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. Nishkid64 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barstow School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) New article which displays no information showing why this school is notable or deserves an article. It seems no different than any other small private school in a suburban area. Wikophile 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete64.216.141.187 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails to provide non-directory/prospectus information: this is not a directory or a prospectus, it is an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To deal with UTC concerns, the school is notable and has several important alumni. These include Bess Truman and Jean Harlow. The School has been around for over 100 years and would be notable to those in the area. In addition, it's most prominent rival, The Pembroke Hill School, has its own page and nobody seems to not want to delete that article. I'll update the page to assuage your concerns...
• Keep This seems to be another in a pattern of school deletionism aimed at new school articles. The age and distinguished alumni more than justify retention. That this article was never prod'ed and went straight to AfD is a major cause for concern. Alansohn 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC) The school has served the community for over 120 years, which exceeds the "50-year test" dictated by criterion 2 of WP:SCHOOL. That the schools alumni include Bess Truman and Jean Harlow, qualifies under criterion 6 "notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)". As such the article meets and exceeds the retention criteria specified by WP:SCHOOL. Alansohn 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this a cause for concern? If it had been prod'd, the prod would've been removed almost immediately. -- Kicking222 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is this another "the ends justify the means" excuse? Prod'ding the article would have allowed editors to identify the issue before an AfD was created. The failure to follow process and allow for the improvement of an article created by a brand new user is an egregious show of bad faith. Deletionists demand that we follow their own distorted set of rules but refuse to follow the ones we all agree on. Alansohn 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me, but that's a terribly biased, poorly-based, and personally offensive statement. I was simply pointing out that every school article which gets a prod tag has that tag quickly removed, which is true. Since you justified why you would've preferred the article was prod'd, I completely agree with your statement- it would allow for improvement before a possible AfD. However, your blanket statement after this rationale is rather awful. -- Kicking222 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was policy followed, or not? Are you justifying this or excusing it? It's a new article, teh first created from a new user and you don't see an issue with that? Alansohn 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? I just agreed with you. I'm not sure what you're fighting about. -- Kicking222 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Policy was followed. Prod before AfD is not policy. Prod is to be used when editors feel deletion would be non-controversial. Are you seriously suggesting that a high school article would be a non-controversial deletion, Alansohn? And once again, you need to lay off the personal attacks, please. Shimeru 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apropos of nothing, I'd like to point out that decaf coffee really might be best for some. wikipediatrix 04:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. wikipediatrix 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there any particular reason to delete that you'd like to share with us? Alansohn 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you're being so charming, I'll return the charm: What part of "as above" didn't you understand? wikipediatrix 04:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the nominator might be excused based on the article's content at the point the AfD was created, the article as it stands now makes several specific claims of notability. As your vote seems to be even more out of consensus than usual, I thought it might be useful to understand what goes on in the mind of an extreme deletionist, for the benefit of all of us. Are any schools notable? Alansohn 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey Alan, for just one school AfD, can you try to not be a dick? -- Kicking222 06:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey Kicking, why is it so unreasonable to request an explanation for a delete when I constantly see the same requests for equally unjustified keep votes. I am willing to tone down a bit here, as long as we have a deal that I have carte blanche to defend articles to the fullest extent possible on all future AfDs. Alansohn 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this school is notable and passes the 50 year test plus notable alumni too Yuckfoo 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fully meets some or most of every damned proposed criteria we've ever had for school inclusion at wikipedia. The education of Jean Harlow and Bess Truman is important. They are role models for lots of folks. I also agree that AfD is being misused. It should be the last step in the wikipedia improvement process, preferably after engaging the article submitter, not the first step. --JJay 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per the 2 notable alumni and the 122 year age of the school. Edison 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Edison. JoshuaZ 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per notable alumni (though not per the age criterion, which is ridiculous). Shimeru 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Passes WP:SCHOOLS and arguably passesWP:SCHOOLS3. I will give a shrugging 'keep' vote based mostly on it's notable alumni. Trusilver 07:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm strongly opposed to the incessant creation of useless stubs on obscure, non-notable schools (schoolcruft), but this one is not a stub, and seems reasonably notable. I strongly dislike the "50 year rule" as far too generous (especially in areas where many schools have been around for 300+ years), but this is 120 years old, in a region that has only been settled by school-building peoples for a couple of hundred years, and seems to have some notable alumni. Xtifr _tälk 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete There is nothing notable about this school. It is a small, suburban private school mostly unknown in Kansas City. The entire purpose of this article (much of which was lifted directly from The Pembroke Hill School) seems to be to make this tiny school seem "big." Just because Jean Harlow or Bess Truman or a purported politician who never won a primary election went there does not justify an entire article about it. 65.28.2.218 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (strong keep) per the commenters above, this meets WP:SCHOOLS et cetera. 03:41, 22 November 2006
• Delete. Schoolcruft. WMMartin 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please expand your delete comment using English and with reference to the specific qualities of The Barstow School. --JJay 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only notability is via the alumni, so the only place it should be mentioned on Wikipedia is in their articles. Pete Fenelon 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I'll accept the age is somewhat notable, but the claim based on alumnae seems to weak at this point since their notability is completely unconnected with the school itself. Eluchil404 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per JJay. bbx 08:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn school since schools are inherently unnotable. Eusebeus 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep may pass WP:SCHOOLS but only just, overall my impression is the school doesn't deserve it's own article. It does pass WP:SCHOOLS3 but if I explained a mildly complicated concept to a friend on my balcony over a beer one day, this educational act would allow my balcony to pass WP:SCHOOLS3. If it had more than 650 students it would help it's cause drastically. Also let's not get bent out of shape about the prodding, we all know that prods on schools and garage bands get removed instantly. The nominator was just saving time.•Elomis• 00:05, 26 November 2006 (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.