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 keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Middle School (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Was originally kept following a VfD back in June 2005, here, but has not improved since. Reads like ad copy.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. Puerto De La Cruz 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. Alansohn 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletenn middle school. Mention in the article for the town.Edison 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with Port Moody, British Columbia, meets content policies and meets WP:SCHOOL as it is over 50 years old. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge per WP:SCHOOL if you feel it does not meet the criteria for having an independent article. No reason for deletion was presented in the nomination. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historical value Moody High School 1951 - 1969, news coverage Girl Scouts reach out, books pour in for kids, has both finalist in 2005 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge, that coupled with the inherent advantage I think schools have in notability(for educating so many people) this passes easily for me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting, but the DCYSC is simply a list of what students participated in it (so some students from Moody were in, this is not a claim of notability), the other pieces are an uncritical puff-piece about girl scout cookies and a minor note on another website about the earlier school burning down. Other than a 1 or two sentence article I don't see how any of this would be useful for verifying any facts. JoshuaZ 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look further down the page you will see that both the finalists are from that school.

HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, that changes the matter slightly but not by much- winning a local science competition hardly qualifies as something notable nor would it allow us to expand the artice beyond another sentence still leaving this as a tiny stub. JoshuaZ 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a middle school, how notable does it have to be? A small town does not need to be notable as a person, and by the same logic not every topic needs excessive notability. Notability does not mean the article has room for improvement. Also, it is not a local science competition, it is a national competition. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely the issue- middle schools need to be notable just like everything else. If that makes most middle schools not notable, oh well. As to the town matter, I have stated on many occasions that as far as I am concerned it would make sense to have very towns merged or deleted (I think there are a few small arguments against this that differentiate towns from schools but the overall notion is sound). Also, maybe I'm misreading things here, but the candidates were only semi-finalists. As I understand it(correct me if I'm wrong) that means they placed at the local level. JoshuaZ 00:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering from this that you think all subjects need to be held to equal notability standard? I know that by policy that bio's are held to a higher standard. Do you think countries and musical bands should have the same standards?

I apologies if I am making unrealistic comparisions, I try to avoid that. But I think that subjects should be compared within it's context. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article makes no assertion of notability. This is a very normal one-of-a-thousand middle schools. Denni ☯ 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Denni and my above comment. JoshuaZ 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Normally non-notable schools would be candidates for merging (per WP:LOCAL, which enjoys more stability than the proposed WP:SCHOOLS). In this case the merge target would be School District 43 Coquitlam. Since that article is already on the long side, I vote to keep (with the recognition that the "reputation" section is not encyclopedic at all and should be removed.) --Dystopos 06:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Nominator seems to be a single purpose account created to undo a whole string of failed AfDs. Nominator falsely claims that WP:SCHOOL requires multiple non-trivial published works, when in fact, this is one of several criteria to support retention. Article fully meets the WP:SCHOOL criteria: The school article is part of a series of similarly maintained articles related to a specific school board, school district, or other notable organization. As such, this vote is based on 1) Nomination was created in likely bad faith by a Single Purpose Account, 2) Nomination attempts to undo the precedent under which this article was Kept, and is part of a string of nearly a dozen such second and third cracks at undoing failed efforts at deletion (and as recreation of previously deleted articles is often used as a sign of bad faith and failure to observe precedent), 3) Nominator falsely claims that article fails WP:SCHOOL standard when criterion mention is merely one of several such criteria justifying retention, and 4) article meets the WP:SCHOOL comprehensive coverage criteria.Alansohn 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing that out. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is nothing intrinsically wrong with someone using a sock to nominate an article for AfD, and if the nom's claims are weak they should be evaluated under that basis. JoshuaZ 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually you are not supposed to create a new account for the purposes of making controversial decisions. While that may invalidate an AfD if caught fast enough, too many legimate users have participated here to stop it now. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, where is that in the sock policy? JoshuaZ 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittly I was saying that from memory, but WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors seems to cover this. I would like to know the nominators true edit history. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section seems to make it seem like a less than advisable behavior but it isn't obviously forbidden by the section. JoshuaZ 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said ...you are not supposed to... and the policy page says ..should not be used..., I think while I used different words, I accuratly described the policy. Regardless I have agreed with you that this AfD needs to continue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HighInBC.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn. JROBBO 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Repeat nom. of a failed AfD. — RJH (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPrevious AfD was over a year ago. This hardly constitutes an example of repeated nominations. Reconsideration is reasonable. JoshuaZ 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is now apparent that this is a rash of bad faith nominations. The school article does meet the WP:SCHOOLS guideline and looks to be part of an ongoing WikiProject as well. 22:43, 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.