Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylsham high school


 * 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aylsham high school

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete vanity page for nn school Mayalld (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, as non-notable. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep History has shown that with a small amount of work most articles on High Schools can be improved to meet notability requirements. Note that this AFD was started 1 minute after the creation of the article.  This article should be allowed to improve to the level of most High School articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - firstly artical has been edited to better suit wikipedia criterea. - secondly mayalld if clearly a head teacher of a jealous school and wishes to keep pages about other schools off wikipedia, lokk at the school page's nominated for deletion aver the past few weeks he has nominated over half of them yet ignors any vanity in other articles not concerning rival schools.
 * Comment I would caution you to assume good faith. I am not the headteacher of any school. I amd not a teacher at all. Mayalld (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —Noroton (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep With a few additions I've just made, the school clearly meets WP:N criteria with information from two local newspaper articles, including one about the school receiving a national award. I've wikified it a bit, but more should be done, perhaps including changes to my edits. A minute is really too soon to be nominating a school for deletion. Wikipedia has a long and strong tradition of letting articles grow as an alternative to proposing deletion, and 60 seconds is not enough time to determine that a subject is not notable. Particularly since I was able to determine that it is notable in about the same period.Noroton (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Above and beyond the broad general consensus on notability of high schools, this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Notability standard. Kudos to User:Josef-harn, the article's creator, and to User:Noroton for their work in expanding the article. I am deeply disturbed by yet another example of a drive-by AfD, created within one minute of the article's creation. I fail to see how on earth the nominator could have fulfilled his obligations under Deletion policy to assess notability, edit, improve or merge the article in the 60 seconds after the article was created. Furthermore, as specified at New pages patrol (of which our nominator is a member), patrollers are cautioned to "patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." All Wikipedians should be appropriately annoyed that any AfDs are being created with this unjustifiable haste. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Kindly stick to the issue in point (the deletion or otherwise of this article), rather than indulging in personal attacks on me for nominating the article. Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that wasn't a personal attack, that was a criticism. There's a big diffierence. And it was a criticism of an action that costs the rest of us time and bother. That criticism belongs right here because it should be read by other editors so that they can consider whether or not they want to burden their fellow Wikipedia editors in the same unnecessary way. A personal attack would have disparaged you as an editor or as a person, which would have been wrong and which Alansohn did not do. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:DUCK it was a personal attack. The only issues in an AfD are about the article, and criticisms of the bringing of the AfD ought to have no bearing on the AfD, and are consequently irrelevant. Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: With respect, per WP:DUCK: "Then show proof (webbed feet, bill, etc) proving as much." Noroton (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see why the authors are unhappy, but so far nothing in the present article has suggested anything notable about Aylsham High School. The references now there show that the school exists, has a uniform and has feeder schools, has banned mobile phones, has an award-winning anti-bullying project and so on. If it has notable features, then the nature of an AfD is that there's time to add and reference them. As the article stands now, if this school is notable (suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia) then it seems to me that most schools are. And that can't be what notability is about. Xn4  21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree What the references show is that multiple, independant, reliable,secondary sources find the school and what occurs there "Worthy of Note" which is the heart of WP:N. This is refleced in the fact that WP:OUTCOMES notes that the majority of High School articles have been found notable when they arive at AFD.  Although it's not policy at this time I believe that this article as it now stands it would also fall in line with the proposed WP:SCHOOL policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - most high schools can be sourced to meet WP:N which is why the consensus is that they are notable. OTOH most elementary schools don't have such sources available so that consensus is that they should be merged except for a notable minority. To say that an "award-winning anti-bullying project" is not notable is, frankly, bizarre. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - High school, seems to meet notability. Glad we can keep having this same argument everyday. matt91486 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - another very poor nomination. Sources should be sought before nominating. The school now meets WP:N and further sources are available from which additional expansion can take place. TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. JERRY talk contribs 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - High schools are notable and this should not have been up for AfD within one minute of the the article's creation. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep Numerous sources help establish notability and verify content. Meets notability  guidelines.  -- Hdt 83      Chat 05:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. This nomination clearly violates editing policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you enjoy joining in with the personal attacks? There is nothing in WP:EP which forbids nominating an article for AfD, and I invite you to retract your incorrect statement above. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Claiming that a nomination violates policy is no more a personal attack than claiming that an article violates policy. From WP:EP: "the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible" and "...in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however". Making a decision that an article is worthy of deletion with only one minute's thought is taking it lightly. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was submitted to AfD, a process which gives 5 days to reach a conclusion to delete an article. That is hardly taking the decision lightly. There are huge numbers of articles in Wikipedia that are there, not because somebody actually has something useful to say on the subject, but because somebody thought there ought to be an article on the subject but had nothing to actually say about it. There aren't enough people around to "save" more than a small proportion of such articles, and for the most part articles that have been created as a placeholder by somebody with nothing to say should be deleted. Nine times out of ten, that is their fate. Occasionally somebody will come along and improve the article instead, but it is the exception. I have no problem with any of this. If I AfD an article and it is improved instead, all well and good (want to bet that it would still have been improved if I added a couple of improvement tags to it, because experience says otherwise). What I object to is the actions of a small group of editors who don't want to argue the individual case, but would rather fling a bit of mud with false accusations of breaches of policy in the hope that it will "see-off" the nominator from nominating anything in their domain again. My nomination clearly runs counter to the consensus in this case, which I accept. That does NOT mean that nominating it was a breach of policy, and I find the wikilawyering that people have indulged in here very distasteful. It is also a complete waste of your time, because I'm not somebody who runs away when faced with bullying. I will continue to nominate articles that I believe have no merit as I see fit, although you may rest assured that there will be no mass nominations to make a WP:POINT. I have no intention whatsoever of stooping to the same level as those who have attacked me. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have made no personal attack, and invite you to withdraw that accusation. I simply gave my opinion on what should happen to this nomination and provided a reference to policy in support of that opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment please re-read what you wrote! Yes, you gave your opinion on what should happen to this nomination. Upon that much we can agree, and whilst our views differ that is all well and good. However, given that the policy you quoted contains no injunction forbiding nominating articles for consideration by AfD it cannot have been in support of your keep opinion. Your post was more to do with trying to warn me off nominating in your playground than it was about the outcome of this AfD. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The inability to distinguish between practices that are not explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy, and the failure to consider the clearest possible admonitions in Deletion policy, Editing policy and elsewhere to respect the new articles being created by researching, editing, improving, merging or tagging articles before the mad dash to deletion, has raised justifiable concerns by nearly all participants in this AfD, which was submitted in under 60 seconds after the article was created. Among all the rhetorical backflips and rationalizations, I particularly enjoy the promise that "you may rest assured that there will be no mass nominations to make a WP:POINT", which unfortunately is already happening. The overwhelming rejection of your arguments for deletion here AND of the circumstances under which you created this AfD, should represent a rather clear consensus that you need to reevaluate the criteria and practices you use in proposing articles for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not the case, and I invite you to retract it. I have indeed nominated a number of articles for deletion, but that is nothing new. What is also not new is that the majority of articles that I nominate are actually deleted. Sure they don't all get deleted, and I'm sometimes at odds with others as to whether an article is notable, but why is that a problem? You seem to be attempting to create a situation where people don't dare nominate anything for deletion lest the bullies leap in and give them a good kicking. Mayalld (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to stem from the near total involvement in deletion of articles and the corresponding lack of involvement in creating and improving articles. There are surely many articles that merit deletion, speedy or otherwise. Yet there are many articles created each day that are worthy articles, that need to be improved and expanded. For all articles other than hoaxes or complete nonsense, the nominator has an obligation to investigate potential claims of notability. What seems to be happening -- and you are far from alone in this disorder -- is that after reading so many articles looking for potential deletes, that they all start looking like deletes, and you stop making the effort to bother even checking. That so many of your nominations have been so resoundingly rejected should tell you that your "deletedar" is picking up articles that have little or no justification for deletion. You need to start recognizing that these instant deletions, created within minutes of creation, send the worst possible message about Wikipedia to those new editors creating their first articles. Making a genuine attempt to observe Deletion policy and demonstrating good faith to all articles and their creators, will go along way in dealing with these disruptive problems. Spending a day or two solely editing, improving and adding sources to the articles you would otherwise have prodded or AfDed, can go a long way to understanding the position of the targets of your persistent deletion efforts. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Verifiable, NPOV, noted by the press. Comment: Poorly written new articles can be tagged, contributors can be given helpful advice, articles in tag categories can be combed for improvement/AfD. Double Blue  (Talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable etc. Also, people please tag things before bringing them to AfD unless you have reason to believe they won't be able to be shown to be notable.  At this point, bringing a High School here should not be done lightly. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2008 (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.