On 1/26/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, the good thing is that both those of us who
would like to get
rid of many of these articles and those of us who would like to keep
them, agree that AfD isn't working :-)
Mark
On 26/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26/01/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/26/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One <hildanknight(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What, if any, are the notability criteria for schools?
>
> > The word "school" appears somewhere in the article.
> > Seriously. There was a VfD a couple years back that garnered a large
> > number of "keep, schools are inherently notable" votes, even though
> > the article was a hoax and the school in question did not actually
> > exist. Another VfD from around that time resulted in a "keep" for
the
> > same reasons, when article was actually a vanity piece about a
> > one-person business that happened to have "school" as part of its
> > name.
>
>
> Yeah. It's an unfortunate reaction to various concerted efforts to
> purge the school articles. This is part of why the structure of en:wp
> AFD is demonstrably problematic.
AFD illustrates a number of things, one of which is that there's no
consensus on notability on a number of topics.
I detest having to follow AFD closely to see if someone's trying to
try another "establish a new consensus by deleting a bunch of things"
runs. I often forget to for a week and then find that something
horrible happened while my attention was elsewhere.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com