Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mounds Park Academy

message: I've just for the first time this morning read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School; I probably do not scan Afd as frequently as I ought, it's difficult to divide one's time on Wikipedia among various interests and "responsibilities".  Anyway, Whew! If I had any idea that an individual nomination for deletion of a school article had recently generated so much debate, I would not have nominated this one.  In fact, I almost feel that I should apologize for making the nomination.  I am sorry if I've wound up wasting people's time.
My rationale for nominating the Mounds Park Academy article was not specifically because it was a school article, but because of the mainly vanity content of the article.  I came across the article while looking at the contribution list of an anon IP address that had recently vandalized other articles. I had some sort of idea that, although, as a school article, it may be notable enough to include in Wikipedia (which, I realize, is the whole root issue of the debate), I thought that it might not be notable enough to expect editors other than the original contributors to spend their time cleaning up the vanity and POV aspects.  Hence the "if no move to improve it in 7 days..." clause.
The lessons that I've learned are:
:*There are people other than the original contributors who are willing to clean these articles up.
:*School articles are likely not to be deleted, so, if I care about the quality of articles that are going to stay on Wikipedia, where school articles are concerned, I could as well invest the time I might have spent on nominating for deletion, toward cleanup of the article instead, even if it isn't my primary area of interest.
So, it probably would have been more appropriate to mark the article for cleanup than to list on Afd.  But, sometimes I have to learn the best way to handle something by trial and error.
I wonder if we could get Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments into the Centralized Discussions that show up on Afd. (I don't think it is there yet.) Seeing that in advance, I might have avoided nominating a school.
Again, apologies if the nomination was inappropriate in the first place.
--LiniShu 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We all live and learn, so little harm done. But, and I don't speak as a schools' inclusionist, you are correct that there is no point in nominating a school for deletion, as precident establishes that verifiable schools are kept. Mark for cleanup and let the schoolwatch-fanatics do their stuff. As to making that fact clear, you are right - it should be more visible to folk that don't follow AfD debates. Cheers. --Doc (?) 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still grates, though.  Essentially the schools inclusionists win simply by existing, and the exclusionists cannot win because as long as someone creates an article about a school the inclusionists will lock it in.  What happens when the unsigned bands inclusionists get going?  Or the advertising inclusionists?  Or the vanity page inclusionists?  Just becauise something is true doesn't mean it deserves a place on Wikipedia.  Of course I have an agenda, too.  I am annoyed at seeing schools with no notable alumni and a hundred year history at most getting often more detail than my old school which is over a thousand years old and is the only English school to number a pope among its former pupils :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriateness of nomination