Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado)


 * 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. Pretty close to a no consensus but for the flurry of keep votes in the end. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado)
It's a mess, and by the time the cruft is deleted it won't even make stub status. Images might be a problem too, not just copyright, but whether or not those shown actually want to be on that page}} Moriori 07:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a work in progress. The page is being cleaned up, and I only jsut now got the images workign right. I know the people in the pictures personally, and they gave me permission for thier placement on this page. I was nto expecting anyone to come across it for a few days, and the page is only a couple of hours old. Within a week, the page will be in perfect wikishape. This deletion recommendation seems to be more of a flaming/trool comment, not a thoughtful consideration.ThNik 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I trust your work on this article is not indicative of the quality of students that come from this school. My AfD tag was in the interests of reversing the dumbing down of Wikipedia, and is not a "a flaming/trool comment", whatever that is. If you want to avoid this ever happening again in the future, then write and fully tweak your article before you post it. Incidentally, do you not have a spellchecker? Anyway, I'll help out a bit on the article. Moriori 08:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No I am sorry. I know my spelling is a problem. I am having computer diffuclties at the moment, and I asm working on an old POS computer that has no spell check. And I meant to say flaming/troll, as in a move made jsut to be mean, not thinking carefully.


 * Keep. The school does seem to be noteworthy, but we have a lot of crap to clear from the page first.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Delete. The "Small by Design" concept seems to be noteworthy, as noted here, here, and here, but the school itself seems forgettable.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And I found an article on the movement. See Small schools movement.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * there is nothing that needs to be moved, as it all is important tot eh school. Forgive me for saying this, but you cannot have an opinion on what is important about the school unless you attend it. What there is a lack of is useful information such as sports teams and awards, a job I am working on. I am also taking all requests for added information so I can gatehr the proper facts and add as nessecerry. I also say that it is not cruft, as it was wanted from appeanance by wikipedia, as ntoed by the red link, and since noone else wnated to work on it, I chose to.ThNik 02:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete non notable seemingly vanity article of origional research.  Please see WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY--Strothra 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Precedents. But it needs some cleanup, per WP:SCH.  Also, regarding the statement, "You cannot have an opinion on what is important about the school unless you attend it," the article should explain the school's notability to the casual reader who doesn't attend the school.  That would make it a better, more interesting article.  -- E lkman - (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - article contains almost no information about the school itself, only the Small be Design program. If some sources could be found indicating its notability, perhaps the program itself would deserve an article; but as of right now, the school is definitely non-notable. --JerryOrr 17:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, a mention of the school's existence at Thornton, Colorado is sufficient. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (personal attack by banned user removed)
 * Comment I'm no deletionist, but I must say that a 'keep' proposal so aggressively targeted at the editors who could aggregate to prevent deletion of this article doesn't seem the best way to proceed. By the way; I (and many other editors) am/are A Geek, Not A Nerd. Another point which is perhaps worthy of mention, without disparaging the creator's efforts; a redlink does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia per se wants an article; it could also suggest that one editor thinks that an article should be created, and that other editors who disagree have not yet removed the redlink.  Having said that, fleshing out redlinks is a noble cause (see Sir Geoffrey of Redlink), and I salute you for this, if not for a considered and calmly argued approach. Colon el  Tom 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Oh, and Weak Keep. Not because I think it is noteworthy, but because if I understand correctly the community consensus is to keep school articles as stubs. Sarg 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately wikipedia is kinda broken on the schools issue, and that causes stress and wasted time not only for regulars but also for helpful passers-by like yourself. Kappa 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Moriori 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is this a vote by the nominator, and yes, I know it was from the old listing, just commenting. Ans  e  ll  12:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the nominator voting? Same as RfA etc!Moriori 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Mailer Diablo 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Relisting due to irregularities (see talk page). - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the precedents at Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive and Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive/2005. Also, this particular school's (or schools') approach, seems interesting, and worth describing.  --Rob 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a school is worth keeping, despite its editor. Tyrenius 07:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. Cedars 08:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think all high schools are notable. Needs a good cleanup though. Kevin 08:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, established school, no reason wp users shouldn't be able to read about it. Also a good article. Kappa 09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's amazing how AfD can turn a mess into a reasonable article. Moriori 10:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all non-notable highschoolcruft KleenupKrew 11:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep No reasons for deletion that are worth considering have been mentioned. Hawkestone 11:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please assume good faith and refrain from making attacks upon the opinions of other editors who extend the same courtesy to you. --Strothra 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, suggesting a vanity motive, would seem to be more of an assumption of bad faith. The above keep voter, is merely indicating that they find none of your arguements worth considering.  They are not questioning your *motive* for making any arguement.  There's a big difference.  You did ascribe an improper motive to others: namely "vanity".  Note: the guideline is worded "assume good faith" *not* "assume good reasoning".  Also, it's hard for others to understand your reasoning when you make an *invalid* speedy vote.  Please cite where in policy you can justify a speedy deletion of this school.  You gave *no* legitimate reason for a *speedy* deletion.    --Rob 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you assume that I voted for deletion solely based on vanity. I voted for deletion, as I state in my deletion vote above, because the article does not even attempt to cite sources thus leaving the information in the article unverifiable.  The article relies purely on origional research.  There are Wiki policies regarding citation, verifiability, and orgional research.  The comment, whether or not it assumed bad faith, was still offensive in that it attempted to simply dismiss the points made by other editors who voted for deletion without giving any counter arguement for why the article should be kept. --Strothra 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that was your sole reason. In fact, it may not have been a reason at all.  I just said "You did ascribe an improper motive".  My point was WP:AGF means assuming good faith, not assuming good reasons.  If you critiqued the *reasoning* of others, that would have been better then critiquing the motive (vanity) of others.  Also, I didn't say you gave no reason for deleting per se.  I was specifically saying you gave no basis in policy for *speedy* deletion.  You had no speedy-specific reasoning. --Rob 15:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood and, as I'm sure you've seen, I altered my delete vote accordingly.--Strothra 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per all above Jcuk 13:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVad e r 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, high schools are notable. BryanG 18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep and Rewrite, but only because high schools are inherently notable. I'd actually prefer a deletion of this article so someone else can write it from scratch. ~Kylu ( u | t )  20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Angr. Ardenn  03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep current article is not at all cruft as the nominator refers to it. It details the splitting of the school under the Small schools movement. A history of the school before this point would be helpful, but the current article is a worthwile stub as it is. Ans  e  ll  04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator was not nominating the current version, not did he say the original was all cruft either. Check this to see the mess that was nominated. Moriori 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry! my apologies about the cruft statement, its a word I hate to see at the best of times, but the page wasn't all that great at that point in time, however, the vote should be decided on its current state and future encyclopedic possibilities. Ans  e  ll  12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have missed where I said above -- "It's amazing how AfD can turn a mess into a reasonable article." If this article was still in the form it was in when nominated, it would be outtahere. It is now being judged on its current status. Seems we don't need Wikipedia:Cleanup. Simply bung a mess onto AfD and if someone sees potential in it, it will be improved.  Moriori 01:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments :) Dlohcierekim 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Schools/Arguments. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a reason that there are two sections to the page, so that people don't feel justified in singling out one section without the other. Same goes for the above user, dont selectively use arguments to support your case either. Ans  e  ll  12:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. You supported to keep this article on the basis that the "current article is not at all cruft." If you're saying that my argument may be invalid, as I'm only looking at reasons to delete the article, why did you only consider an argument to keep it? If everyone wanted to support both sides of the debate, this entire AfD would be a long list of "neutral votes." ;) &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I put my comment down because it is not valuable to the debate to simple reference one set of arguments in response to someone referencing the complementary set of arguments. Articulate your reasons here instead. Ans  e  ll  02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose you haven't been through the trenches in the "schools debate." The reason people cite WP:SCH is because all debates turn out the same – they default to keep. Rehashing the same argument each time is a waste of energy for everyone involved. If you'd simply like me to take an argument from Schools/Arguments into this AfD listing, which is what everyone here, including you, has already done, I'd be happy to do so. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 20:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The arguments in the section you reference are very broad. They don't all correspond to this AfD as the list references all possible arguments against having the page. Did you consider in your decision to vote this way whether the Keep arguments on the page are relevant, and as such whether they are stronger than the relevant Delete arguments. All of these things make for a more constructive debate than having people simply responding to someone referencing Keep and another referencing the corresponding Delete arguments. Same goes for Dlohcierekim BTW. Ans  e  ll  Review my progress! 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do, in fact, look at articles before I say anything on the corresponding AfD and I have, in fact, read the other arguments on this AfD listing. I think we can relax a little if you'll allow me to clarify my argument: "1. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia"," per Schools/Arguments. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable schools such as this do not merit their own page. ForbiddenWord 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rob. -- DS1953 talk 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - all high schools are inherently notable. This does need a good cleanup though. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 04:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please all these are inherently notable Yuckfoo 17:54, 16 May 2006 (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.