Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 17 June 2007

Clayton Middle/High School

Clayton Middle/High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

NN middle school/high school, recreated after prod. Morgan Wick 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator seems to be laboring under the misconception that this is a middle school. It is a combined middle AND high school. As the AfD was created within a mere three minutes of the article's creation, without any opportunity provided to expand the article beyond a stub, it would seem that this nomination is in staggeringly bad faith. Alansohn 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? I don't see any notability. Semantic debates and (considering the prod) timing issues have nothing to do with it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The article was created and then nominated three minutes later. There's semantics and then there's a display of bad faith. The apparent failure to look at the article, as evidenced by the hasty correction of the nomination, seems to be further evidence of bad faith. Alansohn 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • What sort of "bad faith" could possibly be involved? I didn't even see the earlier version of the article. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • You need some reasons why starting an AfD three minutes after an article was created is in bad faith? Let's take a look at Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol and tick off a few problems: 1) "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."; 2) "Improving new pages: Style problems. First, try to fix any style problems yourself. If you cannot, add one or more specific cleanup tags for pages which need tidying up. In particular, the following tags are common:... {{unreferenced|article}} -- for articles that conspicuously lack references."; 3) "Articles without sources The best time to ask for sources is when an article is fresh and the contributor is still around to ask about the origin of the information in it. Tag articles with {{unreferenced}} and let the contributor know with {{subst:sources-warn}}, or try to find some yourself. If there aren't any, it might need to be deleted." Note that article "might need to be deleted" only after legitimate attempts have been made to obtain sources.; 4) "Be hesitant to list articles on Misplaced Pages:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." There is a well-defined process for handling new articles. Read and learn. Alansohn 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article obviously fails WP:N as notability is not even asserted, so it should be speedied, and it fails WP:V as none of the asserted facts are cited to reliable sources. Also, could we please try to assume good faith and lay off the bullying and rhetoric? This is a place to discuss content, not other users. Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When an editor nominates an article for deletion three minutes after creation of a stub, there is simply no time to add the sources necessary to establish notability. This AfD is some of the most shameless bad faith I've seen. Alansohn 04:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually you had five days before that to establish notability, as this page existed before, was prodded, and was deleted. And you knew that. Evidently the five days that the prod was up wasn't enough for you either, or else it wouldn't have been deleted. And even if it hadn't been sourced, could you have at least tried to assert notability? On Misplaced Pages, we tag pages for speedy deletion and prod them the instant they're created (I could cite a gazillion examples but they tend to be, well, deleted); I see no reason why AfD should be any different. Don't use a long series of edits to get an article to the state you want it in; use the Preview function if need be. You better be ready to defend it the instant you create it. Morgan Wick 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I did not know that. If you had ever created an article here on Misplaced Pages, You would know that's not the case. This article wasn't prod'ed. You clearly hadn't even read the article and nominated it for deletion three minutes after creation. You could have tried to wait a few minutes more, but you failed to do so. When you nominate an article you have to be prepared to justify your actions and you have utterly failed to do so. Three minutes is shameless. Alansohn 04:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This version was never prod'd, but a prior version was. And you knew, at the very least, the article had existed before and been deleted, because when you recreated it it was with an edit summary of "recreate article", as I've already cited before. Now, I think you might have a better chance at getting your "time" to establish notability (which, again, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE BEFORE YOU (RE)CREATED THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE - you actually have all the time in the world to write an article to your standards before you send it in, did you know that?) if you actually, I don't know, ESTABLISH it (you do have another 5 days, this isn't speedy, sheesh) instead of questioning my faith when even a cursory glance at the facts causes your argument to fall apart. Morgan Wick 05:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:CIVIL. That's all I'm going to say. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and bulk up High Schools are inherently notable as are all towns and cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by their frequent deletion at AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Putting an article up for deletion three minutes after creation is inherently uncivil. Alansohn 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whether or not that is true, it doesn't excuse others from compliance with WP:CIVIL. And some might argue that it is inherently uncivil for an experienced editor to post an article that obviously does not comply with WP:N and WP:V, to the point where speedy deletion is appropriate. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Where does it say that in WP:CIVIL? I'm sure the many newpage patrollers that tag pages for speedy deletion or prodding within one minute after creation would love to know that they've been "inherently uncivil". And I hope you removed my comments unintentionally, instead of trying to prove a point by doing so. Morgan Wick 06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You still refuse to justify your utterly uncivil actions. You put up for deletion an article that you clearly never read, as you have had to do research to correct your inaccurate nomination and come up with rationalizations after the fact to justify why you had created this AfD. Was the nomination unintentional, perhaps? The fact that other individuals are even less civil than you are does not justify putting up an article for deletion three minutes after creation. Alansohn 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, AfD nominations are rather complex and involved for them to be made "unintentionally". You keep resorting to ad hominem attacks (and demonstrating your complete unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages deletion process) instead of actually demonstrating the subject's notability. The entire text of the article, aside from a listing of the administration and some external links, is "Clayton High School are a comprehensive community public high school that serves students in ninth through twelfth grades from Clayton, in Gloucester County, New Jersey, United States, as part of the Clayton Public Schools." That doesn't sound like it's more notable than any other high school. Now, you have a choice. You can demonstrate why the subject of this article is notable and deserves to have a Misplaced Pages article, or at least why you felt it deserved one (because surely you would never create an article if you didn't think it belonged in Misplaced Pages, being the experienced, dating-to-2005 editor you are, right?) or you can continue questioning my motives on incredibly shaky grounds. Morgan Wick 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, a few random examples of articles tagged for speedy or prod within five minutes or less of creation, most of which might not survive for you to see them: (admittedly by me) ...need I go on? Morgan Wick 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I will: . Morgan Wick 07:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless non-trivial coverage or reliable sources documenting multiple notable alumni can be found. Also regarding the timing of the AfD: sources are not an afterthought which you go looking for a few days after you've created an article, they should be used for every single fact you put into the article in the first place starting from the first edit. Articles which lack sources and assertions of notability not only run the risk of being put up for AfD quickly, they run the risk of getting immediately speedily deleted. cab 10:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what I've been trying to tell this guy. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - The article should be merged into a more encompassing article on the school district. See Wyoming Area for an example. Plm209 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: as failing WP:V, WP:NN. At very first glance I was going to agree (rare as that is) with Alansohn that AfDing a high school article three minutes after creation is indeed obnoxious. I'm afraid my view's flipped 180 degrees when I see that Alansohn recreated a deleted article. He is no rookie, and should know better both to recreate a deleted article as an unreferenced stub almost entirely lacking in content, and to keep on hammering on the three minutes point knowing full well that the article had far longer than that to be sourced and receive more than barebones content. While we're citing rules, how about the one that it is up to the editors who want to save a threatened article to provide proper sourcing and content?  RGTraynor  13:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: I did not know the previous article existed, and I did know it had been deleted. In response to a request from a new user, I created the article, with the indication that the user had committed to expand the article with addition material as he has done for dozens of other school articles. I only discovered that the article had been deleted when I clicked on "edit" and saw a mention that an earlier article had been deleted. I have no idea what was (or was not) in this earlier article and had no expectation that the article would stay as a stub for long. While it is possible to create an article as a user page and then make it a regular page after the article has been improved to meet the demands of the instant deleters, it is far more difficult to collaborate with other Misplaced Pages editors in this manner. I'd love to create fully-formed Featured Article candidates as new articles, but any non-rookie editor would know that that is not the case. 99.99% of the best articles on Misplaced Pages start as stubs. Featured Article Buckingham Palace began with seven words. While Clayton Middle/High School is no Buckingham Palace, three minutes is simply an unreasonable and unjustifiable period of time in which to create a fully-formed article. Alansohn 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You go tell that guy he can create his own new articles. And that's the sort of thing you should have said at the very start of this debate, or at least when I brought up that the article was deleted before, so you didn't come off as uncivil and skirting the issues I was raising. I'm a bit skeptical we should be creating articles for new users at all, certainly when we don't know why we should (if you wouldn't vote for it on an AfD you shouldn't create it for them), but I'm baffled why those people don't make that clear at the start when those pages are inevitably listed on AfD. I don't expect articles to be fully-formed featured articles at creation, but a good stub article should have at least a claim to notability, while this has none. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Stop already with the 3 minutes. From the time it was nominated until right now has been over 12 hours. Instead of sitting on the AfD hitting refresh to every reply, get some reliable sources and improve the article to keep it (although I highly doubt this Middle/High School is notable anyways -- listing links to the homepage of the school does not count for notability). This article will NEVER survive if you just sit here arguing, without backing up your claim. If you just recreated it for a different user, then it should be on them to assert it's notability, but since you have been arguing over 12 hours on this, you apparantly have some sort of interest in the article. Get in gear and work on the article instead of going back and forth and accomplishing nothing. --sumnjim 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: A system that places a gun at the head of any individual creating an article by allowing creation of an AfD within three minutes is unjustifiable. The individual who requested the article has been adding sources and other material demonstrating notability to area schools and noticed that this article didn't exist. The burden is on the user who asked for this article to establish notability. I don't blame the newbie who requested the article for backing away from this inherently destructive process and the abusive editors who won't tolerate a stub. Where are these perfect articles supposed to sprout from in under three minutes? What is your interest in deleting this article? Alansohn 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My intent? How about keeping crap off of[REDACTED] when I see it? Having to argue with you is a waste of my time, and I refuse to do it any longer. Either assert it's notability by providing WP:RS or it's going to be deleted, simple as that. You repeatedly doing this non-sense about 3 minutes is complete absurdity. I don't care if it was nominated .00000000001 seconds after creation. It must be NOTABLE to stay in Wiki. Assert the notability. Prove it should stay. If you reply again with your same nonsense, it will just show you are not able to assert notability, and just wasting everyone's time. --sumnjim 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:N is not part of the Afd deletion criteria. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as another nn school. Eusebeus 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a Misplaced Pages expert so I don't know how to use those WP:xx reasons every one seems to be giving, but here's what I can say: There is no reason to put this article up for deletion yet. As Alansohn has said repeatedly, it was only up for three minutes. Give me a break. High schools are important entities that should be included in Misplaced Pages because many of them, especially in South Jersey (an old and historic part of the US), have deep roots with their respective towns and are rich in tradition and history. If anyone looks at the edits I'VE made since I first started using Misplaced Pages it won't take them long to see that I'm obviously a Woodbury resident and that I have a vested interest in both the town's page as well as its high school's page. But, one will also see that I frequently edit and contribute to MANY South Jersey high schools' pages (ask Alansohn). If Clayton Middle/High School were to be kept up, I promise that I will add anything relevant or useful to it as time progresses, just like I've done with other schools. I can't promise a long, extensive write-up on it right away, but I (as well as other future contributors) will definitely be adding to it. Keep this article to let it grow! Nothing starts out immediately perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)
  • It would really help if you started doing that now, while the AfD is still going. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no claims of notability, should have been speedy deleted per the CSD rules about non-notable organizations (Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content). Alansohn is being disingenuous by trying to claim that the article was only up for three minutes when it had to have been on PROD for five days before it was deleted, and he knew it had been here before since his creation edit summary said recreation. Regardless of the semantics of who is or is not being civil, the fact of the matter is that Alansohn would rather argue about the merits of the nomination rather than the merits of the article and its subject. Until reliable sources are produced that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill school, it should be deleted. Corvus cornix 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alansohn has already spoken for himself on some of those points above, under RGTraynor's comment. Morgan Wick 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the "new editor" had been here 7 months and had over 400 edits. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I have. But I never studied the wiki how-to's or sat down to learn an in-depth understanding of everything. I basically know how to edit, upload pictures and create links. And most of that I learned through trial and error. In regards to the 400+ edits, most of them are minor touch-ups or one-line links, it's not like I was sitting there writing paragraphs for 400 edits.

• 400 edits is a fairly slow week for many editors; spread out over seven months it's a very small body of work to be promoted past a newbie. A review of the user's edit history, which (as I read it) shows that he has never created a new article, a read of the individual's request and of his comments above, should help wipe off the uncivil tone of the "new editor" remarks. Alansohn 18:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mm, it's the old trial lawyers' adage: if your client is unpleasant, argue the fine points of the law; if the facts are against you, argue pathos and human factors.  RGTraynor  17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And when that doesn't work, start slinging insults with self-righteous truculence. Eusebeus 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes, if the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, pound the table. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And when you have absolutely nothing to say, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table? Alansohn 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That glove's a bit small on me. Perhaps you should try it on? --Butseriouslyfolks 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And when you have absolutely nothing to say a second time, quote trite, but meaningless, adages. No facts, no law. I assume that's why all of you are pounding the table and pulling on the gloves? How about addressing the Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol listed up top. while you're working on witty ripostes. Alansohn 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to say? You're missing a good AfD. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to admire the tenacity despite the vacuity. Let's wait for the "votes" to be declared invalid next.... Eusebeus 22:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's the ability to ignore multiple violations of Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol that I find most impressive. The silence on these multiple violations speaks volumes. Alansohn 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't get excited. We just don't think it applies.

• Is this a pathetic joke? Why should anyone else observe Misplaced Pages policy if all one needs to do is wave it off with an excuse of "We just don't think it applies"? Alansohn 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

--Butseriouslyfolks 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, you misunderstood. We're not rushing to explain the perceived NPP vios because we don't agree with your position that those guidelines apply to this situation. You might as well ask us to explain all of the WP:TPG violations, then dance about giddily when the resulting silence speaks volumes. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The nominator is a new page patroller. The Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol lays out clear policy for how new pages are to be handled. These rules were violated. Which part doesn't apply? For which situation do they apply and why don't they apply here? Putting an article up for AfD three minutes after creation is inexcusable and inherently uncivil. Excusing the violations doesn't help. Alansohn 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Y'know, I've just looked over this WP:NPP a couple times now, and for the life of me, I can't find a single sentence referencing this checklist as being a "policy" or "rules" for which one can claim "violations" (I did note that the entire first paragraph explicitly pertains to not biting newcomers, which tends to suggest that the stroking of veteran editors' sensibilities wasn't foremost in the minds of the author/s). Could you kindly point me to the section of that page which does proclaim WP:NPP to be policy, or to a section anywhere enacting a time frame within which filing an AfD is prima facie uncivil, failing any other consideration? Thanks.  RGTraynor  07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Y'know, the nominator's proudly proclaims himself as a member of the Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol and seems to take some delight and pride in being an active member. While I have rather low expectations of other individuals (which have been met with great frequency), the nominator does not abide by the rules, policies and procedures he himself has adopted. It is these violations that are prima facie uncivil. Alansohn 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deletion criteria do not cover schools, which are not really organisations. People are too fond of pushing speedy deletion without realising that it doesn't cover every class of article (or maybe trying to fool the rest of us into thinking it does). This criterion is intended to cover such things as fan clubs, university societies and minor pressure and political groups, not edifices such as schools. -- Necrothesp 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Clayton Public Schools. Then set up redirects for this and Clayton Middle School and at Clayton High School (a disambig page), just in case someone wants to create stubs for those as well. Too short a stub, extremely unlikely to be expanded to a good article with so little notability. Little to nothing notable per WP:SCHOOL (athletics, academics, location, design, alumni, facilities, news reports, other accomplishments, etc.). Ranked 219th out of 356 schools - therefore notable(?) for being in the bottom third of their class? Seriously now, you want people to know this? --T-dot ( /contribs ) 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm T-dot, sounds to me like I'd be "promoting" Clayton High School if I were to knowingly leave out a FACT that doesn't represent the school well. Just because they're in the bottom third in the state doesn't mean that it's not something that can't go on Misplaced Pages. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of this website to include all human knowledge about every possible subject, regardless of if it's a positive or negative fact? Like I said, give this page time and you'll see the good appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcla2 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the point of this website is not to include all knowledge. It's supposed to be a digital analog (pun intended) of an encyclopedia, so it's supposed to be a good overview that could be used as a reference. It's not supposed to be comprehensive. I know you've been here a while, but I don't think I'm out of line in asking you to read through WP:WWIN for some categories of knowledge that are inappropriate for posting at Misplaced Pages. As for the specific example here, if the school were notable for being low quality, that might warrant a mention, and it might be POV pushing to omit that fact. But I don't think either the school or its ranking are sufficiently notable for inclusion here. If a school was consistently ranked last (or close to last), and that fact was picked up and discussed in a nontrivial manner by newspapers or other published sources, both the school and its ranking would probably be notable. Hope that helps. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my point was that the only in-situ claim for notability, other than perhaps the short list of non-notable executive staff members, is that the school is essentially in the bottom third in the state. This is not particularly inherently notable, either for grandiose goodness or blithering badness, which notability in a school might require. Perhaps if it was DEAD LAST out of 356 schools - now that might be entertaining for the world to see. Anyway, although you raise a great point, I don't see selectively including or excluding the "School Digger" ranking statistics as particularly POV - unless perhaps someone from the rival school across town and ranked in the top 5% was posting it to make a point after losing to them in a baseball game or something. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above discussion.--trey 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Svetovid 20:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, solid reasons Necro. Good work. -jrcla2

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates