Content deleted Content added
7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs) →ARS Public School: link |
Dronebogus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:::Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination |
:::Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination |
||
:::And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. [[Streisand effect]]. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
:::And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. [[Streisand effect]]. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::: Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for [[Molon labe]]-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Comment''' if this article had been made now, under identical circumstances, would it have survived a simple PROD? Would it even have passed draft review? I doubt it. We need to stop grandfathering in ancient, low-quality articles based on dated or low-effort consensus, or “no consensus” closes handwaved as “de facto keep” closes. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
* '''Comment''' if this article had been made now, under identical circumstances, would it have survived a simple PROD? Would it even have passed draft review? I doubt it. We need to stop grandfathering in ancient, low-quality articles based on dated or low-effort consensus, or “no consensus” closes handwaved as “de facto keep” closes. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:05, 11 November 2021
ARS Public School
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- ARS Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:RUN OF THE MILL school. Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The previous deletion nomination was open for two weeks before being closed as "no consensus" and nothing has changed since then. If the nominator is unhappy with the result then a deletion review would be more appropriate IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep 17:11, 7 November 2021 is when it closed. Not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted in it, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. No valid reason to start this up again two days after the last AFD. Dream Focus 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons discussed in the first and second nominations. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep 17:11, 7 November 2021 is when it closed. For all the reasons cited above and at the last two nominations for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per discussion, and when an article goes on the rack twice and survives I would think that no further attempt should be made (should be a guideline or policy). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe in short succession, but multiple years apart no because that’s long enough for consensus to radically change. In very long term cases I’d recommend not factoring in the old AfDs at all since standards were radically different back in like 2007 for example. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of notability. And school-articles have to prove their notability since the 2017-RFC. No guessing or canvassing, just proof. The Banner talk 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep per myself twelve days ago, per myself four years ago. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per myself the last time I voted since nothing has changed about it's clear lack of notability since then. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE references to show that its notable now. If so, I'll change my "vote" to keep, but I doubt they can. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The guy who wrote the WP:THREE did explain that people kept misunderstanding his personal essay. Some people would post a dozen sources, and he said no one would look at that many, just post the three best ones and he'd look at that. You don't need Three references to prove notability, two is enough for that as the notability guideline page clearly states. Many are saying Wikipedia:Speedy keep because its a bad nomination. You can't just nominate something again right away because you didn't get the results you wanted. Dream Focus 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what your point is since there isn't even two good references. Also, I didn't re-nominate the article, I probably wouldn't have, and I could care less about what the outcome was last time. So I don't know what your point with any of that is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The guy who wrote the WP:THREE did explain that people kept misunderstanding his personal essay. Some people would post a dozen sources, and he said no one would look at that many, just post the three best ones and he'd look at that. You don't need Three references to prove notability, two is enough for that as the notability guideline page clearly states. Many are saying Wikipedia:Speedy keep because its a bad nomination. You can't just nominate something again right away because you didn't get the results you wanted. Dream Focus 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Now kept twice. Continual nomination is against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The same with ignoring a consensus reached in an RFC. The Banner talk 13:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- There was no consensus and it's not relevant to these discussions in any case. There was most certainly no consensus to delete all school articles because some editors don't like them. Neither was there a consensus to allow school articles to be nominated for deletion again and again until they get deleted (in fact, there was a specific clause advising against such behaviour). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, the inevitable “they’re just haters” argument. Dronebogus (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- There was no consensus and it's not relevant to these discussions in any case. There was most certainly no consensus to delete all school articles because some editors don't like them. Neither was there a consensus to allow school articles to be nominated for deletion again and again until they get deleted (in fact, there was a specific clause advising against such behaviour). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The same with ignoring a consensus reached in an RFC. The Banner talk 13:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3) This school isn't notable simply because it exists. It's notable because its existence has been proved in secondary sources, which also provide some information about the school. I don't see how this isn't in accordance with the result of the RfC. Will the encyclopedia be improved by deleting this article? No. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that you are still in denial over this, Necrothesp. The Banner talk 16:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- No denial. Just the facts, which some choose to ignore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good to hear that you admit to ignore that RFC. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- No denial. Just the facts, which some choose to ignore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" a nomination two days after the previous one closed is excessive, in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Two nominations this year is already flooding? It sounds more that you two are gaming the system. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Someone not getting the results they want nominating it again less than two days later, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- It wouldn't have been closed as no consensus if people on the keep side did the required research to find usable references and made actual arguments. Instead of just going off about nonsense like the AfD four years ago, that all schools are inherently notable, and people who nominate schools are trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever, rinse repeat, etc. etc. So that's totally on you guys for the generic, low effort "votes." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Someone not getting the results they want nominating it again less than two days later, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Two nominations this year is already flooding? It sounds more that you two are gaming the system. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.
- I don't see how the quote you cited refutes the RFC results being valid. The original statement posed in an RFC can be rejected but the broader discussion can still lead to a consensus to implement other things besides what was originally posed. Just like with ANI cases where the original proposal for sanctions is rejected but alternatives aren't. Neither is an "original statement or bust" type of thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The original statement was Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Sure implementing other things besides what was originally posed can happen. But the crux of the argument was what was initially posed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Anything else is just using semantics to disruptively game the system. Like I said before, this would have resulted in keep if a valid argument for keeping it was made instead of people making generic, low effort votes that go against the RfC. That's it. Period. End of story. Outside of that it's stupid to complain about the article being re-nominated when none of you were willing to put the work into it the first time around so it wouldn't have to be. Really, all articles that end in no consensus due to low effort, generic voting should be speedy re-nominated. No matter which side is doing it. Otherwise, we are allowing the process to be derailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- The original statement was Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Sure implementing other things besides what was originally posed can happen. But the crux of the argument was what was initially posed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- As discussed in the previous AfD, the school is discussed in various newspaper articles but unfortunately they aren't in English. We have to consider offline sources too, as point three ("References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.") states, and it is evident the school has significant coverage in newspapers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I could tell the only English reference that was mentioned in the previous AfD just affirmed that they have a basketball team. Outside of that since we can't read the news articles that are posted on their website there's no way to tell if they are "significant coverage" or not. But going by the article titles a lot of it looks extremely run of the mill. Like 6 of the articles are about school functions and they are likely local news papers. Also a few, like "Our Troopers Class" are primary. My guess is that others are also. None of that does anything for notability. Actually the more I look at the articles the more I'm convinced they are primarily from a school newspaper or paid to print pieces. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage. In fact, the 2017 RFC linked above specifically mentions local media coverage as helping to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm aware. Purely local coverage does not a notable article make though. There also needs to be one reference from a regional or national outlet and as far as I'm aware there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage. In fact, the 2017 RFC linked above specifically mentions local media coverage as helping to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- From what I could tell the only English reference that was mentioned in the previous AfD just affirmed that they have a basketball team. Outside of that since we can't read the news articles that are posted on their website there's no way to tell if they are "significant coverage" or not. But going by the article titles a lot of it looks extremely run of the mill. Like 6 of the articles are about school functions and they are likely local news papers. Also a few, like "Our Troopers Class" are primary. My guess is that others are also. None of that does anything for notability. Actually the more I look at the articles the more I'm convinced they are primarily from a school newspaper or paid to print pieces. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- As long as no one can produce concrete examples and demonstrate that an actual encyclopedic article can be written with them (meaning no trivial mentions or application statistics), this is all speculation and WP:V is not met. It's also remarkable that in 11 years no one ever bothered writing a non-English Wikipedia article of this school; this one only exists in the first place due to the work of a single-edit, single-purpose account (presumably promotional). Avilich (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Question What does "A.R.S." mean? Might help find more sources. Also could help to search "A.R.S." vs. "ARS" .. the former according to sources. -- GreenC 19:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Their run by A.R.S. Memorial Educational Society for Human Welfare. So probably that's where the name come from. I can't find jack about them though. Except that they also run a college. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it means Article Rescue Squadron? [sarcasm] Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Their run by A.R.S. Memorial Educational Society for Human Welfare. So probably that's where the name come from. I can't find jack about them though. Except that they also run a college. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination
- And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for Molon labe-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment if this article had been made now, under identical circumstances, would it have survived a simple PROD? Would it even have passed draft review? I doubt it. We need to stop grandfathering in ancient, low-quality articles based on dated or low-effort consensus, or “no consensus” closes handwaved as “de facto keep” closes. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)