Talk:Santa Rosa Science and Technology High School

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Speedy Deletion Contest and Justification[edit]

As a current student of Santa Rosa Science High School, I just wanted the best, so as to improve this page, by means of updating and adding information, which are reliable, because it is based on the SRSTHS Revised Student Handbook 2008. It was issued by our Principal last week, with this I am just updating the whole article. Please reconsider the speedy deletion nomination. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vested Science (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

Sorry, but if you are basing the article on a 'copy and paste' style then you are in violation of copyright on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we can't use material from other sources word-for-word. For that reason, I feel it must be deleted until a fundamental rewrite is published. Thanks --eric dilettante' (mailbox) 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation[edit]

Please Specify what part of the article does the I violate. Is it our ESEP Curriculum? Or any other.

Everything, to start off the article is really messy and needs major clean-up, has poor spelling and doesn't follow the proper style for articles on Wikipedia. Also, you just admitted your basing this article of a published handbook. On top of that, nothing is cited. I have said my opinion and will leave the decision to the administrators; until then, please don't remove the deletion tag, someone may revert your edits and mark them as vandalism. Happy editing! --eric dilettante' (mailbox) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and looking at the actual text will reveal some biased opinions in the article itself, looking more like an advertisment. --eric dilettante' (mailbox) 14:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also I'm not the only one who edited this first, other things are based on true events, like the "current status" I'm not saying that the whole article is based on a book only! Some of it are base, but it is relatively few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vested Science (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation[edit]

Our Student Handbook is intended to be given to all the students of our school. It is a basis for us. We can use it for the purpose related to our school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.100.2 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point, that's why we don't base all the sources from the source itself. --eric dilettante' (mailbox) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Our Handbook is a primary source and the only source it is from the DepEd and the Principal, because everything to be followed is in that hand book. If you want to disapproved me, just give 1 more source that I can use, I will consider your complain and I will rewrite the whole of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.100.2 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC) --115.147.100.2 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is based upon multiple sources, not just one or two. I can't emphasis on the importance of that. It provides unbiased opinions and gives a good view on the article itself, entirely. Happy editing. --eric dilettante' (mailbox) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These means that you cannot cite another source, but I haven't just referred these into the primary sources. I have also secondary persons, they are the ones who explained and elaborated the school policies. And why should be the Principal be biased? The Handbook is the fruit of being unbiased, so that's why it is revised to accomodate the views of all. One more thing - How can I refer the ISBN # of the Book, the Book was given to us without ISBN. Another thing, if you wanted a clean-up, why should you post this into the Candidate for Speedy Deletion. #.--Vested Science (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justification[edit]

- It has passed the following criteria:

GENERAL

G1 - I have been allowed to edit this page, for the betterment of the article. (I have a good-faith to improve this page, I didn't intended to have a poor writing) *This can still be improved

G2 - This is not a sand-box of mine, but the actual

G3 - No vandalism, Pure Facts

G4 - Obviously, This was not deleted

G5 - I am not a banned user

G6 - I had had no uncontroversial maintenance here, I have just updating and cleaning up the old ones

G7 - The author doesn't request speedy deletion

G8 - This article doesn't depend on deleted or non-existent pages

G9 - Not directly from the Foundation

G10 - There are no threatening messages to the subject

G11 - If this would be true "Board of Trustees" Others like MaSci will be included. And I am not promoting anything, it is against equity

G12 - The Student Hand Book that I used has a free license for us students

ARTICLE

A1 - It states complete description, history and current status

A2 - It is not a Foreign Language Wikipedia Project

A3 - It has a content (Lot's of them)

A5 - This not transwikied

A7 - This is important and the same like, the National Science High School of the Philippines

A9 - It is history and it is just like the justification in A7

REDIRECTS

R2 - No redirect

R3 - Not a typos or misnomers

FILES

F1 - F11 *Ask if justification is needed

Case Closed[edit]

I admit my mistake, I will re-edit the whole article with unbiased information. "*Can I Delete this Discussion as the conflict is resolved."--Vested Science (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it is important to retain record of past discussion to explain the rationale the history of the article to future editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

All the information here is incorrect. Source: SSG (Supreme Student Government) of Sci-Tech. One of my friend who study in Sci-Tech said that the information in Wikipedia of Santa Rosa Science and Technology High School are all incorrect.--Devoted Scientist (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL FOR TOTAL REVISION OF THE PAGE OF SANTA ROSA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL[edit]

AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME STUDENT GOVERNMENT, THE STUDENT COUNCIL OF THE SCHOOL, WE REQUEST FOR A TOTAL REVISION OF THIS PAGE TO END UP ALL OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENTS.

AS THIS REVISION GOES, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE STUDENT COUNCIL SHOULD BE THE ONE TO UPLOAD THE CONTENTS OF THE PAGE. ALL CONTENTS TO BE UPLOADED SHOULD BE IN LINE WITH THE LATEST REVISION OF THE STUDENT HANDBOOK OF THE SCHOOL AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE AND NON-CONTRADICTORY WITH THE LAW CREATING SANTA ROSA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL, THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9083. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.146.162.110 (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]