Talk:River Oaks Elementary School

Untitled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

River Oaks Elementary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francs2000 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Was marked for speedy but isn't a candidate AIUI. Useless disambig page for elementary schools: all redlinks. — Gwalla | Talk 00:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Part of the invisible and unauthorized schools project. The fact that such a page would be needed, if the project went forward, is one of my chief arguments against it. The people who write the feeble school articles never even think hard enough to realize that "Park Heights High" might be a non-unique name, that there might be a dozen in the US, plus some in the UK, plus Australia, plus New Zealand, plus other parts of the Commonwealth. No... No thinking, just a kind of vanity. Geogre 01:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You call it an "unauthorized" project. What authorization would be needed? Posiduck 04:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article in question seems to be precisely the opposite of not realizing that a school name may be non-unique. Am I correct in assuming that the lack of thinking you mention is not related to this page? Factitious 08:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
The article is a demonstration of what is lacking in the ones that get deleted: an awareness that anything other than the author's immediate need to write something and have it stick exists. As for what authorization would be required, it would be nice, if there is an actual WikiSchools project, to announce it on the Village Pump and see the debate follow. Otherwise, there is no blanket license for schools, which you imply, Posiduck, that there is. There is not. Schools at present face the same criteria that anything else does. If we can delete "Jimmy is the coolest! You should meet him!" as vanity, then we can delete "Orchard High is a big school on a hill" for the same reason. If we must delete "The glove of narffnarff is the weapon that Xillander the Grey used in webcomic Fallaffalwaffle" as insignificant, we must the same for "Institutional learning facility #42 is a school." Geogre 03:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is a huge difference between "Jimmy is cool" (POV, not verifiable, etc.) and "Orchard High is a big school on a hill." The latter can be expanded, verified, made NPOV, etc. Posiduck 12:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- We can delete "Jimmy is the coolest!", but what about "Jimmy is a person" [1]?

Delete. NeoJustin 01:59, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What? A disambiguation page for four nonexistent articles for four non-notable elementary schools? Not needed until the articles for the schools get written... the high-quality, non-stub, well-researched, encyclopedic, verifiable articles that establish notability within the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'd think that the first version of an article can be a stub and still be useful. Waiting to set up proper disambiguation until stubs have been expanded doesn't help anything. Factitious 08:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Few schools meet the high bar of notability required to be encyclopedic. --Improv 07:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A disambiguation page for four non-existant articles that would probably struggle to demonstrate notability. Average Earthman 08:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Can it be assumed that you no longer feel that way, since the disambiguation page now points to articles which exist? Factitious 07:10, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
D Pointless, and a waste of space. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, space is not limitless. Chris 01:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's space is obviously not literally infinite, but for all practical purposes, articles like this don't represent a significant cost. I may just be misunderstanding the issue, though. Is storage space up against a tight limit right now? Factitious 08:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
  - I believe database performance is an issue. Or, at least, it feels that way some days. If there were no problems, why the donation drives for new hardware? Chris 13:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Donations for new hardware are needed because people are interested in Wikipedia, including interested in articles like this. It is good, not bad, that there is overwhelming interest in Wikipedia, including these articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We don't have space issues. Mark Richards 01:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also vote keep. Encyclopedic information about schools (population, location, etc.) is not hard to come by, and Mark is right, space is not an issue. Posiduck 04:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. Space may not be an issue, but putting a first-class encyclopedia out for the public that is not inundated by trivial information is. Just my personal opinion, you are free to disagree with it. Indrian 01:50, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- I still stand by my previous comment and still believe that none of these schools meet a basic standard of notability sufficient for inclusion in this encyclopedia. However, some circumstances have changed. When I first voted to delete this page, it was a disambiguation that had been created over a year ago that led to a series of articles that did not exist. This to me is beyond useless. Now that two articles actually do exist, it would not be proper to delete the disambiguation page without first deleting anything attached to it (I am not saying that I would automatically delete anything attached to this page; I am just saying that these pages would have to go first). Keep. Indrian 02:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Do you really believe someone will think less of Wikipedia because of articles like this? --Tmh 10:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. How do you believe soemone will find this article unless they are specifically looking for it? Now we have it for them. --ShaunMacPherson 20:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - So by your logic, any article no matter how trivial (I know you find this article acceptable and that is fine, but I imagine there is probably some line that you believe an article should not cross) is acceptable as long as it is not likely to be found by the majority of the community? Indrian 20:33, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
    - I'll accept that the end result maybe to have something available if they want it. However, my statement on having it available to people maybe only what is necessary, but not sufficient, to keeping an article :). Now it is my turn to ask you what is the harm in having an article that only 10,000 people in the world would choose to search for, yet it is an excellent article? --ShaunMacPherson 23:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - Listen, I understand your arguement that there is space for a lot of things and that the good is not harmed if some stuff slips through. It is a well-reasoned and thought out position and I see no reason to attack it; it is enough to say that I disagree. My arguement is that the prime goal of any encyclopedia regardless of content is to be a source of reference for the masses; i.e to be used, and not just as a source of trivia, but as a source for serious scholarship. An encyclopedia that keeps to a high standard, whether in article content or in article selectivity, is more likely to be deemed reputable by those who discover it. Source critique is an important part of research and if this site has a lot of badly written or poorly researched articles or a lot of articles of questionable usefulness or merit, a scholar doing a routine source critique may reject it. Therefore, it is important to be selective, though we can still include far more than a print encyclopedia can. I do not claim to know what the standard should be; I can only follow what I think is right and see what the community thinks. If the community rejects my standard, I will continue to work on what interests me and let others work on what interests them. I hope that helped you understand; you do not have to agree. Indrian 01:49, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I find it interesting to know that there are four schools called "River Oaks Elementary", and where they are. This page provides that information clearly, and sets up a logical structure for any articles that people write about them. Isn't that a better way of presenting the information than a List of schools named River Oaks Elementary? Factitious 08:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
- How about we actually wait until one of them actually becomes notable, and then write about them? Chris 13:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - They're all notable. anthony 警告 13:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Prove it. Chris 03:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      - It's an opinion, not something which can be proven. anthony 警告 18:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        Anthony, it is dishonest to say "They're all notable" when you mean "In my opinion all schools are notable." "They're all notable" is equivocal wording, and someone unfamiliar with your views can honestly misinterpret it to mean "I have specific information on these specific schools." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        That's silly. Notability is inherently an opinion. When I see a beautiful woman, I don't say, "Wow, in my opinion that woman is hot" I say "Wow, that woman is hot." The fact that it is my opinion is obvious. anthony 警告 20:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful page. anthony 警告 13:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep, good starting place for stubs Sam [Spade] 21:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This article is useful. Radman1 22:16, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. We're voting over whether or not to delete a disambiguation page for four nonexistent articles? If this was a debate about any other sort of article, I bet we wouldn't be wasting our time debating this. Delete. Oh, and is it me or has Mark Richards voted twice? Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: While at the time there were only nonexistent articles there are now at least two. It seems the original link to River Oaks may have come from Jeff Bezos regarding his education. Florescentbulb 21:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is a school. BTW, MR did vote twice. I removed the second one. Trollminator 00:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oops, I did vote twice. With all these attacks on articles going on, it's hard to keep track of which ones you've voted on already. Oh for an autovote facility. Mark Richards 17:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 00:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This school is not notable. -- WOT 01:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note that this is a disambiguation page, and unless/until the schools currently listed there are deleted, it would really make no sense to get rid of this page. Posiduck 01:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clarification: The Houston school isn't notable. For some reason I thought Woodbridge was a red-link. Seeing it, I'd vote delete for it, too. Also, delete the disambiguation page. -- WOT 20:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- What school? Are we discussing the same article? Factitious 07:10, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Valid disambig page. Nothing is gained by deleting this. It points to multiple existant articles, and multiple others that would exist if it were not for the deletionist hoard. Will Wikipedia really be a better place for the users without these articles? If you delete this, people looking for this information will not be able to find it and everyone else will be uneffected. Deleting such articles makes Wikipedia worse! --L33tminion 06:24, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- If the purpose is to help people find this information, that purpose would be better served by directing them to a site like http://www.greatschools.net, which has information on all four of the schools, as well as River Oaks Elementary School, 2008 Kirby Dr, Houston, TX 77019. Wikipedia is not a database. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  - It's not just about helping people find this information. It's about providing a free resource for this information and linking it to/from the rest of the encyclopedia. Greatschools.net doesn't have all the information we do, isn't freely editable by anyone in the world, isn't available under a free content license, and doesn't have links to other Wikipedia pages. anthony 警告 20:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Keep older≠wiser 15:13, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - David Gerard 12:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very Very Very Very Weak Keep. ugen64 01:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep —siro χ o 01:44, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - schools are here to stay. Try helping to improve them rather than wasting cycles on deleting. -- Netoholic @ 07:04, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.