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. ugen64 20:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page has been repeatedly blanked and redirected to Beaverton School District. In order to get a consensus on the school and stop the revert war, I listed it here. --BaronLarf 01:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• The article was never blanked. It was redirected. Kingturtle 03:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that revert debates are more properly listed on WP:RFC. Since you don't want the article to be deleted, you shouldn't put it here. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. Vote below. Andrewa 13:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't put it here. just for the record. Kingturtle 20:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep

• Keep as is. Passes the pokemon test. --Spinboy 02:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the pokemon test? Kingturtle 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The (somewhat spurious) argument that, since all pokemon are covered in Wikipedia, anything that is more notable than a pokemon should be kept. But note that millions of people worldwide can recognize any pokemon on sight, so arguably there aren't that many things more notable than pokemon. Also note that the pokemon test is usually invoked by people who have the POV that pokemon are stupid, and that they use it as an argument for keeping anything that they do not consider stupid. Using it like that is, obviously, fallacious. Radiant!Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is nothing spurious about that argument at all, how do you figure? Saying there are millions of people worldwide who can recognize Pokemon on sight is no different than saying the same millions can recognize a school on sight — these are fairly easily and obviously recognizable things. Now, if you start asking for specifics, things change dramatically. Not even my son, an avid fan of Pokemon, would be able to tell you the specific name of every Pokemon character on sight — yet we have a complete and all-inclusive index of Pokemon on Wikipedia, some of which are completely empty and vacant stubs. (!) This is just one reason why I, and presumably others, make reference to the so-called Pokemon Comparative Notability Test. Sure, it sounds funny, but Wikipedia is not paper and I've yet to meet a school article which didn't have the potential to be expanded and useful in an encyclopedic capacity. This horse has been beaten up long enough— fix your sig already. —RaD Man (talk) 02:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It is spurious because WP:WIN consistent, and an argument applying to one topic (fictional creatures) does not generally apply to an entirely unrelated topic (schools). It is often used fallaciously because it relies on the assumption that more people, worldwide, would recognize or be familiar with the item in question (the school in this case), than with individual pokemon. For the smithsonian or eiffel tower that would be obviously true. For this school, obviously not. Radiant_* 08:27, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
          • Your argument does not hold water with me, sorry. Each of these three articles are well over two pages long with room for greater expansion, even Jimbo thinks these should be kept. And besides that, consistency is something we need to work towards. —RaD Man (talk) 20:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I suggest the article is improved and expanded.--AAAAA 03:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. there's no reason not to have a page on a high school. This isn't a very well-written one, but there are far worse stubs out there. Bovlb 04:31, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not redirect. Redirection implies a lack of notability. These schools all pass the Toowoomba Grammar School test. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 18:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the Toowoomba Grammer School test? Kingturtle 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This school's article has more content than the Toowoomba Grammar School's article did at the time it survived VfD. Hence by precedent this article should be kept as an informative article about an encyclopedic subject. (I wrote this orginally from a school library computer, without being logged in)Klonimus 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • In other words, the TGS should also be merged. Radiant_* 08:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• keep, no good reason to delete. Bky1701 09:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please, even the founder agrees we should. [1] Yuckfoo 05:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not quote Jimbo out of context please. Radiant_* 10:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world." - Jimbo Wales. Seems rather in context here IMO. Keep  ALKIVAR™ 18:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Not really, as in the same post Jimbo says he doesn't like school stubs much. Radiant_* 23:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
        • Obviously your not reading the same thing as me. He was arguing that just because he doesnt like school stubs, that it doesnt mean we should use that as A REASON TO DELETE THEM.  ALKIVAR™ 23:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Can we please stop these damn school deletions already!?!?  ALKIVAR™ 04:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Only when people stop writing crap school articles in the first place. They're known to be harmful to WP's reputation and credibility, and I'd like to see one of you so-called inclusionists to prove otherwise, or shut the hell up about this "inherent notability" BS. Chris 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Comment: As one of the inclusionists who you've so politely told to shut the hell up, I'd like to see some evidence of how inclusion of high school articles is harmful to WP's reputation before you shift the burden of proof to us. The initial vanity pages added by pimply high schoolers aren't much to speak of, but upon improvement they have merit. Cheers. --BaronLarf 00:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
                • I think that various people have provided more than enough. Like I said, it's about time you either quit arguing, or actually come up with a good counter-argument that answers the real issues, such as reputation, credibility, coverage, storage (something people would appreciate if they read WP:WINP instead of simply quoting its title), maintainability, usefulness, duplication of information, and the inclusion of trivia that is removed everywhere else. Is it too much to ask that someone actually comes up with a good argument why pointless articles on schools that are for all intents and purposes near-identical aren't harmful, relevant to the points I've mentioned? Is it too much to ask that people stop making dumb comparisons between schools, which are infinite on WP scale, and other finite sets (Pokemon, railway stations, albums)? Is it too much to ask that you even consider the other points of view, instead of dismissing it? Finally, is it too much to at least take the suggestion of articles on generic school types (face it - 95% of US high schools are unremarkable, we should have articles for the few that are remarkable, and a generic article describing the general common features of the rest) to replace these endless stubs seriously? Is it too much to ask? Of course not. So why won't you do it? Chris 03:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with links to the school district, and improve the articles.--BaronLarf 13:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all three need expansion though. -- Lochaber 13:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - to my mind, schools epitomize the class of entities that Wikipedia can include where a traditional encyclopaedia cannot. - TB 14:01, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep - School's are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you mean "schools are notable"? ;) Kingturtle 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Apparently your school was more notable than his.  ;-) --Samuel J. Howard 03:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a merger that included all the content in these articles would be ungainly. - SimonP 21:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Beaverton School District, I really don't care which. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It was merged there, and still is. —Korath (Talk) 10:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the three pages are quite different in content, but I no longer believe there is any justification for deleting honest efforts at providing information to this encyclopedia. The amount of esoteric make-believe covered in Wikipedia requires far more attention and consideration for "notability" than whether any particular school is or is not. I can only think that those who express the opinion that these articles are not important enough to keep have not spent much time looking around at what all is in Wikipedia! Schools are and will always be an important part of any community, and what is significant about any community is really to be judged by those familiar with that community. Each school was a big deal to all who attended it and is of interest to those who might someday attend. If an article remains stubby, then make it into a redirect and move the info to the proper political entity (city, county, borough, etc.) until someone comes along to develop it into a real article, like this one: Moanalua High School. - Marshman 01:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School deletion arguments waste more processor time, hard disk space (via edits to vote and comment), and bandwidth than just letting verifiable and factual material about educational institutions that shape peoples lives be. Samaritan 19:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be a valid argument if school deletion arguments were about hard disk space. They aren't. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space. Wikipedia is not paper. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we delete things that are not encyclopedic even if there is enough disk space for them. My autobiography is factual and verifiable and there is enough disk space for it, but if I were to create it as an article it would be deleted. Dpbsmith
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(talk) 20:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • It has never been established that school's are not encyclopedic by nature. Klonimus 20:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • If it had been established that they were encyclopedic by nature, they wouldn't get so many votes to delete every time they came up on vfd, would they? As an aside, it's pretty gauche for someone who hasn't been around for even three weeks to tell us how things have always been done. —Korath (Talk) 20:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Korath, please feel some wikilove. Everything is done in good faith.
        
        Truely, It has never been established that school's are not encyclopedic by nature. So that leave's it open for people who feel that all school's are encyclopedic by nature. I've researched this issue quite extensivly, and to the best of my knowledge, the issue of intrinsic school inclusion is still very much in the air and has not been resolved to anyone satisfaction.
        
        And I will advocate for the inclusion of all school's, and try to convince people of the merits of beliefs, because I beleive that my beleifs lead ot a better encyclopedia. Which is what we all want. Klonimus 02:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Note Above argument is fallacious. The fact that it has "never been established that schools are not encyclopedic by nature" has no bearing on the fact that neither has it been established conclusively that all of them are. Thus, this premise is invalid, and the conclusion does not follow from the remaining premises. Chris 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Honestly, this debate is stupid. It really shouldn't matter whether it is a redirect or a separate article. Apparently, multiple people want this to be a separate article, even after it was turned into a redirect by VfD's last decision. Why not placate them by letting them have the separate article? It isn't as though the information itself is in dispute; if that were the case, then the article would not have been merged. Since we're only talking about whether or not the content should have its own article, then why in the world should any of us care one whit? There are lots of stubs with less info than this page that we are all apparently okay with keeping. Why are so many of you continually arguing about this? It's so stupid. If we redirect it, someone will just reinstate the article, and it will just get listed on VfD again. Since it really doesn't matter one way or the other as to where the content is listed, why not just let them keep their separate article? I vote keep, and urge everyone voting 'redirect' to reconsider their reasoning. — Eric Herboso 04:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Heck, why have vfd at all? There's always at least one or two people who desperately want to keep stuff like NoPoint.org. And even if it's deleted, why not create it again? I mean, disallowing filibustering and making us debate the same article over and over to enforce what was already decided is stupid; we should just let the minority get its way if they're loud enough. —Korath (Talk) 10:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Score -1: Offtopic. —RaD Man (talk) 01:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • You, sir, are full of shit. I repeat: if vfd results are not honored, what's the point of having them? —Korath (Talk) 02:24, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If high schools sell alumni goodies and photos commemorating proms, a high school is important enough to have a Wikipedia article (elementary schools and junior highs are still under question). As long as it does not name the current teachers or some specific students who are currently attending, the article will remain important enough. Wiwaxia 03:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I believe that all school articles should be kept, if they are more than stubs. For me this goes for elementary and middle schools too. It's not just about the impact that they have on lives and communities, or about using Wikipedia as a repository of information on more than famous whos and whatwhens. Schools may not have a big impact on history individually, but with few exceptions, celebrities don't either, and yet Wikipedia tends to keep them. It seems rather odd to me that people think we should only keep articles about things well know by a lot of people, and get rid of articles on things less well known.--Quintucket 03:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separate, too big to merge nicely, see WP:FICT Kappa 19:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What does 'fiction in Wikipedia' have to do with school articles? Are we talking about fictional schools here? Radiant_* 10:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Oliver Chettle 23:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable -CunningLinguist 01:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect - but don't delete. Also, please don't use votes for deletion to handle stupid edit wars where neither side wants the article deleted. Thank you. - Martin 23:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete

• Delete unless someone rewrites the hell out of this article. As it stands, it doesn't demonstrate much of anything special. AP? IB? A lot of schools do that. Anything else? Mike H 03:11, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• keep deleted, no demonstration of notability. Dunc|☺ 08:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I see nothing special about the school. Saopaulo1 09:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Respect the original decision of "redirect"

• Keep - as redir to school district. Tax-levying governmental agencies - like school districts - are notable. DAVODD 02:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. What harm was it doing in redirect form? Chris 03:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. Merge and Redirect with Beaverton School District as per the original decision.--TheGrza 06:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - Skysmith 07:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the redirect to be appropriate. Mergism makes the world a better place. Radiant_* 09:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• What Radiant said. Not enough information to justify a full-fledged article on a rather, shall we say, not notable, topic. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per consensus, unless you want people to start relisting every school article they find until they're deleted. (I'd complain about there being separate vote sections, but I'm starting to doubt anyone looks at what the opposing factions write for school vfds anymore anyway.) —Korath (Talk) 10:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect This should never have been put on Vfd. Unless the Beaverton School District is up for deletion (which it is not), the only question is whether the school articles should be redirects or not. Consensus should be found on those talk pages, not here. I'm sure that once the school info is robust enough, it can be put on its own page without problems.  The Steve  13:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. A list of AP classes is not material for an independent article. Postdlf 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, nothing notable about these particular schools. -- Dcfleck 13:37, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Redirect as per previous decision. This is no big deal, and probably won't stop the revert war; If they didn't listen to the last vote, why will this one help? Andrewa 13:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Just redirect it. No harm in redirecting. Dave the Red (talk) 18:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Redirects are useful as index entries, and guarantee that people looking for a specific article will find it, regardless of whether global search is enabled or not, etc. I continue to see no benefit whatsoever having two closely related short topics on separate pages rather than having them on the same page. Is it important to make sure that people looking at Sunset High School won't see Southridge High School at the same time? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Not notable. It's just a school. --Improv 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Merging the articles would make it pretty clear what parts of the current content are ephemeral or pure fluff. Do not split these off again until the content of the merged article demonstrates the need for such action. Nothing prevents people from working on an encyclopedic article about any of these schools while the articles are merged. --Michael Snow 21:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as per original vote. Content already elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. --Carnildo 22:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, and only break out if content is sufficient to do so. Cool Hand Luke 00:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as before, for same reasons as before. Jonathunder 01:13, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
• Redirect as before. I also disapprove the ugly formatting of this VfD. Grue 19:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Restore the redirect. The ability to write more on a topic does not mean that one should (e.g. almost anyone could write a long article about themselves if they tried, but that does not make vanity articles keepable). Average Earthman 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect all schools. If wikipedia was to have an article on every school, even the ones in the U.S and U.K, there would be way to many. Please only write articles with special circumstances surrounded, as the Couloumbine school (massacre) and schools with really old histories. Thechamelon 00:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect - Not much to merge that is different from the redirect target but merge what is necessary. Will there ever be a finish to these school votes? - Tεxτurε 18:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Only when those in the "full of shit" and "fucking nuts" categories on the Carlin Scale stop using fallacious reasoning to back up their "keep" votes, and realise that what they're doing is inherently harmful to Wikipedia and its reputation. Chris 23:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• a 2003 VfD discussion of Sunset High School (Portland) led to a decision to have that article redirected to Beaverton School District. however, that redirect only lasted 3 weeks before an anon user switched it back to the text-article. i recently came upon this situation and re-inserted the redirect. my action has been disputed, and the article is now in VfD again. there is a long-standing debate regarding whether U.S. public high schools should have articles. if you are unfamiliar with the debate, read Wikipedia:Deletion policy/schools and Are high schools encyclopedic?. Kingturtle 01:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to combine this vfd along with the next 2 into a single string, to avoid duplication of commentary? -- 8^D ^gab 02:41, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
    • Yes. Radiant_* 10:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• A number of those who voted "Redirect" mentioned that the schools should be broken back out when there was enough information on the individual high school pages. (Cool Hand, Michael Snow, Thesteve, Johnleemk) I've been adding information specific to each school to their pages, and I was wondering what you believe the threshold is for separate articles. --BaronLarf 15:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Personal opinion: a) If the school article is more than one full page of traditional print, say 5-10 paragraphs, then it is no longer possible to glance from one school to another on the same page. And it will take more than one mouse click to scroll past it to the next school. So at that point it's at least reasonable to break out a separate article. b) If the BEEFSTEW score of the broken-out article would be somewhere up in the eight-to-ten range, as a practical matter it's unlikely that anyone will even nominate it for deletion, much less get consensus for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Ugh. I was hoping this would VfD would lead to a consensus, but the issue is split 50-50, with lots of people chiming in. I count about 22 keeps' and about 22 redirects. maybe we should take this to the Arbitration Committee? Kingturtle 03:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom doesn't deal with content disputes. You are welcome to try for RfC or a policy consensus, however (although I predict that neither will actually give consensus, unfortunately). Radiant_* 12:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • With no consensus, isn't the deletion policy default to declare "no consensus" and keep the articles? --BaronLarf 15:06, Apr 19, 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.