Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Dye School

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Thomas Dye School

I had tagged this article for PROD for non-notability. The tag was removed, but the article doesn't appear to have been improved. Additionally, the one "reference" link doesn't work. There is no indication aside from two unreferenced claims about notable alumni that this school is notable in any way. ♠PMC♠ 07:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable as a celebrity school. Thought I'd find more/better sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. spank the nominator. Unfocused 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? "Spank the nominator" is hardly civil, let alone a rationale for keeping an article. ♠PMC♠ 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfair, Unfocused -- it was a lousy article when nominated. Although it seemed like a "don't delete, fix" to me, I think it was a fair nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think we've had the schools discussion enough times and for long enough for almost anyone to know there's an alternative route available that should be tried first. Corporal punishment by the principal really is the only solution, since unprovoked nomination of a school is six demerits, and only four demerits is an automatic spanking. (Can you tell I refuse to take this entirely seriously?) Unfocused 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • • • Be careful, this will go on your permanent record. The beauty of Wikipedia is that every article is a moving target. Often (and I'm not suggesting that it be used as a justification), an AfD will impel those people who want to see worthy articles retained to take the time and effort to improve the article. Often the article that the nominator refered to and that many may have already voted to delete, is not what exists if another look was taken to see if appropriate changes have been made. Alansohn 01:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Nomination for deletion as a substitute for the moment it would take to do a contributing edit, or to tag it for positive attention is not just a paddlin' but five nights detention as well. Seriously, deletion is a moderately hostile act toward every previous editor of the article. It's the equivalent of telling them "hey, your work is not welcome here", which is not a good response to good faith efforts. Please don't excuse, or even worse, legitimize it's use as a "cleanup on demand" tag. Either the topic is worthwhile, or it's not. I think we've firmly established that there are enough interested editors to prevent the deletion of schools, other than the odd one that goes through here unnoticed or has a genuine critical flaw. Unfocused 05:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Deletion is not a hostile act. I've had articles I've worked on get deleted. In some cases, I've totally re-written an article during the AfD only to have it still deleted. If that's what the community has decided about the topic then that's what is relevant. It says nothing at all to the editors in question. Anyone who feels that deletion is a hostile matter has a maturity issue. JoshuaZ 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Deletion is most definitely not a hostile act. As Dhartung said, when the article was nominated, it was awful. It was unsourced and made dubious claims of notability. The problems I had with it have been adressed. I didn't AfD it to GET it fixed, although I'm pleased to see that it has been. I think you're demonizing the deletion process a little overmuch, Unfocused. I'm not insulting the previous editors, just voicing an opinion. ♠PMC♠ 07:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  Deletion being a necessary function does not make it any less a moderately hostile act. White blood cells attacking foreign germs is a hostile act, yet quite necessary to human life. Treat deletion as the hostile act that it is and we won't have nominations of classes of articles where there is clearly a well known, large and significant good faith opposition to deleting those articles. The first reaction to an awful article (especially those in a specific class where significant support has already be demonstrated) should be "can I fix this?" and the second "can this article be fixed by someone more interested in this topic?" If the answer to either is "yes", then nomination for deletion is wrong. No one says you can't trim an article down to the barest of stubs instead. Unfocused 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - We don't want to relive the drama of the last "are schools notable?" debate. -bobby 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reply: which of the many recent and good school AfD debates would that be? I haven't seen much "drama" in them, just not enough people interested in discussing the actual merits of an article and its subject wrt Wikipedia policies beyond some dogmatic general principle position (from both sides). Fram 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep thoroughly sourced, multiple notable alumni. Article needs more details, but more than exceeds the minimum required for a school article per WP:SCHOOLS and any other meaningful standard. Alansohn 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The barrier for elementary schools should be high, but the school has many notable almuni and thus has a plausible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep lots of realy big stars went to this school!! keep Audiobooks 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The school is obviously notable, this nomination is a waste of time. Silensor 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the notable alumni (although I almost put a delete because of people with a III in their name) Fram 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This school seems to have fairly notable alumni, and I would consider that a reason to keep. --SunStar Net 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nuff said...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This school nomination is particularly perplexing, it should be rather evident that it is notable. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 4 November 2006
• Wesk Keep based on the notable alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanger (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2006

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.