Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thames High School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thames High School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was 16 delete 11 keep (+1 believed to be sock puppet). No consensus, so article kept. Cool Hand Luke 05:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

School and non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Just a school like any other, only with less to say about it than most, it seems. Now I'm assured that a silent, non-voting majority wants all schools kept, but votes count. This is a substub that says nothing about its subject and a subject that we have no reason to believe is of interest. If it is of interest, then a phone book tells as much as this does. Geogre 01:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • D Nothing out of the ordinary here. Chris 02:31, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is just a school. I wish people would stop making articles about high schools. NeoJustin 03:32 Oct. 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. --Improv 17:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable school page. Nadavspi 00:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A school. Intrigue 22:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Non-notable. Delete. RickK 22:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Rick still won't read deletion policy - there is no mention of notability. Mark Richards 01:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Once again, this is certainly open to interpretation, but as I (and apparently many other users considering the amount of times this is used as justification) read the policy, no potential to become encyclopedic is a category that includes notability. I have not yet read an encyclopedia, whether general knowledge or on a specific topic, that includes everything on a subject. Notability is an important part of being encyclopedic as encyclopedias by their very nature are supposed to distill what is essential about a field, casting off those things that are not worth mentioning. One person's minutae is another person's key element, which is why we vote on these things rather than speedy them, but notability is a criteria. Indrian 02:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • You have not read an encyclopedia that has this information because Wikipedia is among the first of its kind. It is logical fallacy to say something is false/wrong because it was never done before (since by extention nothing would ever get done as there is always a first time for everything). --ShaunMacPherson 19:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I do not take kindly to being interrupted. Wikipedia is not among the first of its kind: it is among the first of its kind in a new medium. This does mean that more information and more entries can be included, but that does not mean that standards should be relaxed to the point that wikipedia no longer resembles an encyclopedia. There is no logical fallacy here. You are more than welcome to disagree about what is notable or not, but limitless (or nearly so at least) capacity does not mean throwing out all standards, or even reducing them to a harmful degree. In my personal opinion, allowing in articles that fail a basic (and yes, inherently subjective) standard of notability is not condusive to constructing a good encyclopedia, and therefore, the entires in question are not encyclopedic and out of line with policy. You are free to disagree with that opinion, just make sure you have the arguements of those who respectfully disagree with your view straight. You can rest assured that I will abide by the will of the group at large. Indrian 19:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • But the only reason articles of this sort do not "resemble an encyclopedia" is that deletionists kill them before they have time to develop. Wikipedia should have a much broader scope than any paper encyclopedia, because it can have a broader scope than any paper encyclopedia. --L33tminion 16:24, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • Why do they need time to develop? If the person creating the article thinks this one school is so all-fired important, why don't they tell us what's so important about it to begin with? Is five days such a hardship? RickK 22:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a stub, famous people likely graduated from this school. Give it time to grow, it is worthy. --ShaunMacPherson 19:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • This is a specious statement. Do you really believe that a famous person or people graduated from every single school in the world? RickK 22:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • keep: it's a stub of a school. Posiduck 19:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • ........ and your point is? Chris 03:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not Britanica. If they could, they would likely put in articles about schools too - they can't, that's why people come here for them, which is why WP is becomming more popular. The Recycling Troll 19:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I would certainly not trust the judgement of someone who makes edit comments like this, and I'm not even American. Chris 03:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Kill Gene Ward Smith 03:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Not to be lame, but please be a bit more tasteful in your VfD comments. This is a school we're talking about, and not everybody has such a sense of humour D: —siroχo 13:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not enough info to merge into [[Thames, New Zealand}} - Skysmith 08:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE I hate articles about non-notable schools.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Posiduck said. -- WOT
  • Delete. Mikkalai 23:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Florescentbulb 23:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Sock puppet. RickK 22:45, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a real place. Trollminator 00:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • So is my bathroom. RickK`
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, et cetera, et cetera. -- [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. —siroχo 13:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no objection to merging it into the place article and redirecting, but I see no goog reason to delete school stubs simply because they are school stubs. older≠wiser 15:03, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deletion of this article does not improve Wikipedia. People looking for information on this subject can only be inconvenienced by this delete, without making things better for the larger group who is looking for other information (as it is unlikely they would enter "Thames High School" into the search box if looking for other information that resides on Wikipedia). Merely being about a school is a poor reason to delete a valid stub. --L33tminion 16:19, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • People looking for information on this subject can only be inconvenienced by this delete. People looking for information on this subject are better off looking on Google for the school's official site and contact details. Chris 04:44, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Josiah 06:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Nought 22:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. ugen64 01:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find this debate about schools rather amusing... what I think is that if it does no harm on Wikipedia, it should be left alone. Other than that, someone seriously needs to come up with a coherent policy regarding schools so we don't waste time arguing over every single school that comes up.Enochlau 04:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no harm in keeping it. -- JamesTeterenko 06:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I thought that non-notability was really supposed to be the deletion criterion for schools below high school, and that high schools were sort of notable-until-proven-non-notable. That having been said, if every school that now has random drug-testing is notable, way too many schools are becoming notable. The only thing this school has going for it seems to be that it is a) really, really old by North American standards and b) not in North America
Rlquall 04:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thames_High_School&oldid=1171508506"