Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waldegrave School for Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waldegrave School for Girls

This page seems like overt use of Wikipedia for advertising... IMHO, i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. What do other wise Wikipedians say ? Manik Raina 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Well documented and nicely linked to topics we should have like Leading Edge Partnership -Harmil 10:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I wrote this, it's not my fault it sounds like advertising, it's mostly from a government report [1]. See also wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 11:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Cedars 12:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep i cannot see what distinguishes this school from others. Good point. And other schools get kept, since school = notable. Article's a bit gushy, but that's always fixable. Grutness...wha? 13:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot see what distinguishes this school from other unnotable schools that ought to be deleted. Dunc|☺ 13:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • D. nn. Radiant_>|< 14:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep!! Elliott C. Bäck 14:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Also, Kappa, if you wrote the article, it is your fault if it sounds like advertising. Whatever the govt. report said, you chose to add that information in the way that you did. --Scimitar parley 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So should I have left things out, or gone digging for something negative to say? Kappa 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Either/or. I'm not picky. ;) Seriously though, if you don't have enough information to keep an article from sounding like advertising, maybe you shouldn't start the article. Also, I don't actually think it does sound like advertising; you note in the text that all info comes from the govt. report. I just found your "it's not my fault" response slightly disingenuous. --Scimitar parley 15:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Adding and removing information for the purpose of sounding unbiased introduces actual bias. If I follow your policy, I will be easier to make articles on average school than good ones. Kappa 16:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Did you read my post aside from the first tongue-in-cheek line? Editors don't exist to copy their sources verbatim; they must exercise judgement and determine what from their sources is unbiased and NPOV. Also, as to adding information, what is that but finding another source and getting a more rounded, balanced view of the article's subject.--Scimitar parley 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Ofsted reports give rounded, balanced views by reporting major weaknesses when then find them. If they don't find any, that's significant fact worth reporting. They have a tendancy to flatter schools, so I toned that aspect down. I didn't copy the report wholesale, but strengths/weaknesses and popularity are some of the most important aspects for describing what is distinctive about a school. Kappa 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you don't like the style, rewrite it. VfD is not cleanup. -- Visviva 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Banana. As above. --Carnildo 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is a great resource, and should continue to be. Themindset 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion if every high school is going to be created, at least merge them into a list by area. This article contains nothing notable on its own. --Tim Pope 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion. I'd also like to say that for those who are extreme school inclusionists who want to draw and quarter the VfD nominators and so forth, there is the option of starting a separate wiki for schools, where any school can be included without question of whether or not it is encyclopedic/notable/etc. --Idont Havaname 03:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Or we could just take that approach to Wikipedia, which the consensus currently supports. Grace Note 04:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing notable on its own. --Idont Havaname 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it does not look like advertising to me Yuckfoo 23:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Go banana. Gamaliel 01:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Nominator should be drawn and quartered. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Other wise Wikipedians have noticed that this is a dead horse discussion, where have you been? —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. n. Grace Note 04:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the purpose of ending school VfD debates. Xoloz 05:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encylopedic as written or any indication at this point that it will be. If the only content is a government report, it makes you wonder. Vegaswikian 06:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep some notability. JamesBurns 07:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted by the nominator it is as notable as other schools. CalJW 10:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 14:20, 20 July 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.