Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion/High schools

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:13, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools

This page seems to have been abandoned in November 2004 [1]. I think it was created as part of a discussion on a policy on school notability (that also seems to have stalled). Parts of it seem tosu be mourning the loss of school articles that were deleted, while other parts seem to urging people to nominate schools for VfD. All the activity having ceased I think this page has outlived any usefullness it once had. Thryduulf 02:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Compare User:GRider/Schoolwatch and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/GRider/Schoolwatch.
• It should at least be kept as a historical record. Personally I also hope it would be revived as soon after it was created the deletion rate of high schools fell dramatically. However, it does take a great deal of work to maintain the page. - SimonP 03:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I'm probably in the minority here, but I'd like to point out that the recent nominations on high school articles have once more turned into shouting matches rather than civilized discussion, and using pages such as these to get more people to join in are not helping. Radiant_* 08:34, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, why delete? Grue 17:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a historical record if it is no longer being updated. The recent attempt to supress school-related documents here is a bit perplexing, to say the least. --GRider\^talk 20:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commentary You could probably use this article as some kind of projective test by seeing what people perceive to have been its purpose.

For what it's worth, it originated when a sysop acting on some high school articles kept some school articles whose apparent vote counts would have led most sysops to judge that there was consensus for deletion. This sysop decided that he should ignore votes for deletion, that, he judged, stated reasons for deletion that were not specifically covered by the written deletion policy. There was some brouhaha and the sysop stopped doing it. The action took people by surprise, and someone, not me, began the page with the idea of making it easy to see if anyone started again.

Now, there had been lots of vague talk about what actually happens to articles on high schools. I decided it would interesting to try to track the fate of every high school article created for a while, and over a period of a month or so I did so. It was sometime suggested that deletionists were systematically nominating every high school article for deletion. I concluded to my own satisfaction that many high school articles were not, in fact, being nominated for VfD.

It was sometimes suggested that nominating these articles for VfD was a waste of time because there was never consensus and so the articles were always kept. I concluded that this was not true, either. There is no consensus on high school articles in general, but there is sometimes consensus to keep particular high school articles and there is sometimes consensus to delete particular high school articles.

It was never an attempt to organize support for deletion of school articles, although it could easily be, and probably was, misinterpreted that way.

Generally speaking, I think that factionalizing the high-school-article debate is bad. This page had two purposes, neither of which is relevant any more. If it's exacerbating friction, it would probably be better gone. On the other hand, to my mind it's a mildly interesting record of the actual fate of high school articles. I don't feel strongly enough either way to vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that. More than one person has commented that it should be kept for historical reasons, which I have no inherent objections to, but if this is the case would anyone object to a This page is no longer live notice at the top, similar to that found on concluded VfDs? I wont add anything of that nature unitl the end of this VfD lest I get accused of bias, pre-emption or anything along those lines. I wont add it at all if its clear people don't want it. Thryduulf 22:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you need to wait, why not just be bold and do it? I'm sure people will be happy to revert if they disagree! I wouldn't say "this page is no longer live," because that makes it sound too much like a VfD discussion, which it never was. As far as I know nobody ever thought the page ever had any official significance. Why not say something like "This page has no policy significance. It has not been maintained since [date of last significant edit] but is being kept for historical interest." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that notability was the issue in this particular VfD. How can a sub-page of the VfD pages have (not not have) notability? Thryduulf 16:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.