Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thayer J. Hill 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. Disregarding "all schools are inherently notable", the arguments for deletion are stronger than the arguments for keeping here. The school is verifiable - we know it exists - but nothing has been presented to show that it is notable. There is hardly any mergeable information here. --Coredesat 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thayer J. Hill Middle School
Non-notable middle school. Nominated on Prod but was removed only on grounds that the information is "verifiable" - it is, and in fact that's about the only information on the school's official "About Us" page (which could be seen as violation of copyright if it hadn't been rewritten with so many typos). Only claims to fame are known locally, if at all (and I doubt the fact that the school being its district's first middle school is widely known by residents of Naperville and Aurora, Illinois). Article doesn't even seem to meet any notability requirements of WP:SCHOOLS. --JohnDBuell 20:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOOLS (even though that is just a proposed guideline and I disagree with parts of it). BTW, new AFDs are supposed to go at the bottom of the page. TJ Spyke 21:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, I bypassed one of the templates inadvertently. --JohnDBuell 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, verifiable. For schools that don't meet WP:SCHOOL, WP:SCHOOL suggests merging them into an article on the parent community or school district (in either case, the merge target is Public school systems in Aurora, Illinois), not deleting. I'd be okay with a merge too. JYolkowski // talk 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hill is actually mentioned in the Naperville, Illinois article already (it's in Naperville, not Aurora), and it also garnered a mention in Public school systems in Aurora, Illinois#Indian Prairie School District 204. A mascot might be worth adding to the Naperville list (if mascots of the other schools in that article are added), but otherwise I don't think a merge is really necessary, the information is already there. --JohnDBuell 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- One other thing - if a redirect is used pointing back to any other article as a result of this discussion, I would ask that such a redirect be placed at Thayer J. Hill Middle School, the school's full name, so as to disambiguate with any other schools called "Hill Middle School." --JohnDBuell 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to article title suggested. Hill Middle School can become the disambiguation page when necessary. Unfocused 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Disambiguation page is now done, as I noticed a Hill Middle School in a California school district. --JohnDBuell 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to article title suggested. Hill Middle School can become the disambiguation page when necessary. Unfocused 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- One other thing - if a redirect is used pointing back to any other article as a result of this discussion, I would ask that such a redirect be placed at Thayer J. Hill Middle School, the school's full name, so as to disambiguate with any other schools called "Hill Middle School." --JohnDBuell 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No notability, no assertion of anything important about this school. It has no notable alumni, has had no teams or clubs perform at a notable level or anything else that might confer notability. As observed by TJ, it doesn't even come close to passing the highly generous WP:SCHOOLS. JoshuaZ 23:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:SCHOOLS is just a proposed guideline. In my opinion, all schools are notable. --Ineffable3000 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? Simply asserting it doesn't give it any validity. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, asserting it does give it just as much validity as asserting the opposite opinion. Unfocused 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually no it doesn't. The default status for things is to be not-notable. It doesn't matter how much I assert that corner stores are notable. Unless I give some argument as to why that's true that assertion holds no water whatsoever. JoshuaZ 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The default status for a random item is non-notable, however this isn't a random article, it's a school, which for many editors includes inherent notability due to its mission function, and impact on its attendees. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Which comes down to an assertion by fiat. I could make nearly identical arguments for hospitals (people are born there) graveyards (after death you spend eternity there (in some sense at least)) and many other institutions. Furthermore, schools are largely interchangeable and have little actual impact on many people for whom schools are holding pens until they got jobs or for whom there are benefit from schools but they in no way benefit much based on anything unique about that school. There is nothing which distinguishes this school from any others in that regard. Nothing in the article indicates that students here are having a terribly unique experience they wouldn't get at any other school. Schools as a whole are notable, that doesn't make each individual school notable. JoshuaZ 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The default status for a random item is non-notable, however this isn't a random article, it's a school, which for many editors includes inherent notability due to its mission function, and impact on its attendees. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually no it doesn't. The default status for things is to be not-notable. It doesn't matter how much I assert that corner stores are notable. Unless I give some argument as to why that's true that assertion holds no water whatsoever. JoshuaZ 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, asserting it does give it just as much validity as asserting the opposite opinion. Unfocused 09:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have some reasoning or basis behind that claim? Simply asserting it doesn't give it any validity. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Completely verifiable and important to the community it serves. Nice start on the article thus far. Unfocused 00:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry but this is bugging me. I don't see how a near-verbatim copy of information already online at the school's own "About Our School" page [1] can be considered a "nice start". Looks more like copyvio to me. And why should Wikipedia be reproducing information found on the pages that schools have set up about their own history all over the Web? --JohnDBuell 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's unlikely Wikipedia will ever be much better for a simple reason - public schools keep a LOT of information, especially negative information, out of the hands of the press. They don't want to alarm their public with all of the things that really go on within the buildings (thefts are a good example). But, as I only know this first hand, it would be considered WP:OR.... --JohnDBuell 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- They can't keep negative police reports and negative state assessments out of the hands of the press, and this is a fine place to report them, where applicable. Unfocused 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Illinois State School Report Cards are one thing - but there are a LOT of things never reported to the police, see above. --JohnDBuell 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- They can't keep negative police reports and negative state assessments out of the hands of the press, and this is a fine place to report them, where applicable. Unfocused 20:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's unlikely Wikipedia will ever be much better for a simple reason - public schools keep a LOT of information, especially negative information, out of the hands of the press. They don't want to alarm their public with all of the things that really go on within the buildings (thefts are a good example). But, as I only know this first hand, it would be considered WP:OR.... --JohnDBuell 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 05:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Being important to the community it serves is not a reason to keep it. Corner stores are important to their communities as is every little park and day-care. Do you think we should keep all of them? JoshuaZ 00:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The busses that brings kids to school are incredibly important; why not write an article on every bus? Why not write an article on every teacher- teachers are surely important to the community, no? What about town halls, courtrooms, and hospitals? How are these any less important (or, more appropriately, how are schools any more notable)? -- Kicking222 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Laidlaw has the exclusive contract for school buses for IPSD 204, and they already have an article. --JohnDBuell 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry but this is bugging me. I don't see how a near-verbatim copy of information already online at the school's own "About Our School" page [1] can be considered a "nice start". Looks more like copyvio to me. And why should Wikipedia be reproducing information found on the pages that schools have set up about their own history all over the Web? --JohnDBuell 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No indication it's noteworthy. Directory entry. Doesn't even meet WP:SCHOOLS' broad standards. Would be gone already if it were anything other than a school. Shimeru 01:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per, among other reasons, Shimeru's. If this were a hospital, or a residence with possible historical significance, or any other type of building (or institution), it would already be long gone. The school is already mentioned in appropriate articles, so a merge is unnecessary. -- Kicking222 01:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: We _could_ add EVERY public school in the United States, making Wikipedia a HUGE directory of schools (against WP:NOT) and boost the count of articles by an obscene number, against even Jimbo's wishes for quality over quantity. --JohnDBuell 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable school, devoid of any historical or cultural significance. Montco 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, JoshuaZ and Kicking222. Encyclopedia, not a near-infinite collection of content-free stubs. Hasn't anyone told the every-school-is-sacred crowd that this year's big thing is quality, not quantity ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article has ample room for expansion. We're not going to achieve our collective goal pf having articles for every school in the US if we don't work together. Alansohn 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WHOSE collective goal? I'll say it again - why should Wikipedia repeat those things that are already posted on school district websites across the United States and elsewhere? --JohnDBuell 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I repeat myself as well, and from this discussion, no less: Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand how that's relevant to John's question. Could you explain in more detail? JoshuaZ 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I repeat myself as well, and from this discussion, no less: Because there's nothing to suggest that the pages run by the schools themselves are or will remain a neutral source of information. Unfocused 20:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Completely verifiable and important to the community it serves. Nice start on the article thus far. SchmuckyTheCat 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a nice copy of information from several pages at hill.ipsd.org - they must be so proud. --JohnDBuell 14:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets all applicable content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per JYolkowski. No valid arguments for deletion have been made thus far. Silensor 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of notability, and copyright violation of district web pages aren't "valid arguments for deletion"? --JohnDBuell 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unless I am missing something, the current version of this article is not a copyvio. If it is, the correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not AFD. Notability is not a criterion for deletion here. Silensor 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- It may not be word for word but there's NOTHING within the article that isn't already found at hill.ipsd.org, as I've pointed out more than once. --JohnDBuell 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, notability a deletion criterion. Its used all the time in deletion discussions and is officially enshrined in the likes of WP:BIO, WP:CORP WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYTHINGTHATISNTAFRAKINSCHOOL. JoshuaZ 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unless I am missing something, the current version of this article is not a copyvio. If it is, the correct place to list this is Wikipedia:Copyright problems, not AFD. Notability is not a criterion for deletion here. Silensor 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Would people be satisfied with a redirect into a brand new Indian Prairie School District 204 article? --JohnDBuell 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or merge (I'm going to make a template for this!) It is a school, it is notable, it would be in any encylopedia if it had the space, it shouldn't be deleted so why is there an AfD? --Mike 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per statements above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Pls allow for organic expansion -- Librarianofages 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's not a keep reason that's special pleading with buzzwords. What pray tell does "organic expansion" mean? JoshuaZ 01:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Expansion to what? A carbon copy of hill.ipsd.org except on one page instead of several? Links to the rare news articles from the Naperville Sun about the school and/or its teams and activities? That still sounds more like a stub/directory entry than a proper article to me. --JohnDBuell 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep please claims of copyvio are not true at all Yuckfoo 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While I agree that there is no copyvio issue here, the lack of copyvio is not a reason to keep by itself. JoshuaZ 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or possibly merge to the proper locality per WP:LOCAL as well as WP:SCHOOLS. Yamaguchi先生 05:47, 9 November 2006
- CommentSo what is the keep argument being used here? JoshuaZ 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability, can't even tell without digging what country the school is in. Guettarda 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unremarkable school Catchpole 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:SCHOOL. Herostratus 05:06, 10 November 2006 (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.
