Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannali East Public School (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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, so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jannali East Public School (2nd nomination)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. To quote from the original VfD nom, No part of the article seems useful or notable. I am certainly not seeing any assertion of notability. According to the lead-in, they've trimmed some trees recently (I am not making this up). WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence. Puerto De La Cruz 18:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:LOCAL then? Why not a merge to Jannali, New South Wales? JROBBO 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Among other issues has WP:V problems even before we get to notability. JoshuaZ 00:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom --Michael Johnson 11:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pre nom. --Roisterer 02:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really get fed up with AfDs that don't have any facts put to them. A bit of research wouldn't go astray here, rather than "not notable" assertions without any reason whatsoever which seem to be the norm on AfDs nowadays. Despite WP:SCHOOLS not being policy, it is persuasive, and we should take note of the criteria there. A search on some newspaper databases brings up a note in the Sydney Morning Herald in March 2006 about the school celebrating its 50th anniversary on June 16 2006. A look at WP:SCHOOLS shows that schools over 50 years old, for which this is now applicable, have been declared as verifiable. Precedent for public primary schools has kept schools that are over 50 years old. Another mention from 1999 (21 July 1999, "Schools told: stop saving for a rainy day" indicates that the school was in serious financial trouble under the Carr Government's education policy which left the school at one stage with only $5000 in its bank accounts. I'm happy to look for more articles if you want, but I think there's more to this article than most people think, but no one can be bothered taking a look. Even if the article is not verifiable still, there is worth in merging the environment stuff and financial problems in the late 1990s to Jannali, New South Wales as per WP:LOCAL. So how about it? JROBBO 07:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), all the more egregious in this case, in which the original AfD failed by a consensus of 14 keeps to a mere three deletes 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and 4) this school was founded in 1956, meeting the fifty-year criterion set by WP:SCHOOL, which specifies that article must meet at least one of the guidelines specifications, and as such, the article meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria. Alansohn 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no asserted notability. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3 on every single count. -- Kicking222 22:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one user's proposal that has been going for only six days. How can that be relevant in any way at all? Use the proposal that people are more familiar with; and as I have already said, please do some research too. You haven't asserted why it doesn't meet those criteria anyway. JROBBO 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I would caution using the current WP:SCHOOLS3 proposal in so far as it is not fully stable and it isn't clear how many editors actually endorse it I would point out that requesting that he explain why it doesn't meet the criteria is unreasonable. Since the criteria are inclusive he would need to go through each one and just say "nope not that one" which is time consuming and unproductive. If you think it does meet one of those criteria why don't you point it out?JoshuaZ 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have actually - see my lengthy keep above. I'm sick of "not-notable" assertions that aren't backed up - all I'm asking is that this user explain why he thinks it is not notable. JROBBO 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, none of your stuff above meets any part of WP:SCHOOLS3. What part do you think it meets? JoshuaZ 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article meets all standards of WP:SCHOOLS4, a new guideline that is only slightly less valid than WP:SCHOOLS3. As neither has been presented to Wikipedia users for review, let alone reached any form of consensus, neither are valid for any purpose in an AfD. The original WP:SCHOOL is still the only standard that has undergone any level of scrutiny, and must remain as the only meaningful guideline until an alternative has undergone a corresponding review and attempt at reaching consensus. Alansohn 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This seems pretty clearly to be a WP:POINT. JoshuaZ 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Furthermore, as I said above, it isn't at all clear to me that anyone should be following any of the proposed school guidelines. WP:SCHOOLS has about as much backing as the original defunct proposal had when it was tossed out (and multiple editors have tried to mark it as clearly rejected). Furthermore, the new WP:SCHOOLS3 proposal has been "presented" - it is in Wikipedia space and editors over at WP:SCHOOLS and at the village pump were invited over to take a look. So far, far less criticism has been lodged at that proposal. We can at least say it isn't clearly rejected unlike the previous. Trying to make WP:POINTs rather than engage in serious discussion is unhelpful. JoshuaZ 04:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Based on votes on actual AfDs, WP:SCHOOLS4 seems to have as much potential support as WP:SCHOOLS3, if not more. It's an exclusivist argument that's often heard and does not stand. Basically, WP:SCHOOLS3 is an equal violation of WP:POINT largely created by those who opposed the original WP:SCHOOL and now want to create a deletionist-oriented guideline under which a small fraction of 1% of all schools would qualify. It's nice to wrap up an approach in a guideline, but all [WP:SCHOOLS3]] does right now is glom together a series of unmeetable criteria with lots of verbiage so it sounds like something meaningful. WP:SCHOOL still offers the only proposed guideline that has endured any level of scrutiny and has been used repeatedly as justification to Keep AND to delete AND as part of multiple nominations over the past several days. If even those seeking to hide behind sockpuppets to delete articles are referencing WP:SCHOOL as a policy, then we have something that is reaching de facto consensus. Alansohn 04:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and JROBBO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above commenters. Meets WP:SCHOOLS being over 50 years old with multiple independent references. Yamaguchi先生 22:41, 14 November 2006
  • Speedy keep as this is part of a series of bad faith and disruptive nominations. Silensor 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sock puppetry should never be condoned. --JJay 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's your reason? That, because the nominator was a vandal, the article is still valid? The issues raised by those requesting deletion do not matter at all? WP:SK points to an article being speedily kept if the nominator is a vandal and nobody disagrees with keeping the article, which certainly isn't the case here. Was this vote simply a way to say something besides "keep all schools"? -- Kicking222 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was my way of saying that I hate sock puppets, that the entire nomination is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - specifically the "Voting and other shows of support" and "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors" sections - and that those who participate are implicitly condoning sock puppetry. I will not participate in a debate that is inherently corrupted at the outset by the nominator's need to hide behind a sock shield, with the ensuing automatic suspicion of double "voting", because to accept that corruption is a far more grievous affront than the destiny of any particular article. I will not lend tacit support by engaging with a vandal who has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith. Let those who want to argue inclusion/exclusion show their faces. All of that equals a keep or speedy keep as far as I am concerned. --JJay 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal belief is that all nominations by sock puppets/vandals are de facto invalid and should be immediately closed by any admin aware of the situation. Any articles deleted as a result of those types of nominations are out of process and should be restored. What happens after that is a completely different issue. But my main concern- and this should be explicit in policy (but unfortunately is not) - is that socks/vandals/anoms should not be allowed to nominate on AfD. --JJay 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone has the energy to properly merge to a local district. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep explains my reasoning; I authored several of those points... Unfocused 06:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZ. Eluchil404 11:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per unfocusd Audiobooks 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Bad faith nomination DXRAW 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, no need to merge. Bahn Mi 02:55, 16 November 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/Jannali_East_Public_School_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137942999"