Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haverford 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Haverford Middle School
Non-noteworthy middle school stub with no sources. Directory entry. Shimeru 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge per WP:SCHOOLS and/or WP:LOCAL. "It was built in the 1926s as Haverford Senior High School, until redistricting plans moved the high school into a new building." is encylopedic, not directory info. Describing it as a middle school is misleading. Kappa 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. Haverford Middle School is a middle school. Shimeru 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Misleading and irresponsible. Kappa 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. The middle school is a middle school regardless of the building it occupies, and the founding of the high school has to do with the high school, not the middle school. I will also thank you to refrain from personal attacks. Shimeru 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, you are right and I apologize. Facing constant brutal confrontation makes me grouchy, LOL. Kappa 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- And, in addition to that, the middle school shared a campus with the high school until the high school got its own campus. WhisperToMe 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Misleading and irresponsible. Kappa 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. Haverford Middle School is a middle school. Shimeru 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep or merge. Please consider the number of times a fight has been started by nominating a school, then read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is better served if you submit the article to WP:SCH for improvement instead of nominating for deletion. Unfocused 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No claim of notability. Schools do not all need Wikipedia articles. They may be mentioned in an article about the city.Edison 00:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a merge vote then? Kappa 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Some high schools are notable and should have articles. Middle schools rarely qualify and there is nothing about this one that suggests it's appropriate to have an article about it. JChap2007 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I tried to add a bit of content and a cite. I think I established some notability. Please review? --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- The citation is a definite plus, so thank you for that. I still feel it's a directory entry and nothing more, though. Shimeru 04:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability. It's misleading too, the buliding may have been built in 1926 but the middle school wasn't. TJ Spyke 02:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:SCHOOL. --Terence Ong (T | C) 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to School District of Haverford Township per WP:LOCAL and WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 04:50, 4 November 2006
- Delete Utterly non nontable middle school. Resolute 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Throwing a monkey wrench; it was easy to cite the school's history and the student body statistics. I am fixing many of these problems anyway... WhisperToMe 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Valrith 05:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, lack of distinct notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article makes a clear and distinct statement of notability, and recent changes and sourcing have obviated suggested reasons for deletion by the nominator. Silensor 06:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep better content than some of our city stubs... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close This has the S word in the title so will never get consensus delete. It can go one of two ways: merge, or expand. Neither requires admin powers. Guy 10:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn IronDuke 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. The strongest claim for notability is that it almost became a highschool? Please. JoshuaZ 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - middle schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you know, public middle schools are regularly the subject of nontrivial coverage in local media. Kappa 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are regularly the subject of puff-pieces in the local media. And even if they were non-trivial, we don't have any evidence that such pieces exist for this school. JoshuaZ 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- We don't have any evidence that such coverage exists for a typical village in Africa, but we don't delete them if they are verifiable. Kappa 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, they are regularly the subject of puff-pieces in the local media. And even if they were non-trivial, we don't have any evidence that such pieces exist for this school. JoshuaZ 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you know, public middle schools are regularly the subject of nontrivial coverage in local media. Kappa 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? JoshuaZ 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:SCHOOLS of being older than 50 years. - JNighthawk 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- CommentJNighthawk, you are referring to a provision of a proposed (not accepted) guideline (not a policy) that is itself labeled as controversial (I would label it idiotic, but I'm feeling a little surly right now). Can you think of any other rationale for including this school? IronDuke 02:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Thorough article for a school that meets and exceeds the WP:SCHOOLS standard. Alansohn 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge information into school district article or Haverford Township, Pennsylvania. --JohnDBuell 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Cribcage 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Schools#Arguments/Keep. Kappa 07:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there some reason that you are saying that? Remember, AfD is not a vote. JoshuaZ 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per many of the fine points above. --Myles Long 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Several different sources are presented, meeting our verifiability policies, and also meets the criteria set by the bastardised WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Silensor 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets all content policies -- there has been no assertion to the contrary -- so no basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Oh really? What about WP:NOT? JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- No sensible assessment of the article could conclude that it is excluded by WP:NOT. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of random information. JoshuaZ 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- You make reference to two sections of WP:NOT, that A) Wikipedia is not a directory, and B) Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. WP:NOT defines these terms as follows: A) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. NOT APPLICABLE, and 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business Now this what is raised as an issue, but WP:NOT defines this as For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. There is just nothing in this clause of WP:NOT that seems relevant to making this particular article improper. B) Next we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is defined as 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Travel guides. NOT APPLICABLE; 3. Memorials. NOT APPLICABLE; 4. Instruction manuals. NOT APPLICABLE; 5. Internet guides.NOT APPLICABLE; 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. NOT APPLICABLE; 7. Plot summaries. NOT APPLICABLE, Again, there is no aspect of this clause of WP:NOT that seems applicable in any way to this article. WP:NOT is often thrown out as a justification to delete articles, but I agree completely with Christopher Parham that it simply doesn't apply in this case. Alansohn 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- As to the first point, this entry is little more than an address easily in the "phonebook entries" category. As for the second setting, it should be apparent that the list there is not intended to be exhaustive. In fact, almost daily, articles are deleted per WP:NOT's "random collection" criterion even if they don't fall into exactly one of those categories. JoshuaZ 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what's printed in your phone book, but in mine, phonebook entries look like Haverford Middle School 123 Main Street 123-456-7890. This article far exceeds what a phonebook entry is, by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that WP:NOT's "indiscriminate collection" clause is used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia", and the fact that there are many people who misuse it and get articles deleted, does not make it a valid argument. The examples provided are intended to serve as cardinal prototypes of "indiscriminate collections", and none of them are within miles of this article. How can we meaningfully apply Wikipedia criteria if their clearcut meaning can be changed to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. You yourself don't excuse bad arguments to keep (e.g. "Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim?"), why should a bad argument re WP:NOT (e.g., other people use it to mean something other than what it says and they delete articles anyway) be acceptable? Alansohn 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- As to the first point, this entry is little more than an address easily in the "phonebook entries" category. As for the second setting, it should be apparent that the list there is not intended to be exhaustive. In fact, almost daily, articles are deleted per WP:NOT's "random collection" criterion even if they don't fall into exactly one of those categories. JoshuaZ 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- You make reference to two sections of WP:NOT, that A) Wikipedia is not a directory, and B) Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. WP:NOT defines these terms as follows: A) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. NOT APPLICABLE, and 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business Now this what is raised as an issue, but WP:NOT defines this as For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. There is just nothing in this clause of WP:NOT that seems relevant to making this particular article improper. B) Next we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is defined as 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Travel guides. NOT APPLICABLE; 3. Memorials. NOT APPLICABLE; 4. Instruction manuals. NOT APPLICABLE; 5. Internet guides.NOT APPLICABLE; 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. NOT APPLICABLE; 7. Plot summaries. NOT APPLICABLE, Again, there is no aspect of this clause of WP:NOT that seems applicable in any way to this article. WP:NOT is often thrown out as a justification to delete articles, but I agree completely with Christopher Parham that it simply doesn't apply in this case. Alansohn 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of random information. JoshuaZ 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- No sensible assessment of the article could conclude that it is excluded by WP:NOT. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Oh really? What about WP:NOT? JoshuaZ 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep There are some subjects in this WIkipedia that don't interest more than a handful of people, and this school is not one --Mike 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment So? JoshuaZ 18:17, 7 November 2006 (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.
