Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kent Middle School

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 ambiguous. I count 18 keep, 20 delete and 4 redirect (with 2 votes excluded). Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the decision defaults to KEEP.

Having done that, I now choose to be bold as I exercise my own discretion as a normal editor and merge & redirect the article to Kentfield, California. Rossami (talk) 06:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Middle School

This is a non-notable article on a middle school. There's nothing apparently unique about this middle school, no famous alumni, etc. - Walkiped 18:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools for a long discussion relevant to this vote. Dbenbenn 00:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Textbook example of a page that should be deleted. Carrp 18:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • er, if that's the case, what's the justification from Wikipedia:Deletion policy? Please quote - David Gerard 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • "No potential to become encyclopedic." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC).
        • The word "encyclopedic" links to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - please quote rather than handwaving - David Gerard 09:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • It is not apparent from the way these policy pages are presented that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is intended to exhaustively define "encyclopedic". In fact, the page itself describes the numbered paragraphs as things on which there is consensus. But this does not preclude that consensus might emerge on other categories of articles that are "not encyclopedic". There is in fact Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents which mentions many specific cases. Berating people who use the word "non-notable" rather than the magic words "no potential to be encyclopedic" does not make sense, and does not inspire confidence in the judiciousness of someone who has just been elected to the Arbitration Committee. If the VfD page is not where consensus emerges on what belongs in the encyclopedia and what does not, where is the correct place? And as precedents are established by votes here, why are they not better documented? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents is not a very satisfactory document. --BM 01:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • A member of the Arbitration Committee who makes sarcastic remarks like You know, the thing linked in BIG TEXT up the top of the VFD page doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence either ... Elf-friend 08:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: It might not be a notable middle school, but it has the potential to be an encyclopedic article. Photos, history. Sorry to sound sentimental, but maybe the kids at the school will make it into a project. I mean, the Daylily isn't notable either, but it has an article. Dbenbenn 19:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment The daylily is one of the most popular summer-flowering bulbs in the world, with countless (like 100,000) cultivars and many fanclubs devoted exclusivly to the propigation and development of new ornimental strains. Fledgeling 02:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • oh and it gets 357,000 google hits too Fledgeling
  • Abstain. 0987 19:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless it can be shown to be noteworthy/encyclopedic. The article is also only 16 words long, too short to be anything but a sub-stub. Rje 19:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It isn't a sub-stub any more. Dbenbenn 20:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but it's still not noteworthy. Demography and classroom size doesn't make it encyclopedic. Rje 21:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 20:02, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Schools can never be textbook examples of deletable articles because there are editors who consider all schools notable. However, I'm not one of them, and I vote delete. --BM 20:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, middle schools aren't inherently notable. Wyss 21:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, notability is not a deletion criteria. Mark Richards 21:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • For the record, notability is a key aspect of encyclopedic, which is a deletion criteria. Wyss 03:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • For the record again, I'll go out on a limb and say that it has full potential to be encyclopedic. Notability, just like art, is very subjective and opinions varies from person to person. --Andylkl 11:33, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is a deletion criteria in at least some cases (for exemple biografies). I think we should try to abolish the "include your own school"-idea that some people seem to have. Only include notable schools. Jeltz talk 21:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and stop trolling VfD. GRider\talk 22:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • delete notability is the main criterion for inclusion. This is not notable. Dunc|☺ 22:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - entirely valid as per the deletion policy. You know, the thing linked in BIG TEXT up the top of the VFD page - David Gerard 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability presented. Not notable = not encyclopedic topic = cannot be made encyclopedic = deletable per policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Intrigue 00:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Does Anthony have a school wiki up yet? If so, transwiki there. Weak keep otherwise. Not a particularly notable school, but not a particularly bad article either. - Lucky 6.9 00:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: And stop inclusionist trolling. Notable schools, like notable donut shops, should have articles. Geogre 00:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Gamaliel 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lack of notability is not something that I consider applicable to a school that presumably has affected tens of thousands of people in the last decade or so. James F. (talk) 02:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge to town or school district. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete ,not notable. Fledgeling 03:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schools are inherently non-notable, and this particular one makes no claim to the contrary. —Korath会話 03:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 08:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and do not transwiki. We should be moving out Star Trek, Pokemon and other fan-based minutiae before even thinking about piecing out schools. —RaD Man (talk) 09:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kentfield, California and delete- Skysmith 09:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. This is not an encyclopedia article, and it has no apparent potential to become one. Isomorphic 09:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kentfield, California. The article does not suggest sufficient notability to stand on its own, and the significant information will be more usefully incorporated into the Kentfield article. Average Earthman 12:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable and article has full potential to be encyclopedic. --Andylkl 11:33, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously.--Centauri 13:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Considering how controversial this subject it, it is most obvious that it is not obvious Fledgeling
  • Keep this and all schools. There is nothing in the deletion policy to suggest that not being "notable", whatever that's supposed to mean (since someone has noted it by writing the article, it is clearly notable in at least one sense), is a criterion for deletion, and furthermore, nothing in the appropriate article to suggest that it is a component of "encyclopaedic" either (in fact, that seems to suggest that so long as an article is "what you would expect" if you clicked on the link, or could become that, then it is "encyclopaedic". In any case, schools are perfectly notable. They are responsible for the education of thousands of people and are a central part of their communities. Leaving them out of an encyclopaedia that is the repository of all human knowledge is senseless.
    • BTW, uncivilly berating members of the arbitration committee for suggesting that you follow the instructions on pages you contribute to is something you might consider not doing, BM.Dr Zen 05:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Dr Zen, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository of all human knowledge. Now it is also your turn to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --BM 12:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • You are very wrong: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." [1]Dr Zen 23:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Well that statement sounds impressive to newbies, but as we all know, it hardly reflects reality. Dunc|☺ 23:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Because there are far too many people whose idea of an encyclopaedia is extremely narrow. Jimbo's vision is inspiring; Geogre's is not. We already have Encarta. Dr Zen 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I doubt that "the sum of all human knowledge" in Jimbo's "vision" includes my shirt-size, although my wife finds this helpful to know when shopping for Christmas presents. Somewhere between an article on Charles Darwin and an article on my shirt-size, there is a line. We are just arguing which side of that line Kent Middle School is on. --BM 00:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Your shirt size is not verifiable, unless we email your wife.Dr Zen 00:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • What does "verifiability" have to do with "sum of human knowledge". By the way, it is easily verifiable: I can upload photographs depicting my shirt size being measured, with close ups of the measuring tape. If you are hoping that verifiability is the thing that is going to filter out all the trivia: nice try, but it won't. There is tons of verifiable trivia. --BM 01:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Dude, I'm not the guy trying to "filter" the encyclopaedia. If several people besides you and those who know you want to write about your shirt size, it's in.Dr Zen 01:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • Well, dude, if the aim is "sum of human knowledge", why even rule out articles about my shirt-size written by me and those I know. It's knowledge, and its even verifiable. What difference does it make whether I write it or someone else? Is there maybe some notion that it should be of wide interest creeping in here? If so, I would agree, and now we only have to debate how wide an interest is wide enough. --BM 02:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                    • A very good question. I cannot think of a good reason for ruling them out. "Wide interest" would be important were this a book but given that it isn't, why should there not be an article about your shirt sizes, perhaps with a graph of them over the years? Really, I'm not seeing from you a good reason not besides your belief that an encyclopaedia should only cover "important" things.Dr Zen 02:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • "The sum of human knowledge" actually was the Encyclopedia Britannica's slogan. "Knowledge" has more than one meaning. If you use the widest meaning, rather than the meaning associated with the "-paedia" root—teaching, erudition—then "the sum of human knowledge" means a general knowledge base rather than an encyclopedia. Yes, Jimbo has used the phrase "sum of human knowledge," but he has also said that Wikipedia "is a free encyclopedia, meaning it must be free and it must be an encyclopedia." There are many good reasons why Wikipedia can and should include more than a traditional paper encyclopedia, but it should not automatically include everything that happens to be a fact (such as autobiographies of non-notable people). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Sorry, did he go on to say the stuff you tacked on the end or are you saying it? I think he's been perfectly clear on several occasions that he believes an encyclopaedia should be very broad and I agree with him. You don't, that's fair enough, but don't be making out that it's the policy here. That's clear enough. Notability doesn't figure in it except that people should be notable in some measure. "Notable in some measure" and "world-famous" are not necessarily synonymous.Dr Zen 01:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • The stuff after the closing quote is mine, not Jimbo's. Due to careless editing on my part there was one revision posted I failed to close the quote, for which I apologize.Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • So, Dr. Zen, are you saying that notability is a valid criterium for real people but not for schools or fictional characters, creatures, weapons, etc.? If you believe so, please tell me what your reasoning for this belief is? Elf-friend 08:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                    • I'm saying that's what the policy says. I've said more than once that I do not believe this encyclopaedia should be cut to my personal taste. FWIW, I think "notable" is as "notable" does. What's "notable" to me isn't to you, and vice versa. My mother is "notable" so far as I'm concerned, but you'd never have heard of her. Do you see? It's a poor criterion as generally understood. What the policy suggests is that people should have been noted because this is not a primary source. IOW, you shouldn't write about your mother unless you use other broader sources to do so. (Yes, I know, she might feature in your uncle's blog; it's not straightforward.) The latter is explicitly barred because it is vanity to write about your mum if no one else knows her or her achievements.Dr Zen 01:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any school article has the potential to be made encyclopedic. For instance, detailed historical information would do a lot here, especially if cross-referenced with comparable information for the locality. That this content has not been added is no basis for deletion. At any rate -- although this isn't part of official policy, alas -- in an inclusive community the burden of proof must always be on those who wish to exclude. The article should not be expected to justify its own inclusion. It is up to the deletor to explain why it can *never* be made adequate. -- Visviva 16:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Indrian 23:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Public educational institutions are inherently notable. Too many people around here have become afflicted with the Academic Standards Disease. GRider\talk 23:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 07:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dan100 10:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential to become encyclopædic. Lankiveil 12:54, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep. The mission of Wikipedia is to amass "the sum of all human knowledge" here. I think schools have a place within that vision. --ShaunMacPherson 21:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most American middle schools have classrooms, multipurpose rooms, a gym, and a library. The article makes no claim of notability or importance. Neutralitytalk 23:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Schools aren't "important"?Dr Zen 00:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Not notable = not encyclopaedic = should not be here jni 07:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 08:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW test. Passes on A (> 2 sentences) B (1 paragraph), marginal on D (contains useful facts; contains random facts but not necessarily useful), fails C (<2000 bytes), E (photograph), F (1 alumnus!), G (no national news), H (notability besides F and G), I (would an alumnus be proud? I'd hate to think so), J (info for teachers? maybe they could know how many classrooms there are!). So this gives a beefstew score of 2, maybe 3 if you're willing to be generous. That's out of ten. 2/10. what's that, F-? Dunc|☺ 11:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I use the ZEEFSTEW method. Ten points for each question answered in the affirmative. A/ Is it a school? Yes? A+. Dr Zen 12:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, BEEFSTEW is intended for secondar schools, so Dpbsmith says he is also inclined to give primary schools and middle schools -3 bonus points, giving Kent Middle School a score of -1/10, or if you're being generous 0/10. Although flawed, BEEFSTEW is pretty good at picking out notable keeps, and is good at identifying this as horrible. Dunc|☺ 15:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, we can agree to differ. I believe ZEEFSTEW correctly identifies articles that should be kept in accordance with our aim to make this a great encyclopaedia. Dr Zen 23:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm the one who added most of the article's information content. For what it's worth, I think the school is utterly un-notable, but that it should still be kept. It has the potential to improve its score on the BEEFSTEW test. How do you expect it to improve if it gets deleted within a few weeks of creation?
    • The school appears to be fairly internet-savvy. The students do a web-page creating project every semester. Possibly we could get some of the students interested in improving the article as part of their project. If this page survives deletion, I intend to propose that idea to someone at the school. Dbenbenn 00:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It would be nice if we had encyclopedic articles about all schools, but too many have already been deleted at birth, so there's not much point any more. P Ingerson 15:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That last comment is incorrect. I tried to track every school article for a month, November 2004, to satisfy my own curiosity on this point, and what I found was that during that month about 65 school articles were created. Of these, only 19 were nominated for VfD. One or two were speedy-deleted, one or two were deleted as copyvios. The other forty or so sailed right in. Conversely, of the 19 nominated for VfD, about ten were actually deleted, suggesting that these were not frivolous nominations. In point of fact, it is quite easy to get a school article into VfD; it just has to be a half-decent article that gives a glimmering of a reason why the school should be included. Produce an alumnus who invented Murphy's Oil Soap and an Olympic gold medalist and your article will be quite safe. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Only 19?! Only 19 perfectly valid subjects for an encyclopaedia were burned without a consensus for it. I don't feel like reaching for the shampoo.Dr Zen 02:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Dr Zen, he's saying 19 since November were placed on VfD in total out of 65 school articles. Of those only 19 VfD votes, only 10 resulted in deletion. Considering that there seem be a number of automatic "Keep" votes for any school, that it requires two-thirds voting the same way to be considered consensus, and that "Merge" and "Redirect" votes muddy the waters, those 10 were probably very stubby articles about very non-notable schools. I'm surpised actually that so many as half of the VfD's resulted in deletion. My impression recently is that it is basically impossible to get a high-school article deleted. And this vote is about to extend the precedent to middle schools. So Dr Zen, unfortunately, your view that every one of hundreds of thousands of schools on Earth is notable and should be in the Wikipedia seems to be prevailing. --BM 15:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete BrokenSegue 04:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is not a key aspect of encyclopedic. Please stop wasting our time and start expanding Wikipedia. arj 19:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • This exercise is not a waste of time. Open, civil discussion is an integral way in which a community deals with conflicting points of view. - Walkiped 06:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • please keep this, it is valuable to wikipedia. Yuckfoo 07:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above. Barely a stub, and would fit nicely in the article we already have about the location. If someone wants to expand this so it doesn't fail Wikipedia:Informative, they can always remove the redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.