Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Zurich High School (Lake Zurich, Illinois)


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus (18 keep, 12 delete, 2 merge (discounting IP vote)).  Rob e  rt  17:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Lake Zurich High School (Lake Zurich, Illinois)
Nothing distinguishes this school between thousands upon thousands of other cookie cutter schools. [ edit ] 04:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as it is verifiable. Jkelly 05:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Joaquin Murietta 05:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Schools/Arguments and please stop listing these as there is no consensus to delete school articles. Silensor 05:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor, BTW, is there a consensus to keep. Denni &#9775; 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a concensus, established over the past 10 months, to "not delete" schools simply because they are schools. I will concede there is no "concensus to keep" if you concede that there is a "concensus to 'not delete'".--Nicodemus75 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep that up, and you're going to get tangled up in your own words and fall on your ass. Oops, I see you already have. Fact is, there is just plain no consensus. Schools do not get deleted not because the keep votes win, but because lack of consensus always defaults to keep. And what is consensus? A two-thirds vote one way or the other. The break just happens to go your way. It has nothing to do with how a simple majority vote count falls out. Denni &#9775; 00:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it wasn't for the one line of text and infobox, it would be a CSD:A3. See also Schools/Arguments. Instead of a cry to "stop putting these on AfD", how about "stop creating millions of entries about NN schools!".--inksT 08:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There's not a consensus to keep them either, otherwise the issue wouldn't be so controversial. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with inks completely - being a school is not sufficient to be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry --Johntex\talk 09:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't a yellow pages. Once you remove the address and zip code, there's hardly any coherent text left. It appears to have a history, so if someone could put together a few coherent sentences and maybe say whether it was the first x in the area, I could be pursuaded to change my vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Ryan Norton T 09:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are thousands of school articles. In a few years there will almost certainly be tens of thousands. They are hardly ever deleted so nominating the odd one is pointless. Please get over this issue and move on to a more productive project. CalJW 10:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? A claim of victory based on sheer weight of numbers, eh? Sounds like Star Wars. We just need a Schools Articles Death Star, and someone to fly an X-Wing into it.--inksT 10:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please vote the article based on its merits not on it being a school. - Mgm|(talk) 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article which is primarily about a school is inherently meritorious.--Nicodemus75 17:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per inks and Mgm. ESkog 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments and please stop trying to stifle wikipedia by force of numbers. Kappa 14:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the keepers trying to force numbers here. Being unencyclopedic and basicly contentless is a valid reason for deletion. Why don't you spend a little more time on expanding school articles rather than creating (or supporting the creation) of hordes of ugly stubs? If the articles contained more info a lot less people would tend to delete them. - Mgm|(talk) 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * School articles are nominated on the basis of being schools and have to be defended on that basis - if this was about a village or a university it would be left in peace. This stub might not be too beautiful, but it has useful and encyclopedic content and should not require defense. Creating stubs is the fastest way to improve wikipedia's coverage, although I might be making stubs about places in Chad if people didn't keep attacking schools. Kappa 23:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, a school is neither a village or a university. And in any case, most articles on villages and universities contain more info than this pathetic little stub. Perhaps instead of supporting these no-name schools, or creating stubs on villages in Chad, you can put your money where your mouth is and add some much-needed content to soem of these school articles you've been so adamant in saving. Denni &#9775; 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be the best use of my time, since any content I added would be in danger of deletion. Kappa 02:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Cop-out, Kappa. Almost all articles face some danger, even if vanishingly small, of deletion. School articles tend, as you have stated several times, to be kept, even in their usually-pathetic state. However, I am not the only deletionist who would vote to keep a school article if it included info that demonstrated notability. You are actually decreasing the likelihood of an article being deleted by adding to it; is that not what you want? Or are you simply voting 'keep' while letting others do the work of ensuring keepability? Denni &#9775; 23:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that deleting "non-notable" schools destroys wikipedia's coverage of education. Most schools aren't any more notable than average, there isn't anything I can do to the article to change that. Kappa 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I could sure run with that one if I wanted, Kappa. But I'll just leave you to ponder how an article listing a school's location, the name of the principal, the number of students, and the school colors could possibly have anything whatsoever to do with education. This depressing description could be of virtually any of the school articles currently on board. Wikipedia is covering nothing except a school census. And thank you for noting that most schools aren't any more notable than average. That being the case, why are we keeping them? We don't keep "average" anything else. Denni &#9775; 05:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep High Schools. &mdash; RJH 15:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep high schools. --rob 16:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Schools/Arguments and to reduce the number of totally pointless school articles.--Isotope23 16:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Lake Zurich, Illinois. Yet another tiny little stub that would be better off being merged. Which I thought we'd done before. Don't waste people's time making them click for tiny snippets of info buried among repeat information - a summary table of the schools in the main page is more useful. And don't witter on about expanding or 'organic growth' unless you're going to do it yourself without resorting to mission statements and statements of the bleeding obvious. Average Earthman 22:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mission statements are valuable, per WP:NPOV. Kappa 23:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see a school mission statement that is remotely valuable. They all state the blatantly obvious. Average Earthman 08:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This schools mission statement is no exception - "The mission of Lake Zurich High School is to provide a safe and supportive environment in which all students actively participate in the learning process and are challenged to reach their full potential. The High School Learning Community fosters character development while creating well-rounded, lifelong learners who will become productive citizens through a partnership that engages the entire local community." See what I mean? Ever seen a school mission statement which reads "We aim give a patchy education to the few remotely smart kids while keeping the rest of these wretches off the streets for a few hours, and we don't want anything to do with their horrible parents"? Average Earthman 08:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well this mission statement is bland and tries to cover all the bases, but it doesn't say it aims to fulfill the manpower needs of the nation, or to develop in students a respect for authority, so that make it different from some. Kappa 11:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete public schools, even those with astroturf. Gazpacho 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Another nn school --JAranda &#124; yeah 00:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Astroturf won't get you into the Guinness Book of records. Or, one hopes, into Wikipedia. Denni &#9775; 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand into something interesting. Instead of arguing whether all schools should be included or excluded, we should have a policy that helps editors make a school article worthy of inclusion. What makes this school different from others? Famous graduates? Championship football team? Anyone get shot there? There's something unique about every school. -- Mwalcoff 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Go on then, expand it. Seriously. I'm fed up of people saying to keep and expand a stub and not doing so. Whenever I want a stub kept, I try to find a way to expand it - if you can't expand it, it should be merged until any expansion is needed. Average Earthman 08:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep this too please it is about an interesting school and the article is neutral an verifiable so we should not erase it Yuckfoo 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you say that this is an interesting school, you must know information that can expand it. If you don't, how can you say it's an interesting school, rather than just the same as all other schools? If you just want to keep all school articles, please say so, but please don't claim this one is particularly interesting if you don't have any evidence to add. Average Earthman 08:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, high schools are notable and there is active work underway on this article. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.School articles are nominated on the basis of being schools and have to be defended on that basis. No. They are nominated on the basis that they are Not Notable, Not Encyclopedic, or otherwise Not Wikiworthy. Getting into a debate about inherent notability is ridiculous - you should only vote keep if that particular school is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. At the moment, everyone is just voting keep because "it's a school, and we always keep schools". Just look at the reasoning - There's something unique about every school. Come on, there's something unique about everything. Every bus stop, every side street, every person, every house. If that argument were brought out on any other AfD people would be Rolling on the Floor, Laughing. "Keep the article about King Edward Pedestrian Crossing, Namibia, there is something unique about every pedestrian crossing, we should expand it into something interesting". What is this amorphous quality about schools that causes otherwise sensible Wikipedians to throw all logic and reason out the window?--inksT 03:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an easy question to answer - its because they are either working in one or still going to one :). Not saying everyone who goes to school votes to keep them, but it can cloud one's judgement if they are not careful. Also, before you vote, see some wisdom from denni. Ryan Norton T 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did we mention that we keep colleges, villages, metro stations, Simpsons episodes, Slate journalists, warships, pokemons, albums, pro baseball players and more, all without requiring any more notability than being what they are? If we accept that an established school can be non-notable, we can say goodbye to the ideal of a comprehensive, useful, NPOV wikipedia. Kappa 03:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You've used this argument before, and the response is the same - no one votes to "Keep" an article on a destroyer because "Destroyers are inherently notable". For things other than schools, we can actually have a rational debate regarding notability or other criteria without suffering a Charge of the Schoolwatch Brigade.--inksT 03:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um no-one even nominates destroyers, because destroyers are considered inherently notable. Kappa 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. If and when a destroyer, or magazine, or pokemon is nominated for AfD, we can have a rational discussion about notability. All I ask is that we move away from the "X is inherently notable" form of argument, towards a "These are criteria that define notability" form of argument.--inksT 04:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If and when a destroyer or pokemon is nominated, it gets kept because it's just as notable as all the other destroyers and pokemons. There's no point discussing the general notability of destroyers and pokemons every time. Kappa 04:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point (again). Arguments that invoke "inherent notability" are a bad idea, because no two schools, or pokemon, or destroyers are created equal. Absol is not notable compared to Pikachu, the Malaysian pocket destroyer "Harimau" is not notable compared to the WW2 destroyer USS Laffey, which is the only surviving ship of it's class, and Lake Zurich High School is not notable compared to Columbine. Can we please, please, please discuss each article on its own merits.--inksT 04:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Absol is not notable compared to Pikachu, but it's notable enough, so it gets an article and happily we don't have to delve into the comparative notability of pokemons and theoretically we have time to do better things. Kappa 04:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you're not ignoring the point just for the fun of it. I would like nothing better than to delve into the comparative notability of pokemon, if it means an end to the plague of "inherently notable because it's part of a class that has one or two notable elements" arguments.--inksT 04:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say not as notable as Pikachu but still plenty notable enough for an article. Just like Pikcahu isn't as notable as George W. Bush. We have articles on both. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 12:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a student, BTW. I think if you have an institution where thousands of people spend half of their weekday waking hours, which costs millions of dollars of taxpayer money to construct and operate, which serves as a focal point of a community -- I'd say that's noteworthy. At least as noteworthy as a Class A minor-league baseball team or an obscure manga comic. -- Mwalcoff 03:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous conclusion. Schools are inheritly not notable - they are just a pile a bricks. Ask yourself, why are the other articles kept and what makes them notable? The answer is it's connection to people plus uniqueness. People almost never go back to a school they go to - and why do they go back when they actually do? Its because of the teachers, not the pile of cement that is the "school". That's why these articles are doomed to be substub articles with a very low quality for eternity - there is no connection to people here, no notability, just the same thing as the last school article. There is no point in having 99% these around, thus the term "schoolcruft" - they are just there to take up server space. Sorry to those who are offended but it's true - and even if you did expand the article it would be no different then any other article about 99% of the schools here. There are some school articles that are worth having - but almost nothing I've seen come here fits that. What we should do is make an article for the school district and give a blurb for the school there - as, quite frankly, these articles are never going to be nothing more than a blurb and table anyway. While we're at it, if we are going to have an article on every school we should have an article on every person too - because even one teacher at a school is generally more notable then the school itself, and it seems silly to keep schools and not teachers. Ryan Norton T 03:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * School articles aren't about buildings, they are about organizations which shape everyone's lives. They might all look indentical to you, but you are obviously neither interested in the school itself, nor schools in general, so you aren't really the target audience. If you think schools should be covered in school district articles, you should be voting merge, not delete. Kappa 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well now - first off I disagree that they are "organizations which shape everyone's lives" - they teach - that is their function. That's why if there is an article around here its about a sports program or something of the school - because the schools inheritly all do the same thing. The organization does not do the life-shaping - its the people at the organization. The organization recieves a set sum of money to teach/etc. either from a government or a set of people - thus the inherit non-notability. Also, I am interested in a school article and would like to see a good one but this is not it, neither are most of the other ones I've voted on. As for merge, well, no one else is voting merge here and as merge defaults to keep I'd rather see it deleted in that case (that and there's nothing to merge to). Right now 99% of the school articles here are a small collection of trivia, which does not seem to belong here. Ryan Norton T 04:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My local supermarket shapes my life too as it provides me with food and things to buy, but I'd rather have an article on the company behind the shop than the shop itself. Just like an article on education rather than the school where it's done. I don't think this particular stub increases Wikipedias coverage at all. It barely contains any info. I challenge anyone who thinks schools are inherently notable to enter the Article rescue contest and put your money where your mouth is. Saying you shouldn't expand them because your additions are in danger of being deleted is ridiculous, the more encyclopedic info an entry contains the likelier it is to be kept. Caulfield Grammar School anyone? - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There are tens of thousands of schools in the USA. Should we also list every church, 7-11 store, and gas station? (Unsigned vote by User:67.161.42.199)--inksT 04:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Another clearly unnotable school. Dottore So 06:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Lake Zurich, Illinois per Schools/Arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough WPians (and I am not one of them) are convinced schools are inherently notable, and they have reasonable arguments supporting their position. Let them have their articles. Xoloz 09:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And those reasonable arguments would be? Ryan Norton T 09:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See #Keep, but briefly, as I understand the arguments, schools are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their formative years. They are generally fixed in location, and often have long histories.  They are likely each to attract substantial communities of interest to WP.  I don't firmly agree with these points, but I see some value.  My high school, for example, was founded in 1970, with an average class size of 1,000 people.  It serves a city of 70,000, each citizen likely to know it.  It is known across the entire US state, and well-known by adjacent towns, such that I estimate at least 350,000 people know of it and have reason to search for it.  In my state, my school is (or was) average (ie. I looked up class size and campus size when enrolled there, and it was in the middle.)  350,000 potential searchers is good enough, arguably. Xoloz 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do firmly believe, however, that these arguments absolutely distinguish schools from boxes, gyms, bars, factories, and all the other general categories to which the are compared by some here. Generally, most students have at least some interest in their school (if only because they are stuck there in young life when they would rather be outside), and I know most parents have an interest in their children's school.  The aggregate community attachment to these places, in my experience, far exceeds community concern for other "buildings," as schools are called here in dimunition by some. Xoloz 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly, sir, you are quite wrong. Some parents have an interest in their child's school. Most parents do not, though they do have an interest in their child's performance in their school. I speak from many years' experience as a former teacher, attempting to get parental involvement in my school. Good luck. And the higher the grade level, the less likelihood of getting that involvement. Parents are more interested in the local Safeway than in the local school. Laugh if you will, but parents spend more time there, they spend more money there, and they make more decisions regarding groceries than regarding school. It is less likely the Safeway flier will go directly in the recycle bin than the school newsletter. Sad but true. Denni &#9775; 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. Schools are worthy of having a place on Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 12:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. All school nominations are bad-faith. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there are quite a few good-faith school nominations, made by people who haven't come across the debate before and don't realise that the nomination will waste many people's time without achieving anything useful. 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominations are also made by people who continue to believe that the subject of an article must be properly encyclopedic, and seeing a school article with name, address, principal's name, and nothing more, properly challenge such an article as unacceptable. Labelling this as a waste of time is a judgement call. Personally, I do not find it a waste of time to guard against dead air in Wikipedia. Even though most school articles are kept because a lack of consensus defaults to a keep, I will continue to keep the pressure on inclusionists such as yourself to stay honest. That, in my estimation, is quite a worthy goal. Denni &#9775; 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In summary, you will continue to nominate schools such that I and others have to keep watching AFD like a hawk to vote keep over and over? WP:POINT applies. Why not just assume that we're around, and stop nominating schools, or participate in some sort of discussion to create reasonable school criteria and stop nominating schools untill then? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How can I "continue" to nominate schools when I have yet to nominate even one? I respond to articles as they come before AfD, and that is it. If you are going to throw rocks, please take the time to research your target. Yes, I would be happy to participate in some sort of discussion, assuming it wouldn't be the rather one-sided one which seems to happen here, in which deletionists like myself request some restraint in publishing articles on every backwater school on the planet, but inclusionists like yourself insist on keeping each and every one. When "sometimes" can be part of the conversation on both sides, maybe we can get an intelligent conversation happening. Denni &#9775; 05:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You will continue to "pressurize" people like myself who want to keep wikipedia honest and do the best for its users, by wasting our time and forcing us away from more important topics. A great contribution. Kappa 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Honest. Perhaps you can expand on how it is more honest to keep every essentially empty article on every school than it is to choose the best articles, keep them, and demand expansion or deletion of the remainder. Perhaps you might also consider that you are forcing me to waste my time in attempting to keep Wikipedia free of what I see as meaningless drivel. Denni &#9775;  05:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I reject your comment about using this AFD to make people "stay honest".  The creator of *this* article, was entirely honest, as the school is verifiably real.  Now, you're free to vote as you wish, and to think school's are non-notable, but please don't suggest that *this* AFD is about keeping people honest.  Now, if somebody were to create a fake school (yet again), then an AFD would be an entirely appropriate place to keep things honest (by voting to delete).  If such a case happens (again), I will happily vote to delete (again) in that case.  --rob 21:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand entirely what I say. Had I meant to question the motives of the articles author, I would have said so. I was using what is commonly known as "a figure of speech". Who I mean to keep honest is those who vote to keep articles which in any other measure would be deleted as CSD:G1 or CSD:A1, or, if they were about a person, CSD:A7. I am absolutely prepared to challenge these people at every turn, and ensure that they must be here to vote for their precious schools if they wish to keep them. Denni &#9775; 05:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In the time I've spent talking here, I could have easily made a quick vote, and created dozens of one-line school stubs. If I did that, I would be as bad as the AFD spammers.  Instead, I haven't, and I have spent time making what I think are decent school articles, and improving others.  The only people school AFD SPAM hurts are those who care, and contribute.  You're discouraging substantial contributions, but doing nothing to discourage mass creation of one-line stubs, or trivial articles.   Perhaps you should focus your attention on those who knowlingly and intentionally create useless articles.  I think it is distressing that you would say your intentionally wasting our time here.  Frankly, if I showed as little respect for your time, as you do for mine, I wouldn't bother writing this comment to you, I would be making a dozen one-line stubs instead.  Perhaps you should re-evaluate who needs to be "kept honest" (don't take offence to my comment, I'm just using a figure of speech). --rob 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will try to say this without yelling. I do not discourage substantial contributions. I welcome substantial contributions. I beg for substantial contributions. Is "Rockford High School is a school in Rockford Ontario. Its principal is Ralph Black. It has 360 students. Its school colors are red and blue" a substantial contribution? Only if your expectations are very low. Mine are not. As a matter of fact, these appear to be very much the "trivial articles" you accuse me of doing nothing to discourage. Seems to me I'm doing everything I can to discourage them. And I beg to differ that I am wasting your time. Surely if your (literally) empty articles are worth keeping, they are worth defending. How is that a waste of time? It is not like I brought these to AfD, and it is not like I am setting out to find school articles to bring before AfD. Furthermore, no article gets a free ride on AfD. Did no one tell you that? What it looks like you want is for me to go away so you can have your own way. If you have made decent school articles, then I congratulate you. If they are decent school articles which contain worthwhile and interesting information about the schools they cover, and they come before AfD, I will vote to keep them. If they are like most of the pathetic pieces of drek that float to the surface here (school articles or otherwise), I will vote to delete them. Frankly, if you were writing dozens of one-line stubs instead of writing these comments to me, you would be contributing nothing much different from a large number of the school articles I've voted to delete. And yes indeed, you would be the spammer then. BTW, you can rest assured that I can always find time to assist anyone, deletionist or inclusionist, to hunt down people like Gateway1997 and dispatch him/her with as much extreme prejudice as Wikipedia allows us to muster. I agree that there is absolutely no excuse for that kind of puerile behavior. Denni &#9775; 06:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I've had enough of my time wasted by him. I'm done with answering his facile and juvenile insults and condescending responses that pepper these AfD discussions. You really should know by now Rob, there is simply no reasoning with Edmontonians.--Nicodemus75 06:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And another sore loser Calgarian slinks off to bed... Denni &#9775; 06:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Xoloz who explain it very well on why keeping school. School is usually much more than just a name, address and principal. If the school has no student, I will switch my vote to delete. --Vsion 05:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no students during holidays. We could delete the articles then, and recreate them when the students return. :) --inksT 04:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - --Oblivious 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Yikes, forgot to vote! Denni &#9775; 22:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Year-to-date VfD/AfD nominations on schools are 329. 282 of these article have not been deleted. 85% of nominated school articles are not deleted. As far as I'm concerned - that is a concensus not to delete school articles (or stubs) on the basis that they are schools.--Nicodemus75 17:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No - there is not a consensus to either delete or keep school articles. All this "all school noms are bad-faith" and WP:POINT nonsense isn't helping the situation either. Ryan Norton T 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said there was either of those things. I said that an 85% VfD/AfD survival rate over the past 10 months establishes a "concensus 'not to delete'". I agree there is neither a concensus to keep, nor a concensus to delete - but there is clearly a concensus "not to delete".--Nicodemus75 19:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a logical fallacy, however, as not all keeps (and even fewer deletes) are based on the "all schools" mantra. In addition, opinions here based on that are sometimes disregarded by the closing administrator (see some of the previous AfDs here), which further shoots holes in that theory (remember, AfD is a discussion about particular articles, not groups of articles). So, what we have here is a rather uneasy 55/45 (well, supposively. With schoolwatch etc. it makes it tough to tell how many regulars really want to keep these articles) standoff. In my early days I was a "school inclusionist" too before I realized wikipedia's goals were more towards an encyclopedia and not a wiki, so I can see where they get their opinions from (although some of the recent ones giving opinions of keep due to thinking that there is a consensus to keep these articles or whatever is pretty bizarre in terms of AfD things). Ryan Norton T 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that someone who looks at the history of school AfDs and sees a ratio of 9:1 "not deleted" and assumes there is some sort of concensus "not to delete schools" is "pretty bizarre". Seems pretty rational to me.--Nicodemus75 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article which gets 16 votes to delete and 8 votes to keep is kept on the basis of "no consensus" (and please learn how to spell that word). Often, closing admins will require as high as 80 percent votes to be "delete' Before they will close a vote as consensus. An article must get, minimally, 2/3 + 1 votes to delete in order to be deleted, otherwise it is kept. The onus is hugely on the delete side to come up with votes. For consensus, 2/3 + 1 votes is equally required, whether to keep or delete. Since most votes on schools run around 50-50, or maybe 60-40 to keep, there is clearly no consensus for either keep or delete, so please stop trying to convince everyone of your mythical "consensus not to delete". This is not rocket surgery. Denni &#9775; 07:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No applicable basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments, and no compelling reason for deletion given.  Un  focused  06:54, 13 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.