Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Framingham High School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Postdlf 22:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Framingham High School
Non-notable. Delete. Neutralitytalk 04:11, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. notability. Mikkalai 01:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Jimbo [1] that all high schools are notable enough. We should relax and accomodate them. Kappa 01:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Jimbo didn't say that. He said a two page article would be notable, and that one sentence stubs would be annoying. RickK 07:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- So he said all high schools are notable enough to have two page articles... Kappa 18:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Nice try, but since you linked to it we can read what he actually said. Gamaliel 18:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, that's not what he said, and you know it. RickK 19:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, RickK's interpretation is that two pages articles on high schools are notable, I'll use that one. Kappa 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Given that we're talking about the internet, a page can consist of two words, or ten thousand. --Gene_poole 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- OK, RickK's interpretation is that two pages articles on high schools are notable, I'll use that one. Kappa 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- So he said all high schools are notable enough to have two page articles... Kappa 18:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Jimbo didn't say that. He said a two page article would be notable, and that one sentence stubs would be annoying. RickK 07:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for me I'm afraid. Rje 01:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Why do we have to debate high school notability every single time, when it's already been established there's no consensus? Kappa 01:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Kappa gren 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: If people are just using templates, how can this be considered a discussion? Kappa 02:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- I didn't realize only inclusionists were allowed to use them. Sorry. Gamaliel 02:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Heh. Shouldn't {{User:Gamaliel/S}} be added to the ongoing VfD? ;) —RaD Man (talk) 02:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really like inclusionist templates either, but this is the first template I've tried to reply to. Kappa 03:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing notable here. Indrian 04:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: BEEFSTEW score of 2. I'll abstain from voting for now. --bainer 05:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article fails to estabilsh notability, however, the fact that students are able to flunk in the school almost does it.Vote changed, see below. --Carnildo 06:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Keep as "On a visit on October 20, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) in the school's John F. Kennedy gymnasium." is notable for me. But I'd love to see some 2-page articles about schools Jimbo mentioned instead of stubs containing only trivial info. Mgm|(talk) 10:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Otherwise we can create an artcle about Brenda's Mobile Sandwich Bar, because Clinton once bought a can of coke there. The JPS 11:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I see that it was only today that someone bothered to create Improving America's Schools Act, and even then it doesn't even mention the school! (I'm sure it soon will, tho') If the IASA is so notable that it was only created as a result of this vfd, why should we care about where it was signed? The JPS 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's a WP:BEEFSTEW thing. "G) Does the article mention a regional or national news story that mentions the school?" Kappa 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Oh, and move my userpage into article space. I've shaken hands with Rhodri Morgan, therefore I'm notable by this definition. Chris talk back 21:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I see that it was only today that someone bothered to create Improving America's Schools Act, and even then it doesn't even mention the school! (I'm sure it soon will, tho') If the IASA is so notable that it was only created as a result of this vfd, why should we care about where it was signed? The JPS 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - as with other schools - SimonP 12:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Note that, as usual, there was an attempt to stack the vote on this vfd. [2] —Korath (Talk) 14:14, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Listing school's on User:GRider/Schoolwatch is not a crime. Both deletionists and inclusionists can use the information therein. Klonimus 23:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Are you really voting on the BEEFSTEW? But you don't want people to find out so they can improve the articles? Kappa 18:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Schools can be notable. This one isn't. Carbonite | Talk 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. 14:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Unsigned by User:Juntung ~ 14:48, 17 Apr 2005. [3]
- Delete, another non-notable school. Grue 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Cmon people, deep inside we all know that each and every school is notable in its own way and worthy of inclusion in a truly great encyclopedia. If I wasn't so tied up with dealing with bad faith deletionism with Islamofascism, I'd polish up this article. The current article passes the Toowoomba Grammar School test. Klonimus 23:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Since those of us who feel this article is not worthy also largely voted to delete the article you refer to, that is not a particularly good test. Indrian 23:58, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- So we have to do it all over again every time? Kappa 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. As long as two groups of people have strong opinions on what is best for the project and cannot come to a consensus then we most certainly do have to do it over again every time. Indrian 00:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- So when there's no consensus, we have to continue fighting indefinitely... sad. Kappa 00:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No one is making you come here and vote or discuss. Furthermore, I do not recall seeing you try to affect a compromise between your position and mine. Indrian 00:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I feel I have to come here and vote and discuss because I care about the potential users of this project, who will not be best served by having useful, encyclopedic information deleted. Kappa 00:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And I feel I have to come here and vote and discuss because I care about potential users of the project, who will have legitimate credibility concerns about the project if they see a large number of small articles on schools or other topics that are poorly crafted and have little useful (from a research standpoint) information. It would be arrogant to think that I care any less about wikipedia than you. We have strong disagreements on what is best, but we are both working for the greater good. Indrian 01:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I feel I have to come here and vote and discuss because I care about the potential users of this project, who will not be best served by having useful, encyclopedic information deleted. Kappa 00:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've been hearing this "credibility" blather for years, and I've yet to encounter a single instance of anyone being scared off Wikipedia by so-called "poorly-crafted" articles. On the contrary, I'm aware of several people who have become contributors specifically to improve articles they thought could be improved. --Gene_poole 05:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No one is making you come here and vote or discuss. Furthermore, I do not recall seeing you try to affect a compromise between your position and mine. Indrian 00:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- So when there's no consensus, we have to continue fighting indefinitely... sad. Kappa 00:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What do you suggest as an alternative? Gamaliel 01:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think that routine information on schools should be included on the page of the relevant town or county or whatever. I am fine with redirects as appropriate. If those pages get too large as a result, the information could be transferred to a page on the school district or whatever administrative unit is used by a particular country. If individual schools are particularly significant (as opposed to just having long-winded entries) then that school can have its own page. This allows the information to be kept and the proliferation of small, often poor quality articles to be kept in check. Indrian 01:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, guess I should have specified I was asking Kappa what s/he thought would be an alternative to these "sad" discussions happening over and over again. Gamaliel 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No worries, I am still blabla happy to give my view and see what Kappa thinks about it. Indrian 01:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to hear an alternative as well. Would there be some way of getting a consensus here? Radiant_* 14:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- A consensus would have to allow average schools to have articles if they are reasonably long and informative, per "relax and accomodate". If you want to cut down on "small, often poor quality" articles stop voting "delete all average schools" and we can try and work out guidelines on which articles should be deleted or merged. Kappa 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please cease and desist from putting words in JW's mouth. That is patently not his intention, nor is it even a valid interpretation of the post. Neither should it be taken that anything that JW says should be construed as de facto policy. To do so is a substantial misrepresentation of the facts, and an abuse of everything we hold dear. Chris talk back 23:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- He said "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." I'm not putting those words into his mouth, and I'm not saying it's policy, only that consensus will not be achieved without it. Kappa 01:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You are putting words into his mouth. You know the old saying "Even Satan may cite scripture to suit his purposes." You're taking a quote out of its original context, made in references to a completely different situation, and stating that somehow it applies here. Very unwiki of you. Again, please stop such activity. It's not fair on Jimbo, and it's not fair on the opposition. As for any chance of reaching consensus, you don't seem to be intent on giving an inch, so any claim that it is required for reaching consensus is entirely hypocritical. Chris talk back 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm giving a lot of "inches". What I'd really like is for articles on schools to just be able to grow normally like anything else, but all I'm asking now is that the best quality articles have a chance to stand. Kappa 10:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You are putting words into his mouth. You know the old saying "Even Satan may cite scripture to suit his purposes." You're taking a quote out of its original context, made in references to a completely different situation, and stating that somehow it applies here. Very unwiki of you. Again, please stop such activity. It's not fair on Jimbo, and it's not fair on the opposition. As for any chance of reaching consensus, you don't seem to be intent on giving an inch, so any claim that it is required for reaching consensus is entirely hypocritical. Chris talk back 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- He said "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." I'm not putting those words into his mouth, and I'm not saying it's policy, only that consensus will not be achieved without it. Kappa 01:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please cease and desist from putting words in JW's mouth. That is patently not his intention, nor is it even a valid interpretation of the post. Neither should it be taken that anything that JW says should be construed as de facto policy. To do so is a substantial misrepresentation of the facts, and an abuse of everything we hold dear. Chris talk back 23:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A consensus would have to allow average schools to have articles if they are reasonably long and informative, per "relax and accomodate". If you want to cut down on "small, often poor quality" articles stop voting "delete all average schools" and we can try and work out guidelines on which articles should be deleted or merged. Kappa 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to hear an alternative as well. Would there be some way of getting a consensus here? Radiant_* 14:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No worries, I am still blabla happy to give my view and see what Kappa thinks about it. Indrian 01:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, guess I should have specified I was asking Kappa what s/he thought would be an alternative to these "sad" discussions happening over and over again. Gamaliel 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think that routine information on schools should be included on the page of the relevant town or county or whatever. I am fine with redirects as appropriate. If those pages get too large as a result, the information could be transferred to a page on the school district or whatever administrative unit is used by a particular country. If individual schools are particularly significant (as opposed to just having long-winded entries) then that school can have its own page. This allows the information to be kept and the proliferation of small, often poor quality articles to be kept in check. Indrian 01:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. As long as two groups of people have strong opinions on what is best for the project and cannot come to a consensus then we most certainly do have to do it over again every time. Indrian 00:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- So we have to do it all over again every time? Kappa 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Since those of us who feel this article is not worthy also largely voted to delete the article you refer to, that is not a particularly good test. Indrian 23:58, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination does not comply with deletion policy.--Gene_poole 23:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (excerpted from WP:NOT, which is one of the criteria in the deletion policy) Indrian 00:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- And how is that comment relevant to a discussion on the subject of whether a concise presentation of organised data on a clearly defined subject should or should not be deleted?. --Gene_poole 05:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just that regardless of your opinion on the article you should do more research before accusing fellow wikipedians of acting in bad faith; though I assume you are smart enough to realize that and are just egging me on a bit, because that is a more positive thought than the alternative. Indrian 06:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I'd just like you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that a coherent arrangement of information on a single mundane topic is nonsense - or as you so nicely put it, an "indisciminate collection of items of information". I see no nonsense here, and hence no reason for deletion. --Gene_poole 07:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You have misread the quote. The phrase "indiscriminate collection of items of information (which is taken straight from the policy page and is not how I put it) refers to wikipedia and not to an individual article therein. Whether you agree that including this article violates said policy or not is immaterial to whether this is a valid VfD. There is a difference of opinion about what information belongs in the encyclopedia and what information would turn it into an indiscriminate collection of items of information (something quite different from nonsense; I am intrigued at how you pulled that definition out of those words), which is why we have these discussions and votes, but this nomination is perfectly in-line with policy. Your view that only vanity, original research, and nonsense should be deleted is actually a narrower view than the deletion policy itself puts forth. You are entitled to have that opinion and vote based on that opinion, but you are not entitled to accuse users of nominating articles contrary to the actual deletion policy when they have not done so. Indrian 07:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, the Wikipedia default position on all articles and the information contained therein is retention - unless - and only unless - there are compelling reasons for deletion. This is the clear and unambiguous intent and spirit of the deletion policy as it currently stands. Nonsense, vanity and original research are the only stated compelling reasons to delete content from Wikipedia under that policy. This nomination fails that basic test, and is therefore invalid. --Gene_poole 23:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Have you even read the deletion policy? The following reasons are unambiguously given for listing an article on VfD: "No potential to become encyclopedic (see WP:NOT), Original research, Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases, Vanity page, Advertising or other spam, Completely idiosyncratic non-topic." Notice that WP:NOT is unambiguously tied to the deletion policy as the place to go for a definition of no potential to become encyclopedic. If one were to bother to read that page, one would see the following categories unambiguously stated: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base is further defined as follows on the same page: "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Travel guides, Memorials, News reports, Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries, Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business."
- I have directly cut and pasted this information from the appropriate pages which expound the official deletion policy of wikipedia. This policy unambiguously states many more categories of articles that can be placed on VfD and properly deleted than just nonsense, vanity, and original research. Your position is directly contradicted by the express words of the policy. You are certainly allowed to vote your conscience and vote to keep the article, but the listing is perfectly valid. Indrian 00:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You can cut and paste as much as you like, but unfortunately you still haven't demonstrated any direct correlation between Wikipedia's deletion policy and this nomination, which clearly does NOT comply with ANY of the policy requirements listed above or anywhere else within Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 00:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is plenty of play in the joints of the unencyclopedic criteria and in what wikipedia is not. The listed examples are only those for which a strong consensus has been reached, and some of those examples are ambiguous themselves. Due to this ambiguity and differences of opinion on what the limits of this criteria are, there are naturally debates that play out on VfD. You interpret the guidelines narrowly, others do so more broadly. Claiming that there is no room for debate is simplistic, and claiming that only vanity, original research, and nonsense are the only criteria is just plain wrong. And besdies, if these school nominations are not valid, why do admins honor the results whether it is to keep or delete? Indrian 01:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- You can cut and paste as much as you like, but unfortunately you still haven't demonstrated any direct correlation between Wikipedia's deletion policy and this nomination, which clearly does NOT comply with ANY of the policy requirements listed above or anywhere else within Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 00:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, the Wikipedia default position on all articles and the information contained therein is retention - unless - and only unless - there are compelling reasons for deletion. This is the clear and unambiguous intent and spirit of the deletion policy as it currently stands. Nonsense, vanity and original research are the only stated compelling reasons to delete content from Wikipedia under that policy. This nomination fails that basic test, and is therefore invalid. --Gene_poole 23:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You have misread the quote. The phrase "indiscriminate collection of items of information (which is taken straight from the policy page and is not how I put it) refers to wikipedia and not to an individual article therein. Whether you agree that including this article violates said policy or not is immaterial to whether this is a valid VfD. There is a difference of opinion about what information belongs in the encyclopedia and what information would turn it into an indiscriminate collection of items of information (something quite different from nonsense; I am intrigued at how you pulled that definition out of those words), which is why we have these discussions and votes, but this nomination is perfectly in-line with policy. Your view that only vanity, original research, and nonsense should be deleted is actually a narrower view than the deletion policy itself puts forth. You are entitled to have that opinion and vote based on that opinion, but you are not entitled to accuse users of nominating articles contrary to the actual deletion policy when they have not done so. Indrian 07:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I'd just like you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that a coherent arrangement of information on a single mundane topic is nonsense - or as you so nicely put it, an "indisciminate collection of items of information". I see no nonsense here, and hence no reason for deletion. --Gene_poole 07:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just that regardless of your opinion on the article you should do more research before accusing fellow wikipedians of acting in bad faith; though I assume you are smart enough to realize that and are just egging me on a bit, because that is a more positive thought than the alternative. Indrian 06:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- And how is that comment relevant to a discussion on the subject of whether a concise presentation of organised data on a clearly defined subject should or should not be deleted?. --Gene_poole 05:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (excerpted from WP:NOT, which is one of the criteria in the deletion policy) Indrian 00:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- this particular otherwise uninteresting public high school in an otherwise uninteresting outer suburb of Boston seems to be marginally notable. Still, it's no Stuyvesant High. Haikupoet 00:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If it's so uninteresting, what makes it "marginally notable"? Gamaliel 01:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Clinton visit and Improving America's School Act make it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Framingham, Massachusetts (which is very good start in my opinion, by the way) and delete - Skysmith 09:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. NN. Radiant_* 14:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - as with other schools - Dittaeva 14:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. While I believe that all high schools deserve an article on Wikipedia, this high school should meet the standards for those who believe some sort of notability is required. President Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act here. Christa McAuliffe, the teacher and astronaut who died in the Challenger disaster graduated from here. The school has a history dating back to 1792 as an academy and 1852 as a reorganized high school. I've made improvements to the article. More are needed, as can be said for almost any article, but it should not be deleted. --BaronLarf 21:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. If it's really got a history dating back to 1792, it's encyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This is a very good and very notable article compared to some of the other stuff on Wikipedia. -CunningLinguist 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- keep, why does this keep happening? 1792 seems historical. Yuckfoo 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This time, it happened because the original article put up for VfD was a bland two-sentence stub saying "This is a school. It is in this city." --Carnildo 06:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep this extremely notable school. This is not a template. ;) —RaD Man (talk) 08:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - As per all Schools, I vote to keep. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Decent article, has potential to become enclopedic. --Andylkl (talk) 15:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia would be less valuable without this article. Fg2 01:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Like colleges and universities, schools are enduring institutions. Tobycat 02:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, schools = notable. --Myles Long 15:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It is an enduring institution affecting thousands of lives. Could be a very interesting page.
--VorpalBlade 17:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The Steve 19:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. ALKIVAR™
09:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) - 'Keep'. Houshuang 01:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Where else would someone find this concise description of this school? —BenFrantzDale 15:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry boys and girls, but NN = Delete for me. Master Thief Garrett 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is subjective. Wikipedia is not improved by the removal of school articles. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- However, it is improved by the removal of articles about subjects that don't merit them, and articles that don't contain any information which separate it out from an article on a near-identical subject. Wikipedia is not, however, improved by keeping them. Common sense, people. I find it disturbing that people are still voting on this after 2 weeks. Chris talk back 13:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Thank you so much. That is exactly my view. People seem to think that a school automatically has a Vfd-proof bubble around it and vehemently oppose any naysayers. However, I wouldn't say two weeks is overly long. Since the Schoolwatch team have now made the deletion of all schools a point of contention, each and every deletion discussion that would otherwise be short and simple now becomes a bitter struggle of wills between the "keep every school no matter what" and the "delete if it's useless/obscure" camps. Master Thief Garrett 00:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- However, it is improved by the removal of articles about subjects that don't merit them, and articles that don't contain any information which separate it out from an article on a near-identical subject. Wikipedia is not, however, improved by keeping them. Common sense, people. I find it disturbing that people are still voting on this after 2 weeks. Chris talk back 13:43, 30 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.
