Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augusta Independent Schools


 * 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.  

The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 23:45Z 

Augusta Independent Schools

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

User:209.209.140.19 has nominated this page and Augusta High School (Kentucky) for deletion by adding the template to those pages, without actually specifying the reason on this page. The discussion on the Talk page indicates that the AfD is because the school board does not like the content in them, and would like to see the pages disappear. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a valid reason to delete a good article. Vees 19:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is notable, school board and/or author of content do not own the page. Orderinchaos78 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion has been presented, and the nominator has abandoned the nomination. --N Shar 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The nomination was lodged by an anonymous editor who did not complete the process - Vees and myself repaired the nomination and listed it here for debate. Orderinchaos78 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I completed their nomination because I would like to see the complaint resolved by consensus as quickly as possible. Vees 14:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the better school articles, does show notablity/historicity, but does need to be cleaned up a bit.  Also, if the School Board has issues, let them deal with it elsewhere, Orderinchaos78 is correct on the WP:OWN issue! (and suspect some animosity/COI with User:Aaronl23, given the edit history) SkierRMH 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If the school does not want it on there, it is about their school system so they have a right to make a fuss about it. SkierRMH you need to do a little brushing up on your politics with school systems (209.209.140.19 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment To this anon commenter - local politics in school systems is totally irrelevant! WTF does a local school board have to say about internet content that's not theirs (under their definite/specific jurisdiction).  Do they think that they can limit free speech about their schools, especially on a world-wide basis?  As long as there's nothing libelous, copyvio, etc., contrary to Policies and guidelines, it's free game.  (And, remember in the US, there's a thing called the U.S. Constitution (See the First amendment), that might just apply).  FURTHERMORE, as a reminder  - content submitted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and need not be removed merely at the request of interested parties.  Official policy  Ownership of articles states: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  You might want to brush up on reading the bottom of every edit page before making irrelevant and basically incorrect statements like that.  SkierRMH 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep WP is not under the jurisdiction of the school board, who has no right to control outside sources. Let them edit in the fray of Wikipedia like everyone else, and see what evolves.  WP should not be censored.--Wehwalt 15:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a not notable school &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * merge and stubbify Ive explained the source in the discussion of the other article--it is either a copyvio or a rewrite from a University of Cincinnati unpublished typescript Masters Thesis. DGG 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment --Im personally disappointed by the actions of User:DGG as an admin. It seems s/he has suggested that this is a copyvio of the previously mentioned book to the author of the article.  Im not an expert, but it seems to me that if this is an a University of Cincinnati unpublished typescript Masters Thesis as stated by DGG, then Wikipedia would have full copyrights under GFDL because User:Aaronl23 chose to use Wikipedia this as his forum to publish verifiable information (versus OR which a Master's candidate wouldn't risk).  And a few great pictures to boot.  I think this entry should be nominated for a featured article, to quash any AfD debate and to show what a notable school entry should be.DUBJAY04 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's assuming that User:Aaronl23 is the author of the thesis, though. If not, it's still (potentially) a copyvio.  It is entirely possible that the user is in fact the author -- I know of 75-year-olds who are conversant with the Internet -- but the writing style does seem rather different from the earliest version by the same user.  I can't consider DGG's suspicions unfounded or his actions (as an admin or otherwise) disappointing -- we absolutely should be using caution when it comes to potential copyright infringements. Shimeru 06:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is neither claimed nor evident. WMMartin 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an excellent article and the school does appear to be notable, in my opinion.  Yamaguchi先生 07:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.