Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayonne 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 of the debate was Keep 20K 4D --JAranda &#124; watz sup 01:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Bayonne High School
NN, not encyclopedic cohesion | talk 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, well, I came back to look at this a couple days later, sorry for posting this, I wasn't, at the time, aware that school article's notability was so drastically different from other articles. When this was nominated it was a very small and seemingly non-notable stub. I know now that school articles are seen differently and are somewhat controversial. The idea that I am AFD spamming is a little extreme, I think this is the only school article I have ever submitted, certainly the only one in months. For the people that assumed I was doing this malevolently, I can only assure you that I wasn't. cohesion  &#9733;  talk  07:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In defense of those who have reacted strongly against your nomination, it can be difficult to keep track (at a glance) of whether a school on AfD is the result of a multi-nominator or not. Many WP policies and guidelines are so frequently ignored by many people on both sides of this debate and the constant level of acrimony was probably not directed at you specifically. Your nomination also happened to be sandwiched in with some nominations by User:ComCat, who is a habitual nominator of schools to AFD - likely sparking the confusion.--Nicodemus75 08:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that explains a lot. Still, I would like to think this is a forum for getting consensus regarding whether or not an article should stay in wikipedia rather than an article death sentence. I don't always know how people will react when things are nominated, but at the same time I am willing to accept whatever the consensus is. I like, and will retain that view rather than the more cynical view that everything here has nominators that are fighting tooth and nail to have their article deleted. - cohesion  &#9733;  talk  08:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your idealism is admirable, unfortunately a number of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" on the basis of the article being either a stub or "non-notable" have expressed the position that they engage in this process to "keep others honest" and "to see a victory of even one crappy school article deleted".--Nicodemus75 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a compelling reason not to attack people for doing things in good faith? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, move to Bayonne High School, and completely re-write. As pathetic as the article is, it is a real school.   Starry Eyes  02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments. Kappa 03:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fiddlefaddle. Gazpacho 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Schools/Arguments. --Vsion 04:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Schools/Arguments. --rob 04:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above. Please, please, please, stop AFD SPAMMING. Trollderella 05:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have bothered you with this nomination, but I don't really nominate many articles, certainly not to the point of anyone calling it spamming. cohesion  &#9733;  talk  08:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a very encyclopedic article when nominated. Kappa 05:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That isn't actually a reason to list it for deletion. Trollderella 05:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletes for one-line stubs would actually be good, if there are clear rules for them. This AFD is just overkill, and a waste of resources.  There's now a new good article, and the continuation of this AFD is a waste. --rob 06:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Better yet would be speedy improvement of one line stubs. I am constantly astonished at the effort that goes into deleting articles that could easily be improved. Trollderella 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Visit Watch/schoolwatch/New and you'll see some speedied "empty" or "nonsense" articles (as red-links). In each case, the article title, and delete edit summary (containing the micro-contents of the article), give you as much to create an article as you would if it hadn't been deleted.  Nothing was lost, and nothing is stopping you, me, or anybody from making a good school article out of the information.  This shows a speedy in these cases doesn't really mean a loss of anything.    --rob 06:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That page was extremely interesting, I didn't know school articles were being created quite that fast. Clearly the Schools/Arguments position is a no-hoper against such remarkable growth. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment how does nominating one high school for deletion constitute AfD spamming? I don't agree with the nomination, but calling it "spamming" is a bit extreme.--Isotope23 14:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry - what's the right word for repeatedly posting similar things that produce no result except annoyance? Trollderella 15:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I am doing this, or am I just the scapegoat here? If you're going to publicly accuse me of something please have some facts to back it up. This is the only school article I have nominated in recent memory. The reason I do nominate things is to get consensus opinion, not to get yelled at. I won't let this get me down though and will continue to try and work on wikipedia :) - cohesion  &#9733;  talk  08:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the same user I would agree with you (and there are certainly users who do this), but I don't see any concerted effort by the nominator to repeatedly nominate schools for deletion, so assuming good faith this is not a "spam" nomination as A Man In Black put it below.  No reason to attack the nominators intentions unless they have established a pattern of bad faith nominations.--Isotope23 17:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From the Spam (electronic) article: "the term "spam" can refer to any commercially oriented, unsolicited bulk mailing perceived as being excessive and undesired." These repetitious solicitations for deletion may not be of a commercial nature, but other than that, SPAM seems to be a fairly accurate way to describe these persistent disruptions.  Silensor 16:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How about "good-faith nomination of an article the nominator doesn't feel is appropriate encyclopedic material"? Please assume good faith here, and don't take this so personally. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good faith or bad faith, SPAM is SPAM. These school-type nominations are indeed excessive and they are indeed undesired.  As for taking things personally, it is not unreasonable for me to do so, given that ComCat has specifically targeted several articles which I contributed to.  I'll keep faith out of this.  Silensor 21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Cohesion is not User:ComCat, and, barring a relevant policy or guideline (Why not form a workable schools proposal that can be supported by consensus?), it is inappropriate to characterize good-faith AFD nominations as disruptive or spam. Vote Keep, vote Extreme Keep, vote Give Me Keep Or Give Me Death, but respect the fact that people holding different opinions in good faith disagree with each other in good faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Silensor, you may also wish to consider the fact that many, many people here see the unending blizzard of substub articles on schools of utterly no notability to be SPAM, and every bit as excessive and undesired as you see these nominations. Or am I asking too much? Denni &#9775; 02:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please this article has been made much better thank you Yuckfoo 06:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, hey, it's a school. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, third paragraph asserts the needed notability (witha reference). - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a small point, but there is no 'need' to demonstrate notability. Trollderella 15:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Demonstrating notability is required for articles on bands, people, books, websites, etc. I don't see why schools should be any different. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep NN school. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, to go with a weak assertion of notability. It's enough to keep it, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all valid High Schools. &mdash; RJH 16:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Schools/Arguments. There is no consensus to delete high schools.  Silensor 16:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, sufficently notable event and building.Gateman1997 20:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator made no effort whatsoever to support this nomination. Bryan 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed my vote, it stays keep. This is a huge school and notability is definitely established due to the security-related matters mentioned in the article. Bryan 05:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep CalJW 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Denni &#9775; 02:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep high schools. -- DS1953 talk 06:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing wrong with this article.--Nicodemus75 08:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep yeah sure. Klonimus 05:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep See Schools/Arguments. --BenjaminTsai 15:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete School. non-notable. Bwithh 14:04, 29 October 2005 (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.