Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlaw Academy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable secondary school. BEEFSTEW score of 5 (A, B, C, D, J) although criterion C is only satisfied because of the (IMO) unnecessary inclusion of the school's daily schedule. android↔talk 05:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, necessary to coverage of its local area. Kappa 06:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless substub about non-notable school. Anything "necessary to coverage of its local area" can go in an article about the relevant town. Gamaliel 06:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, concur w/ Gamaliel. Slac speak up! 07:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think unencyclopedic detail begging for removal, as had been done with the schedule and list of clubs before I looked at the article, should be counted toward a BEEFSTEW assessment. —Korath (Talk) 09:00, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Radiant_* 15:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable secondary school. DaveTheRed 18:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It looks like the deletionists are trying to organise themselves, but it will be a waste of time in the long run. Wincoote 20:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're more optimistic than me, in the long run I think a deleted wikipedia is inevitable, but it's worth keeping it as useful as possible for as long as possible. Kappa 21:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Organized? You mean like this? I came upon this article by chance; I'm serving no one's agenda, if that's what you're implying. android↔talk 23:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. VladMV ٭ talk 21:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Wikipedia policy, as determined by a poll, is that articles on high schools should not be deleted. - SimonP 01:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. School vanity. Not encyclopedic: WP is not a directory of schools. Jonathunder 03:21, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
- Delete according to Wikipedia notability policy, ancient and obsolete polls notwithstanding. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This pointless anti-schoool vendetta is becoming quite tiresome. All schools are public institutions, and all public institutions and facilities are notable by definition. That's right - all public institutions and facilities.--Centauri 06:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I look forward to your articles on government run restroom facilities. Gamaliel 06:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If it's important enough for someone to write about, and it's not original research, vanity or complete nonsense, then it's important enough to keep. If someone is interested enough to write about public toilet facilities, and their information is factual then I'd certainly vote to keep.--Centauri 08:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You probably mean you would keep an article on public toilet facilities in general (which I'd agree with) - but would you want to keep an article on public toilets in south London? Radiant_* 08:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- A general article would certainly be a keeper - but a geographically-specific article could easily be a keeper as well. There may well be someone out there who is the world authority on south London public toilets, and if they can present an interesting, informational, factual overview that describes the history and social relevance of those facilities (eg, how 19th century British attitudes towards public sanitation led to their construction, why they were sited where they are, who built them, how much they cost, how they may have altered social attitudes, how they may have been utilised as meeting places by subculture groups such as homosexuals etc etc), I see no reason for that not to exist as a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. --Centauri 10:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, if we conjecture that there is actually something historically and socially relevant about toilets in south London, then it would be a useful article (per WP:UA, too). But even then, a series of articles on public toilets for a large number of locations in the world would be very repetitive. The problem is that most school articles are neither interesting nor informational, nor do they have historic significance. Several schools are interesting because of a famous event there, or a number of famous alumni, or for some other reason - but the vast majority of schools have no distinguishable features. And hence, are unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- There is "actually something historically and socially relevant" about all public facilities, including schools. Details such as where they are sited, who founded them, why they were founded, when they were founded, how much they cost to construct, who constructeed them, how many pupils they started out with vs how many they have now, how many graduates they've produced, particular values they claim to promote, whether they are government or privately owned, how they interact with the local community, notable teachers/alumni, notable academic/sporting achievements are all "historically and socially relevant" to someone. Just because those details may not be of importance to you doesn't make them objectively unimportant. Indeed, the fact that so many articles are written about schools is itself a testament to their tremendous significance within the context of contemporary western civilization - and as far as I'm concerned the higher the level of granularity Wikipedia can achieve on this and other so-called mundane subjects, the better. --Centauri 21:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The details you mention are trivia, rather than facts of historical significance. The fact that so many articles are written about schools is a testament to the fact that many people want to write an article about their own high school, but very few people care about articles about other high schools, except on general principle (because if they did, those articles would not be stubs). Radiant_* 09:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing the concepts of notable historic detail and trivia. The former relates to matters of factual relevance to researchers on a given subject, whilst the latter relates to irrelevant minutiae. As a hypothetical example: It is historically relevant that St John's Primary School was founded in 1985 by Father Peter Smith, that it is sited on land donated by Mary Stewart adjacent to St John's parish church in Vincent Street, Kentville, Australia, that it was funded largely by a bequest from the Davis family and that it now consists of 14 classrooms housing 300 students. Irrelevant trivia might be that there are 3 eucalypts growing in the lower playground, that the boys toilets are painted duck egg blue and neighbour Mrs Marple whose property adjoins the school is a grouch who refuses to return balls accidentally lobbed over her back fence. --Centauri 22:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I would consider the amount of classrooms and exact amount of students to be trivia. And certainly, for some schools it is historically relevant by whom they were founded and who donated the land (I never said that every school is not notable, just that some aren't) - but the majority of schools were founded by the community council, on ground donated by the community council. That's nothing special. You can't use an example for some schools to claim that all schools are important. Radiant_* 07:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
- The details you mention are trivia, rather than facts of historical significance. The fact that so many articles are written about schools is a testament to the fact that many people want to write an article about their own high school, but very few people care about articles about other high schools, except on general principle (because if they did, those articles would not be stubs). Radiant_* 09:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I, on the other hand, do believe that virtually all schools are nonnotable. By Centauri's logic, every single person who has ever lived is worthy of an encyclopedia article, because the "notable historic detail" of when they were born, who their parents were, who their brothers and sisters were, what they did for a living, what their favorite color was, what their favorite food was, who they were married to (if applicable), and how and when they died (for those who aren't still alive), etc., are "'historically and socially relevant' to someone". --Angr 19:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- There is "actually something historically and socially relevant" about all public facilities, including schools. Details such as where they are sited, who founded them, why they were founded, when they were founded, how much they cost to construct, who constructeed them, how many pupils they started out with vs how many they have now, how many graduates they've produced, particular values they claim to promote, whether they are government or privately owned, how they interact with the local community, notable teachers/alumni, notable academic/sporting achievements are all "historically and socially relevant" to someone. Just because those details may not be of importance to you doesn't make them objectively unimportant. Indeed, the fact that so many articles are written about schools is itself a testament to their tremendous significance within the context of contemporary western civilization - and as far as I'm concerned the higher the level of granularity Wikipedia can achieve on this and other so-called mundane subjects, the better. --Centauri 21:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Errr yes. That's my point precisely (aside from your confusion of trivia and historically notable detail). This is an encyclopedia, after all. It's supposed to be encyclopedic.--Centauri 21:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, if we conjecture that there is actually something historically and socially relevant about toilets in south London, then it would be a useful article (per WP:UA, too). But even then, a series of articles on public toilets for a large number of locations in the world would be very repetitive. The problem is that most school articles are neither interesting nor informational, nor do they have historic significance. Several schools are interesting because of a famous event there, or a number of famous alumni, or for some other reason - but the vast majority of schools have no distinguishable features. And hence, are unencyclopedic. Radiant_* 13:21, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad I didn't misunderstand you. But if you truly believe that Wikipedia should have an article on every single human being who has ever lived, you'd better get busy. It'll take a while. --Angr 22:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A general article would certainly be a keeper - but a geographically-specific article could easily be a keeper as well. There may well be someone out there who is the world authority on south London public toilets, and if they can present an interesting, informational, factual overview that describes the history and social relevance of those facilities (eg, how 19th century British attitudes towards public sanitation led to their construction, why they were sited where they are, who built them, how much they cost, how they may have altered social attitudes, how they may have been utilised as meeting places by subculture groups such as homosexuals etc etc), I see no reason for that not to exist as a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. --Centauri 10:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If someone is dedicated enough to use the potential of wiki technology to establish a project intended to create a fully cross-referenced article record of every person who has ever lived I would certainly support it. There is currently no such record in existence, and were it to be created within the context of Wikipedia it would be an awesome achievement and another credit to the project. It's time people stopped acting like Wikipedia is some sort of hip electronic version of Britannica, and started recognizing and making use of its real potential.--Centauri 23:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is quite simply a pipedream, and I credit you with enough intelligence to realize this. There is no way to accomplsih this since the necessary records do not exist and never will. Furthermore, if wikipedia were to take as its goal a task that is literally impossible, it would be reduced to a laughingstock and not taken seriously by anybody. Indrian 23:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- You probably mean you would keep an article on public toilet facilities in general (which I'd agree with) - but would you want to keep an article on public toilets in south London? Radiant_* 08:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
- If it's important enough for someone to write about, and it's not original research, vanity or complete nonsense, then it's important enough to keep. If someone is interested enough to write about public toilet facilities, and their information is factual then I'd certainly vote to keep.--Centauri 08:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I look forward to your articles on government run restroom facilities. Gamaliel 06:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. See my points at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Any policy regarding school articles?. -- Toytoy 04:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Aberdeen and delete - Skysmith 10:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 00:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- delete. As the article currently exists, I make the BEEFSTEW score 3 (ABF) - even less notable than when it was nominated for VfD. The examinations info is entirely irrelvant to facts about the school because almost every state school in Scotland (of which there are many) will offer the same examinations. Thryduulf 22:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. --GRider\talk 22:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and improve --BaronLarf 22:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Ejrrjs | What? 01:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep this school's article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 04:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another random, boring, non-notable school. Sarg 13:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing worth noting here. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 2 Apr 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.