Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Krop

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 23:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Krop

nn ex school board member with school named for him Wow! Weak Delete cause it survived VFD once --Aranda56 01:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Vote Change From Weak Delete to Keep I live in Miami and he was significant here but i thought it was just a local thing and shouldn't be here in particular beacuse of that but i guess i was wrong so sorry im still learning about wikipedia. --Aranda56 03:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for, the AfD process did exactly what it was supposed to do... besides, the fault is largely mine. I should have made the article more complete in the first place. Wikipedia does have its share of local politicians - mayors of medium-sized towns, even some notable or controversial city council members. School board members are not so well represented, but then again, very few of them oversee multi-billion dollar budgets for decades in a row! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Astrokey44 01:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Some dude. It's a local scandal, it seems, and that's interesting, but without any effects or regional implications, it's just too much of a news item. No actual accomplishments are given for him as head of the council (not superintendant, which is an elected office and requires notoriety at least) -- not even a particularly glowing smile from a patient -- just that he was a long time member of the board and that a school was named after him when folks thought it shouldn't be. Geogre 02:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Still not entirely sure of his greater-than-local significance, but he seems to be very significant locally. Removing the delete vote. Geogre 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Did he actually do anything apart from having the school named after him? Pilatus 02:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, he did. Keep Pilatus 21:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per results of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Michael Krop; this person was elected and re-elected for nearly a quarter century to set the priorities for a school district with more students than the state of Wyoming or Rhode Island, and used his authority to champion the needs of the most vulnerable immigrants to one of the most multicultural cities in the country. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not being snarky, but could one of those who knows this other information please add it to the article? I assess articles solely by what it written, and the sorts of information that would have kept me from voting to delete simply were not present. One of the fallacies of VfD-cleanup is that we end up with people doing research, finding information, and voting keep, but the additional information doesn't always end up in the article. This is, in fact, why I insist on voting for the article, not the topic: if we all vote keep based on the article that could be written, then we end up leaving a subpar article in place. If folks go to the trouble of coming up with additional information, they have only to put it into the article, even in the crudest way, if they're strapped for time or disinclined to write. Again, this is not meant to be a personal attack or insult, but when VfD is over 150 articles a day, voting on a reading of the articles is difficult enough; voting on the invisible other articles is impossible, at least for me. Geogre 11:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, and I guess part of the problem is that the best sources of information on the guy's contributions are not readily accessible on the internet. They are well documented in Miami Herald articles - a search of their archives [1] yields over 2,000 results for "Michael Krop" between 1982 (the earliest year covered by the archives) and 1995 (the year before the school naming controversy first comes up, and well before any school named for him existed), but these articles can not be retrieved for free. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per my previous vote. Ran 4th largest school system in the US for nearly 25 years makes him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And why are we clogging up Votes/Articles for Deletion with this once again? —RaD Man (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412 and Capitalistroadster. -- DS1953 05:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why the second nomination? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with reluctance. We really need to accept precidence here. There's a claim of notability, which has been approved by a prior afd. Let's not re-open every school related article. --rob 06:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why the reluctance? Dr. Michael M. Krop High School is named after him, how many living people do you know who have schools named after them? —RaD Man (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: My high school was named after a living person, Queen Elizabeth, and she's not famous because many schools are named after her; it's the other way around. It sounds like he would never have been worthy of a school naming, but he got it, because he was on the board. But, as I said there was a *basis* for the claim of notability, which I reluctantly accept. --rob 07:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - article has survived a previous vote for deletion - no more need be said. Vizjim 10:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cautiously, Wikipedia is not paper, just about passes threshhold of notability, not a good idea to reopen old VFD debates without some substantial reason. PatGallacher 10:18, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Keep, there is no need to keep voting until deletionists get the result they want. How many more times will we have to vote on this article? --Nicodemus75 11:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I find the responses of several of the keep voters frustrating. "Why are we clogging up Vfd", "no need to keep voting", "article has survived a previous vote for deletion- no more need be said". Guys, Wikipedia is an evolving leviathan- as we go forward, there is nothing to say that old rulings can't be changed. There is no Double Jeopardy clause on Wikipedia. One Vfd survival does not create immunity. I wasn't going to vote, but now it's a delete, just to cancel out somebody else's vote.--Scimitar ^parley 14:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the re-nomination of kept articles frustrating. This is exactly the problem. Thanks for so clearly demonstrating the bad faith I was implying by speciously "changing" your vote. Also, great motivation for voting. You should be given a medal.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But even within the context of an evolving leviathan, shouldn't new reasons for deletion be given? If the old reason resulted in "keep" last time, why try a second time for exactly the same reason?Vizjim 15:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, adopting this as a norm encourages "I didn't like the last AfD, so I'll try until I get a result I like." This is a dangerous precedent to set, since there are many people with axes to grid who are more persistent than others trying to stop them. That said, I'm sure that's not what's going on here. I'm just worried about the precedent. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is some precedent for re-nominating articles that were kept based on low-turnout votes. Six people voted in the original VfD (4 keep, 1 delete, 1 merge/redirect - oddly the nominator abstained). I certainly don't think the nomination was in bad faith, but rather represents a attempt to get a larger sense of the community. Also, it spurred me to improve an article which I have neglected. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Guy seems notable enough. Sdedeo 19:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no prob with this article. Alf ^melmac 20:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but can authors of article add material explaining national important of this school board? How about a reference to New Yorker article on the power of large school boards over the big textbook publishers? (No, I don't recall the exact citation, but you guys are apparently the experts on school boards.)---CH (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this person is really encyclopedic also please try not to be so insulting to the people we write about that seems offensive Yuckfoo 07:48, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.