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.
Keep Even if you don't think all high schools are notable, this one successfully asserts notability (named Commended School twice, lists some famous alums). NawlinWiki23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Up or Delete article sounds like an ad. Says what the school does, blah blah. Statistics of successful students. How many music teachers school has. Content just sounds like propoganda. --Ageo02001:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, we encourage unregistered users to contribute to the encyclopedia. Needs a bit of cleanup and copyvio check, but looks like a great article otherwise. Keep. JYolkowski // talk02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article provides very useful information on a successful school in the heart of California's Silicon Valley
Delete as wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and not a directory of schools. Come up with some really interesting information about the past of this school, except for some people who spent some time there and I'm willing to reconsider. -- Koffieyahoo02:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I somehow wish we could stop this "vote keep no matter what" trend. The article is chaotic, with information thrown in a jumble. The school hymn is vital information? It establishes the uniqueness of this institution? It got an award twice (in 44 years), and that makes it unique? How many other schools got the award every year? It looks like it's just another box full of students. Geogre02:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arrow is pointing to me? I'm a "deletionist," eh? I write 220 articles on Wikipedia, get 8 featured articles, do admin work for years, but really I'm just out to delete articles? Wow. It's amazing what you can learn from a single vote on a single article so long as it's a public high school. There are no deletionists. There are only people who believe that we should cover information that needs a reference work for explanation and who do not think that Yellow Pages entries need such expansion. Geogre04:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So if some Chinese chap teaches three kids their ABCs in a pigsty and writes an article about it, it'll get automatically kept? Kimchi.sg03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because such an article would fail to meet WP:V. Please refrain from potentially racist remarks such as suggesting that Chinese people teach their children in pigstys.--Nicodemus7503:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that wasn't a racist remark, and as such it is absolutely not nice. How categorical can you be when there is a wiki revision history available? Ansell 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The statement was hypothetical and generalized. The racist statement would have been: "So should an article about the Chinese people, who educate their children in pigstys, be kept?" That would have been making a racist statement; Kimchi.sg referenced an absurdist hypothetical condition. Assume good faith. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of defusing perceived racist overtones in my above statement: I was thinking of a hypothetical school with a smallest enrolment and smallest of locations - and the above is what came to my mind (see also my more polite version of the question, below). I'm Chinese, and have friends from the PRC, and again, I did not intend to categorically exhibit a hatred or dislike of any racial or ethnic group with the above. Kimchi.sg14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me put it more politely: do you genuinely and sincerely and wholeheartedly believe, that every school, no matter what enrolment or staff size (1 inclusive), curriculum, location, or condition, automatically deserves an article by virtue of its verified existence? Kimchi.sg14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any criteria stipulating which articles are and which articles aren't candidates for deletion; can you provide a source for this? — pd_THOR|=/\= | 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would categorize this as indiscriminate information. If a lack of notability is not a criterion (good word, btw) under which the article should be considered for deletion, then my apartment would qualify as an article. W/o notability taken into consideration, they would be standing on effectively the same merits. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His appartment fails WP:V for the same reason as this school, hence, it's an appropriate analogy. I assume his appartment is listed in the phonebook, is it not? Similarly, this page is just a copy and paste of the school's website, entirely unneccisary. If the school is mentioned in an architectural journal, came up with a new method of teaching that is mentioned in an educational journal, was the center of a news event noted worldwide, fine, make a page. Otherwise, this is just an ad, fails WP:V fails WP:NPOV fails WP:NOR -- captainManacles.
Your assertion that that school fails WP:V is completely false, please re-read the policy. This school is clearly cited in the article in as referenced: "Miskulin, George F. A History of The Campbell Union High School District (1900-1988). pp. 25-26." A quick google search also renders many independent references to this school as a verifiable school. This page is not a copy and past of the school's website - please assume good faith that the various contributors to this article were not simply engaged in copyright violation while working on this article, especially when it is completely untrue.--Nicodemus7517:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some people would and do disagree that this is indiscriminate. Ansell 04:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment, sorry Librarianofages... but no article is completely immune from being nominated for deletion. Obviously you disagree strongly with schools being nominated, but it appears there are many people who disagree with you. That's why we have AfD.--Isotope2316:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. While I am perfectly willing to assume good faith, this nomination could be viewed as suspicious, being made as it is by an account which was created today. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad faith nomination as stated above, but clearly the appropriate thing to do with this article was to tag it for cleanup. Verifiable high school articles haven't been deleted from wikipedia through deletion processes in the past 2 years. I wish we could stop the "vote delete to any nominate school article" as displayed by some of the editors here who "routinely nominated and/or vote to delete school articles".--Nicodemus7503:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete majority of the article is what classes and sports they offer. Company articles with lists of their products get chucked. Looking at the article, the keep votes here are just incomprehensible. Opabinia regalis04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct, but it is about the current contents of the article. It's not about what is potentially done with the article in the future. -- Koffieyahoo04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this were an article on a worthwhile subject in the first place, you might have a point, Nicodemus. The reason these school articles are so often devoid of content is that there just isn't that much to say. Opabinia regalis05:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if Bulbasaur, a shitty pokemon character is "worthwhile" enough to be a featured article, just about any school I can imagine is "worthwhile" to have a plain old article. This is the very problem with these debates, some of us consider schools to be worthwhile and the deletion policies provide for these articles to be retained unless there is a consensus to delete them. Since all previous attempts to reach a consensus on retaining schools articles as a policy, we are forced to repeat these "discussions" on almost every school AfD that comes up.--Nicodemus7506:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the writers of that page found 4 times as much stuff to say about the shitty pokemon character in question then anyone anywhere has to say about your shitty school. We might not enjoy playing pokemon, but it's spawned a cartoon and cardgame, been parodied and mentioned in many other shows and media. It's been the subject of numerous news pieces. It's a subject of debate among religious conservatives. It's the brainchild of one of the most powerful organizations in Japan, and may have collectively led to hundreds of millions in revenue, and was important in spawning entire genres of TV and card games. If historians in 100 years look back on our time, they might make note of pokemon, they probably won't note your school. --captainManacles
The article in question is notPokemon which is what the vast majority of your remarks apply to. In 100 years (like the details of most fads from 100 years ago) individual pokemon characters will almost entirely be forgotten (e.g. can you tell me without researching which honours can catch the ten in Scotch Whist?). This school will mostly likely still exist, just like most schools from 100 years ago still exist.--Nicodemus7509:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if you are so sure it is an obvious sockpuppet, maybe you should request a checkuser to back up your allegations.--Isotope2317:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, believe it or not, I am voting keep (even though technically I am not a school deletionist). I am really suspicious of the nominator, who made two bad faith nominations yesterday, and I question the legitimacy of the nomination. --Coredesattalk. ^_^05:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a school, with a list of sports, principals and notable alumuni who I've never heard of. It's mentioned in the school district article so it really doesn't need a separate article with such minor information. Catchpole08:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I don't agree with the schools are notable for being schools line, the precedent has been well and truly set. Personally I would like to delete all schools in the project that are only listed because they are a school. Universities are about the only education provider that consistently notable on their own. ViridaeTalk08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a clear past precdent to keep high schools, and this article is not too bad. An alumni list is also present, so I don't think that poor quality or lack of content makes this a deletable article either. Sjakkalle(Check!)09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Folks keep saying "notable" and "notable enough" and the like. Since these same people argue that "notability is not a requirement," what I want to know is what sets this school apart from other schools? If this is the sort of school that you would say, "Ooooh, I'm going to take note of that one; it's not like every other one at all," I would like to know what it is that would draw that. I ask because I can't see where the article gives anything, and we are supposed to be talking about the article, and not the article type, not former arguments, not the nominator, and not our general views of Wikipedia. Geogre12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, bringing up the nominator in a sense answers your question. This school was singled out because a newly registered editor listed it for deletion. There are plenty of other schools whose articles are in worse shape or are less than stubs that are not marked for deletion, partly because experienced editors know that it is very unlikely that a legitimate high school article will ever get deleted (even if they wish they would be). This same editor tried to speedy delete Golden Horn and St. Elizabeth Catholic High School. --Usgnus12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, other articles needing deletion really doesn't answer why this should be kept. I can agree that the nominator is suspicious, but I don't think that there would be delete votes possible if the article in question weren't failing the guidelines. The people voting to delete aren't trolls, aren't "deletionists," aren't haters of education, America, and apple pie, and the people voting "keep" have been the first to bring in personalities and to label other voters with some imagined opprobrium. If we remain focused on the article and whether or not it violates the deletion policy, it's fair to ask what, about this article, gives us a singular quality to the subject. (I vote to keep schools some of the time, delete some of the time; it depends on the article, not its subject.) Geogre12:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it's been decided that all high schools are worthy of articles (which is fair - all countries are worthy of articles), I just hacked out the spam and let it stick. WilyD13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue on an AfD, but where was "it decided?" If anything like that ever passed, it's news to me and a horrible development. I'm not sure "all countries" are in, either. If an article on a real country says, "Russia is a big country to the east of me," I'd vote to delete the article (not "clean it up"). Further, micronations claim to be countries and are routinely cast out. Further, schools are not like nations in any manner except occupying space. Sorry if I sound hostile, but I'm not aware of any place where anything passed saying that "all schools" (or "all" anything) are in. Geogre13:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a part of the common law of WP:AfD - not sure if it's codified anywhere. To delete an article titled Russia rather than clean it up is pure madness. If an article about a country is just a stub, it's still worthwhile It's a stub is not a good criterion for deletion. Micronations claiming to be countries in general fails WP:HORSE and thus the position All countries are inherently worthy of articles is a true one. FWIW, I'm not saying that I believe that all high schools are worthy of articles, just that it is a part of the common law that they are. WilyD 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Despite your apparently relish for citing your own contributions, these comments exactly categorize the problem with your position on these issues. AfD is not cleanup, and yet you think it is just fine to ignore the stated policies at WP:DP in order to effectively use AfD as a tool for cleaning up articles that are worthwhile. An article about Russia is so obviously not a candidate for deletion as to beg the question, irrespective of its condition. Although it is instructive to know what little regard you actually hold for the established policies and practices on cleanup and stubs and deletion.--Nicodemus7518:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to check your syntax a bit. If you mean that I have a relish for citing my own articles, it is no relish, but rather a refutation to the common thuggery of "you deletionist you," which is an absurdity when applied to any editor. Secondly, "policy" for AfD is the deletion guideline. An article on Russia that is "Russia is a country to the east of me" is not an article. It is not a stub. It is not a substub. It is, instead, a speedy deletion candidate. Please look at the speedy delete guidelines and come to understand them. Also, if you believe that single sentences are articles, I suspect that you may be thinking of HiLites and not an encyclopedia. Geogre18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No syntax check required. They are not "your" articles. I assume you are referring to your contributions. I don't care if you initiated ten thousand articles on wikipedia, it doesn't change the fact that you "routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school-related articles", and that you do so on the basis that you don't consider individual schools to be a worthwhile subject matter for individual articles. You're entitled to do so, but the rest of us are equally entitled vote to keep such articles on the basis that we DO consider individual schools to be a worthwhile subject matter for individual articles. You continually (for years now) to insist that we ought to somehow leave the opinion that schools are inherently noteworthy "at the door", as it were - but at the same time you and the rest of those "who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school-related articles" are free to cart your opinion right on into the AfD discussions. Add a dose of heaping condescencion, then brag a little about your own contributions and guess what - despite all that, not a single verifiable high school article has been excised from wikipedia through the deletion processes in almost 2 years. I believe single sentence articles are stubs, as per policy.--Nicodemus7518:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I vote to keep some schools, delete some schools, and redirect others, as I actually read the article and decide whether it follows policy. You, however, prejudge that all of something fits. As for whether I "routinely" vote to delete, I do not routinely vote any way. I actually consider the article. On the other hand, you vote and encourage others to vote by rote, by routine, to vote universally, without consideration of the individual at hand. This is combined with an absolute error of fact, as several school articles have been deleted just in the last two weeks, much less in the last two years. I assume you watchlist every one of them and watch New Pages obsessively to make sure that every single school is preserved, no matter what the nature of hte "article?" That kind of obsession is unhealthy. As for whether my contributions are my articles, I will leave that absurdity alone. However, what is at stake is much, much more pernicious than a single case of your playing "gotcha": You and others voting by routine rather than by consideration have routinely attacked the character, intelligence, and motives of every person voting contrary to your opinion. You, collectively, have tried to make each consideration personal rather than intellectual and a matter of passion rather than judgment. This is corrosive. While I'm not interested in playing games with the feeble, I am interested in stopping this habit of people attacking nominators and voters. It is absolutely disgusting to observe. "Winning" something as ridiculous as "Schoolwatch" by continually belittling and hectoring is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. Geogre19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, it is not appropriate to "remove personal attacks" unless you also archive them elsewhere and insert a link to that location. If you believe that you have been personally insulted in some manner, go through proper dispute resolution, and report the actions on WP:AN/I. I will be happy to have my words examined by uninvolved parties. If you simply remove by deletion again, it will be considered vandalism. Geogre20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to people as "feeble" is undoubtedly a personal attack. I would request that you read WP:NPA yourself and refrain from such uncivil and blatantly hostile remarks in the future. Continuating of such personal attacks is a violation of policy which can result in your being blocked.--Nicodemus7520:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Several school articles have been deleted in just the last two weeks" I am sorry, but this is a an attempt to obfuscate the truth. First of all, as I clearly stated in the previous comment, "not a single verifiable high school article has been excised from wikipedia through the deletion processes in almost 2 years" - that is a fact. The only school articles deleted at all in the recent past are either non-verifiable, outright hoaxes (in some cases authored by editors who "routinely nominated and/or vote to delete school articles"), copyright violations, or valid speedy delete candidates. I take umbrage at the uncivil and frankly, insulting nature of the remainder of your comments which certainly border on personal attacks.--Nicodemus7520:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good quality school, but still basically not notable. -- GWO
Weak Keep as verifiablesources are cited establishing notability. Perhaps the crux of this discussion should be taking place on a policy page about whether or not schools are notable (and if so, what makes them notable). I gather most of the discussion here is not about this school, but rather about school notability in general. I'm inclined to let this stay until a consistent policy for all schools has been established. And remember, No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man over it! Scorpiondollprincess14:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — As there is no consensus criteria for notability of schools, I'll keep using my own for now. Accordingly this specific High School page meets my criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schools are permenant structures that affect the lives of hundreds of people. The fact that it's not important to you doesn't make it unimportant or non-noteable.
Delete nothing notable about an average school in an upper-class neighborhood which has (unremarkably) high test scores and has produced a few minor figure alums none of whom are noted for their high educational attainment. Carlossuarez4617:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that high school is even less notable. The article discusses none of the merits of the school. If I weren't lazy, that school would be nominated as well.--Shrek05 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am changing my vote to delete per Geogre's explanation. I'm also getting really tired of the school inclusionists who insist that there is a conspiracy to delete all school articles on Wikipedia. Insisting there is one and using that to shape their arguments (and nothing else) is a blatant and glaring violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Someone needs to do something about it. --Coredesattalk. ^_^17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure there is a "conspiracy", but there is a concerted effort underway (for some time) to excise school articles from wikipedia and find a way to overturn the overwhelming precedent that school articles are simply not deleted (as a general rule) through the deletion processes. Why do I say there is a concerted effort? Mass-nominations of related schools all on the same day (both this month and last month). Sock-puppet nominations to AfD (such as this one). Refusual by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" to recognize that there even is a precedent (which there obviously is). (Yes, I recognize that the precedent is not binding upon future AfD discussions, but "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" ought to take that precedent into account before nominating school articles and before engaging in these "discussions"). Repeated assertions and claims that there is "no consensus to keep high schools", when well over 95% of AfD disucssions on high school articles have ended in overwhelming consensus to keep. After over 2 years of wrangling, it really is time for "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" to find a new hobby horse and accept that school articles have become a standard part of wikipedia. With there being over ten thousand articles about schools included in the project to date, average readers will have certainly come to expect to find school articles in the encyclopedia when referencing them. On many days, scores of new school articles are created and the inevitability of the nature of this project ensures that the vast majority of these will reamin in the project and be organically expanded. Those who do not believe that schools are worthwhile, or notable, or encyclopedic have every right to that opinion and to express it, but I think we can all agree that these debates (at least on high school articles) are largely fruitless and irrespective of what side of the debate you fall on, in light of the overwhelming precedent, these "discussions" in and of themselves add precious little to wikipedia. All this being said, it is no excuse for some "inclusionists" to violate WP:CIVIL in their frustration.--Nicodemus7519:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Nicodemus, in my opinion deletionism, like a cancer, is eating up the vital information that helps draw in people to the project. The consensus in the community is to keep all school articles. I completely understand people getting frustrated and I think that people after having been frustrated about all their valuable high school facts need to lash out a little bit. --ForbiddenWord19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, Nobody needs to lash out ForbiddenWord... and those that do on both sides of the debate should be dealt with. WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and (as Nicodemus75 mentioned) WP:CIVIL need to be observed no matter how strongly you feel. Deconstruct peoples' arguments or debate policy; but lashing out, or calling deletionism (or inclusionism) for that matter a "cancer", adds nothing valuable to the debate.--Isotope2320:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to get into the schools are notable/not notable debate, I'm just here to say keep and that AfD is *not* cleanup. Many of the people who have a problem with this article aren't even discussing notablility. "It sounds like an ad," "Why is the school hymn in there?" SoFixIt! Jacqui★18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a school prospectus. SoFixIt? There's nothing to fix. It is not possible to write an encyclopedia article on this subject. Deletion is the fix here. — HaelethTalk18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this is a high school that makes explicit claims of notability, with multiple alumni who have merited inclusion on their own merit. The nominator appears to be a sock puppet whose body of work seems to be a series of bad faith AfDs. Alansohn18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom by Geogre. Having 3 famous alumni is hardly claim to fame. So its a good school within the state, great, but fails notability. Example of a notable high school in the area would be Palo Alto High School; this high school hardly compares.--Shrek05 19:42, 28 July 2006 (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.