Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. There is some sentiment that this should be marked as archival, but not a sufficiently strong consensus for me to feel comfortable so doing. Of course, such a choice is always open to editorial discretion and talk page discussion. Xoloz 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments

Leftover effluvia from a failed policy proposal. This is being used in lieu of discussion on WP:AFD, which subverts the fact that AFD is not a vote.

Incidentally, I deleted this (probably shouldn't have, but oh well) and redirected the redlink and nobody noticed for two days. Nobody really reads this page any more; it's cited as though it were policy, when no such policy exists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Citing this failed policy, as AMIB has said, has become pretty rife in AFD. I'm not sure if this will change any of that, but optimism never hurt anyone. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and stamp as an archive. bd2412 T 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This nomination is disruptive. As admitted, the nominator previously intentionally deleted this page by re-direction without adhereing to proper procedure. It is informative that his attitude towards to his action is "oh well". This page is cited throughout WP:SCHOOL as part of that historical debate and should be archived as part of that discussion for the same historical reasons as the rest of the debate. WP:SCHOOL itself has at least 5 links to this page, as well as many interspersed in the historically-archived discussion pages of WP:SCHOOL - deleting this article destroys the integrity of archiving WP:SCHOOL for historical reasons. I have never seen this page cited as policy, although it is regularly used to summarize the positions held by various parties in ongong discussions regarding school-related articles. It is entirely appropriate for editors to cite a summary of their rationale on this page (or frankly, any other page) in the course of AfD discussions. In any event, even if someone were improperly citing the page as policy, that is not a valid criterion for deleting this subpage and section of the WP:SCHOOL historical discussion. It is also an outright lie that "nobody really reads this page any more" as can be easily seen from the edit history, it was edited for content as recently as June 29, 2006, and it is irrelevant whether anyone "really reads this page any more" as it is part of the archived WP:SCHOOL discussion. The assertion that "nobody noticed for two days" is patently false. The nominator inappropriately redirected this page at 20:02, 25 July 2006, I had asked for assistance from another admin in less than a day and half here, which was as soon as I noticed the inappropriate abuse of redirection.--Nicodemus75 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    How is nominating a page I want deleted on MFD disruptive? Isn't that what MFD is for?
    Anyway, "Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep" is what I mean by citing it as policy. People are citing it in lieu of discussion. That said, I'd be more or less happy tagging it as rejected; BD is right that that would solve my main objection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You forgot to mention that just as many people use it to say "Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete". I find this interesting since you just speedily-deleted a Richmond BC school article today (Bridge Elementary School) without having to resort to the arguments in WP:SCHOOL. Deletion of WP:SCHOOL would just make further school article deletions that much easier to complete. --Stephane Charette 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (edit conflict, three times!) and affix an archive header, such as {{historical}}, which is customary. The initial speedy deletion of this page by A Man In Black was clearly meant to be disruptive, but I am willing to assume good faith in the nomination process, for whatever that is worth. Silensor 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think folks are quoting it as policy, but rather as a shorthand way of referring to common issues concerning schools and AfDs. Whether that is or isn't helpful is another question. -Will Beback 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree, to a degree. Similarly, I think that such intellectual shorthand is harmful to the process in that it's almost exactly like saying "well, last time this happened you said X and I said Y and we left at an impasse, so let's just stack up the two sides of our votes", which (pretty obviously) flies in the spirit of Wikipedian consensus-building processes. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - AMIB, you are as likely to repeat the same old tired arguements as anybody else. You may elect to retype them, and superficially reword them each time (saying things that could easily be swapped from one debate to another, unnoticed). That's your choice. Others opt to make the same old arguements by linking to them; and write extra words, only when there's something more unique to say. That's their choice. Saying "Keep per X" does not imply "X" is policy. Some people prefer spending their time contributing content to article space, where it might be appreciated. --Rob 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've come up with novel comments, and had novel responses that forced me to reconsider my thinking. That can't happen when it's just "Foo-ize per page that isn't a policy." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • With all sincerity, could you please direct me to any truly novel arguments in the debate over schools that hasn't been mentioned in any of the past 750 AfD discussion and WP:SCHOOL in the past 2 years? I can't even recall the last time I saw a truly novel point made in the reams of discussions. I am not talking about witty re-phrasing that some editors on both sides (including myself) will sometims use, nor am talking about bringing up the same old tired arguments after laying low for a few months (I have noticed that some very old arguments are popping into circulation again recently).--Nicodemus75 00:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The WP:CORP argument, for one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • AMIB, I don't suggest you *never* have specific per-school-article comments. Rather, I suggest, most of the time, you've made generic rehashes of old comments, which were no different than the "keep per link" type, except you do more typing. Many people who say "keep/delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments" in certain AFDs, also (like you) make more unique comments on other AFDs where appropriate. Please stop pretending you've been making more constructive contributions than others. Of course if you really were making lots of useful novel constructive arguements worth reading and discussing, which resulted in genuine progress, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? --Rob 03:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I was simply speaking from my own experience. Nico asked for an example of a novel argument, so I offered one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, we don't delete failed policy proposals because they are historically important, yet if you ever see someone quoting one in a discussion, be sure to slap him about with a large trout. --Cyde↔Weys 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep personally I prefer to use 1000page+ Unix handbooks (for slapping), but other than that I agree with Cyde. CharonX/talk 16:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as historical. --Zoz (t) 00:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as rejected to stop people from citing it as if it were policy (which it, of course, is not). Seeing that some school inclusionists believe there is a conspiracy to delete all school articles on Wikipedia, this may need protection. If people continue to cite it, it can be reviewed again later, and I'll vote to delete. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please cite one example where someone said this was a policy. People linking to this page (which contains arguments to keep schools and delete schools, I might add) as the rationale for their position on an AfD are hardly "citing it as policy". Given that the arguments to keep and the arguments to delete are diametrically opposite and contained on the same page, how could anyone mistake this page for a "policy"?--Nicodemus75 03:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I have clarified my argument. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:DCEATCTAITWP. Kotepho 05:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, policy digest should be preserved for historical reasons and as a precedent. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; this is what should be done with repetitious argument. Compare Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates. The correct response, if this is cited in AfD, is to note that this is a collection of arguments, not policy. Septentrionalis 17:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful page to avoid repetition of similar arguments on thousands of AFD pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep handy reference page used by a wiki-n00b (me) to learn more about school articles and how they could/should/have/mightbe handled on WP. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)updated comment see below. — MrDolomite | Talk 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment had to double check it was on the article, but isn't this a perfect example of {{historical}}? Or {{Rejected}}? — MrDolomite | Talk 06:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just didn't want this cited as policy any more. It has been marked as historical and the contents are in the page history. If someone wants to make an argument on a school AFD, be it keep or delete, that person can make their argument. Anyone who can't be bothered to do anything but vote is better saving their effort, since AFD isn't a vote. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If linking to this page is that much of a bother, I at least would be happy to paste the content directly into AFDs. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What's wrong with just making your own argument? Why do we need a tool for bloc-voting? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The arguments on that page are mine, I have adopted them for use in discussing the issue of whether schools should be included in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There's nothing wrong with being convinced by arguments made by others, or putting your arguments somewhere in your userspace to show to others. There is a problem with making a ready-made tool for users to cite when bloc-voting, especially when that tool is used in lieu of discussion on AFD, which is not a vote. We aren't here to have a KEEP faction and a DELETE faction sterilely linking their vote-bloc page and saying little more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I understand your concern about the nature of these AFDs, but it's only a natural result of the fact that we've had the argument about whether schools are notable hundreds of times. The discussions are sterile because there is nothing (or at least very little) new to be added to this deliberation, removing this page is not going to change that. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
              • All the more reason to do something about a page that is making them even more sterile. It's not something that can be fixed all at once, but if we can force everyone to actually make their case instead of citing a page with a laundry-list of generic arguments (like we do with every single other AFD on Wikipedia), it's at least a start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:A Man In Black has now resorted to page blanking, which is essentially a form of vandalism. That's normal for a newbie, but not an admin. This combined with the initial out-of-process speedy deletion of this page, is very concerning. --Rob 15:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Yep, the article history seems to be chock full of WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT. Seems like this could have been avoided with some type of page protection. While the specific actions of the history may not be 100% pertinent to this AfD, hopefully it will be more completely reviewed in another forum. — MrDolomite | Talk 17:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Give me a break. I explained my removal of the arguments on talk, had explicative edit summaries, and a number of users have expressed a desire to not see this cited as a reason to vote in current AFD discussions. Instead of flinging around accusations of vandalism, you may want to discuss this on talk instead of just claiming "I have community support, so you're vandalising!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thivierr (talk · contribs) has degenerated to using popups to edit war. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Thivierr (talk · contribs) (aka me) uses popups to fight repeat vandalism, which is what you've been doing to this page. Don't expect a proper edit summary every time your page blanking is reverted. It's not worth the effort. --Rob 19:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Really. I don't suppose you could explain what bad-faith interest I have in this, instead of the good-faith reasoning I offered on this page, on the talk page, and in my edit summaries? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ok, trying to keep track of what tag is on the article, is like trying to catch a greased pig. Deserves to be kept, especially by having an {{essay}}, {{historical}}, or {{rejected}}. — MrDolomite | Talk 17:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Summarise and then redirect. AMiB is right: people cite this as if it were a consensus to keep stuff, when in fact there was a very strong majority in favour of anything but, thwarted by an obdurate but highly vocal minority. This should be summarised and turned into a redirect to WP:SCHOOLS. Just zis Guy you know? 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the *whole* page. Notice, that there are *four* sets of arguements, including merging and deletion. While original arguements are good, any good arguement, is founded on prior arguements that have been made in the past. Linking to foundational arguements, instead of repeating them is good. Merging to WP:SCHOOLS is weird, because that is an actuall proposal (or "proposals"), which was rejected. This page, is simply a collection of common arguements. Nobody I know of, has ever used the whole page, but merely used the part(s) they support. Some have used more than one part, depending on the article. Often, that's combined with original/unique comemnts on top. Since many people have used this in AFDs, blanking, or redirection, is retroactively changing historical comments people have made. That's the equivilent of editing another editors comments, to change the meaning of what they said.--Rob 19:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If some of the arguments on that page are found useful by some editors, they may be usefully cited. It would be an unusual act to delete a project page, because it was still in use, rather than because it wasn't. --Tony Sidaway 20:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I find it striking that discussion of many of the points on this page is expressly discouraged. When someone has questioned a point, they've been redirected to the WP:SCHOOLS discussion, which is now defunct. So, if someone thinks a point on this page is nonsense, where do we discuss the appropriateness of that point? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Useful page that sums up the pros/cons of school articles on wikipedia. The nominator's claim that discussion is being "subverted" on AfD is false. Wikipedians are mostly adults. They are capable of weighing the arguments in an AFD discussion and making up their own minds. The nominator clearly has made up his mind: he doesn't like school articles. Instead of deleting/edit warring/disrupting various school related pages, a better approach would be to try to convince others that deleting school articles is the right solution. That requires effort and cogent arguments - not spurious deletion nominations. --JJay 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. What I'm afraid of (as an active member of WP:EiC), is that now that ManInBlack has demonstrated that any of our school stub articles can easily be speedily deleted (as what he did with Bridge Elementary School today) without having to resort to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, is that by getting rid of Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep we've lost our voice and all our similar stubs will be speedily-deleted. This is not bad faith, I'm not blaming ManInBlack -- I'm just genuinely afraid that all the work we've put into the Education in Canada wikiproject over the past few months will instantly dissapear. This boils down to the same old argument about people's characters and views towards keep-and-improve versus deleting. --Stephane Charette 20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Those microstubs were all in the form of "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar.{{navbox}}". (I even left a microstub that had one more sentence than that.) Feel free to make an article, or even a stub, in any of those redlinks. I'm fairly sure the hard work of WP:EiC is not in making contextless microstubs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. The infobox takes a fair bit of research to look up. I unfortunately do not know how to look up what an admin has deleted, but I'm fairly certain that the BC school stubs that have been worked on by a dozen people over the past few months have been more than just the navbar. You conveniently left out the fact that the infobox was there for the schools. BTW, leaving comments like this one:
Oooh, didn't even know about you guys. I also speedily deleted a ton of one-sentence "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar{{navbox}}" microstubs that a new user prodded, for essentially the same reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)'
in the Education in Canada talk page with an edit summary of oh yeah is borderline inflamatory. I don't know why you seem so hell-bent on deleting school stubs at the moment, but I suggest you take a step back and look at what you're doing and the effect you are having on many Wikipedia editors. --Stephane Charette 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
All of the pages I deleted outside of those AFDs were strictly of the "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar{{navbox}}" form. As for the comment, the "Oh yeah" was for someone who brough the project to my attention in IRC, and should have ended with a question mark. It's less "Oh yeah? Take that!" and more "Oh yeah? Well, then they should know about this, then."
Further discussion of this issuee completely unrelated to this MFD can continue on the relevant project page or my talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Considering how deletion of the school argument page would make it easier for you or any other admin to delete the school stubs, I'd say this is the perfect place to discuss it. See the comment I included with my keep vote just a few paragraphs higher. --Stephane Charette 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've brought this up in two more-relevant places than this page; please stop making this the "Issues I have with AMIB pertaining to schools" noticeboard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep of historical significance, and quite usefull so one doesnt have to rehash all of the arguments all over again in each school afd.  ALKIVAR™ 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as an archive. —Nightstallion (?) 16:41, 31 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.