Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfield high School

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 - kept - SimonP 14:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfield high School now moved to Fairfield High School, Sydney

Possibly notable school, however no information given. It's probably best to start this one from scratch. I note that Fairfield High School redirects to Fairfield Warde High School, which is a school in the US, while this article appears to be about one in Australia. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm all for keeping notable schools, but that article is ridiculous. Delete unless cleaned up (and if someone does clean it up, please contact me so I can change my vote). Mike H 17:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this article improves wikipedia's coverage of education in Fairfield, New South Wales. Needs to be disambig'dKappa 18:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, since there's already a category for high schools in Sydney and it is a HS in Sydney...agree w/need to disamb.67.101.113.10
• Delete unless proven notable. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools — RJH 19:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proven notable. One or two notable alumni doesn't really cut it, and we don't need to know what each block of the school is used for. --Idont Havaname 20:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep see Wikipedia:Schools. — DS1953 20:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad article at the wrong title. --Carnildo 21:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but make a disambig, per Kappa. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:23, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
• Comment: To those of you who keep pointing to Wikipedia:Schools, I'd like to remind you that it is neither policy nor guideline. Therefore, although it sets no notability bar for schools, I think it is fair that the article need to live up to standard encyclopedia quality (ie not an advertisement). No vote. --Scimitar 21:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Part of Wikipedia:Schools advises to keep VfD replies short and to the point; I'm assuming that this is what these people are doing, saying that, per the argument listed there, this article should be kept. Their votes should not be counted any differently. --BaronLarf 22:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and disambig, per arguments on Wikipedia:Schools --BaronLarf 22:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons detailed on Wikipedia:Schools. Unfocused 22:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and rename. Enough here to be worthy of retention. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good article, except for the weird bit in the middle about A BLOCK and whatnot. Ditch that and it'll be just fine. It should be renamed, of course. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep and disambiguate. Easily resolvable without resorting to VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 00:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Fairfield High School (Australia), delete the resulting redirect at Fairfield high School, change Fairfield High School into a dab, and remove the List of the blocks which is of no encyclopedic interest. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move as above. Add cleanup-school and if nothing happens in a month, Merge into a city article. Vegaswikian 05:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - next to no useful information. Cedars 07:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Fairfield, New South Wales and delete - Skysmith 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge usable data (e.g. type, size, notable alumni) into Fairfield, New South Wales or as new South Western Sydney school region article. Average Earthman 13:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per wikipedia:schools. Yuckfoo 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is not encylopedia and will never be encylopedic. Neutrality^talk 04:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools, move as suggested by DoubleBlue. James F. (talk) 09:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Neutrality. No Account
• Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What a pain. Oliver Chettle 18:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What a pain, indeed; going thru this for school after school after school, 98% of them, like this one, not notable. Bill 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. And utterly fruitlessly, too. In the past six weeks some seventy schools listed for deletion have had their dicussions closed. Not one of them has been deleted. The other twenty or so that haven't yet had their discussions closed also seem to be headed for a non-delete result. What a waste of time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The schoolwatch folks have become well organized making votes for deletion on schools pointless. Failing the organization of an anti-schoolwatch type group, this is policy by brute force. --Durin 13:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I must admit I'm a little puzzled by this line of argument. People who want school articles kept are entitled to one vote and only one vote. Furthermore, no school deletion discussions are initiated by people who want to keep schools. The rate of submission of school articles for deletion has rapidly accelerated in the past couple of months. In April, only 20 schools were listed for deletion, in May, 75. So far in June we've has 27. If one starts a discussion on deletion of a school on Wikipedia and a lot of regular Wikipedia editors show up saying they want that school article kept, presumably this means a lot of Wikipedians want that school article kept. This is precisely the purpose of VfD--for people to discuss whether they want articles deleted or not.
  • On the school watch page itself, it's vote-neutral. All school-related VfDs are listed there, and anyone can pop it in their watchlist. It doesn't favor pro-school people over anti-school people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please observe this sentence from the school watch page: "This is a campaign to ensure that articles on schools are allowed to develop on Wikipedia". That's not NPOV. It's a campaign. The fact that there is no concensus on the debate regarding inclusion of secondary schools juxtaposed with the statistics regarding the number of such schools that have been VfD'd but passed (all of them, recently) is in the least, interesting. --Durin 17:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please observe my rebuttal above. On your claim that there is no consensus on schools, observe: in the past 94 school deletion discussions that have reached a conclusion, only two articles have been deleted. Of the 28 pending (unfinished) school deletion discussions, only one article (about a school political organization started by a student), is headed for deletion. Wikipedia has spoken. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I pointed out the fact that the schoolwatch group/list is a campaign to retain school articles. There isn't any debating that. It's very clear from the sentence I quoted. If you wish to debate this further, then the next course of action would likely be to study the votes that have been cast for all of the 94 schools you note above, and see if there is consistency among the pro-keep or pro-delete populations. If there is consistency in one group vs. lack of consistency in the other, then it would appear there is a focused group intent on pro-keep or pro-delete. I suspect there is a focused group of pro-keep people, and not one for pro-delete. If that's the case, then it is not Wikipedia speaking. Instead, it is a focused minute sub-group of Wikipedia that is speaking. That becomes policy by brute force, not policy by concensus. For what it's worth, I'm generally in favor of articles on schools. Schools are verifiable entities, and if we are to include a requirement of basis in notability, they are considerably more notable than obscure cartoon characters that have individual articles. I'm just not in favor of policy by brute force. That undermines Wikipedia. --Durin 13:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're losing me here--what is the problem with the existence on Wikipedia of a group of people who consistently vote to keep school articles?
    • On the subject of focus, you may note if you have a look that 2/3 of all VfD listings for school articles in May were made by one editor and 2/3 or all VfD listings for school articles in June were made by another single editor. This is clear evidence of a focussed campaign to delete schools. And you know what? I couldn't care less. If Wikipedia wanted to delete schools this would be the way to go about it, a couple of dedicated editors rooting out school articles and proposing them to a receptive VfD which would duly delete them.
    • But these things can backfire. When some editors engage in focussed activity (such as the two-man deletion campaign that has accounted for the huge rise in VfD listings--from 20 in April to 75 in May and 27 so far in June), where there is not popular assent, it is inevitable that there will be an equally focussed backlash. People who care about the articles being systematically listed for deletion will tend to spot the pattern, watch for repetitions and engage in their own repetitive behavior. There is nothing wrong with this, and if the people engaged in the campaign for deletion don't like seeing this happen then all they have to do is stop listing school articles for deletion in this extremely focussed manner. We'll all go back to doing whatever it was we were doing before the deletion campaign and in time the success rate for school deletion listings may rise from its current value (between 0% and 3% depending on the sample timescale you use) to something like its former value (perhaps around 30%).
    • We cannot separate the opinion of Wikipedia from the social dynamics of its operation. When I say that Wikipedia has spoken, I literally mean that this is how Wikipedia resolves problems like this. A brute-force push in a direction that Wikipedia doesn't want to go, such as the deletion campaign, will tend to result in an equal and opposite reaction. This is Wikipedia. Learn to accept it and love it.
    • You describe the practise of consistently voting keep for schools as "policy by brute force". I cannot accept this characterization. Those voting to keep schools are simply expressing their opinion. They are not forcing others to vote keep or not to vote delete, they are simply expressing graphically the strength of feeling against the deletion of school articles. That they also have the best arguments may also help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not describe consistently voting to keep schools as "policy by brute force". I described an organized group of such people, working without there being an opposing such group, as "policy by brute force". On the rest of your points, I agree and disagree to varying degrees. On the original point, you made a statement that the schoolwatch group was neutral; it isn't. I think I've demonstated that effectively. That was my original point. I think it best we leave this debate in its current state; this is not the place for it. Thank you. --Durin 14:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well this brings us back to the question of what is an organized group. I stumbled across Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch because I already subscribed to the Wikipedia:Watch service, whose purpose is precisely to provide unobtrusive alerts in users' watchlists for events of interest. So I subscribed to that subpage, and sometimes I update it by adding or subtracting links to schools that someone else has listed for deletion, and that is the sole extent of my involvement with anything that can be called schoolwatch. Does the act of subscribing to, and updating, an article in project space constitute "organized activity?" Clearly the act of doing so does not require one to vote in a certain way, or even to vote at all, which is my point about schoolwatch. No matter what it says on the page, it is vote-neutral.
      • I've repeatedly stated this, and you've continually attempted to represent schoolwatch as some kind of focussed campaign, an organized group attempting to subvert Wikipedia. It isn't, and you've demonstrated nothing. Anybody can add Schoolwatch to their watchlist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I think it best we leave this debate in its current state; this is not the place for it. Thank you. --Durin 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Jelena Dokic being an ex-pupil makes it notable alone :-) Dan100 19:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I am an EX-Pupil and i have updated information. My name is Esteban Lopez and I might be adding myself to the list of Alumni. I have attended Fairfield High School and left in Disputes. --augrunt 14:23, 27 July 2006 (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.