Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Tyng Mather High School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 26 September 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephen Tyng Mather High School moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Tyng Mather High School). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Tyng Mather High School

BEEFSTEW score of 0.5 (d) (The athletic conference is mentioed, but it is no more notable than the school district which doesn't count). This makes no effort what so ever at notability. Thryduulf 13:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. School vanity. Bare bones directory listing: WP is not a directory. Jonathunder 15:31, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing" (Jimmy Wales). Kappa 16:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That was a reference to the Britannica's slogan, and the Britannica clearly was using AHD's fourth meaning, "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge." Knowledge is not the same as information, and information is not the same as data. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well that's funny, because my Concise Oxford Dictionary defines knowledge as 1. awareness or familiarity gained by experience, 2. a person's range of information, 2a. a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, 2b the sum of what is known, and 3. certain understanding as opposed to opinion - while information is defuined as 1a. something told; knowledge, 1b. items of knowledge - so it seems that the personal distinction you make between "knowledge" and information" doesn't really accord with extablished definitions.--Centauri 23:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • If we are debating Jimbo's founding principles we should take note of what he has specifically said about this issue. He once wrote: Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything [1]. See also [2] - SimonP 04:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • Please don't quote Jimbo out of context. He can speak for himself, and if he doesn't you shouldn't presume to speak for him on this (or any) issue. Radiant_* 11:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
          • Interjecting Whoa, wait one minute there. Quotation is a source of information for Wikipedia itself. Don't shoot someone for a quote when we use them (paraphrased even) as support for facts. You basically just tossed out the "assume good faith" policy lock, stock, and both barrels. Courtland 06:56, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
          • Hmm maybe it would be better to leave a little message on his talk page every time a school comes up for Vfd, then we could get his opinion first-hand... Kappa 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Thank you for pointing this out. Now that we are all aware that our fearless leader's opinion on the subject is in alignment with the "verifiabilty" rather than "notability" position, there should be no further need to endlessly revisit the issue on VFD.--Centauri 05:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The quote also seems to imply a position on quality. I don't vote to delete "decent 2 page articles." This currently isn't a "decent 2 page article." If I were convinced that school stubs were consistently being expanded into decent 2 page articles within a reasonable time period, I wouldn't have any quarrel with them. Others' mileage may vary. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • He couldn't have been clearer. He said that we should relax about the whole thing. Wikipedia sure could do with 500 Jimbos.
              • whut? never delete an article on grounds of poor quality. Why, half of WP would be listed here. That's the whole idea, it will 'self-repair' over time. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • They do not "self repair." People repair them. Or not, if there is not a sufficient pool of people knowledgeable in the topic and interested in putting in serious work on it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • If only one person in the universe possesses knowledge about an article subject, that's all the more reason to retain a rudimentary article until they come to Wikipedia to contribute their knowledge. --Centauri 04:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another useless, non-encyclopedic stub. There is a difference between knowledge and trivia. Gamaliel 16:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete according to Wikipedia's notability policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I listed it on GRider's User_talk:GRider/Schoolwatch page and it's been improved since being listed there; whether that's coincidence I don't know. I don't know enough about urban schools to know whether the paragraph added by User:Kappa, about having teachers fluent in Chinese, Arabic, Assyrian, Russian, Serbo-Croat, Spanish, Gujarati, and Urdu, makes it unusual or not. Seems sorta interesting, though. No vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting...I might vote to keep if this is brought up to convention. Abstain for now. - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • comment we're not voting on articles' quality, but on their potential to ever be 'up to convention' (if that's what you mean by convention). dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup. Sorry I wasn't clear on that (blush). After some thought, I feel this is worth keeping, so Keep. - Lucky 6.9 21:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa's comment sums it up to a T.--Centauri 23:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The information on the high proportion of ESL students and the language skills of the staff make it notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with other high schools. - SimonP 03:32, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as with other high schools. --Angr/(comhrá) 08:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools are inherently notable and encyclopedic. Klonimus 18:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a Real Place. Ejrrjs | What? 00:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 10:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as with others. Yuckfoo 02:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Decent article, has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl (talk) 08:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 11:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Vote to keep, as with other schools.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:01, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep. An American school where less than half the student body speaks English as a first language is unusual. --Carnildo 18:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Dr Zen/keepschools —RaD Man (talk) 00:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --BaronLarf 02:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. — Instantnood 07:02, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no proper reason given for deletion. --Zero 14:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not all schools are automatically notable. "More than half the school's students speak English as a second language" is a bit unusual but certainly not unique for an urban school in a big city. No evidence presented that this is more than an average school. Based on their test scores (page 4 of the pdf link), they're below average. And I'll go back to the argument about numbers for why we can't defend articles on every little school article from vandalism. We must make choices. I do not believe this makes the cut. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After five days on VFD, the only cleanup this article will ever receive, this still only scores a 3 on BEEFSTEW (ABJ, and B and J are generous). Keeping it would be a farce. —Korath (Talk) 05:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm beginning to think a) many people have too high of expectations for fast enhancement of articles and b) many people believe a place is not important unless someone important is associated with it, and that because almost noone (%-wise) is important enough to be encyclopedic almost no places (%-wise) are important enough for inclusion. I've seen enough vicious elitist sniping to turn my stomach in the past few hours on here and this just happens to be the crust that broke my tooth and made me say 'enough already!'. It's sooo much easier to tear down than to construct, and many of you (yes, getting personal here) are so darned self-satisfied about how much "junk" you've cut out that you fail to think critically any more; it's just delete this - it's cruft, toss that - it's silly, can that - it's pointless. Makes me sick after a while. Courtland 07:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%. Some time ago, I was irked so much by some of the comments I received when I tried to help clean up articles on schools in VfD that I do not want to ever touch them again unless it's really needed. --Andylkl (talk) 13:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Please re-read the perfect stub. Stubs are supposed to be short-term. People who just want an article and don't plan to do much serious work on it should make it a requested article, not drop in a stub. the perfect stub makes the following points:
  • the value of a stub is primarily in what it will become.
  • "Don't assume that additions and improvements will immediately pour in of themselves" (some school inclusionists do seem to assume this);
  • The time frame cited is "a few weeks," as in "If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself."
People who just drop in a stub and never come back to do more work on it are being irresponsible. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ironic that you should endeavor to educate me on the role of stubs and their "life cycle"; I've been part of the stub-sorting Project and the ref and fact checking Project for a while now. As usual, there are disagreements on the role of stubs ... and the role of articles in general, in fact. Courtland 17:21, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
The improvements might not just roll in like a tidal wave, but some of us school-inclusionists do more than just vote; I can see that, on this page, Kappa, Yuckfoo, GRider and myself have progressively been improving it. The page was created less than a week ago; I have confidence that it will be de-stubified rather soon. There are plenty of stubs out there which have languished for years. --BaronLarf 17:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
That's a Good Thing. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; others have stated good reasons with which I agree. Samaritan 14:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools have a value by being here. Gorrister 17:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has been de-stubified, though it could still use expansion.--BaronLarf 18:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. As long as Rare Candy exists, this should exist. :) brian0918&#153; 02:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The VfD and Deletion Consensus decisions on Rare Candy were to merge it with other Pokemon items. I trust you'll be changing your vote accordingly? --Carnildo 02:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 10:40, Apr 8, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Tyng_Mather_High_School&oldid=24067994"