Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Stephen's School, Twickenham

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

St. Stephen's School, Twickenham
Non-notable primary school. Dunc|&#9786; 13:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This nomination has no corresponding vfd template on the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does now. Also, see the VfD entry for Orleans Infant School. Jasonglchu 15:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, wikipedia should cover local education by including verifiable information such as this. Kappa 15:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Kappa. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into an area schools article. &mdash; RJH 17:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. NeoJustin 17:37, June 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Longhair | Talk 17:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing there. We are not the Yellow Pages, and substubs that have "school" in their title are not inherently better than those that have "Digimon" in their title.  If there's nothing to say, then it doesn't matter if it's unsaid about an indistinguishable school or trading card.  If we're out to preserve "local information," then let's merge all these to geo articles. Geogre 17:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Funny, you say there's nothing there but I get the school's OFSTED inspection report giving a detailed breakdown of the school's performance. Which one of us is right? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the appropriate geographical article, to keep the school inclusionists happy. --Carnildo 18:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Christopher Parham (talk) 18:49, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Comment. At this point, with yet another school looking to be heading towards a majority to keep, I usually mention what a good bit of advice is contained in WP:SCH. A person who has read it need never take a school article through VfD again. Just be bold. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ketsuban (is 1337) 19:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless substub. Gamaliel 20:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Schools belong in the encyclopedia. Un focused 20:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 22:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. I agree with WP:SCH. Double Blue  (Talk) 22:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please it does not need to be erased Yuckfoo 23:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Keep this and keep all articles that meet the criteria laid out in WP:SCH. Life's far too short to waste on voting on every single school article someone places on VfD just because in their view schools are not important enough for their encyclopaedia. Given the opposition to deleting schools, it should be clear that there is absolutely no consensus for deleting any on the basis of "notability". Can we not just have subscription lists where we vote keep or delete once and for all and avoid this eternal nonsense? Grace Note 23:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Harmless. CalJW 05:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Vegaswikian 05:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Twickenham and delete - Skysmith 08:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Twickenham and delete - Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable - wikipedia is not toilet paper Proto 11:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No Wikipedia is not toilet paper, in fact, its not a paper encyclopedia of any kind. We therefore have room to accomodate articles such as this. -CunningLinguist 16:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ah, I see now.  Wikipedia has a large amount of space, so we can just ignore all standards.  As long as a select few of the articles are good (say, one hundred thousand), several hundred thousand more are medicore, and several million more are just plain bad, an impartial observer would think the one hundred thousand good ones illustrate the level of quality on wikipedia despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  And here I thought that falling in to the trap of doing something just becasue one can was going to hurt wikipedia in the long run.  My aplogies. Indrian 04:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't see where the urgency is to delete articles because you think they're "bad". Make them good! Grace Note 04:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont see how this article "ignores all standards" at all. As Grace Note just noted, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If the majority of the articles are "bad" it is solely because they have yet to be worked on. Just because an article is not in a highly-polished finished form does not mean it merits deletion. Also, I was not arguing that we should keep this article "just because we can". I was merely stating that any argument that we should not keep this article because of space constraints is invalid. Therefore I was arguing that we should  keep the article because we (as this VfD vote has more or less proven) as a community beleive it should stay AND because we can logistically have it stay. -CunningLinguist 07:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A rational and impartial observer would measure wikipedia by the total amount and accessibility of information. Deleting useful but below average article just to make a better impression on random page users is not an honest way to represent wikipedia. Kappa 21:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that a rational and impartial observer would measure wikipedia by the total amount of encyclopedic information.  If the majority of wikipedia articles are not encyclopedic, then it will not be well thought of as an encyclopedia.  There is a faction here that believes an encyclopedia should include every scrap of information in that ever has existed.  This is not the point of wikipedia, otherwise, we would not have a list of what wikipedia is not.  As wikipedia is not paper, it can include much that a paper encyclopedia cannot, but the information still needs to be encyclopedic. Indrian 03:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * We can differ on whether school articles are generally encyclopedic, and on whether a given school article is encyclopedic. I think it's readily apparent that Wikipedia very rarely regards school articles as irretrievably unencyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that rational and impartial observers on the whole spend their days in "measuring" Wikipedia. Some might even be quite impressed to find a short, informative article on even the most banal of things. Personally, I am deeply impressed at the quality of our breadth of coverage. Yes, there are rubbish short articles, but so very many good ones too. And I take a delicious pleasure in making the former into the latter where I can. Grace Note 04:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well said Grace Note, I completely agree. I personally find an amazing part of Wikipedia to be when I find articles that a traditional encyclopedia would not cover, such as say on pop culture info. No we should not just cover any scrap of information imaginable but at the same time, this is not just any other old encyclopedia, I think we are trying to go above and beyond that. -CunningLinguist 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .