Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)

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. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana)[edit]

POV rant, abuses people, unencyclopedic, listed here because others and I have attempted to save the page with past edits. As an admin, I cannot speedy delete since the edit history is too long. It needs group consensus here. (NOTE: This is only for a partial deletion of the article's history, not a vote to get rid of any future article with this name) Davodd 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (revised 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per precedents of schools AfDs. Joelito 23:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Carroll High School (Fort Wayne, Indiana) and look at its history. Instead of the knee-jerk "It's a school, therefore it must stay" mindset, I urge you to re-think this vote. I understand the importance of schools and school-related articles, (I initiated Wikiproject:Schools more than 2 years ago) but this article and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. It needs deleted and started over from scratchwith a cleansed history. Davodd 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~If it is going to be kept on the basis that schools are ipso facto notable it needs a total rewrite.~~ Metamagician3000 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it so hard to revert NPOV edits? BTW, I got rid of the libelous material. Aplomado - U T C 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are voting to keep his article - which was started as a vandal's attack and its archived edit history is clogging the WP servers with obscene name-calling, libelous comments, and attacks on real, living people. That is exposing the WP Foundation to possible legal action. - Davodd 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, delete the libelous info and move on with your life. Sheesh. Aplomado - U T C 00:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am trying to do here - but you are voting to keep them. Davodd 00:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the entire article, I'm talking about just the libel. If you would take a second to look at the article, you would see that the libel has been removed. Aplomado - U T C 00:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you have only been a member of Wikipedia for a couple of months. The libel exists archived forever and publicly viewable on Wikipedia servers in the article's edit history. I am trying to get permission to delete the parts of the history that are libelous. Sorry for the confusion. Davodd 00:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your condescending remarks notwithstanding, I know perfectly well that the history is available. It's not necessary to delete entire articles every time something libelous happens to show up in them, which is all the time. Aplomado - U T C 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you were offended. I am not asking to delete the article - I am asking to selectively delete various vandal-type edits from multiple IP addresses, sockpuppets and known vandals while keeping the legit edits. 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep per WP:SCH. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SCH says nothing about keeping article histories of school entries that started out as vandalism but have too many edits to qualify for speedy delete. Davodd 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to a partial history deletion. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High school. The reasons put forward for deletion carry no weight. Hawkestone 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, welcome to another new user! I hope you stay and help Wikipedia improve for years to come. I am only seeking permission to clean up the article's history - not prevent any article about this school in the future. Thanks, and sorry for the confusion. - Davodd 00:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are better avenues for this. If you delete the history, what's to stop someone from sticking that nonsense in again and fouling things up? Aplomado - U T C 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally these are caught early on. But occasionally we need to go through this process - particularly if an article doesn't get the attention of our vandal fighters from the get-go. Davodd 01:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rfrisbie^talk 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current attack-free revision per precedent, but delete the history. Note: the history of an article with such libel can and often is deleted by an admin, selectively, without an AFD. AFDs are just for total removal of an aricle. So, please don't even wait for this AFD to finisih, and purge the attack history. I'm sorry, but I've seen this selective deletion with other articles (during an AFD, or after a keep), and just don't see the big deal. --Rob 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep Can you show some precedence for deleting article history? The way I see it that would remove all evidence of user contribution to the article, both positive and negative and therefore defeating the purpose of the Wikipedia licence. I also think this article should be kept, and users who vandalise warned or banned. Deleting article history isnt going to stop them. Tyhopho 07:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Recently I requested it to be done for Roy Gordon Lawrence. I think GFDL is a a concern. But this has solutions:
  - Mere lists of facts aren't copyrightable. Most of this article, is that, and as such, its not a concern
  - If the good content is substantially different then the bad content (e.g. a total rewrite) it's a new work. This is just like if you take contents from an external web site, and totally reword it. That's ok. Basically, I'm saying the vandals have a copyright, and works derived from that, but not works that aren't derived from it. The fact two versions exist in the same article's history, does not mean one was is truly derived from another (retaining mere facts does not count).
  - We can record a list of edits (user id/datestamps) in the talk page, for attribution purposes
  - Finally, given that there is so little content, if any admin wishes to, without an AFD, they can just go ahead and delete the article *while* immedidately remaking it with new content (e.g. a substub).
- Finally, I welcome any admin to interpret my vote to mean I want the attacks gone, and I want an article for this school to exist, however that is accomplished, whatever has to be done. --Rob 08:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is precendent for deleting edits from history such as personal information in edit summaries and in cases of WP:LIBEL. Even if an admin cannot undelete only the top revision a developer can fix it, but I don't think this is that important. I agree that what you suggest would be advisable, but I'm sure people are breaking GDFL with history deletions, cut+paste moves, and other things so I'm not sure people care. Kotepho 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as it pains me, WP:SCHOOL is now established policy. And the history, even if "libellous" (which I doubt), does not leave us open to legal threat. Batmanand | Talk 08:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not policy, it's just that a cabal of users steadfastly refuses to accept that fact. Just zis Guy you know? 09:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a policy on schools, but there is precedent. As for the silly cabal comment: Jimbo said we aught to allow articles like this (minus POV and attacks, of course), so I guesse he must be in on the "cabal" as well. --Rob 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as a stub or Treat as copyvio (blank, rewrite on /Temp, delete and replace with /Temp). Kotepho 11:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the libel. Newspaper semi-covers it. I'll look for more stuff from periodicals such as the supposed NYT article. Kotepho 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1] [2] [3] [4]. Kotepho 11:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — PoV issues are not a valid reason for a delete. Valid High Schools are notable institutions IMO. :) — RJH 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't the right process. CalJW 01:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For future reference, this (WP:AFD) is not the place to bring an article that requires cleanup. Silensor 02:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you don't live in NACS school district you could not possible understand the context of this and that this article, in fact, is a quality well-written piece on how the school is viewed. It is neutral and considers both sides while portraying what the media has reported. Keep it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.193.210 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: No, actually your edits are extremely biased and will be reverted by me every time you add them. You are well on your way to a ban if you continue. Aplomado - U T C 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: That User is a repeat vandal, part of a teenage sockpuppet cabal and already has been banned. - Davodd 19:49, 14 April 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.