Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollings middle school

Add links
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 of the debate was keep. —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollings Middle School

[edit]

This article looks POV and , anyhow, does not meet minimum requirements for an article, I`m all for school articles (look at my vote record) but this doesn`t add much. (imho) therefore delete--Isolani 00:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep schools; regardless of their individual merits, trying to delete them isn't worth the acrimony. This one's verifiable, in any case. —Cryptic (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good stub, and per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I nonetheless note that there is no consensus that all schools should be kept or deleted. Kappa 19:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen Truly not noteworthy. Ifnord 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As to keeping all schools, thus begins the slippery slope of keeping anything that exists. What about every business? What about every church? I'm not a deletionist, I simply believe that only if something is noteworthy do they belong here.
      • When AfD is revised such that keeping anything that exists is the norm, I promise to donate enough money to cover all of the extra disk-space, processing power and bandwidth that having a couple thousand stubs that are rarely accessed without any dynamic content will take up, as long as all of the wasted disk space, processing power and bandwidth of AfD (accessed all the time, with a massive amount of dynamic content) is sent to a charity of my choice. I have made my check out to the Wikipedia Foundation in the amount of $100, covering the cost of those stubs for ever. You can write your $5,000,000 check to the ACLU, please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already a 85%-90% year long precedent to keep all schools. I am sure some deletionist will now come along and point out "oh, but there was no concensus". It doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming precedent within the structures of WP policy and VfD/AfD. It is time to accept the existence of school articles and move on to focusing deletionism against Pokemons or something.--Nicodemus75 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per schools argument keep. chowells 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful school article. As for the usual fear that keeping schools leads to keeping "useless" trivial articles, that's false. If you're worried about useless articles, ask those making them[1] to please stop. But don't blame school supporters, who are also opposed to useless articles. --rob 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um last time I checked rob I'm not the one creating useless school articles, just articles on other subjects such as grocery stores that by the school "keep" crowds reasoning also have as much right to exist as school articles.Gateman1997 23:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, did you forget about your pre-school or the fake Clovis Oceanview (which seemed rather useless to me). Also, I was specifically referring to the comment "What about every business?" which applies to the grocery store. --rob 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made the preschool to prove a point and to set some form of reasonable preceedent. And lo and behold I succeeded. We now delete preschool articles as an unwritten rule. Until my WP:POINT even those were on the verge of all being kept because they "existed". As for Clovis, well I admit that was a fake, but I did it just to annoy the school keep crowd. Dumb I know, but I got a good laugh out of it.Gateman1997 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Deliberately putting misinformation into an article is a form of vandalim, It is against policy. It is a blockable offense. --rob 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm aware of that. Gateman1997 01:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • So, why did you create the Clovis Oceanview article entirely with misinformation. Then, when you switched it to a real school in Albany, you kept misinformation about the school's construction. That's vandalism. --rob 01:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yep, and it also made you obsessed with me for weeks. Mission accomplished I aquired a fan who highlighted the obsessive elements of the school debate. See you around.Gateman1997 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, now that you've decided to confess to being a vandal, will you also admit you used sockpuppets with the pre-school and Clovis Oceanview hoax (for nominations). I actually find checking into hoaxes interesting. I took a similiar (but smaler) task with Talk:Katherine Beck. It's quite interesting. Also, I enjoyed creating two valid articles about real "Ocean Vew Elementary Schools" (editing the Albany one to be correct, and another one in Virginia). Nobody gets paid, so we all do this because we enjoy it. Some enjoy making contributions. While others enjoy vandalism. --rob 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Actually I never got around to VFDing the article. Someone else beat me to it. And like you I enjoy contributing as I have all but that one article... I've just gotten tired of this endless debate on schools. It's never going to have a resolution.Gateman1997 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at the properly capitalized name of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. All real and verifiable schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Silensor 23:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ranking/rating. School articles must be considered on an individual basis. Denni☯ 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great idea, let's abandon NPOV and build in systemic bias instead. Kappa 04:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, Kappa, sounds good to me. And while we're at it, why don't we create stubs for every grocery store, streetcar, daycare, and garage band in the world, and then decree them all inherently notable so we never need to vote on anything ever again, no matter how patently ridiculous. Denni☯ 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keeping them all without any sort of editorial control is bias too. But reasonable guidelines like the ones at WP:MUSIC, while possibly biased against non-released bands and albums, are providing perfectly valid deletions. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is keeping all established schools biased? In the case of a band, its imporantance is directly dependent on its popularity, this is not at all the case with a school. Kappa 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "It has been ranked the top five creative schools in the United States and has been rated "excellent" every year by the South Carolina Department of Education." is enough of an notability assertion for me. Stubby, but perfectly valid. I'd like to ask anyone who knows about the school to start expanding as soon as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating schools is a waste of our time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean "our". It may be a waste of your time, but you make a big assumption in speaking for others. I do not consider it a waste of time at all. Denni☯ 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you seem to enjoy punishing us for trying to do the right thing. Kappa 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • An interesting statement. I do not nominate schools, so how could I be "punishing" you? I, like you, merely come here to vote. And "right thing" is a matter of perspective. I do not feel it is right at all for school afficionados to keep foisting these essentially empty articles on nameless, faceless schools onto Wikipedia. Would you care to rephrase your statement? Denni☯ 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You encourage nominations, and vote to delete when you know there is no consensus to do so. Nominating schools doesn't get them deleted, and takes us further away from any chance of consensus. All it does it force us to come back and repeat the same old arguments for the nth time. Kappa 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I encourage nomination of any article which does not meet certain minimum standards of notability and craftsmanship. I do not restrict my attention to school articles. As I have already said, I have not nominated school articles in the past, but the situation is getting quite out of hand. Please see your talk page. Denni☯ 03:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please kappa is right it is possible for a school to not be popular but still be notable that actually makes sense Yuckfoo 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain show notabliy but barely not enough to keep or delete. --JAranda | watz sup 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep, article gives some indication of "notability" (shudder) and is hence verifiable; however, it needs cleanup and references. Alphax τεχ 18:39, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rollings_middle_school&oldid=1185335529"