Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overstone Combined 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 no consensus (11 keep, 11 delete, 4 merge). Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overstone Combined School[edit]

UE, D. ComCat 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please come and comment in ongoing discussion at WP:SCH. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 05:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me say this and make myself very clear: 1) Articles for Deletion is not some little separate fiefdom of Wikipedia. Using shorthand that others may not be able to interpret ("AfD-speak", etc.) is not acceptable. If you are going to take the time to comment here, use real words and phrases that everyone can understand. 2) Wikipedia is not a government or bureaucracy. Bloc voting and the misuse of prior discussions as reasons to keep all articles of a particular type is invalid and fails to deal with the peculiarities of individual situations that each article may have. Recommendations to delete something based solely on legalistic "precedent" is nonsensical and may be ignored by those who eventually close particular AfD discussions. Thanks Bumm13 06:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Please note that this user has a history of disruptive nominations, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat for details. Silensor 06:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an elementary school. Durova 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire, this is a tiny stub. Note that writing "UE, D" to nominate things is not at all better than "NN, D". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Inclusionist Bloc Cabal Lesbian Bicycle "Inherent Notability" KEEP on this clearly notable foundation school serving a rural community in Buckinghamshire.--Nicodemus75 08:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire. Edwardian 08:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire. I can't see anything that warrants a separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, preferably separately to allow for organic growth, maintain membership of Category:Primary Schools in Buckinghamshire, and keep the external links off the page for Wing. Kappa 12:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An article doesn't have to be on a separate page to allow for organic growth as long as it's properly redirected after being merged so people can find it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep all schools. Please note that this user has a history of disruptive nominations, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat for details. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's something about this school that makes it worthy of an article, it hasn't been mentioned in the article yet. - Andre Engels 14:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few schools matter/For our Wikipedia/They're not notable. There. Now that I've expressed my belief in haiku, who could disagree with me? Lord Bob 16:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per schools debate, comcat please respond to RFC.--Pypex 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools have no inherent notability.--Isotope23 17:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Dottore So 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-famous schools below the high-school level. — Haeleth Talk 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Pre-16 age range too young to make it notable without some other qualifying factor, IMO. This has none. — RJH 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this school is important and verifiable also Yuckfoo 18:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, and Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire. Per developing consensus at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 19:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN anklebiter school Pete.Hurd 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ Sorry, but, neither article nor subsequent discussion demonstrates notability. --William Pietri 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing my votes on schools until I understand the issue better. --William Pietri 05:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...E. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. Even primary schools are more notable than many other items which are kept with less controversy. CalJW 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH and help end this fractitious debate. D e nni ☯ 03:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Voting merge is the same as voting Keep on a school. Vegaswikian 06:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no harm in allowing these sort of articles, especially after considering the amount of fictitious minutiae that is documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 07:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is harm in allowing very short school articles. It ensures constant bickering about how much of them to include. Anyway, that's not a proper inclusion guideline. One should consider if it improves Wikipedia rather than not harming it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what Jimbo says: [1].--Nicodemus75 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point? Jimbo was also a porn producer? So his opinion is relative if you ask me.Gateman1997 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great, now you're insulting the founder of Wikipedia. Silensor 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        What's the insult? He did produce porn. This isn't an insult, it's FACT. And his opinion is relative, just like any other user.Gateman1997 22:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does this mean, how does being a porn producer change the relationship of his opinion? Yamaguchi先生 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm just saying he's a porn producer. Take it as you will. Gateman1997 19:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable school. Klonimus 08:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Setting aside for a moment whether a school needs to be particularly notable to be encyclopedic, do you feel that this is a particularly notable school, or that all schools are encyclopedic subjects? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it your intention to run around every editor who votes on a school nomination with the qualifier "this school is notable" and repeat the same question? Why aren't nominations that say "non-notable schools" or "NN, D." or "utterly devoid of content" challenged by you with the same frequency and veracity? Why do you blindly accept when a nominator claims "non-notable school" but when someone votes "keep" because he thinks the school is notable, there is suddenly a need to hall-monitor him?--Nicodemus75 09:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No harassment involved, and I wasn't planning on dragging him into a justification of his stance. I was just curious if he was saying that this was a notable school, or that all schools are encyclopedic. That's why I said that I was setting aside the issue of whether schools need to be notable to be encyclopedic. The only reason I singled out Klonimus is because I remember seeing his name multiple times, but couldn't remember how he felt. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verifiable --redstucco 09:33, 14 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.