Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City DOE Region 1
- 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 But if these articles are to be expanded, which seems sensible, that should be done soon because they don't contain much right now. W.marsh 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- New York City DOE Region 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
no assertion of individual notability; Wikipedia is not a directory. Ford MF 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same concerns:
- New York City DOE Region 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New York City DOE Region 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom, as there is absolutely no content other than directory information. Charlie 09:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as pure directory information. The template ought to be deleted as well assuming these articles do not survive the AFD. Arkyan • (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All The articles play the same role as school district articles in smaller places, & the same justifications apply--they will be a good place for listing some information about the less notable schools. It's clear that nobody from NYC has taken up the schools banner to the same extent as elsewhere, except for the elite high schools. Should be listed on school-related for the project; I haven't yet learned how to do this.DGG 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All I might have recommended merging these articles to the New York City Department of Education, but there are a total of 1,200 schools citywide. Keeping the district articles serves the same purpose as school district articles elsewhere, most of which have far fewer than 120 schools per district. Alansohn 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - we now have an agreed use for these articles. TerriersFan 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is...? Ford MF 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very, very least, the directory info (address and phone number) should be removed from each and every article. The problem with that is that it leaves absolutely zero content afterwards. Ford MF 06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they call that a "stub" here on Wikipedia. Alansohn 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I get what people are saying, but the organization of schools by the DOE has been extremely fluid over the last few years and I don't think we need an article on every district/zone/region/sub-district/"Empowerment Zone" created in the bureaucratic wranglings. It's also noteworthy to mention that according to the New York City Department of Education article on Wikipedia, the regions are going to be dissolved in a number of weeks anyway. Ford MF 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also, I think an ideal stub contains some information that can't be near-instantly recreated by another editor should someone figure out something encyclopedic to say about the subject. The only content the articles have now is directory info, which is pretty clearly what Wikipedia is NOT. Ford MF 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I get what people are saying, but the organization of schools by the DOE has been extremely fluid over the last few years and I don't think we need an article on every district/zone/region/sub-district/"Empowerment Zone" created in the bureaucratic wranglings. It's also noteworthy to mention that according to the New York City Department of Education article on Wikipedia, the regions are going to be dissolved in a number of weeks anyway. Ford MF 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe they call that a "stub" here on Wikipedia. Alansohn 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very, very least, the directory info (address and phone number) should be removed from each and every article. The problem with that is that it leaves absolutely zero content afterwards. Ford MF 06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is...? Ford MF 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're not to keep these, what do you suggest as the appropriate article for aggregating the discussion of the less notable NYC schools? The boroughs are much too large for the purpose. If there's a better way than this, that would be a good solution.DGG
- Delete all per nom. There is no point keeping meaningless stubs unless someone is prepared to expand the articles. They currently provide nothing more than directory-style information. Dahliarose 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.