- Wahroonga Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV)
Was speedy deleted for lack of assertion of notability. However, article survived deletion review process. If there are problems with the article, it could have gone back to AfD and been improved. Assize (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original
User:Neil. Three hours later, one of the Keep voters (who has also initiated the present DRV) took it to DRV, at which two other Keep voters and two others commented over about a 36-hour period. None of the objections at DRV addressed the closure or the consensus on the original AfD. A search on the DRV closer's contribs reveals that this was the first DRV that this relatively new admin (who had been through RfA three weeks earlier) had closed - I believe incorrectly so, as no issues with the closure were raised. Those considering this situation are welcome to view my talk page and that of the initiator to see the sort of Wikilawyering that has been going on to return this clearly non-notable article which had become a coatrack for some trivial local gripes (I'm not kidding here - three of the references related to an allegedly stinking loo!) and had been abandoned by those who wished to keep it for four months. Orderinchaos 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [reply- Note Original AfD was: 9 delete (1 duplication, 8 does not assert notability, 5 lack of secondary sources); 2 merge - one of which argues no notability; 7 keep (6 on principle (no reason given), 1 claims refs found justify keeping). WP:DP clearly says "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." There were no grounds given to keep the article, and solid grounds given to delete it. The job of a closing admin is to consider policy arguments used in obtaining consensus, and this is exactly what the original closing admin did. Orderinchaos 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment on the pevious AfD and DRV or state of the article, but overturn the speedy and
WP:TROUTslap Orderinchaos for using A7 on a school and ignoring that you can't speedy something that's come out the other end of an AfD, even if only because a DRV overturned it. The proper course of action here would have been to renominate the article for AfD, not speedy it. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 12:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [reply
- Process for process's sake. The previous DRV was clearly invalid. Orderinchaos 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That still leaves the fact that A7 explicitly excludes schools—and proposed guidelines to speedy schools have fallen flat. Besides, the best way to dispute it would have been community discussion, not unilateral decision. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia's "do no harm" policy, BLP (which was placed onto Wikipedia by the Foundation) and such things take *much* greater precedence than eternally changing wording on the CSD pages. Orderinchaos 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how BLP applies much here, as this is about a school, though I can see a single place. And another where the "do no harm" idea applies. But both of those were minor and could have been handled with regular editing. To approach this from another angle, since I go agree that I've relied on process a lot in my previous points, the original purpose of the CSD was to take a load off of AfD and PROD. It was only meant to be applied in cases where the article would surely be delete, and only for relatively uncontroversial cases. One common reason new CSD get shot down is that they're too likely to delete things that might actually belong on the Wikipedia. Given the below, this is far too controversial of a situation for the CSD to really apply. A community consensus on the matter, at AfD, would have been the proper course of action, given the past history. CSD is not set up to properly handle articles which the community doesn't very clearly believe should be deleted. I'm sorry if that doesn't flow very well, but I hope my point is in there somewhere. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn An A7 delete was a blatant misuse of the CSD criteria. RMHED (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Endorse It's been a while since I've waded back into wiki-waters, and from everything I have read and seen in this case it seems a dedicated campaign of
forum shopping has been conducted over this article.
- Firstly, the is neither helpful or does anything to further the discussion. It should be noted that the person you indicated you wished to slap is an esteemed long term administrator, carries significant weight within his country of origin on the Wiki, and additionally has notability outside of Wikipedia having been quoted and consulted by papers of record on matters Wiki. Regardless of his involvement or your views, the users participation is appropriate and his opinions and views carry reasonable weight.
- Going to the original article, I'm yet to see anything that demonstrates
a directory entry where some obscure small references were found on toilets that supposedly weren't in the best state smell wise.
- One only has to look at the large body of commentary across AfD, DRV, and other consensus-generating areas where discussions relating to schools have taken place, and one could say that if this article is reviewed in the context of the extensive body of discussion on the topic, it would be unlikely to stand up in all forms seen thus far.
- The problems with the article go to the core of the
schoolcruft essay , which discusses at reasonable length the issues relating to schools on WP. While including information on schools isn't inherently bad, when done in a scattershot approach and for no foreseeable reason other than being overly" passionate and enthusiastic about a particular school", editors "feel the impulse over a protracted period of time to share their passion with us, their audience, by creating a mini-shrine to their institution of learning and, in fact, almost anything relating to said institution, on Wikipedia." This article is a classic example of the schoolcruft problem for the reasons already discussed and raised in this and other forums relating to it.
- As to the DRV, I would question the logic used for the overturn of the deletion. From my memory, the question at DRV is has the consensus of the AfD been correctly interpreted by the closer, and not the seeming logic used in this case if the article should have been deleted or allowed to remain.
- On the basis of an unlikely emergence of a revised version of the article that adequately addresses all the concerns raised to date, plus factoring in all points raised to date, I would wholly endorse the deletion of this article, both at AfD and the CSD action taken in light of a faulty DRV decision. It's really the point where a line needs to be drawn under this article and the proponents of it move on to something more beneficial. Thewinchester (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he is a trusted admin. But he should know better. The purpose of the trout is to remind him, not as punishment. And it's only in regards to misuse of the CSD. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need "reminding" of anything, thank you. Process will be the death of this thing we call Wikipedia. People seem to forget that policy did not come first - common sense did. That's why
the actual impact of having such a nasty article on a Top 10 website, google-searchable. Orderinchaos 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn and relist The A7 speedy criteria specifically says that schools should not be speedy deleted under that criteria. Even schools which are judged to be non-notable are often redirected at AFD, not deleted so speedy deletion is not ma good idea. The Deletion Review had only the closer endorsing the closure and he does not seem to hae protested the closure of the DRV. Given that the sources were added towards the end of the AFD and this was reasonably judged to have invalidated previous delete opinions. Given that there is a reasonable debate over notability lets send it back to AFD for a decision on notability to be made. Davewild (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've missed the fact it was deleted at AfD. Pretty much noone knew the DRV even took place, as it wasn't advertised anywhere, and "failure to protest" does not meaningfully represent agreement - that much has been established not only as common sense but also by ArbCom in a number of its decisions. You do realise that if this DRV succeeds, an AfD will see it gone *again*, most likely some other user will DRV that *again* per
WP:ILIKEIT, and then we'll be back here all over again. I don't see the point in such a waste of everybody's time. The DRV result - not the only controversial one finalised in those 3 days by the same closer (I notice he's neither participated nor closed any DRVs before or since) - should be set aside, and the original AfD result upheld. Orderinchaos 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [reply- We don't advertise DRVs, getting 5 comments (not counting nominator) on a DRV is not bad. I am not convinved that a second AFD will result in a delete. As I said above most elementary school articles that are judged as not notable end in a merge or redirect these days. The sources were added after many of the delete opinions, who specifically mentioned lack of reliable sources and I would want to see those sources discussed, personally I am not sure if they establish notability or not, which is why I recommend relist. (which is what I think the people who contributed to the first DRV should have argued for). I cannot see another DRV occuring if another AFD takes place and if someone did come here using ILIKEIT it would be speedily endorsed. I think the closer of the DRV made the only close possible, based on the opinions made in that DRV. If you felt that was incorrect you should have taken the article back to AFD not speedy deleted it when the relevant policy specifically says not to do this. Davewild (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, DRV was abused the last time to overturn a valid consensus. (As highlighted, not one of the four Keep/Overturn voters last time highlighted any issue with the close, they just wanted to argue the AfD all over again, but under less scrutiny.) ArbCom has given us a mandate to enforce BLP pretty much at all costs, and ignoring all processes. The fact that the DRV nominator on both occasions is the same person who introduced the issues into the article to begin with leads me to conclude that there is no good at all in this. If the article is restored, we are going to need to do a revision purge on it to remove the nominator's additions to the article. As someone who deals with real life people over Wikipedia every day you have no idea how frustrating it is to try and communicate the fact that Wikipedia can damage outside entities, be they people, schools, businesses etc. They see us as a big bully who *wants* to damage them. We really do have to prove them wrong. Orderinchaos 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to just have to disagree I'm afraid, I don't see things in the article that are BLP violation sufficient to speedy delete the article, (indeed am not convinced there are BLP concerns - none of the people mentioned in the article are refered to negatively and everything is sourced) nor was that mentioned anywhere in the AFD, DRV or any of the deletion reasons. If what was in that article deserved a speedy deletion based on BLP then I am astonished and do not think this is what ARBCOM intended or certainly not what the community intends or supports.
- To address your other point the contributors in the original DRV felt the closer incorrectly failed to give appropriate weight to the sources added to the article during the AFD. They felt that this should have been taken more into account by the closer and thus he incorrectly judged consensus based on their interpretation of policy. I think this is part of what DRV is here for. You can disagree with but I think it is a legitimate view. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll phrase it another way. Suppose you were a parent researching schools for your child. Would you feel comfortable sending them to this one? And if not, would certain things in this article, not contained in other readily accessible sources, be a factor in that? Then you have to ask, are those criticisms fair or reasonable, do they apply to possibly hundreds of schools and not even just in that state in Australia? (I'm in WA, on the other side of the continent from the school in question.) That's where we start getting into BLP - essentially BLP means "do not write stuff which has real life impacts or potential damage on individuals or organisations beyond that contained within similarly accessible real world reliable sources". The publications being sourced are so-called "throwaway" free papers you get in the local area which are generally not accessible beyond about a year after their publication at the local library, although one point is sourced to the state's tabloid, which often gets criticised here for its lack of balance. I'd note too that Wahroonga is in one of the high-market areas of Sydney - the suburb has a ridiculously high vote for the pro-business Liberal Party compared to other parts of Sydney (71% in 2007). Orderinchaos 19:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the things in the article we are talking about have been regularly mentioned in the schools own newsletter (so parents will be quite well aware of them) and that we can update the article with this recent source -http://www.hornsbyadvocate.com.au/article/2008/06/18/2193_news.html - to provide a balanced picture (there were problems, now being addressed) I think it is possible to write a NPOV article in which this is covered appropriately (not dominating the article but covered to a smallish but correct extent). As an aside (not central to my point) I don't think BLP applies to organisations and am sure I have seen discussions, such as (but not limited to) here where this was agreed. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but therein lies the rub - the undue weight issue which I originally highlighted - in that no other article for any other school in Australia contains such information about a school. Are we saying, then, that it is the only school with such issues? I know for a fact that several schools, both private and public, in my own state have very similar issues (at least one much worse) - by covering it at all we're giving it a credibility and weight it simply does not have with regard to the reliable-source coverage. That in turn gives a more than misleading impression as to relativity (the fact it's being covered at all suggests it's notable). The Hornsby Advocate, by the way, is the free throwaway I was referring to. I'm not sure if these exist where you live, but they most certainly do not have the journalistic or editorial standard one would expect of a state daily. Often they just print whatever they're sent from certain sources. I'm not even attacking them - I've found them very useful when I've needed to bring some issue to attention. Orderinchaos 21:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn(added:)and relist the A7 speedy deletion, even though I was one of the "Deleters" in the original AFD. After an article has gone through AFD and been restored by deletion review, it is simply not appropriate to do an A7 speedy deletion. BLP is not a valid reason for deleting the article. If newspapers discuss the number and condition of toilets in a school, who is the "living person" we are protecting? The plumber? The only recourse is to relist it after an appropriate period at AFD, or to edit the article and remove unflattering toilet coverage if there is a justification for the removal of coverage in reliable sources. Please do not huff and puff about how "important" some particular admin is,as in "esteemed long term administrator, carries significant weight within his country of origin on the Wiki, and additionally has notability outside of Wikipedia" and please do not denigrate policies and guidelines. Here "BLP" was just another way of saying "IDONTLIKEIT." If you want to change the rules for CSD, then
WP:CSD is the appropriate place. Edison ( talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) [reply
- I'd note that the comments by the other contributor are his alone and I do not make any claim to be above any other editor. In fact, in recent times, I've probably been doing more editing than adminning. Orderinchaos 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I gave the impression you had ever boasted in any way yourself. Edison (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I was pretty sure you hadn't concluded that, but just wanted to make sure. Orderinchaos 05:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist This is a definition policy violation in using an A7 speedy delete after AfD. Allow the community to make the decision on retention, not a single administrator. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, incorrect. It would be a policy violation if the AfD had concluded "keep". The CSD was entirely in line with the AfD outcome. There is, unfortunately, no process by which completely invalid results at DRV (no arguments presented, closed improperly) can be contested, it's like an "appeal on an appeal". I have already said that if this DRV closes overturn, that it should be sent to AfD for consideration, where I am fairly convinced that consensus will, as it did last time and has on many other occasions, agree with me that random schools in the suburbs are not notable (we're not talking a big state high school or a private school with a long history or a foundation (i.e. first ever school or oldest school operating in present location) or unique thing, it's just School No.3833 amongst many others in a very, very large educational district serving about 1.5 million children. Orderinchaos 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So far one agrees with you and five disagree. The DRV closure was not so clearly improper as you say, at least not to your peers. Edison (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, everyone who has commented has disagreed with the A7, but there's actually been very little commentary on the background circumstances. That is fair, I suppose, given this *is* a review of the speedy. Orderinchaos 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Doing an A7 speedy after a keep at DRV this way is totally out of order, and seems a deliberate and still maintained defiance of procedure to advance a personal view. Arguing that the keep was at Deletion review, rather than AfD, and so the rule against using speedy in such cases did not apply is among the most extrordinary instances of wikilawyering I have yet encountered. If OiC wants to argue the case, the proper method is to propose a second AfD, not use administrative powers unilaterally. Our tole is not to overturn community decisions we do not like--even if they are wrong. Personally, I havent the least ideas what will happen at a subsequent AfD--there are after all some good RSs talking primarily about the school; the negative criticism is sourced,and is not with respect to persons, so the admin prerogatives with BLP do not apply. DGG (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced, yes - to reliable sources, no. That was always going to be the problem with this one. Incidentally, sourcing does not negate BLP (and I must say this is very weakly sourced anyway, but thought I'd make the point of principle) - I have seen entire sourced articles go the way of the dodo because they malign the subject. Even some of my own sourced work - two or three paragraphs of it with more than 10 citations, all of which was in newspaper-of-record level publications at close to the front page - in a particular instance was removed for that reason, but I had consented to that with the two admins handling that particular issue, as it was a case of "big issue trumps little issue (and pride somewhere along the way)". There is probably going to be thousands of such cases in the future. A final question - you suggest I should indulge in the same sort of petty process-warring that my opponents have indulged in - the question is why? All I'd be doing is setting off an infinite loop of AfDs and DRVs, much as I suspect this DRV has. I wouldn't doubt we'll still be arguing about this particular non-notable school in 6 or 12 or 18 months because of the "keep" voters' refusal to accept the initial umpire's decision and do an end-run to get around it.
- Oh, and a 4-1 decision in 36 hours in a non advertised space based on an agreement of the minority in the original case which does not cite any Wikipedia policy or any problem whatsoever with the consensus obtained is not a community decision. If a local council tried to act on a decision based on a town hall meeting convened in this manner, they'd probably end up getting overruled by the Planning Minister for lack of due process. This sort of campaigning and use of process for aims which do not improve the encyclopaedia, at a macro level, is one of the main causes of the sorts of problems that give Wikipedia so many perception problems in the wider world. Orderinchaos 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could this DRV stick to the process issues. I've already been called a wikilawyer on my talk page, and now I'm apparently "forum shopping". I have only gone to DRV twice before this. One of them for this article. I felt that the closing admin incorrectly held there was consensus to delete, particular as there was new content and references. I was entitled to do that. Two users who did not particate at AfD voted overturn, two who did participate voted the same way. I did not stack the DRV. Orderinchaos seems to have the privilege of having DRV2 here, yet I'm criticized for making a DRV turn into an AFD2. If only I had that influence. No wonder I don't bother writing much here anymore. Assize (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean, as you initiated both proceedings. I'm more than a bit concerned at some of the content you added, especially given the Foundation's strong emphasis on "do no harm" in a material and practical way. Perhaps also this stuff has come back at an odd time - I've had the unusual situation of dealing with a lot of offline people this week and seeing through their eyes how Wikipedia operates, and if you're a little guy out there who sees all this process-shifting and stuff, and it happens to be about you or your organisation and you're really feeling the effects of being so exposed on a Top 10 website and seemingly being able to do nothing about it, it's a scary and threatening thing indeed. I had thought almost purely in terms of notability back in March when I took the action I did. It would take Blind Freddy not to spot this thing's not going to end very soon as "overturn and relist", so I won't indulge further here and just wait for the inevitable (and highly unnecessary) AfD so we can go through all this again in a different venue with different people. Orderinchaos 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn because I didn't get a chance to comment on this and think it should have been merged to the suburb article as is the WP:LOCAL convention. JRG (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Oddly, I'd actually support this, although a selective merge not including the troublesome components would be necessary. That wasn't the strict consensus of the AfD but would be an entirely acceptable outcome, and one I've supported on other similar occasions.) Orderinchaos 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closer I think this can safely be closed now - the consensus in this forum at least is obvious, and a decision now needs to be come to in the other forum regarding material issues. Orderinchaos 06:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and deadmin the closing Admin. Speedying an article that previously passed a DRV? That's bad enough, but trying to justify why one speedied an article that passed DRV - that's suggests that
WP:ADMIN#Removal of adminship should be followed. Nfitz ( talk) 22:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC) [reply
- Okay, there's no way this is a useful way to comment. Would you mind striking it, to avoid unnecessary drahmahz? Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I'll let that stand. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Admin thinks that it is acceptable to speedy an article that passed DRV. How much clearer can it get? Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems pretty cut and dried to me that
WP:IAR which empowers editors and admins alike to do whatever is necessary to improve the encyclopaedia. This runs along the same spirit of both recent and past ArbCom decisions to the same effect - they in effect warn the unsuspecting off crimes against the social order, such as edit warring and wheel warring, but not against genuine efforts to improve the encyclopaedia. If people wish to be ruled by the letter rather than the spirit of the law, they're welcome to feel such, but we are increasingly subject to scrutiny by real people in the community (especially those who are affected by our actions) and, although it appears that at this DRV a fair number of people believe that I acted incorrectly, nobody has been able to allege that I did so wrongly or with malice, as I certainly did not. I think that if someone was crazy enough to send this to ArbCom for comment, my "bit" would still be perfectly safe. Orderinchaos 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply- I don't see anything here that violates ]
- Overturn - the criteria for speedy deletions are deliberately tightly written, since they are deletions by a single individual without community consensus, and admins should not seek to push the boundaries. In this case CSD A7 did not apply - article kept at DRV; schools are excluded from A7; some indication of importance.
talk) 13:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply
- Overturn. Having survived a DRV, is should not be speedied. Speedie deleted articles should be listed on request anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
