Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Ranking, california


 * 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 delete. --Core desat 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

High School Ranking, california

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated as speedy and vastly contested in it's talk page, so listed here. Delete as unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (statistics) -- Nabla 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nomination Nabla. I really do think that the content in this article is unencyclopedic. I really don't think regional data that too stretched out to 913 has no place in Wikipedia - much less any Encyclopedia. The author "SanJoseResident" has previously mentioned that some of the data was generated from software. I believe this constitutes not only potential copyright infringements, but also Original Research. I also suspect the author of Sock puppetry (I present "HighSchoolDad" as the sock puppet). I think the odds of one other person arriving on an article which is relatively new, being from California and actually being interested in this matter, not to mention similar editing styles (Wikilinking their usernames as opposed to signing with ~, despite my comments). I'll leave it out to the others to decide. Strong DeleteVishnuchakra 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- A whole table devoted to one years' worth of test rankings? Perhaps if this data were significant in any way (linked to a major event or a change in testing structure, and explained), then maybe we might want to keep it, but I can't see the use, especially when someone can visit the California Department of Education site and get the data themselves (I doubt its copyvio being public data from a gov't agency). Its nifty to see my old high school still in the top 50, but c'mon. Definately reads as Original Research. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR, although I have no doubt that the data are genuine, I cannot find any source that adds the two factors which when combined produces the rankings. It's like ranking the countries of the world by the sum of their population and area and calling the list "biggest countries". Carlossuarez46 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the data is genuine, I would guess it is copied wholesale from a website, which case it is a copy-vio. If this article were to be retained, it would need to be wikified.  However, the right place for this kind of information is on the website of the appropriate public authority, not in WP.  Peterkingiron 22:14, 7 June 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.