Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Wordsworths School
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 keep. sjorford →•← 08:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable. David Johnson [T|C] 20:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, Oscar winning actor, Rugby Union world cup winning sportsman, a teacher from 1945 to 1962 who wrote Lord of the Flies (novel) and won the Nobel Prize for literature? Nah, can't see anything notable there. Come on, even I'd say this is a Keep Average Earthman 21:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Damm, I should have looked more closely at the article. It should be kept of course... David Johnson [T|C] 22:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Nomination fails to comply with deletion policy criteria.--Gene_poole 22:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, which policy are you referring to? android↔talk 02:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The policy that I named 2 lines above where I am posting this response. --Gene_poole 04:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the obtuse non-answer. That was a sincere question. Wikipedia policy is spread out all over the place and sometimes contradicts itself. All I wanted was a link. Sheesh. android↔talk 04:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Probably of a piece with the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic rationale he used on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/El Camino Bible Church. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Gene Poole is just being argumentative. The deletion policy is not all-inclusive, and as long as your nomination was made in good faith, it is valid. While I'm sure there are good arguments for keeping this article, "invalid nomination" is not one of them. Radiant_* 07:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Once more, for the dummies: There is no Wikipedia policy that explicitly names "non-notability" as a valid criterion for article deletion - let alone even defining what the term is supposed to mean. Nominations for deletion made on the basis on "non-notability" are therefore completely, totally and unquestionably invalid. End of story. --Gene_poole 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Once more, for the intellectually dishonest Wikilawyers, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits nomination of articles under any criteria other than bad faith. That's why it's a vote (with discussion) for deletion. There is, though, an explicit prohibtion against double voting through sockpuppets, which I'm glad to see has stopped for certain editors. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lesson in misrepresentation; to my knowledge nobody here has claimed that nominations unsupported by established policy are explicitly forbidden. However, the monotonous regularity with which such nominations are concluded as keepers should serve to illustrate the futility of perpetuating such resource-wasting exercises by nominators seeking to promote as consensus eccentric opinions at variance with precedent and prevailing community attitudes. --Gene_poole 04:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- First, read No personal attacks. Second, you are wrong about the 'monotonous regularity' by which they are kept. Notability is a de facto criterion, and the fact that you don't like it does not give you the right to badger people who do. Civility dictates otherwise. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lesson in misrepresentation; to my knowledge nobody here has claimed that nominations unsupported by established policy are explicitly forbidden. However, the monotonous regularity with which such nominations are concluded as keepers should serve to illustrate the futility of perpetuating such resource-wasting exercises by nominators seeking to promote as consensus eccentric opinions at variance with precedent and prevailing community attitudes. --Gene_poole 04:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Once more, for the intellectually dishonest Wikilawyers, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits nomination of articles under any criteria other than bad faith. That's why it's a vote (with discussion) for deletion. There is, though, an explicit prohibtion against double voting through sockpuppets, which I'm glad to see has stopped for certain editors. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Once more, for the dummies: There is no Wikipedia policy that explicitly names "non-notability" as a valid criterion for article deletion - let alone even defining what the term is supposed to mean. Nominations for deletion made on the basis on "non-notability" are therefore completely, totally and unquestionably invalid. End of story. --Gene_poole 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Gene Poole is just being argumentative. The deletion policy is not all-inclusive, and as long as your nomination was made in good faith, it is valid. While I'm sure there are good arguments for keeping this article, "invalid nomination" is not one of them. Radiant_* 07:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Probably of a piece with the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic rationale he used on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/El Camino Bible Church. --Calton | Talk 05:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the obtuse non-answer. That was a sincere question. Wikipedia policy is spread out all over the place and sometimes contradicts itself. All I wanted was a link. Sheesh. android↔talk 04:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The policy that I named 2 lines above where I am posting this response. --Gene_poole 04:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, which policy are you referring to? android↔talk 02:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. No question. —RaD Man (talk) 01:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, even before I attempt improvement. This school's history and alumni make this school notable, even though notability should not be an issue when it comes to high schools. --BaronLarf 02:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Great example of a notable high school. android↔talk 02:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable school, worthy of inclusion in a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 03:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable alumni and teacher make it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, although there are lots of schools like that. Kappa 05:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A lot of schools with a teacher who later won the Nobel Prize for Literature? I doubt it... Average Earthman 10:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- True, the fact that Lord of the Flies is about schoolchildren makes it more relevant. Kappa 17:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A lot of schools with a teacher who later won the Nobel Prize for Literature? I doubt it... Average Earthman 10:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Make a mention in Salisbury and delete- Skysmith 09:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Are you suggesting that the Salisbury article should be somewhere in the education menu? Oliver Chettle 02:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 'keep it doesnt seem deletable Yuckfoo 21:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable with a good bit of history behind it. --NormanEinstein 14:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Average Earthman's post. ALKIVAR™
09:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.