Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakridge School
Oakridge School[edit]
Non-notable school. Orphaned. RedWolf 02:48, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable school. — Gwalla | Talk 03:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 06:29, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Title also hopelessly wrong, this should be a disambig page for the various Oakridges out there. --Ianb 07:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The artice name is likely to clash with other Oakridges, and the content gives no evidence of notability. Average Earthman 12:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. BEEFSTEW items A, B, C, for a BEEFSTEW score of 3/10. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Oakridge School. I don't see the harm in keeping stubs on encyclopedic topics. Twinxor 17:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Reread Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. Stubs are only valuable if they grow into articles. Someone who creates a stub is supposed to feel some responsibility for expanding the article if nobody else does. If Googling on a topic such as "Oakridge school" gives better and more up-to-date information than looking up the same topic in Wikipedia—which it does—why have an article? If the accumulation of stubs reaches the point where Googling on a topic consistently gives better and more up-to-date information than looking up the same topic in Wikipedia, why would anyone ever use Wikipedia? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand your view. With no stub at all, Googling for the school will return better information than Wikipedia; with a short stub, Googling will still return better information than Wikipedia. It doesn't make sense to say that having this stub will hurt public perception of Wikipedia. Perfect stub article says that the purpose of a stub article is not to be informative on its own, but rather to encourage someone with more information to further develop the article. Presumably, there are thousands of people with more information about any given school. Why not give it these stubs a chance to develop? --Twinxor 22:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Reread Wikipedia:The perfect stub article. Stubs are only valuable if they grow into articles. Someone who creates a stub is supposed to feel some responsibility for expanding the article if nobody else does. If Googling on a topic such as "Oakridge school" gives better and more up-to-date information than looking up the same topic in Wikipedia—which it does—why have an article? If the accumulation of stubs reaches the point where Googling on a topic consistently gives better and more up-to-date information than looking up the same topic in Wikipedia, why would anyone ever use Wikipedia? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 09:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)