Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lin-wood High School

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

The result was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lin-wood High School

Lin-wood High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

It is a public K-12 school article that fails to assert notability Butseriouslyfolks 02:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SCHOOL as most High Schools pass this. -Drdisque 05:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from the fact that WP:SCHOOL is a proposal, not a guideline, how can it be said that most high schools pass it? I think the converse is true. "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works." If you show me some, I might change my vote on this article, but I haven't seen one to date. -- Butseriouslyfolks 06:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unreferenced sub-stub. --Delirium 08:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Johnn 7 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn sub-stub with no references; this qualifies for speedy deletion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A non-notable schools and a pretty poorly done article. Soltak | Talk 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Lincoln, New Hampshire article. That should be sufficient at the current level of development. — RJH (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just pointing out that the school apparently also serves Woodstock, New Hampshire. Lin(coln)-Wood(stock). Get it? Butseriouslyfolks 20:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. -Seinfreak37 21:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My general reasons are here but I was tempted by RJHall's idea, given that the district is so small and the article is such a stubby little thing. But it is part of two different communities, as Butseriouslyfolks points out, so putting a section in one or the other doesn't seem appropriate. It is distinctive in being New Hampshire's only school that covers all grades, which might make it interesting to people studying education. Noroton 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:IAR. This article needs improving. --Masterpedia 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is not just a school, it is a school district that covers multiple communities. As a governmental body it has suffucuent standing to justify an article. Alansohn 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the school, not the district. They are two decidedly different entities. I agree that school districts are notable, most of the schools in those districts aren't. Soltak | Talk 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. Deletion serves no purpose. If merged, a redirect is still needed. --Dystopos 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion serves the purpose of removing a worthless article from the server. Soltak | Talk 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your appraisal of the article or your estimation of the server requirements. --Dystopos 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a redirect be necessary? WP's search function finds terms in articles even when they are not in the title. So does Google . . . Butseriouslyfolks 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase. By Wikipedia's typical practices, a redirect would be advisable, though not, given the power of Google, strictly necessary. --Dystopos 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is considered a guideline not Wikipedia Policy. Lack of notability is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions
  WP:V, not truth. Wikipedia is not a matter of truth. Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia. --Masterpedia 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I think it is interesting that you support your argument against a guideline by citing essays, which are even weaker authority. The policy in question here is not
    WP:NOT. Incidentally, a guideline is "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." It is not something that should be disregarded just because an essay says its ok. Butseriouslyfolks 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment
      WP:NOT you feel this article violates. Alansohn 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment
        WP:N. In plain language, notability distinguishes subjects worthy of articles from the sorts of things that one would only find in a directory. Butseriouslyfolks 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Comment Let's take a look at what
          WP:NOT#DIR actually says: "1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). No; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. No; and, 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. No" Unfortunately, humble or otherwise, there is no element of your referenced policy that is relevant here. Alansohn 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Comment I see you missed my point. It's #3. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. If they pass
            WP:N, they go in. Otherwise, they stay out as directory fodder. Butseriouslyfolks 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Comment You just claimed that the relevant issue is
              WP:NOT#DIR, and insist that this article is a directory of schools. Let's quote #3 in its entirety "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." Clearly, it is an article about a school, not a list of them. I don't see anything that looks like "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, [or] programme lists" in this article. "Directory fodder" is just a rewording of "I can't come up with an actual Wikipedia policy that this article violates so I'm resorting to excuses." Any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
            • Comment I guess it's a lot easier to prove me wrong when you misconstrue policy and put words into my mouth. The policy does not merely prohibit 'articles' which are themselves directories. Rather, it declares that 'Wikipedia' itself is not a directory. (Look above the subsection you quoted and you will see the following text: "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.") Similarly, I did not insist that the 'article' is a directory of schools. I argued that if every non-notable school is the proper subject of a Wikipedia article, then 'Wikipedia' would become a directory of schools. As you can see, this is touching on
              WP:NOT#IINFO as well. Butseriouslyfolks 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Comment You stated above that "The policy in question here is not
                WP:NOT does NOT apply, then you no longer have an argument. The problem with your quote that "Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." is that the policy then goes on to state what constitutes such a directory and none of the three items fit. Do you have any other suggestions of a relevant Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
                ]
  • Comment (Indent reset) You are misconstruing the policy by ignoring the two sentences I quoted in my last post here. You are putting words in my mouth by stating that I am insisting that the article is a directory of schools. You say you can only rebut the claims I make, but you are doing a much better job of rebutting claims I haven't made. Are you saying that WP policies are to be read literally as exhaustive lists and that if another category of item fits the definition but is not within the letter of the law, users are free to disregard the spirit of the law? Butseriouslyfolks 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, you stated above that "The policy in question here is not
      WP:NOT really does mean something here, convince us that it does apply by referencing and quoting actual policy, not merely based on what you're sure it must mean by the "spirit of the law" (use of which term would seem to be a rather clear acknowledgment that it does NOT fit the claimed policy). Alansohn 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I'm getting frustrated. You probably are too. I explained my reasoning above. You obviously disagree. I did quote actual policy (with quotation marks and everything!) but I don't see any utility in repeating my argument that WP is not a directory (of high schools), because you'll just repeat your argument to the contrary and we'll continue gainsaying each other indefinitely like some real-life version of
        a comedic sketch. I agree to disagree. You can do the same or not. I'll even let you have the last word if you want. Have a great day! Butseriouslyfolks 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]