Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Seattle Christian School (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Seattle Christian School (2nd nomination)

West Seattle Christian School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Was originally kept following an AfD back in February, here, but has not improved since. Following the closure of the previous AfD, the following comment was added to the article's Talk page: Cleanup arising from AFD seems in order. However, looking at the history, the last time that this article was edited was when the AfD notice was removed back in February--no one has touched it since. This article is two sentences long and asserts no particular importance. Previous AfD discussion seemed to hinge on arguments along the lines of the school having been mentioned in the local paper (as are many non-notable things) and being the recipient of federal funds (as are many non-notable things). WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of edits since February strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Makes no assertion of notability. Proponents cannot claim that they are still working on expanding the article as they do in other school AfDs.. Montco 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on the local community, verifiable but not very long. Alternately, keep as is. If you want a school article cleaned up, the best strategy to get that done is not to nominate a zillion articles the same day. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't nominate a zillion, I nominated eleven. I got the idea when someone put a bunch of non-notable webcomics up earlier this week. This is no different. There are literally hundreds of poorly-written, unsourced articles on non-notable schools that survived VfDs last year because our standards were more relaxed at the time, many of which haven't had a single edit since then (as with this one, although the AfD wasn't quite as long ago as the others). I am simply attempting to do some cleanup. Puerto De La Cruz 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Eleven in a day is incredibly excessive and disruptive. They've been around for a while; waiting another day or eleven won't hurt. I would be interested in cleaning up this article, except it's too hard to clean up thirteen articles all nominated for AfD on the same day. JYolkowski // talk 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, AfD is not cleanup. If you want to clean the articles up, edit the article to improve it. JYolkowski // talk 14:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Directory entry. Seems that either none of the people who voted "keep and expand" 9 months ago cared enough to do so, or else they were unable to find verifiable information with which to do so. Either way, it'd seem to indicate that this article isn't going to expand. Shimeru 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Shimeru. -- Kicking222 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per both incarnations of WP:SCHOOL and WP:LOCAL, and merge if desired. Meets all content policies. I checked the deletion policy and was confused to find that "infrequently edited" was not one of the reasons mentioned. Perhaps this isn't such a good reason to delete an article? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Unexpandable stub" is a reason for deletion. Shimeru 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only an introductory blurb and external links, notability aside this has almost no informative value. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article says nothing that couldn't also be said of a thousand other schools in the US. I give its odds of getting any better as vanishingly close to zero. Denni ☯ 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

UDelete Per nom among other issues. Google searches fail to find any verifiable information to expand this article beyond the one line stub that it is. JoshuaZ 23:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. As a small private school, I don't know of a merge target which would be more than a directory. If this school is a member of an association of similar schools, I would like to see the information kept and this article made into a redirect. Otherwise it does not seem to pass the minimum guideline of WP:LOCAL. --Dystopos 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cleanup is not a reason to delete, and no real reason for deletion has been given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:V and WP:N as well as WP:SCHOOL. Bad faith nomination by a vandal. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment what evidence do you have that the user is a "vandal"? The behavior while distasteful seems to be WP:SOCK compliant. And what evidence do you have that this does meet WP:V? I couldn't find any google hits that were useful nor has anyone else. Simply claiming that it meets WP:V and WP:N doesn't make it so. JoshuaZ 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors is a very important rule. When someone nominates 11 articles for deletion in a day I want to see their edit history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
          • As far as that section is relevant, I would have prefered if the user had not done so in this matter. However, that section is a) written as more of an advisement than anything else as far as I can tell and b) simply means that the closing admin should disregard the nom if they are taking a pure vote tally. JoshuaZ 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The five independent references are more than sufficient for providing basic-level verifiability coverage. If there is a specific piece of content being contested, please let me know. Seeing as how no valid reason has been provided for deletion under policy, combined with the disruptive circumstances under which this article was nominated (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination)) I am moving for a speedy keep closure. Silensor 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are an additional 19 LexisNexis U.S. News matches for this school, most of which are related to the West Seattle Christian School Choir and their involvement with the 1995 Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat tour. Silensor 22:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you are as concerned with this threadbare article (and other school articles in equally dismal condition) as you appear to be, perhaps you could help to make it a better article by adding what you know. IMHO, an article this brief and this generic (unless it is =universally= held to be a notable subject) simply holds us up as amateurs. Either it should be expanded, which I have no interest in doing (I have long held that only truly notable schools should be included in Wikipedia) or it should be deleted. I would also note that, unless I am mistaken, this article fails every criterion for "keep" in WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni ^talk 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now? — RJH (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Last nomination was months or years ago. Reconsideration is not inappropriate. Shimeru 21:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor, or merge in line with WP:SCHOOLS suggestion for these type of article. Yamaguchi先生 22:07, 14 November 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.