Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gwinett County Public Schools

Withdrawing from discussion
I don't think my participation in this discussion has been productive, so I'm withdrawing. I have removed the following comments.

''Comment. The statement that this school district is in some way "not notable" is not sustainable in my opinion. There are 106 schools in this district, at least eighteen of which are high schools, and the district was responsible for approximately 142,000 K12 students in 2005/6. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)	''

''Keep. I create these stubs as a matter of course. They start small but grow as school articles are added to Wikipedia. I'll expand this one since it's been listed, though my preference is to leave them as stubs for future expansion. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway''

''Comment. I find Mandel's suggestion utterly inexplicable, given the nature of Wikipedia. This is a wiki, not a place for submitting completed articles but a place for developing them collaboratively. Making stubs is a very large part of what we do, and in my opinion the single most important task in creating an encyclopedia. Being intimately aware of the history of attempts to delete school articles and stub articles from Wikipedia, I concur with Pburka. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway''

''Comment. Utter and demonstrable poppycock. A stub isn't likely to be deleted unless someone comes along and deletes it. You also falsely claim that such articles "give little or no information about the subject itself". The location and name of a school district, the name of one of its schools, and the location of its website is perfectly adequate, giving as it does all the resources needed to expand the article. And again I remind you that the purpose in using a Wiki is so that those reading an article can also extend it.''

''You describe me as lazy, but that's clearly false as I created that article in the course of restoring a wrongly speedied school stub. I didn't have to create the article about the school district, but I did so. Stubs are good. You falsely claim that some stubs lie around "for years" without anyone capable of extending them. Even if this were true, this is not a problem if the article is capable of being extended.''

''I counsel you against the propagation of falsehoods that, although easily recognised, take time and effort to debunk and may tend to clutter a discussion. Stub does not define a stub as "3 to 10 sentences. The difference between a stub and a substub is that a stub is incomplete but useful, whereas a substub is not useful. This article when nominated was clearly a stub as it named and located the school district (though it misspelled the name), gave the district's website, and named one of the district's schools, also providing a link to the Wikipedia entry for that school. This is clearly useful to people wishing to know about the school district or the type of work it performs.''

''Finally you also falsely describe the original article as "a one-liner". Even if it was, conciseness is usually considered a virtue in encyclopedia articles. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway 21:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)''

Addendum: You write: Creators start them then abandons them, going on to create hundreds and thousands of stubs and sub-stubs. I would call that irresponsible.'' Well it just goes to show how different Wikipedians can be. In my view the word "abandon" falsely implies a certain ownership or individual responsibility for articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a collection of articles written by individuals. Writing a sentence or two about a subject does not and should not give the individual any rights or responsibilities beyond those words (which also may be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will"). Such thinking is in my view incompatible with the principles underlying Wikipedia. Your mileage may vary, but I think my opinion conforms more closely to the practicalities and operational principles of Wikipedia. In my view the profligate production and random improvement of articles by small increments is close to ideal Wikipedia behavior. --User:Tony Sidaway]/[[User talk:Tony Sidaway 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)''

The trouble here is that you repeatedly misquote''. It just isn't worth the trouble it takes to argue with you as long as you continue on this line. You falsely claimed that Stub defined a stub as "3 to 10 sentences". It does not. Anybody who reads the source you cite can see that it does not. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway 07:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)''

''Comment. Then how do you define those terms? Notability? This is one single institution responsible for around one half of the waking experiences of nearly 150,000 Americans. Encyclopedic content? The information in the article is factual, verifiable and presented in a neutral manner. What is missing? --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway 23:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)''

''Comment. While I won't call it a policy because it doesn't amount to a consensus, there is currently a de facto practice of keeping school articles or merging them to appropriate articles about local communities or school authorities. For a complete review of school deletion discussions going back several months now, see Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive. It seems to demonstrate a change in perception of the value of school articles over time. This could well reverse at some time in the future. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway 17:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)''

''I started on a detailed, point-by-point response to this but on reflection I don't think it merits one. To summarise: VfD is more flexible than having fixed policies, the current opinion is to keep schools but that could change, there doesn't seem to be an organised campaign, those who vote keep on schools do generally also work on improving the standard of the articles, new administrators must be kept on a short leash, "do not bit the newcomers" refers to Wiki newcomers, not new admins, and nothing VfD voters can do will ever obliterate VfDs, that would be up to the chaps doing the nominating. I've ignored the bits that are best left ignored. --User:Tony Sidaway/User talk:Tony Sidaway 06:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)''