Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School

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 of the debate was Enoough NO CONSENSUS (default keep) - if anyone thinks a different result is possible then revert my closing -Doc (?) 00:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maryville Middle School

I attended this school, and it's not special. It teaches math, English, and science, phys ed and music just like every other public school. It has no special programs. The community does not "come together" around it (except the students, who are required to by law). There's nothing here for an encyclopedia article.

Delete. Gazpacho 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator. Superm401 | Talk 08:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --rob 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marskell 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The JPS 10:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it is special and important too Yuckfoo 19:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, tell me how it's special. I can't wait. Gazpacho
  - How many public schools teach Latin?--Nicodemus75 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mine did. I don't think it's terribly rare. Someone is buying copies of Cattus Petasatus and two of the Amazon reader reviews say "I wish I had this book back in middle school where we had two years of Latin" and "Having studied Latin throughout high school." The National Junior Classical League has "49,701 members in 1064 chapters throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom." If we guess that one chapter typically means one school, that's a thousand schools. Here's one college that lists about twenty Latin M.A. candidates, most of whom are teaching in public schools. This site says that there is "a nationwide shortage of high school Latin teachers, so the job outlook is excellent for Latin majors who wish to pursue their interest in Latin in this way. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief what a waste of time! I premptively closed this as the result was inevitable ('no consensus') and the so-called 'debate' a pointless waste of bytes. Obviously someone disagrees and believes another result is possible, or that the discussion will take us foward some how. Well, I now wait to being proved wrong! --Doc (?) 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A pre-emptive 'no consensus' is quite plainly a 'Speedy Keep' declaration by any other name. And clearly this is not eligible for Speedy Keep. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - But we all know it will be kept, so whether one wishes it deleted or not - what is the f***ing point of this ritual of pointless attrition?? Debates are for civil people to converse - to listen to each other with a view to reaching a consensus. This purile nonsense is not a debate. Gaahh! --Doc (?) 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point, as previously declared by several of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is to deleted 'even one bad article' or 'to keep inclusionists honest'. This in spite of an overwhleming 85%-90% precedent that school articles are not deleted on the basis or either being a stub or "non-notable". Frankly, this nomination is the picture of bad faith.--Nicodemus75 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - What, and thumping up "votes" isn't? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        While I'm not a big fan of the divisive phrasing in those "alerts," since when has it been a problem to draw attention to a contentious ongoing debate? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Drawing attention" is when you ping someone who participated in a discussion, regardless of their opinions. That's not what this was. It's the unintentional irony of phrases like "conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists" that stands out most here. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, as always. I refuse to believe a middle school can EVER be intrisincally encyclopedic. It will be if a widespread cannibal cult of Marduk is discovered on the premises, not a second before. --Agamemnon2 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hail Marduk! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a known ~~and self-declared~~ deletionist, nominating his own school and disparaging it, does not make the school non-notable. I am sure there are many students who attended this school who would disagree with the nominator.--Nicodemus75 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've never declared myself a deletionist, nor did I disparage the school. Gazpacho 22:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I confused you for someone else on the list at m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. It's so hard to keep track of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles".--Nicodemus75 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no bloody cabal, deletionist or otherwise. Nobody is organizing keep or delete votes on school articles or any other, and the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" (just like the "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians) is more or less a tongue-in-cheek reference to the good-faith disagreement between Wikipedians about what is appropriate encyclopedic material. I daresay you, Yuckfoo, and Kappa aren't conspiring "Inclusionists" any more than Denni, Dunc, and I are conspiring to annoy you personally by nominating schools for deletion. Please stop being intentionally divisive and realize that everyone here, whether they agree with you or not, is acting in good faith. That's the point of WP:AGF. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, I'm even more mystified. Of the people on the meta AoDW page, one (Denni) regularly votes to delete school articles. Dunc occasionally votes to delete, and purplefeltangel feels that all high schools are encyclopedic topics. Really, don't take those pages too seriously. They're more or less tongue-in-cheek. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - And despite Nicodemus' likely desire to ignore it, I do vote to keep school articles. Of three articles on AfD on one day last week, I voted to keep all three. This, I believe, demonstrates that I am willing to do something I would not have done in times past - accept that there is a place for articles on schools. I remain convinced, however, that school articles are subject to the same inclusion criteria as all other articles; that is, they are about notable subjects, and they have sufficient content to avoid speedy deletion per CSD:G1 or CSD:A1. Denni☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not principally your voting record I have problems with, it is with your philosophical approach to concepts such as "notability" "encyclopedic" and schools.--Nicodemus75 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, non-notable, no attempt to prove otherwise. Moreover, inclusionists need reminding that a hundred 'no consensus'es do not add up to a Keep. Nor do a thousand or ten thousand. VfDs should continue until consensus is established. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they do. WP:DEL clearly states: "At the end of five days, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." Only one "no consensus" is required for a keep.--Nicodemus75 23:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 100 "no consensus" results doesn't mean a consensus to keep; it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established. That's why no consensus defaults to keep; the article or articles are kept until consensus either way is established. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The statement that "it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established" is just your interpretation. That is not what deletion policy states. It states that lack of consensus means that the article is retained, not that "it is retained until consensus is reached".--Nicodemus75 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It teaches grades 7 and 8. So what? Pilatus 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable with next to no useful public information. Cedars 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, knowing about this school might help me understand why its alumni don't wish to share knowledge with me. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Best vote I've seen in a month.--Nicodemus75 23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are easy to please. Denni ☯ 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, all schools are categorically notable. At a bare minimum, 43 school articles were created last Friday. 36 were created on Saturday. 37 have been created today so far. 2% of all articles created on Wikipedia are about schools. Please put an end to this senseless time wasting, there is no consensus to delete schools, nor should there be. Silensor 23:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is there consensus to keep schools. If I'm mistaken about that, please point out the relevant policy page. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, there is an 85%-90% precedent to "not delete" school articles on the specious criteria of either being a stub or being "non-notable" (in the subjective opinion of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles"). This circumstance is a product of the application of WP policy, in that some 40% of those articles were closed as "no consensus" and are thusly "not deleted". The fact that school articles are simply not deleted on the basis of either being a stub or being "non-notable" is clearly not accepted by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is truly baffling. Despite my repeated questioning of why the precedent clearly established by the utilization of the AfD process and the implementation of WP policy is continutally disregarded, I have yet to read a single response that justifies the chronic war of attrition that is being waged against school articles, other than the repeated assertions that they are "non-notable" and that individual editors oppose the existence of the articles themselves. My question is (re-stated): "In the face of overwhleming precedent, why do "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" continue to nominate and vote to delete them? - What is achieved by these repeated nominations other than the continuation of a (clearly lost) battle? - How does nominating and voting to delete school articles that clearly will not be deleted in any way contribute to Wikipedia?"--Nicodemus75 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does haranguing people who make good-faith AFD nominations contribute to Wikipedia? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - How on earth can nominations and votes in the face of overwhelming precedent be characterized as "good faith"?--Nicodemus75 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        How is continually harrassing people who are participating in a legitimate AFD a "good faith" action? Just because the article has a low probability of deletion does not mean that an AFD is a "bad faith" action. Especially when the majority of school articles historically have had over 50% in favor of deletion.Gateman1997 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schools are not inherently notable, particularly those below the high school level. --Metropolitan90 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Condorman 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator G Clark 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen another article by an author who is too damned lazy to find out more about a school than its name and address. This is not encyclopedic. Denni☯ 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-read WP:NPA. Calling an editor "too damned lazy" is without question, a personal attack.--Nicodemus75 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This seems to be a boilerplate article, similar to stubs on towns and albums. While I don't think this is an appropriate encyclopedic stub, I don't think this was made in bad faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - And indeed I do apologise to Gracefool for impugning his/her intent. Nonetheless, I feel it incumbent upon all who submit articles to provide as much information as they possibly can, and to accept that articles with little or no content are legitimately subject to CSD:G1 or an AfD vote. Denni ☯ 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep

ALKIVAR™ 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing would be lost by doing so. Vegaswikian 05:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#KeepJoaquin Murietta 05:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd ask all the delete folks to take a look at the Afd on Bush on the Couch here since this article is essentially a book review written by a guy who didn't read the book] Maybe you'd like to vote delete on that one? Joaquin Murietta 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does that have to do with anything? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And how might I do that, O facetious one? Gazpacho
Can't we all just get along? —Cryptic (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't seem to be big enough for that... Kappa 10:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Past consensus has been to keep schools (see Wikiproject Schools archive and arguments to keep schools). ··gracefool |☺ 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are referring to individual discussions of individual schools. In some cases, there has been consensus to keep and in some there has been consensus to delete. There is no consensus on any policy as to which schools should be kept. Unlike WP:Music and biographies, there are no guidelines that have achieved consensus. And until the school inclusionists are willing to make a good-faith effort to establish sensible criteria for inclusion, there never will be. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have a good faith belief that all schools should be kept, just as all countries are kept, even the smallest, so there is no need for more detailed criteria. It is up to the deletionists to put an end to this by backing off with good grace. CalJW 17:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is absurd to compare deletion of a school article to deletion of a country article. You may have a good-faith belief that school articles should be kept, but that is just what it is, a belief. There is no hard and fast policy that school articles should be kept, and in fact there isn't even a clear consensus to do so. And your intransigent attitude toward compromise will get you nowhere here. I am probably the hardest-core deletionist here, but my ability to obfuscate and stonewall is dwarfed by people such as yourself, who have moved not a millimetre in the direction of a middle ground for school articles. While I have demonstrated my willingness to accept in principle that school articles have a place in Wikipedia, I have seen not the slightest suggestion of a complementary gesture from the inclusionists that perhaps school articles should have to meet certain criteria, as all other articles here do. Denni ☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy encyclopedic subject. Just like every other enduring public institution. Not vanity, nonsense or original research, therefore no reason to delete. Keep.--Centauri 07:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lets move on to some more useful work. Dlyons493 Talk 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maryville, Tennessee where this school is already mentioned. The article is only a stub, and the merits for a separate article are dubious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it clearly states that it is a school in the title. --Celestianpower ^háblame 08:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and makes no assertions of notability whatsoever. This is currently only geographical and population source data, with no hope for expansion. Delete. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -Poli 13:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge with Maryville, Tennessee (this has already been done); delete the separate article per the nominator. We are not WikiSchools, nor are we the Yellow Pages, so since there were no national news stories involving this school then there is no reason for keeping an article on it. --Idont Havaname 14:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. And per all other arguments above and every other keep argument on every other school that has been kept. Seems that the time involved in arguing these points over and over, and the resources expanded in server space, bandwidth, etc is consuming more than would having the principal of every school in the English speaking world submit an article. Plus, these are public funded non-profit institutions. Its not like people are submitting these to gain profit for private schools that teach off the wall (POV) attitudes on religion or creationism/evolution or anything else. Rather bland articles, but still serve a purpose and are more helpful than not.—Gaff ^ταλκ 15:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion listed. This is a factual, neutral and verifiable article. Trollderella 16:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gaff. --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Selecting one article from a class of thousands, hundreds of which have survived nomination attempts, for deletion is not appropriate. CalJW 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen what a waste of "not paper". Grue 18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my arguments here. Xoloz 18:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen until the article shows some reason this school is worthy of an article. Existance is not reason alone to keep an article.Gateman1997 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Actually, it is. Kurt Weber 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um no, it's not according to general consensus on Wikipedia. Or do you have an better explaination as to why Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California oder Village Preschool, Saratoga, California were both deleted?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus--if indeed what you say is consensus--is wrong; they shouldn't have been deleted. Kurt Weber 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would you care to explain how consensus (which is the basis of Wikipedia) can be wrong?Gateman1997 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it conflicts with what is objectively true. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, what people think is true or would like to be true does not affect what actually is true. And it is an objective fact, provable from first principles of the Universe, that such articles do indeed belong in Wikipedia. Kurt Weber 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        While that may be your opinion of school articles that does not make it true or untrue. It simply means it is your opinion. And fortunately your opinion is only one of many and the MANY make up what is true on Wikipedia... through consensus.Gateman1997 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article of its type. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any currently operating public school meets my criteria for notability. StarryEyes 22:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Besides, the mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why was Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California deleted?Gateman1997 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of us don't think it ought to have been.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then if I were to recreate it or open a VFU would you support it?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. But it wouldn't change the fact that if you were to do so, it would be a bad-faith action.--Nicodemus75 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        How would that be a "bad faith" action? The article has a legit reason to exist per your reasoning, shouldn't I as a reasonable member of Wikidom give it a chance to exist then. Gateman1997 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop resorting to straw man arguments and creating fictitious schools, by accident or not. Please consider that at the end of each day, between 2.0-3.5% of all new articles added to Wikipedia are written about schools. They are not written about your neighborhood grocery store. Your rhetoric is transparent and you do not need another Wikipedia editor to explain why. Silensor 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to see your evidence that 2-3% of all new articles are school related, also you did not answer my question. No one from the "keep" camp has actually. Explain how a neighborhood grocery store is any less deserving of an article then this school? It effects more people's lives then this school, and exists... so it seems to meet the criterion that are the basis for this school having an article. Why you think this is a straw man argument is beyond me. It is a legitimate question that keep users constantly dodge because they have no answer to it. Gateman1997 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think it is less deserving. I just think that YOU think that your Albertson's store doesn't merit an article, based on the history of your arguments about schools and other institutions. Thusly what you propose would be bad faith because it is contrary to your previously stated beliefs. If I see you consistently voting to keep school articles for 2 or 3 months, then I would believe a VfU on Albertson's would be in good faith.--Nicodemus75 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously you've never read WP:FAITH. And if you've ever watched my voting trends they are fluid. I'm not a set in stone kind of guy as there is not set in stone policy as of yet. It is a reasonable proposition to play devils advocate now and then. Gateman1997 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:FAITH "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.". You cried "Assume Good" faith when accused of the hoax you later admitted to, so please give it up. I concede your voting pattern is fluid, given you created a preschool, your ip nominated it for deletion, you voted to keep it, and then you voted for deletion. That's highly fluid. --rob 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I was wondering when my stalker would show up. I admitted to the WP:POINT hoax, but that was a seperate incident from Village Preschool. That article was made in good faith and nominated by my coworker. That has been established. And so what if I changed my vote. On that particular article the winds were pretty heavy toward delete. No reason for me to stand by my keep in that instance.Gateman1997 00:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That's not an argument I have any interest in, sorry. If you would like to review the evidence that greater than 2% of all new articles are directly school related, please refer to Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New. Please note that these statistics only establish a bare minimum as an intentionally limited search criteria is being used. These repetitive discussions are without a doubt pointless, and I now understand why Tony Sidaway has removed himself from the bulk of these discussions; the schools will inevitably and ultimately prevail. Silensor 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow, I must admit that is an impressive amount of clutter... I mean articles.Gateman1997 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. It really is getting time to face the music, isn't it?--Nicodemus75 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, just more articles to sift through to seperate the good articles from the AFD candidates. Oh well, no rest for weary.Gateman1997 00:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A school is not a grocery store. This argument stems from a misconception of what a school is. Schools have an existence quite apart from the simple bricks and mortar from which they are constructed. Schools are social institutions with distinct cultures and histories which often extend beyond the life any any individual person or building which forms part of that institution. Pburka 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- While what you say is true of SOME schools it is not true of all schools. I've seen plenty of schools closed as quickly as a KMart and with as little consequence to their community as a store closing would have.Gateman1997 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What a nice piece of dreamwork I see here. Schools no more have "distinct cultures" than Safways do. Except for the obvious differences between, say, a rich suburban school and a poor inner-city school, you can pretty much exchange one school's culture with the next and find zero real difference. If there were a big difference in histories, I would expect to see that reflected in the content of school articles. But despite reading over a hundred school articles (no word of lie, I read every school article Wikipedia currently possesses for California and Texas), I saw nothing to demonstrate that most schools have a distinctive history beyond differences in their opening dates. In fact, one of the biggest differences I saw between schools, based upon the information that these articles contained, was their school colors and mottos. While I'm sure the reality of the situation is different, it's a sad comment on the dismal quality of most school articles here. As far as I am concerned, if schools are important, it is incumbent upon the authors of these articles to convince us of that importance or be prepared to see their articles deleted for lack of content. Denni ☯ 02:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This school does not have an distinct culture that extends beyond the individuals. It doesn't even have the same mascot it did when I was there. The culture of the band class is defined entirely by how Mr. Huffaker teaches it. When he retires, the band class will be completely different. Gazpacho
Keep When I click "random" article, I usually get an article about a "city" in Utah with a population of 143 or an anime character. If those are good enough, so is this. Honbicot 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize there are more schools in the world than cities and all anime characters combined? Grue 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please WP:CITE your source(s). ;-) —RaD Man (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a verifiable public institution. --Centauri 06:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen and stamp out vote stuffing [1] --redstucco 08:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Informing other concerned editors of an ongoing process is not "vote stuffing"--Nicodemus75 11:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what Monica Lewinsky did with Bill Clinton was not sex. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually it is. We've gone over this before in school debates... it IS vote stuffing. Do it again and an RFC might have to be started.Gateman1997 16:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it isn't. And someone with your admitted track record of gaming the system by creating hoax articles and point articles should be last to talk about starting RfCs.--Nicodemus75 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - You saying it isn't doesn't change the fact it is vote stuffing. I got in trouble for the same thing and so will you if you persist.Gateman1997 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. and stop wasting all our time, don't you have something to contribute rather than everyone having to go over, yet again, the very well-trodden ground of Should We Delete This School? I have lost count of how many schools have been nominated for deletion recently, and SFAIK none have been deleted - all have been kept. I personally find Beer Games non-noteable, BUT I realise there is enough interest that MY lack of interest is not universal. Ergo, they are noteable in spite of my opinion. Same with schools. You are not interested, you think they are nn, fine, don't read the darn articles! But surely you have realized that enough people consider them notable that the articles serve a purpose. Stop this senseless waste of time and do something productive, please. KillerChihuahua 11:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen in the vain and forlorn hope that one day, people will understand the difference between an encyclopaedia and a web directory. Quality not quantity, Wikipedia is not toilet paper, four walls and a roof are not inherently notable. And censure User:Nicodemus75 for vote pimping and incivility. Proto t c 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Restricting access to the sum of human knowledge is indeed a vain and forlorn, and somewhat heartless, hope. Kappa 14:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Knowing that a quarter of the attendees at a middle school are eligible for free lunches is not a big contributor to the sum of human knowledge. If anything, it probably detracts from it, along with the thousands of other crufty nonarticles on Pokemon and some trash compactor in Star Wars that belong in Everything2 and not Wikipedia, obscuring the real goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide a comprehensive encyclopaedia under a deluge of crapulence. Proto t c 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you don't think the economic profile of students is a part of human knowledge then I don't think you have any understanding of the word. Kappa 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything2 wouldn't put up with a one-paragraph article about how many students go to a school for five minutes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that was what caught my interest most on this stub - that's a very high percentage to be on Free Lunch, and its a small school, yet they manage to teach Latin, and their website is better than my High School Alma Mater, so I'm thinking, there is more to this school, and I certainly hope someone adds to this article. KillerChihuahua
Delete because it is obviously a worthless and cheap piece of crap fit to be wiped on Chuck's poophole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchammer (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 October 2005
Löschen. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Aquillion 21:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we be defending it if it was indiscriminate information? Kappa 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know, I ask myself that very same question. Yes, why would you? Denni☯ 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We wouldn't... Kappa 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - And yet...you do. There is nothing here about the history of this school, any special programs it may have, any joint programs it may be involved in with its community, any notable staff or alumni. In short, what is here is indiscriminate information, and precious bloody little of that. Denni ☯ 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I understand the likely outcome of this (or any other) school AfD, but it seems to me this should be no deterrent from voting my honest opinion on whether this particular article is sensible to include in our encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 01:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I am sorry that you're not very interested in reading about your own school. (Maybe that's because you went there and already know everything about it.) In any case, I am interested in reading about it. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and comments of Kappa. For those keeping score, I was solicited to participate by someone else, but please note that I would have participated anyway so the solicitation had no effect at all. Un focused 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. When roughly half the people think the same something time and time again, the other half shouldn't just tell them to shut up. The people who are voting "delete" are doing so for a reason, even if in my case that reason is severe chemical imbalance and shrapnel in my frontal lobe. Please do not try to stifle debate, even debate as moribund as this one. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"come together" right now, and delete as per nom... there's nothing extraordinary in the article, except that one quarter of the school is poor getcrunk 20:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.