Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Joseph's Secondary School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] St. Joseph's Secondary School
Non-notable, rambling, childlike. SecondarySchoolCruft. --InShaneee 02:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) (whoops, looks like I forgot to list this yesterday.)
- Looks like a hoax to me ("A student got hit by a car while crossing the road" - like that doesn't happen everywhere ...). Delete. Excuse me while I de-shit the article first. Chris talk back 17:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, state-registered secondary schools are all adequately notable, other things can be cleaned up. Kappa 17:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Inshaneee. Radiant_* 18:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and continue to improve. High schools should not have to prove their notability. --BaronLarf 18:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? Every other entry has to do so, what makes schools a special case? Chris talk back 18:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. I believe that, just as incorporated places, universities and Category:British railway stations seem to have generally agreed upon notability, so too should high schools and secondary schools. "If someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." —Jimmy Wales (Full context of quote) --BaronLarf 20:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that context. I notice that Jimbo talks about a "good article" from a "good contributor", which lends support to the idea that a certain standard could be required from school articles. Kappa 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree that school articles should be improved as much as possible, just as any article should. But he makes no mention of "notability," only verifiability. Granted, lots of these schools start out as horrendous articles by anonymous users who just want to brag about their school. But through edits by "good contributors" such as ourselves, I believe we can turn them into "good articles."--BaronLarf 21:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Then be bold and do so. The words "money" and "mouth" come to mind. Christalk back 04:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Check the page history. I have been. Cordially yours, BaronLarf 13:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- A table and some categories do not make a stub on some non-notable subject into an article worthy of an encyclopedia. If we started seeing more substantial contributions from the people who think that any one room school is worth an article, we might start changing our votes. Gamaliel 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am doing my best to add everything verifiable that I can about this school. I apologize that it does not meet your personal standard for what a high school article should be. I agree with you that those who vote "Keep" should do something to make the article better, and I am trying to do this. Cheers. --BaronLarf 19:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- A table and some categories do not make a stub on some non-notable subject into an article worthy of an encyclopedia. If we started seeing more substantial contributions from the people who think that any one room school is worth an article, we might start changing our votes. Gamaliel 16:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Check the page history. I have been. Cordially yours, BaronLarf 13:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Then be bold and do so. The words "money" and "mouth" come to mind. Christalk back 04:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree that school articles should be improved as much as possible, just as any article should. But he makes no mention of "notability," only verifiability. Granted, lots of these schools start out as horrendous articles by anonymous users who just want to brag about their school. But through edits by "good contributors" such as ourselves, I believe we can turn them into "good articles."--BaronLarf 21:34, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that context. I notice that Jimbo talks about a "good article" from a "good contributor", which lends support to the idea that a certain standard could be required from school articles. Kappa 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. I believe that, just as incorporated places, universities and Category:British railway stations seem to have generally agreed upon notability, so too should high schools and secondary schools. "If someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." —Jimmy Wales (Full context of quote) --BaronLarf 20:17, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? Every other entry has to do so, what makes schools a special case? Chris talk back 18:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable school. Dave the Red (talk) 18:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 19:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability policies. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - per the usual. - SimonP 21:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of substantial notability. Firebug 21:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination reasons do not comply with current deletion policy. --Gene_poole 23:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for tender love and organic growth. This school article is even nicely formated. All school's are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 00:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, probable hoax. No notability established. Slac speak up! 00:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Zscout370 00:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- keep this too please Yuckfoo 01:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. James F. (talk) 01:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Gamaliel 02:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all secondary schools. Its not a hoax. Paradiso 03:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing to apparently distinguish it from the other 136 schools in the Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. School vanity, not notable. Jonathunder 04:55, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
- Delete. Schools are inherently nonencyclopedic. --Angr/comhrá 05:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 06:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I would be more than happy to change my vote if someone actually went to the effort of explaining in the article what makes this school stand out. Indrian 07:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Make a mention in Mississauga, Ontario and delete - Skysmith 07:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 10:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I can see where you're coming from with the notability (though I don't agree), but how is it a hoax?--BaronLarf 13:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. JuntungWu 13:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Schools aren't inherently notable --Bucephalus 16:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl (talk) 18:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic, judging from the page's history, despite BaronLarf's heroic efforts. —Korath (Talk) 21:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete, despite BaronLarf's improvements, due to lack of evidence of anything to distinguish this school from all others. I strongly disagree with both Angr and RaD Man in their opposing viewpoints: Schools are neither inherently significant enough for WP inclusion, nor inherently insignificant enough to auto-delete. Editors using templates to keep all schools or delete all schools are far less persuasive than those who research the individual school and discuss it on its merits. Barno 00:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My point of contention is that we're able to include any commercial music album, not to mention every Pokemon character under the son, for the sake of completion. Be it by way of Dr Zen's template or not, the message doesn't change. If you don't believe all schools are notable, the issue of me using a template isn't going to change your mind either way. Count on me to vote keep on each and every verifiably accurate school article every time there is an opportunity to do so. —RaD Man (talk) 01:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Of course we can have those things over schools for completion, because, unlike schools, we can actually have a complete set. Pokemon are finite. Even since they've introduced more than the 150, the number is hardly large enough to cause a problem. Albums are also finite, the criteria the artists have to meet take care of that - we can never have too many, because the bulk don't meet the inclusion criteria. What you idiots don't seem to realise is that, unlike Pokemon, major albums, major computer games, major characters from RPGs, railway stations, etc. without defining a much stricter set of criteria than "if it's real, it can stay in", schools are not finite. Wikipedia is not infinite (as those of you who have actually read WP:WINP and WP:WIN properly will know), thus we need to restrict the articles we have. We can include things "for the sake of completion", because we know we have something we can complete. We can never hope to document every school in the world ever - it's physically and logically impossible, as well as making Wikipedia unmaintainable and a print edition unfeasible. Oh, and did I mention that your attitude is inherently harmful to Wikipedia? Chris talk back 00:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "What you idiots don't seem to realise"— excuse me? —RaD Man (talk) 00:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What, no logical counter-argument? Of course not. You can't come up with one because there isn't one, so instead you feel the need to attack my comments. Chris talk back 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is the second time that I've linked to Wikipedia:Civility in reply to one of your comments on this page. I don't think that it's out of line to adhere to it. On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland) you've told people to "shut the hell up." Now you are referring to fellow wikipedians as idiots. Could we please tone the vitriol down a bit? The number of high schools is indeed finite, though large (21,500). At the rate that Wikipedia is growing, the percentage of articles devoted to high school articles in the end will never be over 1%, I believe. People have to create the articles first. --BaronLarf 04:37, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- What, no logical counter-argument? Of course not. You can't come up with one because there isn't one, so instead you feel the need to attack my comments. Chris talk back 03:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "What you idiots don't seem to realise"— excuse me? —RaD Man (talk) 00:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Of course we can have those things over schools for completion, because, unlike schools, we can actually have a complete set. Pokemon are finite. Even since they've introduced more than the 150, the number is hardly large enough to cause a problem. Albums are also finite, the criteria the artists have to meet take care of that - we can never have too many, because the bulk don't meet the inclusion criteria. What you idiots don't seem to realise is that, unlike Pokemon, major albums, major computer games, major characters from RPGs, railway stations, etc. without defining a much stricter set of criteria than "if it's real, it can stay in", schools are not finite. Wikipedia is not infinite (as those of you who have actually read WP:WINP and WP:WIN properly will know), thus we need to restrict the articles we have. We can include things "for the sake of completion", because we know we have something we can complete. We can never hope to document every school in the world ever - it's physically and logically impossible, as well as making Wikipedia unmaintainable and a print edition unfeasible. Oh, and did I mention that your attitude is inherently harmful to Wikipedia? Chris talk back 00:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be all for revisiting the album/Pokemon/game issue. More and more it seems to me that it's time to create a WikiPopCulture project and move all the pop culture stuff over to it. Mwanner 12:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
-
- My point of contention is that we're able to include any commercial music album, not to mention every Pokemon character under the son, for the sake of completion. Be it by way of Dr Zen's template or not, the message doesn't change. If you don't believe all schools are notable, the issue of me using a template isn't going to change your mind either way. Count on me to vote keep on each and every verifiably accurate school article every time there is an opportunity to do so. —RaD Man (talk) 01:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - As per all schools, I vote to keep.. ANd this one is written better than most! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I forgot, whether I already voted on this one or not. These school articles are absolutely identical. Some day just to prove a point I'll create 100+ stubs on schools in my home city... Delete Grue 19:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously improved since nomination. Samaritan 21:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Article looks okay now. GrantNeufeld 22:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another catholic school. If there was something noteworthy about the school, that someone who didn't go there would find interesting to know in the article, I might change my vote. --Webgeer 22:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another Catholic school, despite the cosmetic surgery to the article. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Ask yourself "Who, other than someone who attends the school, would go looking for it on WP?" If the answer is "no one", then it basically amounts to a group vanity page. Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I like Skysmith's suggestion-- add schools to their home town's articles, which tent to run stubby anyway. Mwanner 11:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable secondary school. VladMV ٭ talk 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this school article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 19:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Not if supported by established Wikipolicy (see, for instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines). If we do not have such a policy for schools, votes will necessarily have to be cast on personal evaluations of notability. Arguing that "All schools are notable" is also a personal evaluation of notability. The fact that "notability is subjective" invalidates neither a "Delete" nor a "Keep" vote. VladMV ٭ talk 19:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The Steve 21:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Even a non-notable school with a nice article should be kept on wikipedia. It should only be deleted when a stub fails to be expanded. Looks nice enough to me, just needs more expansion in this case.Mark Shew 22:03, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- User's third edit to wikipedia. Indrian 03:32, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Yawn. The JPS 10:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep --Spinboy 06:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
