Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mark 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 delete. --Coredesat 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Mark Middle School

New Mark Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. There is nothing about this school that indicates notability. I doubt that much more could be added than what is already there. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Deletion nomination was made the same day the article was created. Very bad form. Give the creator time. Noroton 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete When the article was created doesn't mean anything, the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save. The school does not assert notability (so possibly speedy delete). TJ Spyke 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard that "the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save". If that exists as a rule, guideline or even a suggestion somewhere, please point it out. Noroton 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
comment Wikipedia has a thing called a stub, yes?AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Noroton and TJ Spyke: In fact, the second paragraph at the criteria for speedy deletion specifically says "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." This isn't a speedy deletion nomination, but it was nominated for deletion pretty speedily . . . . Also, before nominating a recently created article, we are asked to "consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Those are the only policies of which I'm aware that discuss whether "the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save."—Carolfrog 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The distinction is whether it is likely that the article can be improved. As there is essentially nothing there, and no references, there is no way we can tell. I think a friendly note such as Noroton send to a school yesterday is the way. (The practical reason for deleting these as they come in is that this is the time when they are noticed, and probably the only time. Probably we would do well to have some more rational but complicated sorting method, but at least for schools, we dont.) DGG 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Give me a break. This happened on several articles that I created. Within minutes, there were AFD templates slapped up, no discussion regarding it or whatever. Of course, I would continue to add information, sources, etc. but the original AFD poster would never comment or reverse his shortsighted decision. Now if the article had been up for a considerable amount of time with no improvement, that would be different. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could be a speedy delete per A7 as Middle Schools are very rarely voted notable, but we can be fair and give it the five days. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether this school is notable or not, the point is that the article makes no such assertion, and therefore fails WP:NOT. This is a refection on the article, not on the school. As far as the comments by the author and by User:Noroton are concerned, it is expected that an article, once posted, must stand or fall on its merits as they appear at the time. An author can take as long as needed building an article on a sub-page or in the sandbox, but once the "save" button is hit the article is up for judgement. If there are references or sources available, they should be added before saving, not after.--Anthony.bradbury 14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The second paragraph at the criteria for speedy deletion asks editors to consider "that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." Also, before nominating a recently created article, we are asked to "consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." —Carolfrog 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete An article should, from its beginning, contain some idea of why it in Wikipedia. Why do we care about this particular subject? In this case, some people might claim that all schools should have articles, but a review of past AFD discussions shows that this position is not widely supported by the community. So, there should be some reason to care about this particular school... and so far, there is none. Out! --Brianyoumans 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there can be some assertation of notability added. You do have as much time as you need to build the article, sure, but when it's created, you need to assert a reason that it belongs. You've got 5 days to change my mind, so if there's something truly notable about the school, add it in.--UsaSatsui 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Frickeg 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. Who would benefit from the deletion of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 Mar 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment the above IP user has left the same comment on multiple AfD pages. On a few of these, it is the only keep recomendation. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia strives not for truth — as, arguably, not all that is "true" has been yet discovered, and we do not permit original research — but instead for verifiability. --Iamunknown 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Find sufficient evidence of notability and I'll change my vote. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:56, 12 March 2007 (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.