Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Catherine's School, Twickenham

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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Catherine's School, Twickenham

This is a minor school of little or no note. I tried to merge all the schools in Twickenham to one list, but I have met some opposition from two other editors. There is no policy to enforce their views so I would like to delete this article and move any useful information back to the list.--Tim Pope 13:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• No vote Um, can that be done under copyright - delete and move?? --Doc (?) 13:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's nothing wrong with this article. I've added a few references to school reports and the like, and some stats from a 2000 report. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. So, external links make it encylopedic? Vegaswikian 05:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Your link's a bit dodgy. You refer to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments but your link goes to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Deletion. I tried to fix it a couple of times but for some reason it always goes back to the erroneous link. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick look at the edit history here will eliminate any confusion [1]. Perhaps now you could "fix" the links on this one? And it's a shame you didn't manage to catch this problem here, here, here, here, here, here... - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Woa, you're losing me here. Why don't you fix your links? What relevance do the other cases have here? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn upon finding TimPope's merge attempt. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate. Articles should be organized for the convenience of real users, not to wow random page users with astonishing amounts of "notability". (Disclaimer: I started that article) Kappa 15:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is putting the article in a list inconvenient when a redirect points at the list? --Tim Pope 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the usual reasons. Also, Kappa's right, we're not here to wow the "random page surfers". Do try to keep that in mind. Unfocused 16:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete if it is not expanded.Gateman1997 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Probably not compatible with GFDL. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - per TimPope. FCYTravis 17:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A decent article. Subject is more worthy of one than tens of thousands of our pop culture articles. Osomec 18:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an independent school, for which read reasonably prestigious. I can't find any old girls though. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, how old is this school again? —RaD Man (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • how is age relevant, a merged list of schools would state the age of the school. --Tim Pope 20:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 1914. So not particularly old for a British school. Dunc|☺ 00:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good school stub. Pburka 00:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you want build consensus for a merge, do it at the talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
• Delete - see User:ESkog/Schools. ESkog 03:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Tim Pope. Censure Tony Sidaway for vandalizing other users' votes. --Carnildo 04:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete per several editors above. Vegaswikian 05:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge back into list as per above. Please cease vote vandalism reworded - see below. Proto t c 10:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not vandalise any votes. That is a simple lie. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

    St. Catherine's #1, St. Catherine's #2, Charlotte #1, Charlotte #2, and Sacred Heart #1
    brenneman^(t)(c) 11:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Again you lie. No votes were changed. I simply corrected the link that you had doctored in a misleading manner, and that you continue to doctor in the most brazen, disgraceful and disingenuous manner. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me reword. Please cease endless commenting on votes that happen to reflect a point of view other than your own. Proto t c 12:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and feed articles into Wikipedia:Schools where they belong. Secretlondon 12:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — RJH 15:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• We keep railway stations. We keep suburbs. We keep bridges. We keep highways. We keep schools. --Gene_poole 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article goes well beyond the amount of information that would be contained in a single entry in a list. Factitious 07:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a good stub already, and hopefully will grow. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
• Merge as per TimPope but do not delete. I do not normally advocate merging expandable stubs such as this but I can certainly believe that Tim thinks this is not expandable. Having gone to the trouble of merging to a reasonable article (though Schools in Twickenham would be a better name), it should not be split out until it is of a reasonable length and depth. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, are you recommending that all the information in the article be merged into that list? The page history doesn't show that any of it was ever there, aside from the name of the school. Factitious 22:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • The short answer is yes. The history of this article is extremely mixed up because of moves back and forth. It was part of the list once [2] but the list article was moved back to Waldegrave School for Girls since TimPope had originally moved that article to the list article as the beginning of a merger. I would like to recommend that when people "merge" an article to a non-existent article that they follow the merge instructions rather than move it. It makes it far less complicated to follow. When I first saw this VfD, I looked at the history as well and believed that Tim had only posted a redirect, effectively soft-deleting the article but more complicated look through the moves found what had really happened. You can see some of the moves and merges at [3]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the usual arguments. The most relevant here: 1) The editorial consensus apparently favors separate articles. Merging should be discussed with them, not on VfD. 2) There is a project to develop guidelines for school articles. The recommendations do not currently favor deletion. Go clean it up, expand it, tag it and sort it, etc. 3) Notability is not itself a criterion for deletion. Deletion is an extreme action only to be taken when there is no hope of a valid encyclopedic article arising through collaborative editing. Dystopos 23:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs more content to make a decent article. --Eoghanacht 14:52, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
• Delete No particular indiction of notability. DES ^(talk) 23:47, 10 August 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.