Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archbishop Williams High 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 keep. This seems like one of the less contentious high school debates. Sjakkalle 09:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, school vanity. Jonathunder 05:43, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
- Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No valid reason for deletion mentioned by nominator. CalJW 06:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Vanity' is a valid reason for deletion. Radiant_* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Only if there is evidence, which there isn't. Gillian Tipson 06:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Vanity' is a valid reason for deletion. Radiant_* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I've expanded it to include sexual abuse allegations, a major labor dispute and lawsuit, and details of the organizational change to the school, all as reported in the media and sourced. Also information on a $12-14 million capital expansion from the school's website. Samaritan 06:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All that is very notable. Klonimus 08:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Samaritan R Calvete 07:01, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
- Keep, schools are wikipedia:important. Kappa 07:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passess the BEEFSTEW guidlines admirably. Although having said that the contrast between the first section and the lists in the second section is a little jaring. Thryduulf 09:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep contains more info than the average school article and passes BEEFSTEW. Mgm|(talk) 10:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable school. It fails BEEFSTEW as it does not establish any of the points E-I (apart from G for regional news, and only very weakly passes J). There is nothing that establishes this school as any different to similar schools. --G Rutter 13:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: BEEFSTEW doesn't require the article to contain ALL points. It's content on the abuse distinguishes it from numerous other schools. Mgm|(talk) 14:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- And it has no validity anyway. Gillian Tipson 06:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: BEEFSTEW doesn't require the article to contain ALL points. It's content on the abuse distinguishes it from numerous other schools. Mgm|(talk) 14:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Please remember that notability is not a deletion criterion. James F. (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true. Notability is an established and widely used shorthand that well captures many deletion criteria. Please see my earlier explanation on this point. See also the guide to VFD shorthands. A strict formalism doesn't accomplish anything here. Postdlf 21:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the working reference given above is a clear demonstration of the fact that "non-notability" is not a valid deletion criterion. A mere personal shorthand used by some editors is not a policy consensus - as the immediately adjacent reference to "unencyclopedic" even more clearly shows. --Gene_poole 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Postdlf, what you 'understand' to be policy may just possibly not actually be policy. :-) I would agree, however, that it is indeed erroneously becoming "established" - this is exactly what I'm trying to fix. James F. (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did we need a policy consensus on what words we could use to express ourselves on VfD pages? It's the substance that matters, and the substance of "not notable" is not only always tied to specific deletion criteria, it often overlaps more than one. I went into quite a bit of detailed explanation to show how notability is at the heart of at least most of the deletion criteria—can you elaborate on "no, you're wrong," or "no, we never approved that word for expressive usage"? Postdlf 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, whut? Where on Earth did you get the impression that I was objecting to the word? I'm pointing out that notability - the concept, not the word - is not a ground for deletion. You can bend over backwards to show that other people have been using it as such, and indeed this is helpful to show where people have erred, but they are using it wrongly. There are many occassions when things that are unnotable also aren't suitable for the encyclopædia, but this is not a causal link. James F. (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're still missing the whole thrust of what I was saying, but let's drop it here. If you want to take the time to explain to me what specifically you disagree with as to how nonnotable things always fall under one or more of the stated deletion criteria, please do so on my talk page. Postdlf 17:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, whut? Where on Earth did you get the impression that I was objecting to the word? I'm pointing out that notability - the concept, not the word - is not a ground for deletion. You can bend over backwards to show that other people have been using it as such, and indeed this is helpful to show where people have erred, but they are using it wrongly. There are many occassions when things that are unnotable also aren't suitable for the encyclopædia, but this is not a causal link. James F. (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did we need a policy consensus on what words we could use to express ourselves on VfD pages? It's the substance that matters, and the substance of "not notable" is not only always tied to specific deletion criteria, it often overlaps more than one. I went into quite a bit of detailed explanation to show how notability is at the heart of at least most of the deletion criteria—can you elaborate on "no, you're wrong," or "no, we never approved that word for expressive usage"? Postdlf 04:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Postdlf, what you 'understand' to be policy may just possibly not actually be policy. :-) I would agree, however, that it is indeed erroneously becoming "established" - this is exactly what I'm trying to fix. James F. (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the working reference given above is a clear demonstration of the fact that "non-notability" is not a valid deletion criterion. A mere personal shorthand used by some editors is not a policy consensus - as the immediately adjacent reference to "unencyclopedic" even more clearly shows. --Gene_poole 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true. Notability is an established and widely used shorthand that well captures many deletion criteria. Please see my earlier explanation on this point. See also the guide to VFD shorthands. A strict formalism doesn't accomplish anything here. Postdlf 21:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic instutional vanity-page. --Gmaxwell 18:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Admirable job of expansion. --FCYTravis 19:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please it is well written and passes beefstew Yuckfoo 20:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-written schools article thanks to Samaritan. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All schools are enduring physical and social institutions worthy of record in a truly encyclopedic encyclopedia. --Gene_poole 23:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, troll-supported. —Korath (Talk) 23:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Which of us are you personally attacking and calling "troll"s, exactly? James F. (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I noticed all schools on VfD were eventually posted there and on Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, so if I saw a new school and didn't post it to both, I would just be leaving more work for someone else. Is there a reason why I shouldn't? My talk. Samaritan 16:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go. —Korath (Talk) 02:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Which of us are you personally attacking and calling "troll"s, exactly? James F. (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Braintree (town), Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 10:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Skysmith. Radiant_* 12:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and refine policy to prevent future VfD nominations of school articles. In my opinion, schools with more than a few students should automatically be considered "encyclopedic"/wikipedia-worthy. Wikipedia will not be improved by the deletion of this article. ~leif ☺ (talk) 20:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Is it just me, or is there a certain kneejerk quality to recent school deletion listings? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. High schools should not have notability requirements, and this article now has a considerable amount of verifiable information.--BaronLarf 12:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This article has a near-perfect BEEFSTEW of 9. Pending the response from the school's development director it may just become a 10. Bahn Mi 21:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Intrigue 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.