Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Middle School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (no consensus to delete). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Middle School

[edit]
  • Keep I noticied growth once this as listed on the vfd, I suggest we put this on the list for attention.--BrenDJ 20:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reason as always.--Gene_poole 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete same reason as always, lack of content and small likelihood there will ever be any. This school is in my hometown, btw, and it's a great school, but still doesn't merit encyclopedia status. —Wahoofive | Talk 05:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The deciding sysop should take into consideration that user account Wahoofive was created one month ago, immediately gravitating towards VfD-related discussions. —RaD Man (talk) 10:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Wahoofive, as may be seen from his contributions, made his first edit well over six weeks ago, and his first edit to a vfd about two and a half weeks ago. The above seems to be in retaliation for Wahoofive's cleanup of one of Radman1's bad-faith template votes. [1] —Korath (Talk) 12:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • The point is that this user immediately jumped into VfD discussions and began disruptively editing votes right after account creation. None of my template votes are in bad faith if I honestly believe all schools are worthy of inclusion, which I do.  :-P —RaD Man (talk) 18:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Make a mention in Palo Alto, California and delete - Skysmith 07:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another non-notable school. --Bucephalus 11:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only of local geographic interest, and the existence of this school is already mentioned in the Palo Alto, California article. Average Earthman 12:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Radiant!Radiant_* 15:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 18:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated by Wahoofive (except the "same as always" part among VfD regulars). Schools for students younger than US "high schools" have a higher bar of notability under WP school guidelines. I don't see a reason to keep a redirect, since there's no significant content we need to keep for history / GFDL attribution. Barno 20:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another middle school. Rje 21:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hedley 21:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its a school. It has x number of students in certain grades. It is named after a person. It has a mascot. It has cross-town rivals. Nothing here to set it apart from thousands of other institutions. Indrian 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable Palo Alto middle school. I just added some material on the school's administration and library. (Which is being reverted by deletionists attempting to bolster their arguments claiming a lack of notability for Jordan Middle School.) All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to be confusing encyclopedias with the Special Olympics. --Calton | Talk 19:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • When deletionist's lack plausable arguments for deletion they turn to personal insults. Klonimus 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • When trivialists lack plausible arguments for including the hopelessly unencyclopedic, minor, and commonplace they turn to content-free question-begging like "All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia". And if you didn't understand my reference, you should have just said so instead of pouting. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I do understand your reference, and having worked at a state hospital for the mentally retarded, I am not amused by it. Your insults only add strength to my assertion that when deletionist's lack plausable arguments for deletion they turn to personal insults. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently the most notable thing about this school is that 'The library offers a "Homework Center", every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday from 3:15 to 4:30pm,' as you keep trying to insert. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • No less notable than if 'The library offeres a "Homework Center", every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday from 3:15 to 4:30am.' It's a regularly scheduled library program, no different from poetry readings, or ESL tutoring. The school is notable, the school library is notable, the school library's programs are notable. Klonimus 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • These facts you are adding do not bolster any case for notability. Take the word of somebody who had to study the Dewey Decimal System in graduate school, I assure you that it is entirely non-notable that this school's library employs it. It's like saying they have books and walls and ceilings. It's no hyperbole to say that 95% of public schools use Dewey. Gamaliel 00:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My opinion is that all schools are notable, therefore their school libraries are also notable. The librarians, special collection's, physical plant, and classification scheme are also notable. Any regular programs the library runs are also notable. Wiki_is_not_paper. What bothers me is that people are reducing the amount of information in the article. Klonimus 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Pointing out the obvious is not information, it is clutter. Whatever your opinion on the notabilty of schools, the fact that a library has "homework time" or uses Dewey is not informative. It would be a surprise if these things were not there. Gamaliel 05:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • The key question is if the information is relavent, not if it's obvious. It's good to know that fish are aquatic creatures; an article that did not mention that fish live in water would be deficient. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • That information—that a North American middle school library makes use of the Dewey system—would be quite appropriate for an article on middle schools. It's redundant in the article on each and every school, and just bloats these articles unnecessarily. A middle school that didn't use the Dewey system for a substantial library collection might be worth mentioning. To use your example, the fish article does indeed describe them as "water-dwelling vertebrate"s. The article on trout, on the other hand, says that "trout are usually found in cool, clear streams and lakes". The article doesn't explicitly state that trout are always found in water since expect the reader to know this based on his general knowledge of fish. Our lungfish article makes explicit note that these creatures can breathe air, because it is unusual and contrary to expectation. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Schools are notable.--BaronLarf 02:12, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having read the stub, I agree with Indrian. Jonathunder 02:24, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, school vanity. Dave the Red (talk) 04:49, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, necessary to coverage of its local area. Kappa 06:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable' Noisy | Talk 07:31, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reason Inrian gave. When it comes to schools I'm a deletionist. I generally have no problems with things like fancruft but I don't feel that anything interesitng can be said about the average school. Jeltz talk 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • School's are inherently interesting and worthy of being a great encyclopedia. I am slightly annoyed that someone reverted my attempt to add information about the school. This is very illustrative of deletionist, obscurantism Klonimus 22:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, schools are perfectly 'notable'. Dan100 20:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. It's had over a month to grow "organically" and all that's happened prior to VfD is the addition of a category and the addition of a cleanup tag. I am afraid, Klonimus, that the fact that "the libraries collections are sorted using the Dewey Decimal System" does not do much to distinguish it from other school libraries; it would, on the other hand, be very interesting if it used any other classification system. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and just look at the time being spent on this process. Non-notable schools can always be recommended for speedy deletion with the "db|non-notable" formula. Anyone can then object, and we can go through the "long form". --Wetman 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • But, given that many VfD voters are inclusionist about all schools (rather than all universities or all secondary schools), someone will always object, with a good chance someone will be upset that you tried to speedy it. Until non-consensus changes among the WP community, it's safest to waste spend the time getting the usual mix of "all schools are notable" and "all middle schools are non-notable unless (they make the national news / somebody kills a record number of people / haven't seen a notable one yet)" reasons. Also, I think many more people usually see VfD than CSD. Barno 02:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Although I believe that not all schools are automatically encyclopedic, and although I believe that "notability" plays a legitimate role in deletion discussions, it is simply not a criterion for speedy deletion under current policy. I have no idea where that template came from but it should not be used. The criteria for speedy deletion are quite clear and quite restrictive—and a recent proposal to allow speedy deletions on the basis of non-notability appears to have overwhelming opposition. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Middle Schools should be included. --Zantastik 07:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, BEEFSTEW score of -2 (A, middle school). —Korath (Talk) 08:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, extremely unnotable. Grue 09:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing is mentioned that sets this middle school apart from others. I agree with Indrian. - Sango123 20:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete insufficient information to justify a separate article and probably not interesting enough. Make a table in an article on educational provision in the region. Mozzerati 20:34, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Average middle school with no (apparent) distinguishing characteristics. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools should be included and Wikipedia is not paper. - Jersyko 05:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no size restriction on WP. Burgundavia 07:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 14:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs to be expanded. -- Lochaber 16:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Snowspinner 18:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Average Earthman. Thryduulf 19:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another US middle school. --Calton | Talk 19:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Average Earthman. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jimbo Wales: "Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." - [2]  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a whole lot closer to the "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" sort of entry he advocates mass deletion of than the "decent 2 page article" that he says should be accomodated. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, sufficiently encyclopedic, and I agree with Alkivar. JYolkowski 01:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because GRider's vote should not have been removed from this page. Also fully agree with Jimbo's direction on schools articles. -- Netoholic @ 03:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • Actully as per an ArbCom proceding GRider is banned from editing VfD's for a year. IMHO the decision is a bad one, but that is how it stands User:GRider/Schoolwatch for more info on schools on VfD. Klonimus 05:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't have an opinion as to the ruling, nor a complaint that it shouldn't apply to anything else. I despise that a non-disruptive vote was removed for any reason, and the voter recieved a one week block for it. It gives me a twinge in my stomach. The ruling does not say that his edits may be freely reverted, just that there is a consequence if he edits. --Netoholic @ 05:13, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
        • The ruling is in place as punishment for past abuses of the deletion process. The Arbitrators made it explicitly clear what the punishment was and made him explicitly aware of it, and he deliberately violated it knowing full well what the consequences would be. Any edits he makes to any deletion-related page, regardless of what the edit is, can be reverted on sight (this is confirmed by the Request for Clarification at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification by anyone and any administrator can (and imho should) block him for up-to a week. As you have had dealings with both GRider and the ArbCom, I presume you were aware of the case. Everyone has the right to comment on the talk: /proposed decision page if you feel it too harsh/too lenient/whatever. See also the discussion at WP:AN/I Thryduulf 08:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I actually never have been involved. I think it was probably a mistake on the part of the ArbCom to not consider voting as part of the ruling. GRider seems to have made trouble in posting frivolous nominations, but not for disruptive voting. I think it is practically barbaric to remove a vote and then block for the maximum. --Netoholic @ 15:59, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
          • Everyone had the right to argue about the case: it's closed now. IMHO it's stupid to block somone to genuinely and with good faith contributes to wikipedia, and is filled with wiki-spirit. As I see it, his sanction ought to be reduced. Censorship from VfD is all that is needed, and even that is excessive. The blocking is purely punitive, and IMHO serves no correctional purpose in a voluntary project. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • GRider is welcome to ask the ArbCom for relief from a particular aspect of their decision. I note that just last week ArbCom lifted some of the sanctions they had previously imposed on another user, based on a polite request and the markedly improved behaviour of the user in question. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2). I would also note that GRider's decision to violate the ArbCom's ruling while the "ink was still wet"—the day after the ruling, and less than two hours after he blanked the ArbCom notice on his talk page—doesn't seem to show good judgement. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I personally wish that GRider would not try to demonstrate the unjust nature of the decision by having it fall upon his head. His choice though. But, that leaves other people like myself to defend GRider against an angry and organized bunch of deletionists for the sake of a greater good. A great encyclopedia is not built by obscurantism and deletionism. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • You're right,a great encyclopedia is not built on obscuratism and deletionism; it is built on high quality articles on distinctive topics. If wikipedia is inundated with thousands of school stubs that are barely distinguishable from each other, then that poor level of quality hurts the reputation of the project and causes observers to think us sloppy and frivolous. I have no problem with schools being identified on the pages for cities even if they are not notable enough for there own articles. I also have pretty low standards of notability (though not as low as some). If you could show that the school has an innovative curriculum or a long and distinguished history or was part of an important local news event or just about anything that makes it stand out, then I will vote keep (the Dewey Decimal system does not help), but on nearly every school article up for deletion, not one person tries to find this information (including myself, but I do not care passionately about keeping every school article). If anyone actually went to that effort, I bet a lot of interesting facts would be found and a lot more schools would be kept with overwhelming support without all the divisive argument. Wikipedia is not paper, but those people who use that as an excuse to eliminate all quality control are not helping the project. Indrian 19:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this please. it is unfortunate what is happening lately. Yuckfoo 05:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable school. --G Rutter 15:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Chiacomo 16:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl (talk) 17:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with GRider's vote completely. Why'd you remove it? He's very active in schools. Add Jordan Middle School to User:GRider/Schoolwatch and it will grow quickly. Maybe, one day, it will be listed under examples of good articles! — 69.143.211.69 21:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Because he's banned from voting. Needless to say votes from anon IPs are not counted. Chris talk back 23:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability for this particular school, and all schools are not inherently notable. VladMV ٭ talk 13:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Vote to keep, as I do with all schools --Irishpunktom\talk 13:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hedley 15:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • above user has (probably inadvertently) voted twice in this discussion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Why is there a VfD notice in the middle of this discussion? Hedley 15:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • because the vote that it immediately precedes was produced by using a template. It was originally marked at WP:TFD but as it is hosted in the user: namespace, it was decided that TfD didn't have jurisdiction but that WP:VfD does. The link in the box does work if you are interested in commenting. Thryduulf 16:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools can be encyclopedic — but this school is not. -- Dcfleck 03:24, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
  • Keep this school article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 19:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools are notable by virtue of being schools. --Zero 03:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Agree with Dcfleck. The JPS 10:50, 17 Apr 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jordan_Middle_School&oldid=1137956519"