Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit Middle 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 of the debate was KEEP, 20 keep votes, 7 delete votes. &mdash; J I P | Talk 07:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Summit Middle School
NN, D. ComCat 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Currently operating public school, keep. Starry Eyes  01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, doozy-doo. Gazpacho 01:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This school is no less notable than any other. Our Phellap 01:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the kind of non-indiscriminate information to which users deserve access. Also per Schools/Arguments. Kappa 01:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, N. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments. --rob 01:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Schools/Arguments. --Vsion 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments. Un  focused  04:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, BUT... THis article needs major work on it.  Also, it needs to be re-organized.  If it doesn't change, delete.---Newyorktimescrossword 05:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Schools/Arguments. Does it occur to any of you us why bloc voting is bad for Wikipedia?  And I do mean voting, by the way. -  brenneman (t) (c)  08:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey we're suffering relentless attacks we have to stick together or be wiped out. Kappa 09:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've always known you to be profoundly sensible, I'll assume that was, right? ^_^ brenneman (t) (c)  09:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Block voting is bad because it is a waste of time. I wonder... Is there an "articles for keeptation" that "inclusionsists" have to monitor such that "deletionists" don't sneak one under the radar, or is it only one side that is starting all this block voting? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that this (undoubtedly ordinary) school exists is not sufficient to warrant it's inclusion. If a school is somehow fundamentally unique, of interest, or supremely representative of something broader, then it merits inclusion. This school, however, seems to be just another of the tens upon tens of thousands of school on the planet. Dxco 10:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into school district unless seriously expanded to include information of encyclopedic merit. Merely existing isn't enough. My website exists, but adding it would get it deleted for being advertising. Just because it's a school shouldn't make the article any different. -- Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. &mdash; J I P | Talk 11:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article tells me where the school is and how many students it has (and that a person whose article wouldn't pass CSD A7 went there), and will likely not ever offer any other useful information, making it an unexpandable stub. Anyone who wants to prove me wrong by adding something other than demographic information is free to do so, however. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My very small expansion of the article "by adding something other than demographic" already proved you wrong (before you even made the comment). Also, the student, while not famous, and not warranting a separate article yet, is more relevant than a famous person would be, if that famous person got fame well after graduation (as is typical).   I'm sure the details that are likely to be added won't be of interest to you, and many others, and that's ok with me; since I feel they will be of interst to a sufficient number.   --rob 14:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have really broad definitions of notability as pertains to schools, and the person you added was the alumnus I was referring to. That said, I require more than deographic data and assertion of existence before I'm willing to accept that a school is an encyclopedic topic, and the insertion of a fact that would be minute trivia in Coquitlam, British Columbia and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the school just isn't enough. The fact that the most important non-demographic datum about this school is the proverbial half-column story on page five of the local paper speaks volumes, I think. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What's this thing with demographics you keep bringing up? I actually don't like the demographics excess of school articles, just as I don't like the excess demographics I see in countless swmall township articles.  I won't be the person telling you that "3.53% are Asian", just as I wouldn't have told you that of the 13 people in Perth, North Dakota "100.00% White, 0.00% African American", as I find such machine-speak worthless.  I realize you don't find the same things I do, to be interesting which is fine.  If wikipedia was a democracy, and I a politician, I would do be my best to win every vote I could, by giving people what they want in school articles:  long celeb lists; school shootings; Victorian-era construction; sensational head-line scandals, and more.  Fortunately, I needn't worry about that, and am hapy this article will be kept without it.   --rob 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't clear; if there's nothing to say about a school but raw demographic data, I feel the article should be deleted (or merged, if appropriate) as an unexpandable stub. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You still fail to explain why Perth, North Dakota is ok, even though it has the problem you incorrectly claim this school does. Aside from demographics, there's nothing else in the Perth, North Dakota, yet I know you would never think of deleting it.  Anyway, anybody can see this article was expanded beyond what you said it could be, and will continue to be.   --rob 15:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perth, North Dakota is okay because overwhelming consensus says that demographic-only articles about cities are okay, however small the city. (I'm ambivalent about the subject myself.) You, and many others, want to extend the city precedent to schools. I, and many others, want to extend the precedent for individual people. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about this, and can attempt to find a middle ground. As for expanding past what I said it could be, bear in mind that my vote was based on the current version of the article. Note that my first edit of this AFD is after your last edit of the article. - A Man In Black  (conspire | past ops) 15:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did notice the datestamps. Notice above I claimed to have proved you wrong "before you even made the comment".  It's modest expansion so far since creation, proves it can continue to be expanded, and in one-spot will have what no other single location has.  This puts it ahead of a lot of other articles. --rob 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Doomed nominations of schools are not a good use of human or server resources. CalJW 14:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and stop AFD Spamming. Trollderella 16:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Schools/Arguments. No valid reason for deletion presented, nor is there a consensus to delete these sort of articles.  Silensor 16:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is even more stub crap then most school articles... of couse they try to hide it with an infobox. Keep on nominating these crap articles.Gateman1997 20:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If it ever worked, there might be some point, but it doesn't does it. Bhoeble 21:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator made no effort whatsoever to support this nomination. Bryan 00:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed my vote, it's still keep. There's nothing wrong with having information here about an alumnus who wouldn't warrant an article on his own, it's standard practice to merge such articles into larger "parent" articles like this. And for crying out loud, what sort of a reason for deletion is "doozy-doo"? There's nothing here showing this school to be any less notable than hundreds of other schools that get their own article, so no reason to delete. Bryan 05:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I can only imagine the disappointment of someone coming to this article with the hope of finding information about their school. Articles like this are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Denni &#9775; 01:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- DS1953 talk 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bloc keep this notable school.--Nicodemus75 08:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * FINALLY, someone other than me spelling "bloc" corrrectly. Nothing is more annoying than seeing "block voting." Grrr. - A Man In Black  (conspire | past ops) 16:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep notable school. Klonimus 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable school. Bwithh 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a school. Sdalmonte 00:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate school articles, but as long as Wikipedia precedent is in favour of them there's no legitimate reason to treat this one differently than any other. Keep, or actually try to build a policy consensus against schools in general (and good luck to you if you try.) Bearcat 05:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete anything under high school or better yet create a school wiki --JAranda &#124; watz sup 00:40, 1 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.