Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kents Hill School
Kents Hill School[edit]
Kents Hill 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.
Yet another school. Looks like a copyvio, but I can't find a source. --fvw* 00:09, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
- Yet another keep. I'm fed up of the deletionists flooding vfd with obvious keeps. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\talk]] 00:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- User:Dr Zen/keepschoolsDr Zen 00:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That's not a reason, that's an assertion: one that I notice that you've converted into a boilerplate template: ({{User:Dr Zen/keepschools}} --Calton 09:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keen eye, Calton. Take note that User:Improv is doing the exact same thing, and has been, for quite some time. I think this was a reactionary gesture to demonstrate just how rediculous voting templates are, but I'm sure Dr. Zen can speak for himself. Personally I think it horrendously detracts from the spirit of the VfD process. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Er... isn't a reason merely an assertion that supports a perticular action (such as voting "keep")? Dr. Zen clearly believes all schools are notable, but wishes to save time on typing. I don't see how this is any more against "the spirit of vfd" than keyboard shortcuts. Should we avoid using copy and paste in the future, just because you have somethig against convenience? And he is speaking for himself; he wrote that template! --L33tminion | (talk) 21:35, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- It certainly shows he's taking the flip-side of a "zero tolerance" policy, which amounts to a "zero intelligence" policy: no judgement, no refelction, no consideration of the issue, no question of actual notability -- just push the keep button. And stating that a truly great encyclopedia needs to list all schools, everywhere, as if it were a fact comes awfully close to begging the question. --Calton 02:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Dude, if you want to go six rounds of "what makes a truly great encyclopaedia?, since that is the question you feel I'm begging, you have a standing invite to my talk page! I advise you to read my user page first, where I give my "zero-intelligence" views on related issues.Dr Zen 07:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keen eye, Calton. Take note that User:Improv is doing the exact same thing, and has been, for quite some time. I think this was a reactionary gesture to demonstrate just how rediculous voting templates are, but I'm sure Dr. Zen can speak for himself. Personally I think it horrendously detracts from the spirit of the VfD process. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 09:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That's not a reason, that's an assertion: one that I notice that you've converted into a boilerplate template: ({{User:Dr Zen/keepschools}} --Calton 09:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not establish that this school is notable. WP is an encyclopedia not a directory of all the schools in the world. --LeeHunter 01:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, the last paragraph, now removed, was about a stunt pulled by one of the students, so I doubt this is a copyvio. - SimonP 02:00, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedia's were always intended to be repositories of all human knowledge. Emphasis on the all. It follows from that that anything that is real - and quite a lot that isn't - is notable. Keep. --Centauri 02:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I vehemently disagree: libraries, as far as I'm concerned, are "intended to be repositories of all human knowledge", and encyclopedias are digests of human knowledge. Somewhere on the knowledge spectrum between a card catalog and the British Library, if that makes any sense. --Calton 10:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Encyclopedias have covers on them. David Pearson is notable. This school is a mid-level private prep. The taunting, hectoring "ALL SCHOOLS MUST BE KEPT" and all who disagree, who have standards, being "deletionists" and "deletionist trolls" only poisons the debate and sways people who sometimes vote keep, sometimes delete, to vote delete. Geogre 02:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'll pay a lot more attention to this ranting when it's aimed at deletionists who vote to delete all schools without reasons or by template. Dr Zen 04:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Of course you will, because only then will you agree with it. Otherwise, you're entirely content to do the same thing and to show yourself without any principles whatever by voting to delete Hodge the Cat to make a point, willing to jump into a vanity article deliberation to scold everyone about biting the newbie, when you have no vote to cast, and then, in fact, not even noticing that the poor, tender "newbie" was a known AOL vandal. If you don't like voting by template, don't do it. Geogre 20:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got lost in the screeching there. I'll try to give you a reasoned answer. I voted against Hodge the Cat because I genuinely believe there is nothing to say about the cat. I do from time to time vote to delete articles. I think people should be scolded for biting the newbies. If you do that, you won't hear a word from me, Geogre. Did I say I didn't like voting by template? No. I said you would be taken more seriously if you directed your ranting at deletionists, among whose sins is voting without reason and by template, which is, after all, what you accuse me and others of doing, mindlessly. You do not suggest that they are "taunting" or "hectoring" voters.Dr Zen 07:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Of course you will, because only then will you agree with it. Otherwise, you're entirely content to do the same thing and to show yourself without any principles whatever by voting to delete Hodge the Cat to make a point, willing to jump into a vanity article deliberation to scold everyone about biting the newbie, when you have no vote to cast, and then, in fact, not even noticing that the poor, tender "newbie" was a known AOL vandal. If you don't like voting by template, don't do it. Geogre 20:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'll pay a lot more attention to this ranting when it's aimed at deletionists who vote to delete all schools without reasons or by template. Dr Zen 04:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see any notability, so why choose this as a keeper? 132.205.15.43 03:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)Neither do I. The article has 1 non-VfD link. Delete. Alphax (talk) 04:23, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)Delete I lived in Augusta 3 years ago and i can say with certainty that this school is entierly NOT notable Fledgeling 04:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The irony is killing me!
Delete. Notability is not established.Abstain. I am still not entirely convinced as to notability, but I am willing to wait and see. Indrian 06:47, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Should be merged into Kents Hills, Maine, if there was an article and deleted - Skysmith 09:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- delete; has age (good) but nothing else. Dunc|☺ 11:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I think the precedents have been established: schools only get articles if there is something notable about them.Abstain. Dbiv 13:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Delete - no evidence of notability Cdc 15:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not notable; there are millions of high schools in the world, and they all don't need articles.Spangineer 15:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)- Possibly notable, changing vote to keep until proven non-notable. --Spangineer 06:44, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence yet presented of notability. Encyclopedia means "comprehensive course of study;" encyclopedic "knowledge" means "knowledge" in the sense of "4. Learning; erudition." It does not mean knowledge in sense "3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned," any more than it means knowledge in sense "6. Carnal knowledge." (Refs to AHD4). Although Wikipedia is not paper, Wikipedia is and should be selective in what it contains. Maybe it should contain individual articles on non-notable schools, but that is a legitimate subject for continuing discussion, and requires presentation of good reasons for specially including schools, not simply assertions that Wikipedia should include anything that happens to be a truthful fact. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)OK, abstain. Might be the oldest continuously operating coeducational school in the U. S. = might be notable. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Delete. Neither interesting, notable, special or relevant. Might as well include an article on my toothbrush. -- GWO
- Strong keep, yet another school. One's own toothbrush is usually not notable. Educational instutions are. Considering this school is one of the oldest co-ed schools in the U.S.A. makes it even more so. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some follow-up and verification if that's its claim to notability. The school's site includes that same vague "one of the oldest..." claim, but no date, and the picture illustrating that claim... well, I'm not a costume expert so I won't say any more. Lowell, Massachusetts supposedly had a coeducational high school back in the days of the mill girls (1830s), and Wesleyan Academy in then-Newmarket, NH was coeducational in 1817. It would be interesting to know why the Methodists apparently pioneered co-education. If someone establishes that this school was coeducational when it was founded and provides more details I'll change my vote to "keep." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It clearly says 1824 all over the place. What are you disputing or implying exactly, that the school is trying to perpetuate some sort of a hoax, dressing up kids in clothing from the early 1800s and posting mock-vintage school photographs? [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't found a place where it says it was founded as coeducational. The picture is obviously an old picture, but it doesn't say it's an 1824 picture. I'm saying I'd like a see a bit of fact-checking and research and verification. Question #1: on what date did it become co-educational? Reading their website I can assume it was 1824, I can guess it was 1824, I can interpret an ambiguous sentence to mean that it was 1824... but I don't see anything that says it was 1824. Question #2. Assuming it was co-educational in 1824, does that make it notable? Does "one of the oldest" mean one of a handful? Or does it just mean "part of the first wave?" I'm prepared to change my vote to keep, but not on the basis of a vague statement about its being one of the oldest. If it was founded as co-educational and there were less than ten coeducational high schools in the U. S. in 1824, I'll say it's notable. If it became co-educational after the Civil War and if most states had a couple of coeducational high schools by then (don't know, this is hypothetical) than I'd say that doesn't make it notable. The facts matter, and the article in its present state does not yet present facts that convince me that it's notable. Yes, I understand that the same facts convince you that it is notable. Difference of opinion is what makes horseraces... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Try harder. It says so here [4] and in the main article. If being the oldest continuously operating co-ed school in the United States doesn't make a school notable to you, then I can't help you, sorry. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Since Deerfield Academy was founded coeducationally in 1797 and has been continously operating, there would seem to be some room for debate here. (Nota Bene--while Deerfield Academy is presently and was founded as coeducational it has at times excluded women and has at other times been all female due to the enrollment at a particular time (wars and harvest seasons and such).--Samuel J. Howard 00:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- (Replying to GRider) OK, I'll abstain, but, no, it does not say in either of those places that the school was coeducational when it was founded in 1824. You use the word "is" to mean "one alumnus says 'maybe.'" There's no doubt it was founded in 1824. There are vague statements that it is "one of the oldest" and "might be the oldest continuously operating." The Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh has a longish article on "co-education" that does not mention Kent Hill or the other early Methodist schools, and does say that "Meriden, Connecticut, seems to have made common provision for the elementary education of boys and girls in 1678. Northampton, Mass., did the same in 1680. Deerfield, Mass., in 1698 voted that all families having children either male or female between. the ages of six and ten years shall pay by the poll for their schooling presumably in the common school." With all the "mights" and "seems" and "presumablies" that doesn't mean much either, of course.
- (Replying to Dpbsmith) Thank you for withdrawing/abstaining while this is discussed. The question is now raised though: Where do we, the Wikipedia community, draw the line? Clearly, without a doubt, this is a historical school. It is a fact that it was founded in 1824. It is a fact that they believe they are the longest continually operating co-educational institution in the U.S. Not even Samuel J. Howard's excellent research refutes this given that Deerfield Academy has excluded both sexes throughout their operation, even if due to mitigating circumstances. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- History suggests we're not going to be able to draw any bright policy line. I'd like to see us all "agree to disagree" and just take those school articles which land on VfD—most high school articles do not, by the way—and vote our opinions based on what we personally think is best for Wikipedia. Preferably without flaming, or overstating our cases. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In my opinion any public institution that has existed for more than a few years is "notable" (I'm seeing that word used a lot around here). If it's important enough to be mentioned in a local newspaper then its important enough to be recorded in a global electronic encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because you can bet your bottom dollar someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow is going to look it up - even if its just a journo from the local paper checking facts for a story featuring his local high school. --Centauri 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, well that's just the point, isn't it? For a lot of the school articles—especially the kind that land on VfD—that "journo" is likely to find that the basic database-type facts are much better obtained from a school database site like like http://www.greatschools.net/, while the blather about encouraging individual potential in every school can usually be found at greater length from the school's own website. This wouldn't be a problem if high-school articles really were in a state of continuous expansion, improvement, and fact-checking by devoted editors with intense interest in schools. But the evidence suggests this is not the case. We do get good school articles: the good school articles don't land on VfD. I think a journalist would be unwise to "fact-check" a school by consulting Wikipedia, since I don't think most of these school articles get much fact-checking when they go into Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith
- BTW, I'm not against keeping the article, just against their wierdly ahistorical claim.--Samuel J. Howard 16:31, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, well that's just the point, isn't it? For a lot of the school articles—especially the kind that land on VfD—that "journo" is likely to find that the basic database-type facts are much better obtained from a school database site like like http://www.greatschools.net/, while the blather about encouraging individual potential in every school can usually be found at greater length from the school's own website. This wouldn't be a problem if high-school articles really were in a state of continuous expansion, improvement, and fact-checking by devoted editors with intense interest in schools. But the evidence suggests this is not the case. We do get good school articles: the good school articles don't land on VfD. I think a journalist would be unwise to "fact-check" a school by consulting Wikipedia, since I don't think most of these school articles get much fact-checking when they go into Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith
- In my opinion any public institution that has existed for more than a few years is "notable" (I'm seeing that word used a lot around here). If it's important enough to be mentioned in a local newspaper then its important enough to be recorded in a global electronic encyclopedia like Wikipedia, because you can bet your bottom dollar someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow is going to look it up - even if its just a journo from the local paper checking facts for a story featuring his local high school. --Centauri 22:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- History suggests we're not going to be able to draw any bright policy line. I'd like to see us all "agree to disagree" and just take those school articles which land on VfD—most high school articles do not, by the way—and vote our opinions based on what we personally think is best for Wikipedia. Preferably without flaming, or overstating our cases. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- (Replying to Dpbsmith) Thank you for withdrawing/abstaining while this is discussed. The question is now raised though: Where do we, the Wikipedia community, draw the line? Clearly, without a doubt, this is a historical school. It is a fact that it was founded in 1824. It is a fact that they believe they are the longest continually operating co-educational institution in the U.S. Not even Samuel J. Howard's excellent research refutes this given that Deerfield Academy has excluded both sexes throughout their operation, even if due to mitigating circumstances. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Try harder. It says so here [4] and in the main article. If being the oldest continuously operating co-ed school in the United States doesn't make a school notable to you, then I can't help you, sorry. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 22:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't found a place where it says it was founded as coeducational. The picture is obviously an old picture, but it doesn't say it's an 1824 picture. I'm saying I'd like a see a bit of fact-checking and research and verification. Question #1: on what date did it become co-educational? Reading their website I can assume it was 1824, I can guess it was 1824, I can interpret an ambiguous sentence to mean that it was 1824... but I don't see anything that says it was 1824. Question #2. Assuming it was co-educational in 1824, does that make it notable? Does "one of the oldest" mean one of a handful? Or does it just mean "part of the first wave?" I'm prepared to change my vote to keep, but not on the basis of a vague statement about its being one of the oldest. If it was founded as co-educational and there were less than ten coeducational high schools in the U. S. in 1824, I'll say it's notable. If it became co-educational after the Civil War and if most states had a couple of coeducational high schools by then (don't know, this is hypothetical) than I'd say that doesn't make it notable. The facts matter, and the article in its present state does not yet present facts that convince me that it's notable. Yes, I understand that the same facts convince you that it is notable. Difference of opinion is what makes horseraces... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It clearly says 1824 all over the place. What are you disputing or implying exactly, that the school is trying to perpetuate some sort of a hoax, dressing up kids in clothing from the early 1800s and posting mock-vintage school photographs? [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some follow-up and verification if that's its claim to notability. The school's site includes that same vague "one of the oldest..." claim, but no date, and the picture illustrating that claim... well, I'm not a costume expert so I won't say any more. Lowell, Massachusetts supposedly had a coeducational high school back in the days of the mill girls (1830s), and Wesleyan Academy in then-Newmarket, NH was coeducational in 1817. It would be interesting to know why the Methodists apparently pioneered co-education. If someone establishes that this school was coeducational when it was founded and provides more details I'll change my vote to "keep." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(talk)]] 15:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and mark for cleanup. Wyss 19:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep with the new revisions, i suppose. im still not really entierly convinced... but a lingering doubt shouldnt stop me from voting. Fledgeling 21:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously - David Gerard 23:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - worthy of inclusion - Timrollpickering 00:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --JuntungWu 00:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- keep' Yuckfoo 07:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I say keep The Steve 08:12, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Provisional Keep Being founded in 1824 does convey some notablity, the historical ambiguity needs to be ironed out. --Calton 09:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Schools are inherently notable. --Andylkl 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep older≠wiser 19:10, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Masterhomer 21:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:36, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep for sure. Interesting school. This encyclopædia has more articles than I care to count detailing the particularities of the Ewoks and Wookiees, yet a school of 180 year old pedigree is deemed unfit for inclusion. It is all very srange. [[User:Juicifer|Juicifer\talk]]
- Keep, with thanks to Grider for demonstrating notability and expanding the article. Juicifer also speaks well immediately above. Samaritan 02:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Most schools are notable. bbx 06:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I nearly attended this school. It is extremely well known throughout New England. Alkivar 21:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Cleanup—Trevor Caira 23:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Mark Richards 21:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.