Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klein Intermediate 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 delete. Wizardman 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Klein Intermediate School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another school article without notability, and only spam. Jmlk 1  7  06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --xDanielx Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of what the school's website should be, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. --xDanielx Talk 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Bduke 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Victor falk. --Fang Aili talk 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Inetrmediate schools generally does not have their own article. It can be merged with the proper school district.--JForget 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - No notability established & intermediate schools are not inherenty notable Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment every comment in this afd  is an exact copy of the comments for every article in this group, pro and con. There is no sign that anyone is paying attention to this particular article--but how can we be expected to, when so many are being nominated at a single time? I care about establishing the distinction for these article, but I despair of trying to do it at this rate. This method of nomination is unreasonable--thee are two likely results--a keep based on not particular evidence, or a delete, based on no effort to make a batter article. Neither of them contributes to the improvement of WP.
 * I would like a comment about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific arguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would readily endorse any such proposal. I think it is bad form (and, though it's nice to assume good faith, probably WP:POINT-related) to attack most (all?) schools in a single targeted district at one time. As the unsigned comment above said, it doesn't give editors a fair chance to evaluate each individual school on its merits; it is comparable to the scenario of illicitly pushing an article through speedy deletion when it really belongs in regular deletion. --xDanielx Talk 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would endorse the no consensus proposal. It definitely seems like almost every school in this district is currently being targeted and the allegation is either that the articles are spam or advertising, which seems like a cop-out and does not adhere to the assume good faith in my eyes. Why don't we give each article a chance to be improved before just deleting them?-MBK004 02:01, 7 August 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.