Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Odle Middle School


 * This disagreement is limited to a small subset of Wikipedia contributors. I would imagine most editors do not participate on AFD and the vast majority haven't the slightest idea what happens here.  If we could agree to keep schools small and large, just as we do cities, a lot of wasted effort could be refocused on improving other areas of Wikipedia.  Silensor 06:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Or, if we agreed to delete all schools, major and minor, we'd achieve the same effect. Luckily, neither seems likely to happen. Unluckily, neither does any sort of compromise on this issue. It's like Wikipedia's vi vs. emacs. Lord Bob 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * According to WP:DEL if there is no consensus for deletion, the article is kept. 99% of the past 300 school-related nominations have resulted in either keep or no consensus, the remaining 1% being hoaxes or non-verifiable articles.  The logical answer is to stop nominating schools for deletion and to stop clogging up AFD.  Silensor 06:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When give or take 50% of the people disagree, that's simply untrue. - brenneman (t) (c)  06:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your claims that it is a 50/50 split on schools is demonstrably false. You claim it all the time, as do most of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles", but it just ain't so. It is a lie.--Nicodemus75 06:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This one's at 44% right now. If that's not "give or take 50%", what is? -  brenneman (t) (c)  06:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is neither definitive, nor normative. Your claims are spurious, clearly shown by the balance of other school AfDs currently underway which all show an overwhelming majority to "keep". As usual, your claims that the schools debate is some "50/50 split" whilst ignoring the preponderance of evidence, demonstrates why your good faith in these discussions is often questioned.--Nicodemus75 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, last actual school closed on schoolwatch: Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew's School, Saratoga, California, 47% delete. Are you goinig to provide some citations to back up your claims?  brenneman (t) (c)  07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * At least these articles improve somewhat after passing VfD. When they're created they're usually full of vanity and other junk.  Grue   06:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree that this a positive symptom of these nominations, cleanup is not the function of AfD.--Nicodemus75 07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to say that I've always really enjoyed the "we could stop all these arguments if the people who disagreed with me would just shut up" argument. Lord Bob 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When 300 deletion nominations, I repeat *three hundred nominations* all fail (hoaxes excluded), there comes a time when enough is enough. Every 3 days one hundred new school articles are created, and 99% of all school deletion attempts fail.  There is no excuse for this any longer.   Silensor 07:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do think I understand what you're saying, but I just disagree that the best way to deal with what is at least a sizeable minority of AfD voters is to tell them to just give up. Lord Bob 07:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another example of your clear partisan, selective and false citations. Want some citations? fine: Current AfDs underway about to be closed other than this one:
 * Articles for deletion/Caldicot Comprehensive School currenty at 72% Keep (12 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Xinmin Secondary School currently at 87% Keep (15 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/The Armidale School currently at 93% Keep (14 votes).

The 10 most recent school AfDs from October recently closed:
 * Articles for deletion/Miami Beach High School closed at 100% Keep (16 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Management Calcutta closed at 100% Keep (16 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Mounds Park Academy closed at 69% Keep & Bicycle (16 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Francophone Institute for Computer Science closed at 100% Keep (3 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Family Altar Christian School (UNVERIFIED) closed at 67% Delete (21 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Bayonne High School closed at 83% Keep (24 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Grove School closed at 88% Keep. (25 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Summit Middle School closed at 74% Keep (27 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois) closed at 72% Keep (32 votes).
 * Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School closed at 57% Keep (53 votes + 2 merge votes).

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Now why don't you go back to creating sockpuppets in order to vandalize other pages.--Nicodemus75 07:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to be a jerk? I looked at this one and the last one listed as closed, you hadn't provided anything. Thanks for providing those links, I'll have a look.  It doesn't help anything when you talk to people like that, you know. -  brenneman (t) (c)  07:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Aaron, don't try and come off with some "babe in the woods" routine. You are fully aware of the track record of schools, and what is more, the listings of schools are on schoolwatch for all to see and yet you still persist in the consistently dishonest flailing about of some fictitious and partisan "50/50 split no consensus" lie. If you somehow aren't aware of the overwhleming track record, then you are guilty of insisting on your damned partisan "50/50 split no consensus" claim without having even bothered to do the research to back up your claim. Either way, you are either trying deceive others about the record or else you are grossly negligent in doing the easily-obtainable research to support your statements. I can't really figure out which is worse.--Nicodemus75 08:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What part of being civil includes accusing people of vandalism and calling each other jerks? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Accuse" nothing. It is an admitted, publically acknowledged FACT . --Nicodemus75 08:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MIB is correct, I withdraw "why do you have to be a jerk". Replace it with, "why do you persist in increasing the level of conflict?"  The manner in which you conduct debate does not lend itself to positive outcomes.  Apologies to everyone here. -  brenneman (t) (c)  08:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, there was no need to get a dig in against you for that vandalism. However, I might ask the same thing of you (ie. "why do you persist in increasing the level of conflict?") in this case by either willfully or through negligence, continuing to misrepresent the record on school AfDs as a "50/50 split"? Based on how easily this false claim is researched and refuted, and given your frequent contributions to this and other "discussions" with definitive statements such as "This is not consensus, and one hundred 50/50 splits in a row doesn't make it consensus." (see above) Can you understand how one might suspect that you are purposely misrepresenting the facts of the debate? I concede that there is a possibility that someone who makes declarative statements and has been long-involved in this debate MAY indeed be negligent in researching his arguments, but then the question becomes why on earth he would bother to make such statements if he wasn't sure they were correct, espeically given the contentious nature of these "discussions"?--Nicodemus75 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've been grazing in other patches, and the last analysis I did almost two months ago (13/09).  At that time it was fairly definative, with a very slight edge to deletion.  The sample I had at hand was this one and the last school listed as closed on Schoolwatch, both at over 40% delete at the time I made my comments.  I'm frankly shocked by the links that you provided, and had no idea the debate had shifted so.  I will return to data gathering...  brenneman (t) (c)  08:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We had almost this VERY SAME "discussion" on IRC just the other day before all of your comments made here, where I maintained (among other things) that, for instance, high schools are 95%+ keep results (as opposed to no consensus) and that thusly the "no consensus" claims of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" are spurious. IIRC, you dismissed my claims about consensus by essentially claiming that "keep" voters are a bunch of low-edit-quotient trolls who constituted a dedicated minority and really ought to be disregarded for their bloc voting and cookie-cutter arguments (or something to this effect). I pointed out in that discussion that I had already done all the counting on high schools and that if anything, the results were actually greater than 95%. I am not really sure how you can be "shocked" by my citations today, unless you simply disregarded my claims on IRC the other day as just false nonsense claims I was making.--Nicodemus75 08:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As nicely as possible, at that time the same request was made as I made here: show some citations. Then you failed to do so, despite being asked several times.  Thus, to be frank, I thought no more about your claims, having observed some (admittedly older) evidence to the contrary.  Now that you have provided some evidence, I've thanked you for it and said that I'll review it.  I don't know what more I can say to this, except that we're now taking up WAY too much of this AfD.  brenneman (t) (c)  09:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You linked to his abject apology. (In fact, this edit-conflicted with his addition of an apology for his conduct here.) Are you going to apologize for your incivility? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, even though this is a debate about a school article, you aren't my self-appointed hall monitor.--Nicodemus75 08:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)