Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Christopher Parham (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 29 July 2006 (→Totals: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I've tablified the results, in an attempt to make them more legible. Please tell me if you like it or not. It may be worth considering to add a table border. Radiant_* 07:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Can some explain the point of this "All the World's Schools Project"?

Hi, Tony, I am genuinely puzzled. I see that in one past debate you wrote

Schools are generally regarded as eminently noteworthy. I don't know about your country, but my country has lists of the institutions and sends inspectors round. We spend billions of pounds maintaining them, our kids spend most of their waking lives in them, and to put it briefly schools are a huge part of the society in my country--far more so than, say, the armed forces, and second only to the public health service. As to encyclopedic, that usually comes down to neutrality and verifiability. Because of the aforementioned inspections and the public appetite for information on schools, there is plenty of verifiable information about them. I shouldn't worry that anyone would mistake a school article for "meaningless garbage" and delete it. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

But it seems to me this misses the point. Noone would deny that schools and public education are terribly important. But why oh why does it follow that the world needs an individual Misplaced Pages article on every single school in the entire world? I really don't get it. Is it some kind of morale boosting effort? A plea for donations to the Alumni fund? An attempt to garner voter support for referendums to increase school spending? Please, in one paragraph, what is your goal here? If you can explain it, maybe I'll go back and change all my nay votes on the currently outstanding referendums you listed.---CH (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I archived my suggestions on avoiding this kind of VfD at All the world's whatever.---CH (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

GRider Link

It had previously been decided to remove all reference to partisan pages from this page and keep Schoolwatch neutral when it comes to schools per discussions between myself Tony Sidaway and others. GRider's page is fine on it's own but we don't need a link to a blatant and inflamatory page like his any more then we do to an article on deleting all schools. In addition GRider's page is redundant to this one when it comes down to it.Gateman1997 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a link which corroborates this. As far as I am concerned, both watchlists are useful, the GRider version even more so now that Nicodemus75 has apparently left Misplaced Pages (out of frustration). There is nothing "blatant and inflamatory" about it, and if you wish to create your own list of schools for deletion I don't see why we can't link to that too. Silensor 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding to what I just said, I've found that the pages are not wholly redundant; they seem to have different criteria as to what they will list, and are maintained on different schedules. One is not a mirror image of the other. Silensor 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) At one point I did have my own anti-school page, which is what led to Tony Sidaway and myself discussing and concluding that Schoolwatch should be a neutral site. GRider's page is blatantly pro-school, which is fine, but it has no place being linked to on the neutral site, just as my own page had no business being linked to. I don't have the discussion handy as it happened months ago, but I'll search for it.

Thank you. Perhaps you should reinstate your anti-school page if you feel the GRider one is too pro-inclusionist somehow, for balance.  ;-) Silensor 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I think that would be counter productive, however if users on both sides don't start taking the WP:SCH proposal seriously I'll seriously consider organizing an anti-school cabal.Gateman1997 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link again. It's quite redundant, but that's not a huge problem. The real problem is it seems to be seen as divisive. Those wanting/supporting it, already know about it (don't need a link). Anyway, I would ask somebody wishing its return to please explain exactly what unique value GRider's page has, that's not here. --Rob 03:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is a general consensus that the link to User:GRider/Schoolwatch is too controversial for the Misplaced Pages:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive, I have no objection to it being removed. My attachment to the GRider Schoolwatch Programme is partially a sentimental one, but I also find it to be much easier to update. They both serve their own purpose, and as Rob said those who wish to track it already know of it. Bahn Mi 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whiting Lane Elementary School

This article was speedied less than an hour into the "debate." Per precedent for elementary schools, they probably shouldn't be speedied, as there's no mention of it being nonsense or a hoax. Does this deserve a deletion review? — Rebelguys2 23:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked the admin for his reasoning. If it was truly {{db-empty}}, then deletion was ok. For instance, if it didn't say where the school was, and there could be more than one, than deletion may be justified, for lack of context. If there was adequate context, then hopefully the admin will undelete/relist it. Otherwise, a review would be warranted. --Rob 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The speed at which that deletion was carried out made me think that there was a justifiable reason. But, on the off chance that the "elementary school vanity" and "cleanup tag" argument could possibly imply that it was not completely "empty," I thought it best to raise a flag over here. — Rebelguys2 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not an empty article, so the speedy deletion may have been somewhat dubious. The contents before being deleted were as follows:

Whiting Lane Elementary School is the greatest elementary school of all time. Located in West Hartford, CT, it is truly a great place to send your child daily.

End of article. Not much content was here, I'm afraid, but on that same token, it was not necessary to preemptively delete it either. Silensor 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah that speedy deletion was out-of-process, since the article adequately identifies the topic, and we have huge numbers of geo-stubs that do no more. No point taking it to deletion review though, simpler just to recreate it. Kappa 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lafayette High School (St. Joseph)

Fix it up or it's going to AfD. Denni ☯ 02:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fix up your attitude or you're going to RFC. This is not the place to make demands, if you want an article to be cleaned up, use {{cleanup-school}} and try asking politely. Silensor 02:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Totals

I've removed the totals as needless scorecounting. Precendents aren't binding in AFD, and boiling everything down to numbers is often misleading.

I'm curious what purpose the numbers actually serve. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The page doesn't say anything about "precendents". The totals give an exact sense of how many nominations were made in a given month. Without the totals, users would have to add up the nominations themselves. I see no reason to remove that information from the page so I will again revert. Please seek consensus prior to removing valid content from the page. --JJay 21:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as valid content. Please seek consensus before reverting good-faith edits. ¬_¬

Why would someone need to know how many nominations were made in a month? What purpose does that information serve? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page exists to monitor deletions (afd, prod, speedy, etc) of school-related articles. The totals give a month-to-month overview of the trend in nominations, deletions, etc. It is, in my opinion, highly relevant to have that sort of information on this page. Your edit may have been in good faith....however, not understanding the "purpose" of valid content is not a license to remove it without discussion. --JJay 21:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No one here is "scorecounting", as you put it. Please seek consensus before reverting JJay's change. Silensor 21:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is being cited as source for a precedent. (Example) Precedent isn't binding on AFD and nobody is explaining any other reason that the result totals are there as anything but scorecounting. (It's nice that your opinion is that it's valid, but I'd rather like to know what reasoning you have; why is the "trend" useful or important, and more useful or important than disruption of AFD by implying that precedent is binding?) What other purpose do the totals serve? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Precedent isn't binding but obviously it's significant. Take for instance WP:MUSIC, the template at the top notes that the page is useful because it explains precedent (that is, what people have done before in similar situations). Christopher Parham (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone is citing the page as a precedent, then I would assume the proper response would be to respond by saying that "Precedent isn't binding on AFD". If someone is "disrupting" an AfD, there are certainly ways of dealing with the individual "disruption". As I indicated, the totals give a rapid overview of the month-to-month trend in deletion of school articles. This information is highly useful for the many people working here on improving school articles. The information demonstrates whether attempts to improve school articles are meeting community acceptance and validation. As you know, school articles are frequently improved during the AfD/Prod process. The totals highlight the outcome of these efforts. They also allow me to quickly review the articles that were deleted in order to try to ascertain the reasons for the deletion. You may not consider that to be "valid" - perhaps because you do not edit school articles - but it is a real tool in the overall school project. --JJay 22:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)