Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Y. Jackson Secondary School

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 of the debate was KEEP by community decision. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 03:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A. Y. Jackson Secondary School[edit]

Just wanted to point out guys, when i nominated this, all the links were red--Herzog 03:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this may have pointed to something at one time, but now this page is useless --Herzog 04:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete (winces), a dab page pointing to two red links (and nothing else) is a speedy candidate as containing no content as far as I'm concerned. Proto t c 15:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep now that redlinks have turned blue. Proto t c 13:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep not a valid speedy deletion candidate as it has more than "no content". It lists two high schools with the name, and their locations.--Nicodemus75 15:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Proto t c 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I was about to go ahead and delete it. If you want addresses, use the Yellow Pages. The page is a dab, but it does not disambiguate articles, which is what dab pages are for. Further, having the "information" that there are two schools with the name is utterly useless. If we really, really, really want to make sure that someone can find out that there are schools by that name, put the information in the "Schools of Ottowa" article. If there isn't one, make one, but don't argue that broken pointers to non-existent places are "content." Geogre 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation pages with no existing articles have always been accepted, and we have many thousands of them. There is no obligation for disambig pages to have content, because they are not articles. - SimonP 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I nominated it for speedy deletion, and SimonP just removed the tag. I firmly believe this should be speedily deleted, as should any and all other dab pages that disambiguate between nothing, and nothing (i.e., pointless). Geogre put it better than me. Failing this, my vote is delete. Proto t c 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - These have always been standard practice. A disambig is not an article, it is a technical page that has no need for content. Why wait for one of the articles to be created, then have to move it, and disambiguate all the incoming links. The red links should not be pointing to the same place, even if that place doesn't contain an article. Over the years I've literally created hundreds of these pages, and they have never before been deleted. The various missing encyclopedia articles projects in particular tend to generate hundreds of these pages. - SimonP 16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as having no content, just like I'd vote to speedy delete any disambiguation that, as Proto puts it, "disambiguate between nothing, and nothing". I can't recall any times this was tested previously on AfD off-hand, although I'm sure there have been such times, so I can but go with what I think. Lord Bob 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to keep as a now-valid disambiguation, even if it does disambiguate between two (shudder) school articles. Disambiguation between bad things is still valid disambiguation! Lord Bob 22:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-disambiguating dab pages —Wahoofive (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. Delete voters please have a little more consideration for the value of other contributors' time. Kappa 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Perfectly good disambiguation page. I would remind other editors that we're building an encyclopedia, and the game of "pick an article at random and try to think of an excuse to delete it" is not compatible with that aim. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful disambig page.Gateman1997 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think a dab page with redlinks warrants an AfD (there are plenty of geographical dab pages. many of which contain nothing but redlinks). I think such dab pages simply reflect a request to have pages created about those subjects, and also provide a useful service by having properly-titled pages ready for editing. However, the point is moot in this case since the dab page now contains no redlinks. Mindmatrix 20:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP, but would just say to Kappa and Tony Sidaway that there's no need to attack the nomination in this case, which seems to me entirely good-faith and reasonable. And we've certainly clarified a useful piece of policy here, today. AndyJones 01:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it appears to be a useful disambiguation page. Yamaguchi先生 09:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a disambig page. Also, stop nominating schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't order people about what to and what not to nominate. Proto t c 13:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop wasting everyone's time with doomed nominations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is now a disambiguation page that links to two valid stubs, and not to redlinks. Ground Zero | t 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there is no red links and disambiguations are useful really Yuckfoo 00:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least its a disambiguation --JAranda | watz sup 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful now. --Vsion 09:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:35, 13 November 2005 (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.