Wikipedia:Non-main namespace pages for deletion/Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch

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. -Splash 02:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch and subpages (ie Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive)

This page seems to promote factionalism and strife among users, so I'm going to be bold and VFD it. NO VOTE. AlbertR 04:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. IMHO the page does not "promote factionalism and strife among users". Any disagreement exists with or without this page, which is just a tool that draws attention to a nomination. What is wrong with making people aware of a proposed deletion that they may have an interest in voting on one way or the other? DS1953 05:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It does indeed promote factionalism. Before Schoolwatch was started, VfDs of schools were fairly normal affairs, not much different from other VfD discussions. Since then, school VfDs have become very acrmonious, with at least two editors advocating the murder of those who nominate schools for VfD. --Carnildo 06:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid as all other watch pages, that it can lead to some factionalism is not a good reason to delete. There was a discussion over GRider's schoolwatch, many wanting it moved out into the main Wikipedia namespace. This page will be more neutral in the Wikipedia namespace than in the user namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is an uncalled for and disgusting subversion of the wiki process, contrary to all wikiquette ever conceived. Dunc|☺ 11:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Kappa 13:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course. Kappa, you should just put "keep" into your signature, it'd save some time. If this project can de-stubify or at least merge nn schools into the towns/cities they are in(to me, all towns and cities are notable), then it's worth it. If it's just an excuse for inclusionists to advocate against VfDs where they're needed, I'll change my vote, but until then I say Keep. Karmafist 14:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Moving a long digression unrelated to the merits of this article to the talk page. Please move back if you disagree with this move. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't promote factionalism and strife. I don't know why it would be any more useful for inclusionists than it is for deletionists. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:04, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate project of Wikipedians who choose to participate, and an effective vessel for the expansion/improvement of school articles that are brought under its auspices. -- BD2412 talk 18:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this as it tries to keep Wikipedia pruned. Rkevins82 18:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--We can't delete it just for being a controversial project. --Tysto 19:58, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Merge with GRider schoolwatch, then move to a subpage of Wikiproject Schools. Well duh, obviously this page is the cause of some disruption, but removing it won't remove the disruption. Radiant_>|< 00:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if and only if the crusade against the inclusion of schools ends. Otherwise, bicycle as usual.Philip Arthur 07:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a lot easier to keep something like this neutral if it's in the Wikipedia: namespace instead of a user namespace. JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please so many school articles have been made better because of this watch page Yuckfoo 17:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This page seems pretty infomative rather then overtly factional. Promotes discussion about school pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerberj (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 August 2005
  • Keep, obviously. This nomination seems to promote factionalism and strife among users. —RaD Man (talk) 03:46, 18 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.