Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saints Simon and Jude Catholic School
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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. Guerillero | My Talk 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saints Simon and Jude Catholic School
- Saints Simon and Jude Catholic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elementary school. Appears to be non-notable per wikipedia standards. Zero refs,. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to muni, ensuring the school name is on the muni page. tedder (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. Seriously, Epeefleche, it seems like you ought to have at least figured out the redirects on these nominations! --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with a redirect, but that is not my initial proposal. And if the consensus is to redirect, I'm generally fine with whatever the consensus is as to the target -- if not, I will speak up. I see that you and Tedder have different views as to the redirect target, but I imagine that if redirect ends up being the consensus the community will sort that out; I've no strong feelings as to whether to redirect to the muni or the dioscese.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is no such action as "delete with redirect" per your initial proposal. Redirect leaves a redirect page, and is different from deletion which does not. Redirect can be done boldly, especially in the case of elementary/middle schools where it is supported by Wikipedia consensus. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD." --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with a delete. And believe that the stand-alone article should be deleted, whether or not there is a redirect, and whether or not there is a merge. As an alternative to delete (and nothing more), I would accept a redirect. I've seen fair share of controversy at these AfDs, over the last 150 or so. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearwood Primary School (2nd nomination). So this is not a situation in which I would like to myself redirect an article, as have a dozen editors have spoken out this week against anything other than a keep, and there is not a consensus as to whether to proceed with delete/redirect/merge as far as I can tell -- though there is a consensus that stand-alone articles on these schools should generally be erased as such. There is also controversy as to whether schools through grades 10 and 11 should be treated as we treat lower-level schools or as we treat high schools through grade 12. Building consensus, and reflecting it in a guideline, would be the best course IMHO. In the interim, if there are any AfDs that are clear as to the result, they can always be SNOWed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we are just differing over terminology. I think what you are calling "delete with redirect" is what I would call "redirect" (which includes blanking the article so all the content is deleted). That seems to be what is usually done with primary and middle schools, rather than outright deletion - although I have sometimes advocated outright deletion when the name of the school was not unique. In a recent discussion here I advocated deletion because the school was closed, but I honestly don't know if that is in line with policy or not. We'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While some editors assert convention is to redirect, the most recent 150 or so closes here have been somewhat split. A good number have been delete, though I would guess the majority have been redirect, and only a very few have been "keep" (we have one being considered right now that appears to be heading towards a keep). The only clear consensus I've seen is that in general the stand-alone article should be deleted -- whether the title is redirected, and whether text is merged, seems not to attract as clear a consensus. A guideline might help clarify matters. My main interest is in enforcing the clear part of the consensus -- that the stand-alone not end up being a stand-alone -- but whether it ends up being a delete, a redirect, or a merge ... and the target of the merge ... is something I don't have a strong feeling about in the normal case. It would help streamline the process if some of these were closed as SNOWs, however, if a consensus is clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are doing is flooding AfD with primary school nominations. You have, at the moment, ~45 open AfD's on schools! With that happening, how do you expect people to pay attention to every single one? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm simply suggesting to the community, as to articles on which I perform a wp:before search, that my view is that I understand that (in those cases) the consensus position on such schools is to delete them, or redirect them if the community deems that preferable. Nobody is required to pay attention to every AfD, let alone every one. But clearly the AfDs have in general attracted sufficient attention for a close. And in the vast majority of the closes, the view has been that the article should not be allowed to continue to stand as a stand-alone article. I understand that your view in many of these AfDs has been a non-consensus one to keep the article. But that should not lead you to attack me as you have. IMHO. Happy new year.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are doing is flooding AfD with primary school nominations. You have, at the moment, ~45 open AfD's on schools! With that happening, how do you expect people to pay attention to every single one? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While some editors assert convention is to redirect, the most recent 150 or so closes here have been somewhat split. A good number have been delete, though I would guess the majority have been redirect, and only a very few have been "keep" (we have one being considered right now that appears to be heading towards a keep). The only clear consensus I've seen is that in general the stand-alone article should be deleted -- whether the title is redirected, and whether text is merged, seems not to attract as clear a consensus. A guideline might help clarify matters. My main interest is in enforcing the clear part of the consensus -- that the stand-alone not end up being a stand-alone -- but whether it ends up being a delete, a redirect, or a merge ... and the target of the merge ... is something I don't have a strong feeling about in the normal case. It would help streamline the process if some of these were closed as SNOWs, however, if a consensus is clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we are just differing over terminology. I think what you are calling "delete with redirect" is what I would call "redirect" (which includes blanking the article so all the content is deleted). That seems to be what is usually done with primary and middle schools, rather than outright deletion - although I have sometimes advocated outright deletion when the name of the school was not unique. In a recent discussion here I advocated deletion because the school was closed, but I honestly don't know if that is in line with policy or not. We'll see. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with a delete. And believe that the stand-alone article should be deleted, whether or not there is a redirect, and whether or not there is a merge. As an alternative to delete (and nothing more), I would accept a redirect. I've seen fair share of controversy at these AfDs, over the last 150 or so. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearwood Primary School (2nd nomination). So this is not a situation in which I would like to myself redirect an article, as have a dozen editors have spoken out this week against anything other than a keep, and there is not a consensus as to whether to proceed with delete/redirect/merge as far as I can tell -- though there is a consensus that stand-alone articles on these schools should generally be erased as such. There is also controversy as to whether schools through grades 10 and 11 should be treated as we treat lower-level schools or as we treat high schools through grade 12. Building consensus, and reflecting it in a guideline, would be the best course IMHO. In the interim, if there are any AfDs that are clear as to the result, they can always be SNOWed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is no such action as "delete with redirect" per your initial proposal. Redirect leaves a redirect page, and is different from deletion which does not. Redirect can be done boldly, especially in the case of elementary/middle schools where it is supported by Wikipedia consensus. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD." --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Both "delete and redirect" and "redirect" are legitimate recommendations in an AfD and legitimate outcome. In the case of an article such as this one, where the existing content is not particularly notable but not problematic either, a plain "redirect" would be fine -- the page would be changed to a redirect but the edit history would be preserved. On the other hand, suppose someone created a page titled Joe R. Biden Jr., with the following content: "Joe R. Biden Jr. is the Vice President of the United States. He is a big jerk and a dummy and he smells bad too!!!" In that case, it would be appropriate to delete the page and then redirect it to Joe Biden, because the edit history would not be worth preserving. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, but blank and merge any useful content to per usual practice. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are blanked and redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (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.