Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitman Middle School (Seattle, Washington)


 * 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 errr... no consensus default to keep (20 deletes, 16 keeps, 2 merges - yeah, I actually counted them). - ulayiti (talk)  02:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Whitman Middle School (Seattle, Washington)

 * Delete-I'm sure few outside of Whitman (or even a few in Whitman too for that matter) really care. Irrelevant Sundevil4life 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete zzzzzzzzzzzZAH. Gazpacho 02:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I'd say speedy, but it immature material is specifically mentioned as not being worthy for speedy deletions :(. --mdd4696 03:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone shapes it up quite a bit. I like school articles in general, but this really isn't an article, more like a note. Jacqui  ★ 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment it wasn't only a note: it was a request for gossip from fellow pupils of the school, but I cleaned it up since the version when proposed for deletion. jnothmantalk 03:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. Jacqui  ★ 03:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, perhaps possibly a valid speedy per nonsense and db-empty. Preferably before the bloc voting commences. Chris talk back 03:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep school now that nonsense is gone. --rob 03:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In light of this change to a single line which contains nothing which isn't in the page title, my delete still stands, unless somehow this school stands out from other middle schools in Washington state. Chris talk back 04:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. CalJW 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless someone can show that "does not stand out" is a valid Wikipedia deletion criterion. --Gene_poole 05:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOT:
 * Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links...
 * Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider
 * Wikipedia articles are not: ... directory entries
 * From WP:DP:
 * Vanity articles
 * Completely idio-syncratic non-topic
 * Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article
 * QED. Also, a few choice words:
 * Only the guilty have need to rely on technicalities.
 * What is written down on Wikipedia is not the actual policy. It is a codification of the theory of it.
 * Chris talk back 05:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's great that you know how to use your PC's cut and paste function. Now, can you try actually answering my question? --Gene_poole 00:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that people of your intelligence level need everything spelled out for them. Most of these stubs are nothing more than a soapbox or a directory entry with a link, typically originated by people at the institution in question, a "non-topic" in that they are of absolutely no interest to anyone outside their immediate community, and the "such a minor branch" speaks for itself &mdash; thus because one school "does not stand out", it happily fulfils several deletion criteria.  Did I also mention that they also fail the key pillar of verifiability? Chris talk back 19:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" is specifcally a problem that doesn't require deletion. Kappa 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What does it require, then? If you acknowledge that it's a problem, then presumably you also acknowledge that keeping the article is not the solution, much less expanding it. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. --Lukobe 06:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn middle school --JAranda &#124; watz sup 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Schools/Arguments Kappa 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.Gateman1997 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment  User:Doc glasgow performed an early close on this, reverted by User:Gateman1997.  His comment was:
 * The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (if anyone thinks that there will be a different conclusion - or a meaninggul discussion - then by all means open this again - but I will slso assume that you are also accepting accept my £50 wager that you are wrong). -Doc (?) 10:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this user might have a point, what with there being an element of the community determined to break the AfD process even worse than it already is by de facto exempting certain articles from the process which have no actual grounds for exemption. Chris talk back 19:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep and please stop there is no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, it is worthy when there is more detail added. — Wackymacs 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with the relevant school district article. Come on, people - I can just about stretch my mind around the argument that individual high schools deserve articles, but the slope gets a bit slippery around the middle school range. How long before we're arguing over Third desk from the left in the second row from the back of Room 302, Bogstandard Junior School, Hamlet, Somerset?  Time to draw a line before it's too late... &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no known notable alumni. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  00:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to expand as per schools/Arguments. Rather than clog up an already convoluted AFD system, let's try to refocus our efforts on actually improving these articles.  Silensor 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This will not happen. I recently conducted some research into the progress of articles on schools in Texas and California. I looked at twelve articles more than an year old. Of those twelve, only two had undergone significant improvement in a year. Five had undergone modest improvement, and five had undergone no improvement at all. You might as well be shouting into the wind. Denni &#9775; 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE Unless a president, king, or Darth Vader went to school here.  Who cares!!209.150.74.27 01:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * bloc Keep this emminently notable school.--Nicodemus75 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Emminently notable"??? Surely you jest! Denni &#9775; 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No I do not.--Nicodemus75 05:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete an article utterly devoid of content. Denni &#9775; 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Utterly devoid"??? Surely you jest! Nicodemus75 10:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This article says nothing of the school's history. It says nothing of community involvement, notable staff or students, or alumni. It doesn't even provide the demographic excuse-for-data that other school articles do. If I were a parent looking for a school for my child, or I were a former student looking for additional information about my school (and, frankly, who else is going to be reading this article?) I would be woefully disappointed. Yep, utterly devoid pretty much sums it up. Denni &#9775; 01:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you, whoever you are, for re-opening this debate for continued "discussion".  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It should not have been prematurely closed anyway.Gateman1997 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's your old friend that likes to create articles about his preschool, his grocery store and schools which do not exist.--Nicodemus75 09:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's be fair. There was the one-line elem/middle stub for a school that really did exist.   --rob 09:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Random middle schools are not considered encyclopedic under any standard I am familar with. --Aquillion 06:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vegaswikian 06:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Schools/Arguments. Also, listing every school just because it can be verified that it exists is equal to listing every branch fire station and every post office branch that exists--Just because something exists doesn't automatically merit it an article. Niteowlneils 07:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, fire departments and post offices are already on the "keep" agenda for our inclusionist friends, as are libraries and hospitals. Verifiability is all that seems to be necessary, and notability is dismissed as a necessary criterion. It's totally goofy, and I expect it to get worse. Denni &#9775; 01:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn middle school. Blank  Verse  08:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable school. &mdash;Wayward Talk 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or failing that Merge with Seattle Public Schools. Why are we still considering deleting perfectly good articles when, for the reasons given, a deletion is not required and there are clear instructions on the deletion policy page to perform a merge in such cases?  It's so wasteful and (qv) divisive to nominate articles for deletion unnecessarily. --Tony Sidaway Talk  13:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with the above, but for slightly different reasons. 'Policy' isn't a reason to keep, as policy is in the end what the community consensus decides it will be. But consensus has consistantly shown that schools will not be deleted. Whatever individuals may prefer (and, if really pushed, I'd probably vote delete) this is the position. We have a defacto policy - accept it. Game over. --Doc (?) 14:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It may appear to be nitpicking, but I'd point out that consensus does not decide policy. Many decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus, and some policies can be changed by consensus, but some are not.  No personal attacks, for instance, which does not enjoy consensus support, is nevertheless official policy and we cannot ignore it with impunity.  NPOV has been explicitly described by Jimbo Wales as "non-negotiable". Moreover, where a dozen or so editors decide to do something, this doesn't constitute a consensus.  There is at most a grudging acceptance of deletion nominations that do not give adequate policy backing. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that a significent number of schools, including the vast majority below high school level, come up no consensus, not keep; the lower ones often with a simple majority for deletion. Although Schoolwatch, for some reason, makes no distinction between these, the difference is significent--repeating the same vote a thousand times on a thousand different articles still can't turn a no-consensus result into a consensus. Certainly, while there are some policies that cannot be challenged even by consensus, there is no policy that should be decided by a minority. --Aquillion 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Extremely well put, and precisely the reason why the endlessly repeated cant of why schools should be kept per precedent (as itself consensus defining) is so off the mark. Dottore So 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well put, but irrelevant. There is no consensus to delete schools - so the schools will stay - and 10,000 more will come. You can keep testing that fact, or lammenting that fact, but there it is. Eventually it will be accepted. I may not like it, you may not like it, but there it stands. Of course, people have a perfect right to bang their head off walls, and perhaps I've been wrong to try to dissuade them, but sooner or later they have to realise that the head hurts and the wall doesn't really care. This game is over. --Doc (?) 19:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying that there is no consensus to keep schools is superficially true, but objectively false. There is a consensus that, excepting speedy deletions which are normally decided by one or at most two persons, we will keep all articles unless there's a consensus to delete them.  Thus school articles that have been kept have been kept by consensus.  We don't use AfD to decide whether there's a consensus to keep a particular article; such a consensus may form but it's of no significance. The article is still kept if the debate forms no consensus at all. --Tony Sidaway Talk  03:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument is flawed in that it assumes that the same proportion of support is required for keeping or deleting a page.


 * Delete nn school. Dottore So 14:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a perfectly good school stub, so no reason to buck precedent on the notability issue. -Colin Kimbrell 15:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ... and exactly what precedent would that be? Chris talk back 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The precedent that not a single, verifiable, non-preschool school has been deleted via the AfD process since April (over 300 nominations).--Nicodemus75 01:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not an AfD precedent. It just happens to be the case that since April 2005, there has been a concentrated effort to disrupt AfD, and put a category of articles beyond deletion.  Moreover, it can't be a real precedent.  If it were, it would be reversed pretty quickly, as any measure which effectively exempts a group of articles from the deletion process without any real reason to do so would make for a dangerous precedent.  Articles such as Pope Benedict XVI are not exempt from deletion.  Anyone may nominate it if they feel so inclined, they just might find the article kept with overwhelming, real consensus, as opposed to  the junkies who think that the current state of affairs is anything like a consensus.  I say junkies, because anyone who seriously believes that 51% is a mandate needs to tell me what they're taking so we can all get some. Chris talk back 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe Family Altar Christian School and several others would disagree with that statement. The fact is there is no preceedent that has been concretely set. And preceedent is not consensus which is what we need to ultimately achieve. I think revisiting WP:SCH to make some progress like WP:MUSIC did would be the most constructive thing to do. Becuase the fact is many school articles are being kept by the skin of their teeth (ie: they have majority delete but get a no consensus vote).Gateman1997 01:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Family Altar Christian School was unverifiable. Why respond with a non-sequiter?--Nicodemus75 01:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion it quite frankly doesn't matter to most of those voting "keep" on these articles what the subject or the contents are. The equation is quite simple. School=keep. Such an equation is utterly immune to reason, and no modification to WP:SCH will change it. Until those who take such a tack can appreciate that school articles must meet the same criteria of notability and excellence as ALL OTHER ARTICLES do, any attempt to achieve a consensus is doomed. Denni &#9775; 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no general criterion of either notability or excellence in our deletion policy. The idea that there are such general criteria is a fiction.  Articles on schools are no different from other articles, and  as a matter of practice the debates involving those articles are closed in precisely the same manner, by the same set of closers, as other AfD debates. --Tony Sidaway Talk  03:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * While there may be no formal recognition of notability asan inclusion criterion, there certainly is a fe facto one. Your experience at AfD must surely have shown you that. Moreover, Deletion policy uses the word unabashedly in its descriptions of what is eligible for AfD and what is not. There will also soon be a poll opened to measure support for notability to be introduced as a formal criterion. I agree with you that school AfDs are closed in the same manner as all other articles and I don't have an issue with that. The big bone in my craw is how school articles are treated by those who vote. Articles appearing before AfD are, I have to assume (I may be wrong), read by people before votes are cast. In the case of school articles, however, it seems to me that a number of supporters simply vote "keep" because it's a school, and no matter how pathetic the article is, they are unwilling to cast a delete vote, or even refrain from voting. All I am asking is that if we must accept school articles (And I have come to that acceptance), let us at least assure that they are good articles. Denni &#9775; 00:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete middle schools (and other items with a default presumption of non-notability) unless (A) they play a key role in the history or development of middle schooling (or pedagogy in general) or (B) they are otherwise the subject of sustained interest on the regional, national or international level, or reasonably expected to be so. flowersofnight (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete if you also delete University of Michigan which is not a notable educational institute in my view given its a Michigan State University rival. -- Cool Cat Talk 01:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it, I'll let you guess why Broken S 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep all school are notable.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This statement is logically flawed. Chris talk back 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep for my reasons, see User:Xoloz/Schools. Xoloz 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sarcastic Keep How are we ever going to destroy Wikipedia unless we fill it full of useless junk that's only of interest to a microscopic fragment of the populace? DELETE --DavidConrad 06:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all schools --64.12.117.6 19:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC) (Readded this users vote, even tho he removed someone elses vote in the process.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 21:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC))
 * delete the essence of non-notability? Pete.Hurd 21:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete An unremarkable middle school. Grackle 11:31, 6 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.