around the same time, an identical template was made by RaD Man in his userspace.
              12. Carnildo nominated that template for deletion (VfD), directing the discussion here.
            • So, the people responsible for the VfD are myself (Thryduulf), Snowspinner and Carnildo but not Radiant!, who has stated several times he wants nothing to do with it. I urge all parties here to read and keep in mind the No Personal Attacks policy. Thryduulf 17:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, it's in userspace. Secondly, until Wikipedia actually comes up with an official policy on whether schools are notable or not, every VFD vote is going to involve the exact same arguments. I can understand why school inclusionists might want to save time by using a template for each VFD on that subject. We need a real policy on school inclusionism/deletionism rather than argue the same thing ad infinitum on this page. Firebug 01:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't like seeing things deleted from user pages, but is it really that necessary to even use this template? Assuming people just want to vote on VfD without looking at an article and arguing on its merits, why can't they just cut and paste some text? The whole VfD on this seems like a waste of time and energy on both sides to me. --BaronLarf 04:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although in general, I believe that what's in a User's space should be left alone, in this case, this is simply a bad faith VfD vote process. The User should be required to at least read the articles in question. If I ever encountered this in a VfD vote page, I would delete it. RickK 05:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see this Vfd going anywhere; obviously there will be no concensus. The persons involved will vote yes or no regarding school articles, whether you delete the template or not (hopefully it saves them some time to make other additions to wikipedia). And, as many above already said, you can always use cut and paste. Let's rather try to shape some policy. Lectonar 07:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes a mockery of VfD and consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I remember seeing voting templates in user space way back in 2003, what's the fuss now? jni 05:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete[.] WP:POINT. El_C 09:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I presume you mean Delete this article because it contravenes WP:POINT, not that you want to delete WP:POINT - if the latter, then I suggest this isn't the place to do that ;) Thryduulf 09:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh! El_C 11:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, user space. However, remove from all VfD discussions. VfD discussions shouldn't have templates in them. If he wants to use a template from his user space for voting, he should use subst:. --cesarb 16:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Does no harm used sparingly. Chris talk back 21:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad Thing. Bad, bad thing. This should never be used in VfD. Vote by rote should be discouraged, not encouraged. Add in the uncertainty factor and headache of trying to ensure votes haven't been changed by changing a voting template... No good can come of this, and much bad can. Delete it. SWAdair | Talk 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why on Earth do people want to make templates for voting? There is not much typing saved by doing so. Besides, if people forget to use "subst:" they will be in a vulnerble position from people vandalzing their template (and thereby all their votes using it) to read "Delete A high school. No high schools are notable. Wikipedia is not a vanity site for high schools". Also, it appears to be the people who dislike school articles who keep voting to delete this template, but I really don't think it matters, why prevent your opponents from exposing themselves to template vandalism? Sjakkalle 09:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a mockery, as above. And Dr. Zen apparently isn't even with us any more. Master Thief Garrett 01:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.