Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunset High School

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

This page discussed the deletion of Sunset High School. Originally this was an article - then the article was moved to Sunset High School (Portland), leaving a disambiguation page behind. The page was listed for deletion on 23 Novemeber, and the decision to keep was made on 29 November.

• Revision as of 08:17, 27 Nov 2003 (revision at time of decision to keep)

VfD listing

• For the usual reasons. Undeleted by User:Minesweeper without discussion on the Votes for undeletion page, in order to prove a point. RickK 03:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Hold on, I didn't undelete anything here. Once I saw it restored, I thought I'd include the missing information to see what kind of school-disambiguation madness we're starting here. --Minesweeper 03:40, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • Then I apologize. But that's even worse, it was undeleted anonymously. RickK 03:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I undeleted after Oliver listed it on VfU. Anyway, anonymous undeletions have not been possible since November 5 when Brion implemented the logging of undeletions. The undeletion policy states that I should have told you about that and listed the page here, but that wasn't the policy until 02:47 and I undeleted it at 02.20. Angela 04:02, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please tell me we have a rule against writing about undistinguished high schools. Is there at town/city page where this particular non-article can be merged into? Maximus Rex 03:55, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools. Angela
  • Now a disambiguation page. Original content (but not the history thereof) moved to Sunset High School (Portland). The disambiguation page is useful for looking up where there are schools called "Sunset High School". -- Oliver P. 04:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep as disambig. May need the red links removing, but doesn't need to be deleted. Martin 17:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • We should keep in all the schools that are put up individually at VfD. (and better yet, have them all recorded on a List of schools so we can keep track of them all if our final decision means we have to delete some). That way, if we make a final decision that schools should be kept when we're deliberating on an all-Wikipedia policy that determines which schools are legitimate for Wikipedia articles and which aren't, we won't have to start from scratch all over again on all those schools people worked so hard on in order to get our coverage of schools complete. Wiwaxia 02:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Deleting this would be an abomination against the goals of Wikipedia. [...] Even if we were to delete all the entries on the individual schools, which I would consider a failure of the goals of Wikipedia, there would not be any reason to eliminate this entry, which tells where such schools exist, and is certainly valid and potentially useful information. --The Cunctator 04:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

VfD boilerplate

Deleting this would be an abomination against the goals of Wikipedia. --The Cunctator

Then please make your feelings known on the Votes for Deletion page, and don't unilaterally remove the VfD heading. RickK 04:12, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The VfD page is more depressing than I can handle. --The Cunctator 04:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have protected the page. I know you two can edit it anyway. Don't. - Hephaestos 04:49, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cunctator, re: VfD situation -- it's only a listing. If an article has validity, you should be confident it will stay around. The VfD notice is there not as a mark of shame, but to call attention to the fact that it has been listed, so that people can make their thoughts known. Imagine if the VfD notice was not there, then people would be screaming bloddy murder for not being informed of the fact. This way, people are notified on their watchlists that it's been listed, so it's not a secret. Fuzheado 04:51, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

After RickK put the announcement back in, I moved the announcement to the bottom of the entry. I didn't remove it. It shouldn't be up top where it interferes with the article, especially when the entry is short enough that the mention isn't hidden.

In other words, your "imagine" scenario is not relevant.--The Cunctator

It is relevant because 1) all the other hundreds of articles listed on VfD have the announcement up at the top and 2) articles are listed on VfD for only 5 days, so this should be right up front and center. Stub announcements can stay at the bottom because it can stay stubby for an unspecified amount of time. It's not clear why this article should be treated any different than the others in terms of the VfD notice. Fuzheado 00:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Man, they're only listed there for five days now? The process is more broken than I thought. --The Cunctator 02:13, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

What does protecting the page accomplish? --The Cunctator 02:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The point is to prevent an edit war, which is what was happening on this page. Angela 02:29, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1) How does it prevent an edit war between sysops? 2) What edit war? The Cunctator 04:37, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1) It involves a thing called "integrity."

2) The one you mentioned, between sysops.

-Hephaestos 05:14, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1) Doesn't asking people to stop do the same thing, without harming non-sysop-users' rights to edit the page?

2) I haven't mentioned any particular edit war. Don't pretend that I did. My question was regarding the hypothetical edit war to which Angela is claiming was happening, which brings up another question: If there was an edit war between, but it's now over, what does protecting the page after the fact accomplish? --The Cunctator

1) Obviously not, since you, a party to the edit war, unilaterally started it back up twelve hours after it was supposedly "over".

2) Don't be obtuse. You and I and everybody else are perfectly capable of looking at the edit history.

- Hephaestos 05:27, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

1) I'm still unclear as to what the difference is between protecting the page and simply asking the parties to stop. Either action can be ignored by the parties in question.

2) I'm asserting that what happened isn't an edit war. It possibly could be described as a meta-edit war, but let's be specific about what's going on: I was moving the VfD notice to the bottom of the stub, and others were moving it to the top. That's not my definition of an edit war. Oh, and don't be sanctimonious. --The Cunctator 06:12, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My definition of an edit war is a process of reverting and re-reverting a single article, scrolling recent changes, disrupting the Wikipedia, usually over some petty difference. What happened yesterday fits that description.

The difference between protecting the page and simply asking the parties to stop is moot, since both were done, and one party to the edit war had the integrity to stop and assess what they were doing. The other one (you) didn't; moreover, the entire premise of your edits is a unilateral attempt to change the guidelines of where a VfD notice should be posted, without discussion, without even the slightest attempt to achieve a consensus change. Sanctimonious? If you have a problem with the way I perform as an admin, I suggest you point it out; I have a definite problem with the way you have been performing lately as an admin, and I think you should resign. Frankly you're acting like a spoiled child. - Hephaestos 06:43, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What have I done lately as an admin that you find objectionable? Do you mean my reorganization of the secondary education and gay disease-related entries, for which I used my powers to move pages (and delete redirects in prep for such)? --The Cunctator

"1) I'm still unclear as to what the difference is between protecting the page and simply asking the parties to stop. Either action can be ignored by the parties in question. "

Not true. If you edit a protected page (as a party in an edit war) you are abusing your sysop powers. This would be grounds for de-opping.

Agreeing to refrain from editing an unprotected page is non-binding. --Jiang

That would be true if the other party in the edit war were not a sysop. It would also be considered an abuse of sysop powers if someone were to protect a page without just cause. -The Cunctator

That is not the case. It would be true even if the other party were a sysop. How elese would we stop edit wars between sysops? The only difference is that we rely on sysops to use self-restraint. --Jiang