| Revision as of 21:03, 13 November 2006 editWaltCip (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,579 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:08, 13 November 2006 edit undoJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,659 edits →[] (2nd nomination): well then, that answers thtNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| **** I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this ] non-compliant? ] 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | **** I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this ] non-compliant? ] 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***** Yuckfoo, you're in violation of ] and ]. I take offense to being blatantly named a sockpuppet. Moreover, you have failed to argue against ] and ].--] 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | ***** Yuckfoo, you're in violation of ] and ]. I take offense to being blatantly named a sockpuppet. Moreover, you have failed to argue against ] and ].--] 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ****** Well that answers who made the nominations. I presume you meant to be signed in with the other account? ] 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:08, 13 November 2006
Cao Yang Middle School (2nd nomination)
Was originally kept following a VfD back in May 2005, here, but has not improved since. Article does not assert any particular notablity or importance beyond having finished ninth place in a choral competition. The only time that this article has been edited since 2005 was to fix a typo. WP:SCHOOL (which is not a guideline) suggests that school articles must conform to our verifiablity policy, viz: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This article does not appear to present such evidence, and the lack of edits since last year strongly suggests that it never will. Puerto De La Cruz 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per my above nom. Puerto De La Cruz 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. TJ Spyke 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, meets content policies. Alternately, merge into Shanghai per WP:LOCAL as this information is worth keeping. P.S. This must be a huge school to have 144 people on its staff. JYolkowski // talk 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There might be something in Chinese that indicates noteworthiness, but I couldn't find anything in English. As an aside, I checked the link to the choral competition, and can't find any indication that this school participated -- so even its weak claim to notability is unsourced. Shimeru 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Denni ☯ 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. But hoping someone who cares about this article can find sources in chinese to demonstrate notability. JoshuaZ 23:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. How is this useful? If someone is searching for this place their website is more useful than this "article". There is no notablity to base an article on. Arbusto 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This individual has explicitly stated that he is simply going down the schools for deletion archive and voting delete without valid justification, and has encouraged others to do so on his talk page. This same meaningless, typo-filled nonsense has been cut and pasted into multiple AfDs, and is all the more likely to be evidence of bad faith in this case, given that the website this person claims is more useful than this article is in fact entirely in Chinese. How's your Chinese Arbusto/oo? Alansohn 14:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WP:V, ultimatum not met.--WaltCip 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- keep please meets guidelines and policies and this is part of massive sockpuppet nominations Yuckfoo 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yuckfoo, you're in violation of WP:ASG and WP:CIVIL. I take offense to being blatantly named a sockpuppet. Moreover, you have failed to argue against WP:V and WP:SCHOOLS.--WaltCip 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well that answers who made the nominations. I presume you meant to be signed in with the other account? JoshuaZ 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yuckfoo, you're in violation of WP:ASG and WP:CIVIL. I take offense to being blatantly named a sockpuppet. Moreover, you have failed to argue against WP:V and WP:SCHOOLS.--WaltCip 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I never asserted otherwise. Of course its a sockpuppet. But not all sockpuppets violate policy. Where is this WP:SOCK non-compliant? JoshuaZ 20:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- please do not wiki-lawyer this is a obvious sockpuppet Yuckfoo 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No one has shown any strong violation of the sock policy by these nominations. JoshuaZ 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)