Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 22/Finger Lakes Christian School

Finger Lakes Christian School

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was undelete and compromise. The 70+ total comments made throughout were virtually a binary keep or delete. In an attempt to reach an amicable compromise for all parties involved, I have restored and merged the article contents to Seneca Falls, New York. If and when this article can be expanded beyond stub-status such that it warrants an independent article, we can revisit this issue then, and hopefully an acceptable guideline for schools will have been worked out by that time. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Discussion: Articles for deletion/Finger Lakes Christian School

Votes were approximately 12-12. The closer's argument that it is "absurb" to believe that wikipedia should attempt to cover all established secondary-level schools is itself unreasonable. Kappa 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn. This school is interesting because it represents another rejection of the public school system by evangelical Christians who are willing to accept the disadvantages of a smaller school in exchange for its perceived superiority overall. I do not think that creating articles on high schools should be a priority for Wikipedia, but I support keeping articles on high school that happen to be created. I wonder if the school offers advanced placement courses in evolutionary biology. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever symbolism, metaphor, or analogy you're bringing up says nothing at all about the suitability of THIS article, and is the merest smokescreen. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn as an invalid closure lacking consensus to delete; closing administrator ignored discussion and has a known bias against school articles on Wikipedia. Silensor 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted. Nothing is automatically notable simply for existing, Cyde is correct to give less weight to kneejerking and armwaving. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted. In addition to the points that Sam Blanning makes, it is worth noting that AFDs are not votes, and that other than saying "This school, like all schools, is decidedly notable", this article had no claim of notability nor anything that made it worthy of having an article outside of one for the district. Finally, administrators are not only encouraged but required to exercise personal discretion when closing an AFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse per Kuzaar. "All schools are notable" isn't an argument, and it's perfectly valid to discount opinions along those lines.  Guettarda 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The same can be said for those who hold the opinion that schools are not notable. The purpose of this discussion is to review process, not notability. Silensor 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How was the process invalid? As far as I can tell your only argument has been that 'didn't count the votes right', but since it's not a vote anyway, that objection is invalid.  -- Cyde Weys  17:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not just "tallying votes" here. My concerns are clearly addressed in my opening comments, thank you Cyde.  Silensor 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on the person who asserts. When someone says that they do not think a subject is notable, they are not making a positive claim, merely stating that they are not convinced by the provided evidence. I think Cyde acted correctly in this situation. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "The same can be said for those who hold the opinion that schools are not notable" - I quite agree (with the caveat that I was not addressing the opinion, just the argument; I'm presuming that's what you mean?) A bad argument is a bad argument, and I think it's within process to put less weight on such an argument, from whichever side.  Guettarda 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Without addressing my thoughts on whether it should have been deleted or not (my comments in the AfD are clear enough) it certainly does seem that the closing Admin used their own judgement and essentially ignored the debate, which is a pretty obvious no concensus. The schools are unnotable argument is not really stronger than This is sourced, encyclopaedic content which no policy or guideline advocates deleting as an argument.  In some cases where the editors don't have concensus, but one side presents a much stronger argument, Admins should be exercising thier own judgement.  But here that's clearly not the case. WilyD 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn. An obvious no consensus close. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment AfDs that have "no consensus" or a difficult to determine consensus is precisely an area where admins are given some leeway to decide what to do. Saying that you would have closed it as no consensus does not make Cyde's closure invalid nor does it make his closure somehow out of process. JoshuaZ 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "no consensus" is entirely different than "difficult to determine consensus." In this case, there was no consensus, there were no incredibly good or bad arguments tossed out there, and the close, as phrased, almost comes across as if it was designed to make a point when the closer starts things off by saying "the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion Process was followed, this is well within admin discretion. JoshuaZ 17:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (full disclosure I was arguing strongly for deletion in the AfD). JoshuaZ 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Within the admin discretion as AfD is not a vote. Whispering(talk/c) 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted per Kuzaar and Whispering. --Aaron 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn. No good argument was made for deletion, nor was there a consensus to delete.  --Myles Long 19:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn "Small" is not a deletion criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion. This is a private lower school with only 75 students, the contents of the article and certainly its neutrality cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources, because there is no evident non-trivial neutral coverage of the enterprise.  Substitute "school" for "society" and it would have been speedily deleted. Cyde is right: nothing is encyclopaedically notable by virtue of simply existing, and a diary date plus a quote fomr the principal simply is not a reliable or sufficient source for an encycloapedia article.  What, precisely, is the claim to notability supposedly established in the AfD? Other than having the S-word in the name? Guy 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted per Guy &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted. Per Consensus: "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." I can't speak for Clyde, but I believe "all schools are notable" is such a position that should be discounted in determining consensus. -AED 21:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can a position held by (apparently) a large number of people really be considered eccentric? That seems rather unlikely. WilyD 22:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think those who respond to school-related AfDs are representative of the general population. -AED 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to believe that Schools suck are mainstream opinions while schools r0x0rz is an ecentricty selected opinion? WilyD 07:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to believe that "schools suck" has ever been invoked as an argument for deletion? Here, the argument is that this is a private institution of such insignificance that no non-trivial independent sources exist.  Rather than invoking the quasi-religious dogma "all schools are notable" (which is widely disputed), how about fixing the substantive problem with this article, which is that no non-trivial external coverage could be found?  Any argument which makes reference solely to the word "school" being in the title is a null argument per policy and guidelines. Guy 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That was (essentially) the only argument invoked for deletion - I do not like this and the like. Oh, I know it should be kept under any and every relevent guideline or policy, but I'll still argue for deletion because I don't like articles on schools.    True, the only real keep argument is Hey, this is sourced, encyclopaedic content that has absolutely no rational for deletion, which could be stronger, but hey, to claim there's any concensus in the AfD is just daft. WilyD 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to believe that "schools suck" is a mainstream opinion in AfD; however, there is reason to believe that those who respond to school-related AfDs are not representative of the general population. Efforts such as School watch certainly appear to attract those who are biased on this issue. -AED 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it attracts people who have strong opinions on the issue, but (as far as I can tell) those who are strongly biased to delete are just as prevalent as those who are strongly biased to keep, so the net bias is very small. I could be wrong, but whenever I see schools at AfD, there are certainly POV warriors on both sides.  I've never noticed a discrepency.  WilyD 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would normally be on the delete side as articles with too few independent interested parties are at risk of losing NPOV. In this case, we have an offer to fix up the article. Stephen B Streater 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the length of the AfD and this DRV, I find it inconceivable that there are too few interested parties - There are far more than I'd have guessed. WilyD 16:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. None of the arguments to delete this article were particularly convincing, and there appeared to be a number of people in favor of retaining this article for reasons expressed in the deletion discussion.  Yamaguchi先生 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. I'ld be opposed to any closing admin pretending a consensus exists, when none does.  However, its particularly bad, when the closing admin clearly had a pre-established decision, and simply imposed his own views on the matter.  If we're going to let admins do this, lets abolish AFD, and hand the keys over to admins entirely.  Cyde has very strong opinions on schools, which he's entitled to.  He should have expressed them as a regular participant, and allowed a neutral admin do the close.  If he had good reasoning, he'ld be able to pursuade others to his perspective, and acheiv consensus.  Wikipedia is rather unique in letting at open community make editorial decisions.  Now, I don't suggest that means admins should always follow whatever participants ask.  If somebody wants to keep something that's plainly unverifiable, an attack, a copyvio, or otherwise clearly violates policy, or the partipants, are otherwise acting in bad faith, then the admin has to stop that.  We give admins descretion, to stop abuse of the system, by people persuing their own personal interests.  We don't give them discretion, so they can abuse the system to person their personal wishes. --Rob  23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. Subject is notable and significant enough. Ashanthalas 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Where's the objective evidence of that?  The usual reasoning advanced is that schools have influence on the many people who pass through them; in this case it has 75 students total, so the number of poeple influenced over its fifteen-year history is well under a thousand.  Substitute "company" for "school", would it still be "notable and significant"? That's what it is, after all - a company.  The school in this town is something else entirely, this is a private church institution for those who feel that mainstream education is too educating. Guy 09:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ashanthal was asked to come here by Kappa since Ash is an inclusionist. See . Furthermore, note in the above dif that Ash states that regarding this discussion "happy to follow voting discipline." This is unacceptable at multiple levels. It appears that instead of just treating AfD as a vote DRV is now being treated as a vote with votestacking and campaigning. JoshuaZ 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn per Rob -- BostonMA 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. When in doubt, keep.  --AStanhope 01:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Again note that came here from votestacking/spamming by Kappa. . JoshuaZ 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Deletion I generally stay out of school afd discussions because I find it's generally the same arguments on each side repeated ad nauseum (my basic view is the same as Samuel Blanning's). (I fully expect similar discussions about kindergarten groups and summer camps to become a routine feature of the future. I will endeavour to block those out from my consciousness too). But this is about process. I think the closing admin is right to conclude the keep voters failed to establish encyclopedic notability within the policy/consensual guideline framework. When in doubt, delete. Bwithh 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the deletion guidelines don't share that sentiment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are guidelines, not policies!! WP:IAR etc etc etc Bwithh 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So the rules prevented him from improving the encyclopedia? That certainly wasn't his argument when he closed it. Perfect instance of when IAR shouldn't be applied, if it were.--badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. No consensus to del. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TriColor (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn in a tie the result is no consensus and the article is kept. Quite clearly someone here didnt follow the established rules.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Absolutely not. Please review the deletion process. If that's all that was required do you think we would use admins to close AfDs at all? We could easily make a bot script. JoshuaZ 02:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Closure, Uphold Deletion per fine opinions already stated above. I always hate to use the "slippery slope" argument from first year law school, but keeping this article would have been tremendously bad precedent. -- Satori Son 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn; AfD is a vote and there are rules. I would not have voted to keep this, in all likelihood, but it survived the vote. This is not Cyde's decision to make; it was the decision of the voters, which must be respected. Everyking 05:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete; consensus was split down the middle, not to delete. bbx 07:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn No concensus. Andycjp 23 Sept 2006
 * AfD is not a vote. "All schools are notable" is an assertion, not a policy or an argument from policy.  The balance of arguments from policy was solidly for delete, because no verifiable non-trivial information could be found in reliable sources.  Feel free to remedy that.  Guy 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure and uphold deletion (FYI, I prefer the word "uphnold".) While I am admittedly not a fan of keeping all schools (and, especially for primary schools, I've never heard a valid reason for keeping one during the course of an AfD discussion), I don't believe Cyde did anything wrong in closing the AfD the way he did. In particular, I think AED makes an extremely valid point above. -- Kicking222 16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion : this place is evidently too insignificant to warrant independent press coverage or other independent third part sources of information, making any article intrinsically unreliable. When such material is available, the article can be re-introduced. I think the closing Admin correctly assessed the situtation here. Stephen B Streater 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to overturn following the generous offer from Georgewilliamherbert to edit the article to meet verifiability constraints. Stephen B Streater 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn the continued assurtion of notability as a standard rather than mearly some people's opinion is exemplified in the Administrator action. WP:SCHOOLS and WP:N have only ever been discussions never a concensus. The "All Schools are Notable" is a spureous argument. The inclusion of Education and Educational programs are encylopedic, the content is verifiable, and NPOV --Wakemp 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't follwo your logic above. Could you explain what you meant? (And please bear in mind that the primary issue is whether process was followed and this doesn't seem to be a process claim)JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The administrator in closeing the AfD stated that "the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere" and anyone using the "All schools are notable" argument could expect to have their opinions discounted. Again the decision was hung on a false premise and the decision was entirely arbirary and unsupported by policy or guidelines. In closing the debate the administrators comments sounded more like he was participating in the argument rather than attempting provide a reasoned adjudication of the debate. When I was reading background for this I also came accross a recent case where the same administrator apparently continued to hold a grudge against a user becuase of an arbitration. As a participant, I can't help but feel that there is some agenda here which I don't believe an administrator should be using to decide to delete content, ban users, or anything else. --Wakemp 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish to withdraw my participation in this DRV, this holy war has gone on long enough, and I don't believe there is any repectful way to agree to disagree. This is an unfortunate example of the farce Wikipedia is becoming - Have fun folks, you got one less contributor. --Wakemp 23:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #1

 * Overturn and restore - There are roughly 124,000 schools in the US, with roughly 48 million students , each of whom has usually 2 interested parents (though there will be somewhat less than 2x the above, as most parents have multiple children), and with about 3.4 million educators . The category of schools is of great interest to teachers, educators, and students.  Categorical inclusion of up to 124,000 school articles will not strain Wikipedia servers (access load, diskspace), does not put Wikipedia into disrepute in any manner.  As a category, schools have one of the largest sets of potential readers of any topic of general interest.  Categorical inclusionism is perfectly reasonable, and as such this one should be restored.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a general policy comment. I'm puzzled as to what it has to do with this AfD in particular or for that matter how it is relevant to the primary matter whether process was followed. JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - per discussion on wikien-l, I am willing to perform necessary cleanup to remove unsourced information on the school (if necessary, leaving this a verifyable stub) should the article be restored. Georgewilliamherbert 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, well hell, if the 124K schools are all notable, let's get started on the articles for the 3.4 million educators -- after all, if the school is notable, then so must be those who make the schools run. >:( &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this issue is frustrating people and a point of contention, but please don't be ridiculous. Keep this civil.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A) Jim's comment above is civil as far as I can tell and B) he does bring up an issue which has been asked on AfDs before and not answered, if someone thinks that all schools are notable why would that be an acceptable position but all educators somehow becomes ridiculous? The answer is simple- they both are ridiculous claims. JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, that's Reductio Ad Absurdum. All teachers at schools aren't notable any more than all professors and staff at colleges are, all employees of Fortune 500 companies are, etc.  The notability of a category does not extend to automatic notability of every category immediately associated with it.  Please tell me this hasn't been seriously used as an arguing point over this issue before?  Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, yes it is Reductio ad absurdum which is a valid form of logical argument. Just because something has a latin name doesn't mean it is a fallacy. We are in agreement that such notability doesn't necessarily extend to the associated category however, the Reductio in this case is that the primary arguments for keeping schools also apply to the teachers and principals. That's precisely when a reductio is used - when accepting a premise leads to an untenable position and thus the initial premise must be rejected. JoshuaZ 02:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you see the actual point of reductio ad absurdum is to prove just how flawed ther original premise is. In fact r.a.a. is the basis for satire and parody, is it not?
 * Now then, we treat every sports team (correctly) as notable, and by extension every player on the team is notable as well. Obviously, with schools this becomes problematic as, for example, the Walter O'Reilly Elementary School in South Succotash, Iowa can hardly be said to have any notoriety in the real world, and yet in the wiki-world it would merit an article, and by extension, so should its faculty (even if no one outside of South Succotash never heard of the school or any of its teachers). Obviously, the real world and Wiki definitions of notoriety are somewhat different.
 * Finally, GWH, it seems to me that the wiki definition of "civil" needs to be addressed as well. Seems to me that any form of diagreement not adorned with flowers and perfumed with the attar of faux humility is considered an example of severe incivility.  This is, of course, rather absurd as well as rather stifling, as in wiki world argumenta ad rem are wrongly treated as ad hominem attacks.  A ratio, cur de Vicipædia abisti, excessisti, evasisti, erupisti? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Two comments on civility here: One, you launched with "Well, hell" up a ways.  Two, This line of argument about teacher notability is such a ridiculous line of reasoning that I am having an extremely hard time taking you or JoshuaZ seriously as positive WP contributors at the moment, despite the last roughly years' positive experiences with the both of you.  The logic is ludicrous, the line of reasoning has zero merit and zero applicability as to whether schools as a category are notable or not.  It's not right.  It's not even wrong. Is this particular topic so toxic that you feel you have to resort to such insanely ridiculous arguments as to drive people who respect and like you into holding you in disrepute?  I respect disagreement, honest disagreement, on the point of school categorical notability, without hesitation.  This particular line of argument... is not worthy of any serious debate, and you two should be ashamed.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And one wonders why you feel that, however, you can give yourself the perfect right to ridicule those who disagree with you and to attempt to shame them yourself. One might think a double standard were at work, both in the characterization of others treating the topic as "toxic" and of others' behavior. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and restore - a 12-12 vote does not constitute sufficient consensus to delete. That in itself should decide the issue. -- BRG 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment More votestacking from Kappa. See . JoshuaZ 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and restore. Not only has the general WP community demonstrated time and again that it believes that schools deserve articles, but the closer's apparent bias on the issue means that his decision to overturn the Keep verdict is inherently flawed Cynical 20:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Excuse me? What bias? How many school articles has Cyde voted in ever? Have you ever seen him comment on the issue? What evidence do you have for your claimed bias? JoshuaZ 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Josh are you suggesting that we let facts get in the way of a good story (or accusation of impropriety), or that the axion ei incumbit probatio qui should actually apply here?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted. per Sam Blanning. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted. per Sam Blanning.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted per Guy, Sam Blanning, and Wikipedia:Consensus. Its not whether "schools deserve articles" its whether this school has any sources, and is notable enough to merit an article. The answers are no, and no. And Drv is not whether we should have this article, it is whether this Afd was closed properly. It was. Drv is not "Afd, take two - be sure to repeat the arguments that didn't follow policy and didn't work which you used in the actual Afd!". KillerChihuahua?!? 03:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is repeating arguemtns that don't follow policy and didn't work in the actual AFD. The AFD discussion resulted in no consensus that this school was not notable or verifiable enough to merit coverage, the closing admin merely overruled the lack of consensus on the basis of his own judgement that other wikipedian's beliefs were "absurd". Kappa 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are extensive sources available (weren't in the article, but in existence) which document the existence of the school and its basic statistics such as student body count, location, who the principal is, etc. It is referencable, and if it's restored will be referenced.  Extensively.  Notability remains a legitimate debate, of course.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I don't think that the word "absurd" should be used to charactarize the arguments when closing an AfD (I don't take well to characterizing good-faith AfD commentors as engaging in "kneejerking and armwaving" - we don't comment on AfD's in order to be insulted by our esteemed colleagues - but that's not the closer's fault. Basically, the close is marginally valid (although both the "votes" and the relative strengths of argument come out about even, I think) but the closing admin should not use language which might give the impression that he has not addressed all points of view with careful and neutral consideration, and overturning would be called for it it'd help remind all admins of that. Herostratus 06:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn; there was no consensus. --NE2 07:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted not notable, ignore the brainless keep everything trolls. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 13:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That remark is highly uncalled for, please refrain from making personal attacks during this discussion. Thank you, Yamaguchi先生 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete, no sound basis for deletion provided by any of the participants in the AFD, nor the participants here. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Excuse me? DRV is not AfD 2. The primary issue here is wether process was followed, not whether you think the arguments had a "sound basis" and in any event, simply asserting that the arguments were not sound is not a rebuttal. JoshuaZ 14:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that our processes allow articles to be deleted without a sound basis for doing so? My understanding is that if there is no sound basis for deleting an article, it should be kept. ("If in doubt, don't delete") No sound basis for deletion has been presented for this article, merely some complaints about the school being too small. You can discover this yourself by reading the delete arguments at the AFD and seeing how many content policies this article had problems with. (Hint: it's zero.) So the article should be kept. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure, keep deleted, per JzG's arguments and rebuttals. No sound basis for creating, maintaining, or verifying an article provided. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn, no consensus. The "votes" were even and there appears to be no evidence that the arguments of the delete side were qualitatively superior to those of the keep side.  JYolkowski // talk 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion per Bwithh above. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn. No consensus = no consensus. Second sentence of closer's statement indicates strong feeling/bias on subject matter that raises doubts of his/her fitness to close these types of nominations. Whenever those doubts are palpable, result should be overturned. --JJay 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted per JzG. Arbusto 22:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep deleted per JzG. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's notable and/or warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia, and this is a school with only 75 students we're talking about here. Any impact the school has on the community is going to be minimal compared to other, larger schools or institutions. Also, very few of the keep votes in the AfD gave a valid reason for keeping the article - "all schools are notable" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. --Core des at talk! 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn per Jimbo Wales. Themindset 19:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That isn't an argument for overturning. Among other problems the primary point of DRV is whether process was followed, which it was. Additional problems with that claim are: First, note this confuses Jimbo as dictating policy as God-Emperor and Jimbo giving his opinion as an editor. Jimbo is not omniscient. This is therefore a fallacious appeal to authority. This reason by itself makes that email irrelevant. For the sake of completeness, I will list the other problems as well. Second, Jimbo made this comment in 2003 when they general tone and tenor of the encyclopedia was different and the prevalence of schools was not at all as comon. It is not clear he would make the same statement today. Third, related to the second point, Jimbo specifically mentioned "The argument 'what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times' is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times." However, we are now having many users create such stubs and so Jimbo might very well reevalute his position.  Fourth, it is in inaccurate to claim Jimbo in that email was endorsing schools that were nearly as small or nearly as short articles. His concrete example was "Let me make this more concrete.  Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama.  I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me.  It isn't hurting anything.  It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do." Note that he says this assuming he is already contributing and that it is a "decent 2 page article" hardly a few line stub. Note the context. JoshuaZ 20:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did Alice step through the looking glass here? Process was not followed... I feel like I'm in some kind of 1984 universe where I'm being told that 2+2=5 because an outside force says so... the fact is, there was no consensus. Cyde openly admits that he disregarded the viewpoints that went against his... maybe because he's more in-tune with the project, holds it closer to his heart, maybe he is more wiki then you or me - I certainly would say that he was... So my opinion doesn't mean as much, this is something that's been made clear - fine, then my only avenue was an appeal to authority... to someone who's opionion matters. I think that the central point of Jimbo's statement then holds true now - if someone cares to write the article - let them. It's no big deal. Regardless of smug remarks asking me to note the context. Themindset 08:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse Closure Admins commonly exercise judicial discretion when closing debates where there are a lot of "votes" on either side. As always AFD is NOT a vote which seem to be the argument being put forward by many here for challanging the the validity of this closure. Should we DRV ever AFD closure where sheer numbers show a no consensus, of course not and this should be no different simply because this is a school. If this AFD debate had of been on anything other than on a school I would of expected to see an tag on the top of it as thats what the AFD debate resembled to me.   YDAM   TALK 20:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Kappa has been apparently spamming various inclusionist Wikipedians pages urging them to comment on this.     . Quoting Kappa's spam "a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion" Note the votestacking and the insistence of seeing AfDs as a vote where one has a franchise. At least one, Ashanthalas commented here based on that and stated that this was part of their following "voting discipline" . JoshuaZ 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment JzG has apparently been spamming the Wikipedia mailing list as well, with mixed results.  Silensor 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That isn't votestacking as actually reading the email indicates. Quoting from the email "I'm rather hoping that someone on this list will care enough and have sufficient resources to actually find the reliable sources the articleneeds, since I have little doubt that the school inclusionists will see to it that it is kept one way or another, and the last thing we need is yet another unverifiable promotional article on a private Christian school. I can't find much other than directory entries, and I find I lose the will to live after reading a certain number of them." JzG is trying to use the list to get sources, not votestack in contrast to Kappa who just repeatedly spammed inclusionist pages. JoshuaZ 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering that the mailing list goes to everyone regardless of which side of the debate they are on and will attract editors from both sides of the debate I don't believe that this is a fair comparsion to make.  YDAM   TALK 21:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is no more vote stacking than leaving a message on a public talk page, that is my point exactly. Thanks, Silensor 21:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, when Kappa specifically is going to inclusionist pages she knows that at least one person (in fact the most likely to see it person) will go and comment, that is the person with strong inclusionist leanings. That is votestacking pure and simple. In contrast, JzG's comment while possibly ill-advised in fact went to the whole list and was actually a request for sources, not a request for people to run over and go "vote" JoshuaZ 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have explained on your talk page, I respectfully disagree. I would not be surprised if a number of "deletionists" had Kappa's talk page and contributions on their watch list anyhow, so its a moot point.  Silensor 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't a moot point (and I'm not aware of way of making contrib lists on the watchlists). By nature the person most likely to notice a change to someone's talk page is that person. Others may have it on their watchlist, that makes them much less likely to either notice the change or bother respoding to it. This is very different from having a little orange and blue box pop up indicating the change. For these reasons there is a longstanding precedent that this constitutes votestacking and is unacceptable. JoshuaZ 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #2

 * Overturn and Undelete - Closing admin seems to have overridden a clear lack of consensus by simply discounting those specifying keep, a seeming insertion of the admin's personal point of view into the process. None of the corresponding deletes received the same level of scrutiny and mindreading challenging the motivation or adequacy of their reasoning. As has been done for many other articles passing AfD, this article can and will be improved once it has been restored. Besides, this seems to be the exact scenario described by Jimbo Wales. Alansohn 21:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Among other issues with this, I already explained why the Jimbo email is not relevant if you look above. And again, as always, admins have discretion in how to deal with close AfDs that don't have a strong consensus. Admins are not expected to be bots. JoshuaZ 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment' The Jimbo reference was a throwaway. The fundamental issue of ignoring consenus (or the lack thereof) has not been addressed; that the closing admin interjected his/her own POV on the subject to ignore Keeps that were deemed to be invalid without subjecting Deletes to the same level of scrutiny. While admins are not bots, a reasonable measure of balance must be demonstrated, and the closing admin's comments belie an injection of POV on the issue. If by "discretion" you mean that closing admins can do whatever they damn please regardless of process, I'd say that even you don't believe that. Alansohn 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No I don't think that closing admins "can do whatever they damn please regardless of process" However, it is acceptable for closing admins in discussions which they consider to be close to discount arguments they regard as weak or untenable. That is precisely what happened here. JoshuaZ 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're basing that opinion on what, exactly? Was it the "the boundary of notability on schools has to be drawn somewhere" part?  Perhaps the "The claim that "all schools are notable" is simply absurd, and anyone basing their reasoning on a falsehood like that is likely to be discounted," which is not standard and was not done in the opposite direction?  Or maybe it's the main reason given: "What we're dealing with here is a small, small school that is part of a church that itself isn't notable enough to have an article."  8 of the delete "votes" said "it's a small school" as a deletion reason.   Verne Troyer is a small man, we wouldn't delete him, right?  And yes, it's an absurd analogy, but "it's a small school" is not based in any sort of rationale for deletion whatsoever, while some of the more vehement school inclusionists can at least point to a proposed guideline to run with.  This had nothing to do with discounting weak/untenable arguments, because that simply did not occur. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Closure Admin's closing rationale is in line with Consensus given the particular arguments made in the AFD. Nobody actually claimed any particular notability for this school in the AfD.  The most compelling argument in the AfD was that of JoshuaZ (at 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) as his own opinion) - if the proper merge target of a school article isn't notable enough to keep an article on, then the school that ought to be merged to that target isn't notable either.  (I think 90%+ of all school articles should be merged to the parent church, company, town, or other government body.)  (The "all schools should be kept" argument reflects a lack of understanding of what notability is and why the general community expects articles on all sorts of subjects (biographies, houses of worship, summer camps, professors, companies, etc...) to be on notable examples of the classes.  This is an encyclopedia, and a community only in order to be an encyclopedia, not a directory of everything ever existent under the sun and not a place to hang out with your old school chums.  Some of the arguments thrown around (including by reference here) are even more applicable to companies than schools, and we would never keep all companies based on those arguments.) I happen to think some of the regular closers of school related AfDs are biased in favor of schools, but I don't raise DRVs based on that.  Interpretation of consensus is a judgement call. There are no compelling arguments made here as to why the interpretation was incorrect, so the judgement should stand.    As to a proposal to write a verified replacement article - that is a different issue than whether the old one was worth keeping.  We review for claimed process and closure errors differently than for proposed new versions.  This AfD was closed as non-notable; the new version will need to demonstrate notability, as always and for anything with the basis for notability sourced to independent reliable sources.  GRBerry 02:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure per . —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn per Delta 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Another one brought by Kappa. See . JoshuaZ 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn, Undelete Encyclopedias should strive to catalogue as much information as possible. Politics should never enter into the debate. Once one side devolves into ad hominems, demonizing of the other side, and unilateral declarations by fiat that they will ignore their opponents' arguments however logical and truthful, all other participants have their duty to stronglty and loudly demand immediate concessions on all points, Admin or no, by force if necessary. Let's not follow in Shrub's footsteps here. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And another brought by Kappa . JoshuaZ 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Attack the argument, not the method used to bring it to the table!! E. Sn0 =31337= 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Excuse me, but when attempting to determine consensus it is relevant that we don't have an actual representative sample of the population. If however, you want me to attack the argument, I'll simply point out that it is borderline incoherent. What pray tell does "politics" have to do with anything? And what do you mean by calling for the use of "force if necessary" That doesn't seem to be anything less than a call for generally disruptive behavior. And somehow associating this with the current President is if anything actually combining this with politics. I don't know about others but I find any argument that attempts to link what is going on in an AfD with critical world events to be less than persuasive. (And no, logical and truthful arguments were not discounted, all Cyde did was give little weight to an argument which he found absurd and which most Wikipedians would agree is absurd. In fact, most school inclusionists don't even seem to agree with the claim, nor does the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline even suggest that is true). JoshuaZ 03:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse Closure, admins have discretion, particularly when few opinions are entered. --Mmx1 02:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn - no consensus. Also closer is either not giving opposing arguments a fair hearing or is as ignorant of the concept of avoiding the appearance of impropriety as they are about spelling. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Another Kappa special . JoshuaZ 03:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly my viewpoint is irrelevant then. --John Kenneth Fisher 04:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but in determining community consensus and what can be taken as a representative sample it is relevant for the closing admin. JoshuaZ 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted per JzG. Hirudo 03:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel that I must point out for those that aren't aware that about a hundred members of Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians have been canvassed in to coming here in an attempt to votestack.  YDAM   TALK 03:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well wow. I mean no insult to any single person when I say that my first impression upon attempting to read this page was: "What a circus." I too have a message on my talk page, and I thought "what the heck" and came to see what the "hubbub" was about. If anyone tells me that userboxes are a "minor thing" again, I'm likely to laugh, after seeing this confrontation. - That said, I think I see both sides here.  I really think that "no concensus" was rather obvious in the AfD, but on the other hand, an admin is within their rights (as far as I know, if I'm wrong, please enlighten me) to "interpret", within reason. I think the smarter answer would have been to let it continue on AfD longer to confirm a concensus... (There's a discussion on RfA about something similar), but that's not the situation we're now faced with. I dunno. I personally always think back to Jimbo's comment about "all human knowledge", and that "notability" is merely an essay.  But I highly doubt that any single comment will even begin to sway either side of this maelstrom, no matter how long it is : ) - What I do suggest, given that this "discussion" has become what it is, that someone outside the discussion be the "closer" (preferrably a bureaucrat). With what I'm seeing from both sides, what we don't need is another situation as we've been having elsewhere.  I would suggest that everyone "dial it down" a bit.  Attempting to make Cyde out to be the "villain" or any other nonsense, doesn't help this discussion whatsoever.  If you feel you have personal issues, think about a wikibreak; if you feel you've been wronged by someone personally, try an RfC, either way, I don't think that this is the place for it. Oh, and No vote from me at this time. I've expressed my thoughts, but I think definitely in this case, voting isn't going to be helpful. - jc37 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow, a well thought out, rational response. You must be looking for another discussion. This obviously isn't the one for you. And now, I have to nitpick an otherwise imminently reasonable comment with the point that 'crats are not supposed to decide contentious DRV discussions, that's still within admin abilities and nothing about being crat gives them criteria to do this. Yes, it should obviously be closed by a very uninvolved admin. JoshuaZ 03:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. What a petulant pissing match this has become.  Did we really just lose a contributor as a result of this debate?  Wow.  I'm really shocked by some of the insensitive comments and personal attacks made in this thread (from both "camps"), but as if that wasn't bad enough, we have User:Hbdragon88 adding insult to injury here.  Everyone, and I do mean everyone, really needs to take a couple steps back and realize that we're all trying to build the best possible encyclopedia possible, and rather than sling insults at each other, come to terms with the fact that we're going to differ on what "best possible" actually means.  Having waded through all the comments here, the ones that really spoke to me were made by Georgewilliamherbert and badlydrawnjeff.  The closing administrator may or may not have been trying to make a WP:POINT here, but either way there was no sound basis for deletion and the inclusion of this article makes us a more comprehensive resource, an effective net gain for both students and educators alike who look to us for such information.  Bring the article back.  RFerreira 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion per the "closer has leeway to make a judgment" argument. I'm not entirely comfortable with the process followed in the original discussion, but certainly I'm less comfortable with the process followed in this one, given the apparent canvassing going on. I don't see much good coming out of the mess here. Wmahan. 04:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion per the deletion endorsees' arguments above. Not all schools are notable enough to be given mention here. And using the abhorrent tactic of votestacking to give an illusion of "support" is not tolerated in Wikipedia, no matter how justified (which is never). --physicq210 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Herostratus and Wmahan. I would have voted to delete.  However, I do have concerns about the process - I respectfully think the admin should have extended the discussion to determine consensus.  -Kubigula (ave) 05:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)   P.S. At what point do we concede that this whole thing is heading to WP:LAME?
 * Almost neutral Well, Kappa, who invited me to take a look, might be sorely disappointed. However, the article's loss is no great loss to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, as an inclusionist, I believe "notability" alone is lousy grounds to delete an article (the problems that often arise with non-notability are better reasons, but if that's the problem THAT should be the reason for deletion, not non-notability). It arguably is no loss to the encylopedia to have kept it either. Its loss was a small but existent damage to the encyclopedia's endeavor to reach into all branches of knowledge. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (continued from above) Still, I really couldn't care about the article enough to bother to come, if not for the possible admin-abuse issue. As many have stated, the admin had forced his own will and opinion onto a non-consensus situation. In acting as if the opinions of the opposition was of no consequence ("absurd"?) or even idiotic, he had potentially eroded the trust of the Wikipedia population to the system's NPOVness (honestly the best of the values Wikipedia espouses IMO). I cannot imagine any potential gain that would come from deleting the article that would recompense for this loss, so IMO the admin's actions were not in the interests of Wikipedia. A superficial read of the admin's record suggests this is not regular behavior, and his action, though flawed in process is not wrong in result. I would urge that the admin be more careful in using the powers at his discretion in the future. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete. There was not a consensus for deletion, and there is seemingly a suggestion of bias on behalf of the closing admin.  Sodium N4 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Bellydancing Bolsheviks, must every article with "School" at the end be religiously defended by five screens' worth of argument??? Afd is not a vote. 75 students is not quite notable enough. My mother's school in Cabri, Saskatchewan had a far bigger roll than that (150, was it?), and yet the whole town doesn't even warrant an article here yet. Oh, and in case you missed it... afd is not a vote. GarrettTalk 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's only "not a vote" when the closing admin doesn't like the votes. Start an article on that town any time. Everyking 11:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse. --Charlesknight 11:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm perplexed why certain people seem to think that everytime an admin excercises minimal discretion we have to run over to DRV. I can find many AfDs where I commented one way and the closer made a final decision that was not a straight out "vote" based decision. See for exampple Articles for deletion/Retcon punch. This is well within admin discretion. JoshuaZ 12:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you believe this was minimal discretion? The closing statement certainly didn't reflect "minimal discretion."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Minimal discretion"???? I agree with you 100% that this should be the standard. But the fact is that the closing admin blatantly overrode a clear lack of consensus by simply discounting individuals specifying keep, inserting the admin's "absurd" and biased personal point of view into the process. None of the deletes, no matter how inane or devoid of logic, received the corresponding level of scrutiny and telekinetic analysis challenging the motivation or adequacy of their reasoning. Minimal discretion would mean applying a fair and equitable standard to all participant responses, not just the ones you've decided you disagree with a priori. I agree completely with the closing admin that "AFD is not a vote; judgement can and must be exercised." Problem is that this wasn't judgement; this was personal bias. Alansohn 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Minimal may have been a poor word choice. The argument stands well with its removal. JoshuaZ 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument still doesn't stand. There was no discretion, just a decision that failed to reflect community consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse. It is right to discount all comments that don't relate specifically to the article in question, including those along the lines of "All X are notable, therefore this must be" (as it would be for "All X are not-notable, therefore this can't be"). Verifiability and Reliable sources are not optional. As noted by those contributors arguing for deletion, the notablity of this establishment cannot be verified by reliable sources (just because it exists, doesn't mean it is notable). Thryduulf 13:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, we all know that simply isn't true. If someone listed Bulgaria for deletion with the argument non-notable Anyone could easily and justifiably argue Keep - all countries are inherently notable ~ and it would've been perfectly reasonable.  WilyD 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, actually notability of even a country is not obvious always. See for example Sealand. It is plausible at least to me that if there were a micronesian island country with 1 inhabitant that it might not be notable. Furthermore, comparing schools to countries in this is a bit odd, many humans might have some intuition that countries are notable. Such intuition does not (at least to many users here) seem to exist as prevalently for schools, for understandable reasons. Again, if something can't even meet having non-trivial sources it is hard to see how it is notable and/or how to have an article about it. JoshuaZ 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sealand has an article and is notable. I'm not comparing countries to schools - I'm only providing a counterexample for the claim that "All X are notable, therefore this must be" is not a good argument, as it's perfectly fine.  Please read my comments before trying to refute them.  I didn't say word one about schools - I only meant to show that the argument presented by Thryduulf is flawed (because this is a discussion, not a vote). WilyD 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I must be not understanding something here. What precisely are you arguing? JoshuaZ 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That the argument It is impossible to argue that all X are notable, therefor this X is notable is a flawed argument. Obviously X may or may not be notable (and for schools, it doesn't matter), but the argument Thryduulf presented is inherently flawed.  The easiest way to demonstrate this was with a counterexample.  WilyD 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sealand is a micronation that is notable (it has some de-facto international recognition for example), but not all micronations are. I remember contributing to at least two AfDs on micronations (this was a long time ago though, so I don't remember their names), I'm sure at least one of those was deleted [edit: See the discussion about Dominon of British West Florida on today's DRV for a good example]. Bulgaria has a population of 7,726,000, was founded in 681, is a member of NATO and the UN, a founder member of OSCE, and will join the EU next year. All these and more are reasons why it is a notable country beyond the fact that is a country and it exists. If it were brought to an AfD then I would discount "All countries are notable" type comments, although in this case I don't think it would make a difference. Thryduulf 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also a related point- it might be more reasonable to say about a country "The probability that there is something notable about this country is close to 1 even if we haven't been able to find it at the moment thus keep." If someone wanted to make that argument for a school that would be more reasonably than a blanket claim of notability. I think its wrong, but its at least a reasonable argument to make - this is related to one reason why I am in favor of keeping schools that are old- because given how long they have been around the probability that there is something notable about them is high even if we can't find one at the moment. JoshuaZ 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, Sea Land might not even be a country, and other "micronations" are by and large almost certainly not. There are specific policies that say things like All MLB baseball players are notable and All Prime Ministers are notable specifically.  So if country doesn't float your boat, I can provide examples that already have the weight of guidelines like WP:BIO] behind them.  If [[Rob Ducey is nominated for deletion, then Keep, all MLB players are notable is the position of WP:BIO, which is a guideline.  Thus the general form of argument is valid (whether it applies specifically to schools, I have no idea (nor do I care, as notability isn't a relevent criterion to schools, per there being no relevent policy or guideline). WilyD 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #3

 * Endorse deletion, given sources were trivial and existence is not alone a reason for inclusion. Kusma (討論) 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn due to the fact that there was no clear consensus on the article, Derktar 13:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment: Looking at this thread on the admin noticeboard it is pretty clear that this DRV should be canned and rerun. Guy 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So we can obtain a third no concensus (this + the Afd)? I can't legitimately imagine another DRV would result in anything but no concensus After all, there's only two arguments here - Undelete - processes wasn't followed, discussion was an obvious no concensus and Delete - Admin's have discretion when closing - The article should have been deleted, therefor fuck lack of concensus, Admin should follow WP:IAR over WP:CONSENSUS WilyD 14:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, again, read the deletion policies. Admins have discretion in closing AfDs that are no consensus or close to no consensus. I think a more serious problem with JzG's comment is that the relevant spamming and votestacking is essentially irrevesible. We now many editors with a pre-disposition interested than in other ways so the second DRV will also be noticed by them. A second problem is that the level of acrimony and just general waste of time this is taking up is so large that having another DRV would just make matters worse. JoshuaZ 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And to think, if the AfD closer actually looked at consensus as opposed to turning his AfD vote into an AfD close, this wouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I specifically included that whole point in my summing up of the delete position. Or are you somehow suggesting that the discussion at the AfD didn't genuinely reach no concensus?  Given that that is verifiably false, I assume not, but I can't figure out what else it might be.  This discussion was on an irrevocable no concensus path well before any votestacking occured - to suggest it would've resulted in any other conclusion is something no one can do with a straight face.  And we all acknowledge that another DRV would just result in a whole lot of talk that comes to no concensus. WilyD 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No the point is that admin discretion specifically kicks in and gives them leeway when things are close to no consensus. That is precisely what occured ehre. JoshuaZ 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I specifically said Admin's have discretion when closing as part of my summary of the deletionists' argument. Please read my comments before trying to refute them. WilyD 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. The argument in favor of deletion overwhelms that in favor of retention, both in this Review and in the AFD. — Encephalon 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * undelete this please per georgewilliamherbert there was not consensus for erasure Yuckfoo 16:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete My opinion on schools is that a big school(competing in the biggest class in athletics, or 5A and above) or a Small school with a history of academic excelence that is well written and has some notable alumni should be kept. To User:Kappa: If you truely believe that this school is notable, move the copy in User:JoshuaZ/Sandbox to a sub page of yours and work on it.  Once you have listed either athletic or academic achievements that the school has achieved, and listed a thorough explanation of the achievement and a brief history, along with any other notable parts of the school, re-enter it into the Main domain.  Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well for GFDL reasons we should have formal userfication if Kappa wants to do that (mine is all sandboxy so it doesn't handle the history well). JoshuaZ 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist. I never saw the article, so I can't speak for its quality. But I'm thinking a school article must have been particularly poor to not be kept, so really, I'd like to read the article before stating my opinion on it. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a copy (not quite up to date) at answers.com. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And a copy at User:JoshuaZ/Sandbox that is more up-to-date. JoshuaZ 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the JoshuaZ/Sandbox copy. Enrollment of only 75 K-12, established only 15 years ago, with no extraordinary characteristics. Had I participated in the original discussion I probably would have said "delete", or "merge it somewhere..." Strong merge if restored. — CharlotteWebb 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep deleted, non-notable school, AfD was correct. Note that I would not have bothered to "vote" here if it weren't for the vote spamming that was going on to inclusionists only.  User:Zoe|(talk) 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Overturn and undelete. Support restoration so that this may be improved and expanded upon.  Bahn Mi 22:10, 26 September 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.