Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Cooper city high school
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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 DELETE. Stormie 08:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Cooper city high school
Is there really anything special enough about this school to be included in a worldwide encyclopedia? — Pt (T) 01:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Probably not, but from the looks of "Category:High schools" that's becoming no longer an issue. :( --LeeHunter 02:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless unsubstubified. —Korath (Talk) 03:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Fred 03:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "{{NAMEOFSCHOOL}} is a school located in {{NAMEOFCITY}}." Delete. --Slowking Man 04:13, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- "{{NAMEOFSCHOOL}} is a school located in {{NAMEOFCITY}}." Keep.--Centauri 04:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We have deletionists and we have inclusionists, but whether or not schools are kept in or not, many of the articles we have on schools violate policy for being original research and/or vanity. This one probably fits into both categories. Indrian 07:07, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Would you care to explain your comment? How does stating that X school exists and has a principal named Y constitute either "original research" or "vanity" ? --Centauri 08:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vanity and original research are not about the information itself, but about the source of said information. To quote Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration)." If an individual attends a certain school and then from his own experiences writes an article, he is engaging in original research as a primary source. As for vanity, if a page is written by a person that attends a school (not neccessarily an alum, but currently enrolled), then it is no different from writing about a website one has founded or a band one has played in. If the article is well-written, informative, and objective, then this may not be an issue, but for a sub-stub like this, it is. As to why this article is vanity, I urge you to check the history of the article, specifically an addtional sentence in the original, since removed, that confirms this aspect. Indrian 20:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Unless the author founded the school themselves there is no way known writing an article about it can constitute "vanity" - particilarly if there's absolutely nothing self-referential about it. Under your interpretation of policy I can't write about my local church because I attended services there as a child. Nor can I write about the university I attended, railway stations I've made use of - or in fact any other public facility I may have found myself in at any time during my existence - and that is plainly ridiculous. In any case I've now rewritten this article myself, using data that is easily locatable on Google - and I have never been anywhere near Broward County - so your argument is moot either way.--Centauri 22:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, lets keep this civil please. You asked a question and I answered it. Just because the answer does not fit your world-view does not mean you have to get nasty. Second, I am glad that unlike other people who whine about this sort of thing you actually went out and fixed the problem so that it is no longer original research or vanity. Third, you have not "won" any competion with me, as there was never a contest to begin with, just two people who care about wikipedia and have different opinions, so you should try to be less smug in your responses. Fourth, you did not read my whole response or you would see that vanity does not matter in my opinion on school articles, or church, or subway stations, if they are well-written informative articles, so you are free to write such articles on these things in my opinion (I have never, by the way insinuated that this is anything but my own interpretation of policy that you are free to disagree with). Plus, this article was self-referential in its first form, check the history. Fifth, Wikipedia:Vanity page specifically mentions high schools, so I feel you should do a little research before laying into someone like you did above. Finally, I still feel this is not encyclopedic for notability reasons and should be deleted. You are, as always free to disagree, but I hope you can muster a bit more politeness when you do. Indrian 23:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Kindly refrain from accusing people of being "uncivil", "nasty" and "laying into" others when there is no evidence at all of such behaviour. I find your comments in that regard utterly perplexing.--Centauri 01:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, lets keep this civil please. You asked a question and I answered it. Just because the answer does not fit your world-view does not mean you have to get nasty. Second, I am glad that unlike other people who whine about this sort of thing you actually went out and fixed the problem so that it is no longer original research or vanity. Third, you have not "won" any competion with me, as there was never a contest to begin with, just two people who care about wikipedia and have different opinions, so you should try to be less smug in your responses. Fourth, you did not read my whole response or you would see that vanity does not matter in my opinion on school articles, or church, or subway stations, if they are well-written informative articles, so you are free to write such articles on these things in my opinion (I have never, by the way insinuated that this is anything but my own interpretation of policy that you are free to disagree with). Plus, this article was self-referential in its first form, check the history. Fifth, Wikipedia:Vanity page specifically mentions high schools, so I feel you should do a little research before laying into someone like you did above. Finally, I still feel this is not encyclopedic for notability reasons and should be deleted. You are, as always free to disagree, but I hope you can muster a bit more politeness when you do. Indrian 23:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Unless the author founded the school themselves there is no way known writing an article about it can constitute "vanity" - particilarly if there's absolutely nothing self-referential about it. Under your interpretation of policy I can't write about my local church because I attended services there as a child. Nor can I write about the university I attended, railway stations I've made use of - or in fact any other public facility I may have found myself in at any time during my existence - and that is plainly ridiculous. In any case I've now rewritten this article myself, using data that is easily locatable on Google - and I have never been anywhere near Broward County - so your argument is moot either way.--Centauri 22:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Vanity and original research are not about the information itself, but about the source of said information. To quote Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration)." If an individual attends a certain school and then from his own experiences writes an article, he is engaging in original research as a primary source. As for vanity, if a page is written by a person that attends a school (not neccessarily an alum, but currently enrolled), then it is no different from writing about a website one has founded or a band one has played in. If the article is well-written, informative, and objective, then this may not be an issue, but for a sub-stub like this, it is. As to why this article is vanity, I urge you to check the history of the article, specifically an addtional sentence in the original, since removed, that confirms this aspect. Indrian 20:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity -- Chris 73 Talk 07:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Creator didn't even include basic information about the school. At least let it be an article. Mgm|(talk) 08:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --fvw* 08:59, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
- Merge into appropriate Cooper City, apparently somewhere in Florida, and delete - Skysmith 11:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as sub-sub-substub. School might deserve an article, and someday someone might create one. This ain't it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --BM 12:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. An article that is boring. And furthermore it's not notable. The principle is that wikipedia is not a trivia quiz. --RoySmith 15:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I would suggest merging all relevant information, but since that would consist entirely of Cooper City has a high school, there's not much point. Average Earthman 21:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. --Woohookitty 21:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone's willing to take a whack at establishing notability. Otherwise, merge whatever's useable to the Cooper City article and transwiki it to Anthony's school wiki. This isn't even close to encyclopedic. It comes off as something written by a bored student schlepping through the Internet on a library computer. - Lucky 6.9 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. GRider\talk 18:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Let's have an end to this mania for deleting school articles Philip 11:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's have an end to this mania for creating articles about non-notable schools. Jayjg (TALK)]] 20:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, let's have an end to the mania for the juxtaposition of contradictory terms, such as "school" and "non-notable" when attempting to justify deletion votes. --Centauri 12:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Along with that, let's have an end to the mania for the imagining all schools are notable when attempting to justify deletion votes. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- All highways are notable. All railway stations are notable. All suburbs are notable. All churches are notable. All schools are notable. Get over it. --Centauri 02:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not all highways are notable. Not all railway stations are notable. Not all suburbs are notable. Not all churches are notable. Not all schools are notable. Get over it. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Let's see how far you get with that notion when you get busy listing the hundreds of articles on those subjects on VFD. --Centauri 03:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Did you notice the words not all? I'll repeat them. Not all schools are notable. Some certainly are, and I've even voted "keep" on VfDs about schools. However, the article about this school has given no indication of notability. Jayjg
- Let's see how far you get with that notion when you get busy listing the hundreds of articles on those subjects on VFD. --Centauri 03:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not all highways are notable. Not all railway stations are notable. Not all suburbs are notable. Not all churches are notable. Not all schools are notable. Get over it. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- All highways are notable. All railway stations are notable. All suburbs are notable. All churches are notable. All schools are notable. Get over it. --Centauri 02:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Along with that, let's have an end to the mania for the imagining all schools are notable when attempting to justify deletion votes. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, let's have an end to the mania for the juxtaposition of contradictory terms, such as "school" and "non-notable" when attempting to justify deletion votes. --Centauri 12:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(talk) 16:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Did you notice the word all? There are established projects to write articles about every railway station and suburb in such cities as London, Sydney and Melbourne, so all railway stations and suburbs are obviously notable. All schools are no less notable.--Centauri 01:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non notable. Gamaliel 20:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- delete sub-stub. (pls feel free message to talk if substantially improved) Mozzerati 23:23, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
- Keep as a stub or sub-stub. It neds improvement, but so do a great deal of articles in the Wikipedia. I've seen a great deal of the discussion regarding the deletion of schools, and read pleanty of arguments for and against their inclusion. The most common reasons given for deletion are, "it's just a school that nobody important went to." Think about it though: In developed countries, the majority of school aged people spend more than one third of their day in their school over the course of their day. Many children see more of their teachers than their own parents in cases where parents work shift-work. In small rural communities, the local school is often a centre of a community, and in many cases the only facility large enough for a major community event. In developing countries, the school is often the glue that binds an entire community together. I think WikiPedia should ENCOURAGE the organization and catagorization of articles on individual schools. Yes, there is the possibility that this could turn the Wikipedia in each different language version into something rivaling the Encyclopedia Galactica, but ffs people... it's digital. It's the closest thing to the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy that isn't pure fiction. By encouraging the inclusion of schools, we encourage the use of the Wikipedia by students and staff at schools. These two groups represent a huge segment of global population that we could get interested in contributing to the Wikipedia, and furturing its future development and growth. Isn't that one of our goals here?Weaponofmassinstruction 22:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- think of it like this, if your experience of wikipedia is coming along and finding a whole load of boring uninformative sub-stubs, do you think that encourages or discourages you to write a decent article about your school? I have nothing against school articles, but a school article like this does active damage. If your argument (that much life happens in schools) is true, then almost every school should have something interesting and valuable to say about it. There should have been crime, punishment, disillusionment, joy, love, hate and maybe even education going on. An article which fails to reflect these, or even one of them is misleading, unverifiable, unencyclopedic, discouraging (even of other articles about schools) and just plain wrong. Mozzerati 07:31, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
- Delete, Probobly written by the principle. --Benna 01:27, 2 Feb 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.