Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Marin 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   keep. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Marin School
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Page is continually vandalized with disparaging and unencyclopedic content, recently of a sexual nature by anonymous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. If the page is vandalized by anonymous users, consider asking for semiprotection at WP:AN/I.  The school appears to be notabe to me (assuming at least that this article is about the same school), and therefore we should have an article about it. JulesH (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

@JulesH - different school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." (WP:VAN)  Ka renjc 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

@all - folks, I've spent the last two years responding to vandalism on this article and I see that volunteers from the wikipedia community have actually reverted a lot more than even I have. Our organization sufferes damage, and our time is wasted every time the article is defaced.

Wikipedia frankly is not meeting it's directive if it can not protect the encylopedic and verifiable content on it's articles. Follow the history, since 2006 the Wikipedia community has failed to promote fact and neutrality on this article.

The article serves no real purpose to an audience at large and even the "encyclopedic" content in the article has NEVER been verified by citation to reference or sources. With no broad, intrinsic value this article only serves as a target by which to harm it's subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renaissancee) passed over a reference to "cutty bobs" (see The Urban Dictionary for a definition) so that now this school is the number one association with "cutty bobs" if one does a search for "cutty bobs" in Wikipedia.
 * Keep vandalism is not solved by deletion of notable content. The article should be improved and perhaps protected. The current community consensus is that all high schools are notable. After looking into this a bit, it seems as if the nominator here is a one-issue account that has been trying to control the content on this particular article since Summer February 2008. I don't know anything about the disputes on content, but it should not be up to a school administrator to decide to remove an article because they do not have the last say on content. SMSpivey (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment also, the nom should keep in mind that many high school pages are vandalized by anonymous IP addresses because they are targets of disruptive high schoolers. Such disruption can be and is easily spotted and dealt with by Wikipedia editors (as you said, even "volunteers" from Wikipedia have been reverting vandalism). SMSpivey (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite even the volunteers' best efforts, we are frequently made aware fo vandalism by community members and prospective students. And volunteer Renaissancee

That association will pass, but as Wikipedia grows as a "trusted source" it needs to consider the damage to it's subjects' reputations if their articles can't be protected. We are a private school, so we have undoubtedly suffered financial damage when prospective families researching our school have been confronted with "harmless" jokes about sex and drugs, or angrey tirades full of fallacies from disgruntled students.

>>”The current community consensus is that all high schools are notable." I can't honestly see what makes high schools notable. Is there a community discussion around this somewhere? But if there must be an article, it should contain only FACTS: name, location, enrolment, public/private, tuition, leadership, etc. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * note after looking at Urban Dictionary: a "cutty" is a "female vagina." You learn something new every day. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can easily be protected from anonymous IP addresses through semiprotection at WP:AN/I. I never said these were harmless jokes, I said they were easily-corrected vandalism. Wikipedia is very conscious of potential damage to living persons, etc that comes from vandals. This is why ANI protection exists. It is also why we require references for articles. However, the lack of references on a notable subject is also not a legitimate reason for deletion. There is no specific policy or guideline on Wikipedia that concerns high schools. However, community consensus on notability has been built through multiple AfD discussions about various high schools, middle schools, primary schools, and school systems. This consensus (as of right now) is that the vast majority of high schools and school systems are notable while most middle and primary schools are not.SMSpivey (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete High schools are not inherently notable. School fails WP:V and WP:N. No reliable, third-party sources can be found for this topic. -Atmoz (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AN/I - This does not seem easy to me. Would one of you mind reporting this in the proper channel? Also, last year much of the vadalism was from named users! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing I briefly searched for sources on the school and found two here: one about a graduate and the school's climate and another mentioning a national merit finalist from the school. I'll go find some more. SMSpivey (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment @ SOURCING (From the Notability guidelines.)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - first of all the nomination contains no policy grounds for deletion. Secondly, this is not only a high school but searches on both the present and past title throw up enough sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep We can and do deal with vandalism other than by deleting articles. Otherwise not only would we have no articles on schools, but on politicians and movie stars. High schools have always proven to have sourcing when investigated sufficiently,so the convention that its easier to keep them than argue should be maintained.  DGG (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepVandalism is like "graffitti"...We don't remove the garage door because the local gangs continue to tag it! We remove the graffitti and remain vigilant for future acts of foolishness. Also, the article has been improved and copy edited since the initial request for deletion.--Buster7 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's plenty of refs from San Francisco Chronicle and the Marin Independent Journal. I'm sure there are plenty more. IMHO, the best way to curb vandalism here is to start devoting energy to NPOV writing and sourcing every sentence. In that way vandalism will be less fun and more easily spotted/reverted. This is a short article so several hours will do a world of good. -- Banj e  b oi   14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand and source. Maybe semi-protect? And to the nom, vandalism is the bane of wiki and is dealt with in ways other than deleting articles that draw such attention.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:02, 5 February 2009 (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.