Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodgreen

 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. dbenbenn | talk 17:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Woodgreen

 * Delete: Non notable secondary school.  Reads like an advert. Ketil Trout 23:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reads as a valid school-stub to me and I've marked it as such.   GRider\talk 00:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * BEEFSTEW score of 1 (A only. Ouch.)  And the name is incorrect, apparently.  Delete.  No evidence of notability.  A mention of it would fit in the (quite brief) Witney article, if someone feels the need to include it somewhere. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid school stub. Kappa 04:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a school. Not notable. --Holdek 09:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. The title given to this article is incorrect due to technical limitations. The correct title is Wood Green School. What limitations? If kept, move to Wood Green School. -- RHaworth 10:33, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
 * Delete, same as the rest of them. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 11:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, concur with Ketiltrout. Radiant! 16:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't even try to establish notability. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 19:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable space and time waster. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable school. BEEFSTEW score of 1 (or perhaps zero, as this title didn't even get the name right). Jonathunder 05:53, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions.  Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.
 * Votes for deletion/Precedents
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * What's in, what's out

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:
 * Google test
 * Importance

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: A school has to be more than a school, and a substub has to be on something really important, to stay. A stub on a school with nothing unique about it is a sure loser for me. Geogre 05:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, that's not anything like a substub ... - David Gerard 19:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notatble. DaveTheRed 07:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 19:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, give proper name (including location). Gives info (is not a substub) and has reference - David Gerard 19:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable school. Gamaliel 19:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a school Wincoote 19:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, since it's possible for a good article to be written on this topic. It does no harm that I can see, except to Special:Randompage.  It isn't clear whether a good article about the school will ever be useful to anyone, but on the other hand someone cared enough about it to start the article.  And I just don't see that notability matters in this case.  The article doesn't inherently fool the reader into thinking the topic is notable, so there's no problem.  dbenbenn | talk 20:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow to expand Drw25 21:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and make room for extra helpings of BEEFSTEW. RaD Man (talk) 22:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, high schools and beyond are inherently encyclopedic (and I shan't get started on all the video game nano-cruft that lurks around here). Wyss 23:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Decent school stub. --Andylkl 23:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article does not establish notability.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Google results appear notable enough. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. JuntungWu 12:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: It exists and there's plenty of space in this encyclopedia James M 14:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - all of these schools are notable Yuckfoo 23:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another time-wasting deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 23:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. School. Full Stop.LukeSurl 23:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: In defence of GRider, I agree with what CunningLinguist has said. --Andylkl 04:46, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 05:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability.  If there is a case to be made, make it. Note that some of the "keep" votes seem to reject the notion of encyclopedic notability.-- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. James F. (talk) 17:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a real place, Mark Richards 21:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I see all of the same copy&paste block votes above as on the other high schools' articles. I cannot help but be suspicious of them, given that those voters all voted the same as they voted above ("real place", "notable", "interesting stub", and so forth) at Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School for a school that doesn't actually exist.  So instead I'm voting after actually reading the article.  &#9786;  Wood Green School is one of 34 secondary schools under the aegis of Oxfordshire Education Authority alone.  It has all of the standard trappings of state schools: PTAs, 6th forms, newsletters, school trips, and so forth.  And there is nothing to mark it out from the crowd of 34, let alone from out of the vastly larger crowds of all secondary schools in the United Kingdom, or all secondary schools in the world.  It's worth noting that schools are, after all, intended to be uniform.  Reasonably uniform provision of public education at this level is indeed public policy in many countries.  There is nothing of importance to say about such schools and their articles (with any academic boosterism neutered) are thus tantamount to directory entries.  Indeed, this article has almost nothing more to say about Wood Green School than its listing in the Oxfordshire Education Authority schools' directory has to say.  And that is a directory.  Wikipedia is not a directory.  Delete. Uncle G 18:32, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I was made aware of this by User:GRider I don't believe this invalidates my vote. My personal opinion is that all secondary schools are worthy of being on Wikipedia and I will vote on all relavent pages when however I am made aware of this. If the purpose of VfD is to determine what the community feels about an article then it is best that it involves as many people who feel concerned as possible.
 * With regard to the above comment schools are never going to achieve uniformity whether it is intended to or not. I am sure this school, like any group of hundreds of people will have a unique history and events occuring in it which are encylopedic. LukeSurl 22:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've trialled a school template on this page. I'd like to know what people think of it. LukeSurl 15:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory refers to business listings and is a directive against using Wikipedia to advertise. Using this argument against a state school is completely out of context. It is not suprising that this school has all of the standard trappings of state schools because it is a state school. However that does not mean there is nothing unique about it.


 * This page contains enough data about the school to merit its incusion in Wikipedia as a stub. The stub label is there as an invite to any Wikipedian from the local community or the school who knows more about the school than is on the website to update the page using their personal expertise. It is not correct to delete articles just because they are currently stubs, this appears to be a summary of all the arguments to delete this page.


 * I would invite Wikipedians voting on this, and all schools in VfD to look at the many succesful school articles on Wikipedia to see what can be achieved. An example quite close to home for me is the development of Adams' Grammar School--LukeSurl 00:02, 13 Mar 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.