Talk:Waiakea High School

from VfD:

Non-notable. --fvw* 11:11, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

• There is nothing to this article at all. Delete. Average Earthman 15:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's generous to even say that there's nothing here. (Now watch for the "stop deletionist trolls" and "you people" and the "deletionist faction" and all the rest, where no one lifts a finger to improve the article, offers any reference to the article, and offers no reasoning. Fork 'em.) The article doesn't even get to the "has four walls, ceiling and floor" standard. Geogre 16:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Let's try to keep it civil though. --Improv 16:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark Richards 17:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• All stubs say very little. That's no reason to delete. Keep. --L33tminion | (talk) 18:32, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Let's quote this article so people have to face it. This is what Mark Richards reflexively wants kept.

"Waiakea High School is a public high school in the city of Hilo, Hawaii. It is adjacent to the University of Hawaii at Hilo."

• • I want to keep it because it is factual, neutral and verifiable. The fact that it is short is not the point. Mark Richards 03:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into Hilo, Hawaii —siroχo 22:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Gee...two whole sentences. Whee. Delete. This isn't even a suitable substub. - Lucky 6.9 23:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Idont Havaname 02:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Aloha. Delete. Gamaliel 09:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not notable. -- WOT 17:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• List in the Hilo, Hawaii article, then delete. Since every alum was also a resident of Hilo, but many residents of Hilo are not Waiakea alums, material in the Hilo article is likely to get more attention and have a greaterly likelihood of expansion. When and if it grows too big for the Hilo it can be broken out. Editors of the Hilo, Hawaii article are likely to be a better judge of how important this school is than I am. BEEFSTEW score of this article in its current state is precisely zero, it is not a useful start on an article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Dpbsmith about current state of article. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless significantly improved. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 07:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are inherently notable. Being short isn't a reason for deletion. --Andylkl 08:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, "very short articles with little or no context" makes an article a valid candidate for speedy deletion. This article is borderline, and might well have been speedied had it been on a different topic. I think the article in its present state is very comparable to the recently deleted article Automatic door whose content was "An Automatic door is a door, that opens and closes automaticly!" That's perfectly factual and absolutely true. Should it have been preserved? The proper rationale for preserving short articles is that they are expected to grow. They do not grow by themselves; they grow only if there is a community with a serious interest in that subject matter and willing to research it. No such community exists for automatic doors, so its deletion is proper. The criterion for retention should be likelihood of growth, which in turn depends on the "existence of committed editors with subject expertise." I have not yet seen evidence that there are many people who enjoy doing the work of researching facts about non-notable schools other than the ones they've personally attended. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think your 'automatic door' example should have been expanded, not deleted. If someone had writen an article (in the absense of the one we have now) on G.W.Bush that said 'The President of America', would you delete it? Surely you would add to it?! Mark Richards 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Not all substubs are the same. Not all substubs should be treated the same. Articles are valuable. Substubs are not valuable in themselves. They are only valuable if are likely to lead to articles. Substubs on Presidents of the United States are very likely to grow. If I saw a substub on G. W. Bush I'd be very likely to add to it because it's a topic of interest to me, which I consider to be important to an encyclopedia, on which I know something, which is easily researched into a four or five paragraph article. Except that there are probably hundreds of not thousands of Wikipedians who would probably beat me to it. That's a substub that should be kept, because it would almost certainly grow, and grow quickly. If you actually are interested in researching automatic doors, there is nothing stopping you from writing the article, as long as its reasonably different from the substub that was deleted. I can't believe that "An Automatic door is a door, that opens and closes automaticly!" helps anyone write such article. I think making "automatic door" a requested article is far more likely to get us a article than letting a substub like that stick around. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • The revealing phrase "it's a topic of interest to me, which I consider to be important to an encyclopedia" tells you everything you need to know about the deletionist agenda. Things should be kept because they are important to the deletionist, or deleted because they are not of interest. I reject this as rationale for deletion. Mark Richards 03:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, obviously all us deletionists are a bunch of self-centered jerks who can't see the value of things to others. Please stop your insults towards those of us who set our personal standard for inclusion higher than yours. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • No, [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards], I am in favor of retaining stubs on topics that are of interest to enough editors, including people likely to drop in within the next year, that they will be expanded into decent articles. I have voted to keep many articles on topics of absolutely no interest whatsoever to myself; most recently Jean-Luc Picard. Are you actually interested in writing articles about schools yourself? Do you plan to expand this one? Do you know someone who plans to expand this one? Or do you just think that substubs grow organically by themselves without knowledgeable human input? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Again, the key phrase our personal standard for inclusion. This is not about your personal opinion about what is interesting. No, I am not that interested in writing about schools, but the difference is that does not lead me to think that no-one else should be allowed to. Whether or not I will, or someone I know will is totally irrelevant. I do think that it is obvious that since someone cared enough to create a factual, neutral and verifiable stub, someone else may add to it. Whether I am interested in it is not the point. For the record, I don't recall acusing anyone of being a jerk. Mark Richards 12:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • People are "allowed to" write about schools. Nobody is stopping anyone from writing about schools. Go right ahead. Write a couple of good paragraphs about Waiakea High School. If you don't like the idea of working on a topic that is already on VfD, then write one about Kalaheo High School. Or Pearl City High School. Look, I'll even give you a valuable head start: Pearl City High School is located in Pearl City, Hawaii. It serves grades 9-12. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• No, you don't get it. I am not interested in writing or reading about schools. I am also not interested in forcing my opinion on people who are by deleting them. Mark Richards 16:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Ashibaka tlk 23:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Mention in the Hilo, Hawaii, then delete - Skysmith 10:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 03:04, Nov. 23 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gtabary 12:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For reasons stated by others that vote keep. --Dittaeva 20:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - While not particularly interesting to me personally, it does have encyclopedic value.--AnywhereAT 00:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 17:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Trollminator 21:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Del. No evidence of notability, and some that suggests the opposite: the author assigned it to the non-existent Cat Category:Schools on Hawaii (island) and obviously thinks there are enough meeting their standard to justify a cat. --Jerzy(t) 23:08, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• 'keep Yuckfoo 05:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 06:02, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Saimaroimaru (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)