Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillips Brooks School

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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, default to keep. Sandstein 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips Brooks School

edit
Phillips Brooks School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Substub on a private preschool, looks like spam Principal Schoolswatter 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — Principal Schoolswatter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Nominator's seventh edit at wikipedia. --JJay 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So? Besides, I suspect otherwise. Shimeru 04:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Sock. The nomination violates the policy, the username is inflamatory etc. There is no justification for using a sock puppet to make AfD nominations. --JJay 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, thanks. There is potentially a very good justification, however. See the sections of that page headed "Segregation and security" and "Keeping heated issues in one small area." If you're going to argue that it's an abusive sock, it would behoove you to provide some evidence, I think (through appropriate channels, not here), rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks. And I don't see the username as inflammatory, for the record. Immature, yes, and probably unwise, but it's not an attack or a slur or any of the other things listed at Wikipedia:Username. Shimeru 05:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no justification at all. It directly violates WP:Sock#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors, which is forbidden. It is not a sanctioned legitimate use for a sock puppet account as spelled out in the policy. Your interpretation is wrong. It's pretty simple, if you want to use sock accounts, use your regular account for AfD noms. The username violates numerous areas of WP:Username. The result is that the debate is tainted, due to the suspicion of double voting. It may also be a banned vandal account within the parameters of Speedy Keep. Based on the number of established editors ready, willing and able to nominate school articles for deletion on a daily basis, we do not have to sanction sock nominations and I am shocked by the constant rush to defend these nominations. And I have launched no ad hominem attacks - I pointed out that this was a new user. You implied it wasn't. --JJay 05:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It is not difficult for editors to detect a contribution pattern in his edits; it's rather easy. And no ad hominem attacks? So you're not alleging bad faith, violation of policy, and now double voting on the nom's part? It might very well be true, mind you, but lacking any evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to assume good faith. In any event, I think this is getting rather tangential, so I will respond no further here. I do, again, encourage you to take the matter up through proper channels if you feel this is a case of sock abuse. Shimeru 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A contribution history dating back ten edits is not a real contribution history. I have a right to have an idea who is nominating articles for deletion based on their history - that is explicit in policy. I'm alleging violation of policy (bad faith is irrelevant) and as to double voting, a sock nomination automatically raises the suspicion. How could it not? Furthermore, Wikipedia:Deletion policy mandates discounting sock puppet "votes" in deletion discussions. Why should it be different for nominators? I am not aware who is behind the account - the user in question has declined to respond to messages on his talk page - and am not particulalry concerned with abuse. I am concerned with what I view as an invalid nomination by a new account. --JJay 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear to me where there is a reason to speedy keep or to make an AfD invalid simply because an obvious sock was used to make the nomination. I see nothing in the deletion policy or in WP:SOCK that implies it. JoshuaZ 05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that Principal Schoolswatter is a sockpuppet. Sure there are a limited number of legitimate reasons for sockpuppetry, and I'd love to assume good faith, but creating an ID exclusively for AfDs creates far more opportunity for mischief, and very few sound arguments to justify the practice. That someone is unwilling to put their real contribution history behind a series of AfDs, every single one of which is aimed at a school article, seems to have more than a whiff of bad faith. That no one voting delete has expressed any concern whatsoever with this state of affairs, pooh-poohing any possible issues as merely hypothetical and "tangential" concerns, is at best disappointing. I guess if there are no objections to the practice, maybe I'll create a whole crew of sockpuppets to support my votes. As long as no one minds. Alansohn 06:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, we've already had your school point made with WP:SCHOOLS4. In any event, I don't see why this sort of AfD should be discounted when there is a simple and obvious thing any admin will do - simply treat the nominator as having zero weight in deciding consensus. If there were an ID that did nothing but vote on school articles that user's comments should also be given zero weight. JoshuaZ 06:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any points here, but our Unprincipled Flyswatter is. If even one person on the delete side of the fence were to express even the slightest displeasure at the fact that there are sockpuppets pushing your agenda, it would be a strong show of support for fair play in the AfD game. Part of finding a middle ground is recognizing that there are folks on both sides who don't follow the spirit of the process., and not standing by idly or minimizing the offense. And besides, aren't all of these AfDs violations of WP:POINT? Alansohn 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to pass WP:SCHOOL because that's only a proposed criteria. The fact that it "doesn't seem" notable to you is also not criteria. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two points, first- this school actually might pass WP:SCHOOLS. The references given arguably constitute non-trivial sourcing. Now, Highfructose, you should understand that WP:SCHOOLS is a school notability set proposed by the more inclusionist editors so if it isn't sufficient it means a school is really non-notable. JoshuaZ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that "something has to come of it" in order for independent third-party media sources to pass WP:V and WP:RS? Highfructosecornsyrup 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was? "And then everything went back to the status quo" is not a very good indication to notability, however. Shimeru 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although the school is just K-5, the article's creators have taken the trouble to put some info in the article tied to several independent mainstream press articles, and it does make some claims, however weak, to innovative programs. Edison 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears that User:Principal Schoolswatter may be nominating numerous schools for deletion for no clear reason as a "schoolswatter." If you look at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, you will notice that over the past two years a developing community consensus has emerged favoring keeping articles on bona fide schools for which there is verifiable information available. Also, WP:DP explicitly states that an article being a stub is not, in and of itself, reason for deletion. Finally, at Wikipedia:Schools there is a proposed policy in development--I would suggest we hold off on this (and any other school articles anyone may wish to nominate) until that policy is finalized and adopted, unless there is a policy specifically requiring the deletion of the given school--otherwise, we risk removing content that may turn out to be explicitly acceptable according to a broader community consensus. Kukini 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the editor's edits seem to have a clear reason- to nominate non-notable schools for deletion. Furthermore, as I have pointed out to you on multiple AfDs there is no such consensus. Most of the kept schools were kept as "no consensus, defaults to keep" AfDs. Furthermore, in the last month or so successful deletions have become more and more common. JoshuaZ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete almost a full delete as being non-notable. The only reason for being weak is that a lot of work and research seems to have gone into the article. If someone can find an article to merge it to I'd support that. JoshuaZ 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a school; schools are generally not notable; hence delete. I would like to reiterate JoshuaZ's point above to Kukini that claiming consensus has emerged that schools are inherently notable is simply wrong. No such consensus was ever achieved. In fact, most editors favoured deletion last time we went through this. But the margin of preference was insufficient to establish consensus, and no consensus defaults to keep. You may be on slightly stronger ground to say that more of a consensus has emerged that high schools are notable, although again, opinion remains very divided as well. Eusebeus 10:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in Wikipedia policy/guidelines that says "schools are generally not notable", so please stop repeating this mantra at every AfD. There is no Wikibasis for what you are saying. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am filled with serenity that you don't agree with my basis for arguing to delete, but stating that I am wrong to find schools unnotable and hence wrong to vote delete on that basis is ridiculous. Some will argue that notability is simply not a valid argument for deletion. Others will hotly contest that. Implying that there's some kind of Golden Rule is, in this instance, making the wish father to the thought. Eusebeus 18:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kukini. Lovely article about school. Lots of sources were added. --ForbiddenWord 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This business about a group of admins and teachers having a schism with another school and then starting this one is interesting. The article should elaborate on the schism; that's what gives this school notability. —ptk✰fgs 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Speedy Keep. Not any more "notable" than any other pre-school with a handful of students, but that doesn't matter because "notability" is not policy. That being said, the article passes WP:V with a nice bunch of references and encyclopedic presentation of the school's background, campus and frogs. All schools have a story to be told that serves the interests of a very small portion of our very large range of readers. And all it takes is a bunch of editors willing to do the hard work of building the article in order to further extend wikipedia's coverage. --JJay 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd prefer to see more detailed content, but it is fully sourced with relevant independent articles from reliable verifiable sources. Alansohn 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that this school has received so much media attention tends to demonstrate notability above and beyond most other primary schools. Silensor 06:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pains me to say it, as I'm not a fan of school articles, but this one looks like a Keep to me. Notability has been demonstrated. WMMartin 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phillips_Brooks_School&oldid=1085415696"