Talk:George H. Moody Middle School

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 July 28. The result of the discussion was keep.

Article redirected, please make any new comments at Talk:Henrico County Public Schools

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Make Corrections

Earl Binns is no longer the principal. Arthur Raymond is th enew principal of George H. Moody Middle School.

That is not a picture of Moody Middle School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.41 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Mr. Binns isnt the principle. I happen to go to this school and I am not an IB and frankly I think the public should know moody has a zoned group too. Although we only make up 1/3 of the school. I am in the 7th grade at this school. It isn't that i don't like the IB's trust me I like some of them just not most of them XD. -Signed MMS student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.153.111 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IB people r awesome! I love it especially 6th gradeee,......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilblsajct (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger with Henrico County Public Schools

I do not like the idea to merge this article with Henrico County Pubic Schools. Henrico Count Public Schools is the school division, and George H. Moody Middle school is the school itself. We could just create a portal or a group.

► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non notable material about sexting

I removed this as non notable unless there is more to the story since this is very common. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problems

We cannot use material that is only referenced to the school's own website. We need third-party sources for anything beyond basic facts like the address. I will continue to remove anything that fails this criterion. --John (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is a valid statement. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for secondary sources, and can't find them - perhaps other editors can provide. In the interim, I've tagged the places where primary sources only were used (all of the references are such), and also tagged where items have no reference whatsoever (e.g., the Technology section). JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here at all? Propose redirect.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have redirected this page to George H. Moody Middle School per the consensus below. The lack of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, as emphasized by those advocating a redirect, means that this cannot be a stand-alone article. The redirect may be undone if nontrivial coverage in reliable sources can be found. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally middle schools/junior high schools are not considered notable enough for stand alone articles and are redirected to the parent articles on their school districts. I don't see any reason why this school should be an exemption to that. I therefore propose this be redirected to Henrico County Public Schools. Anyu content worth merging can be pulled from the history. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with that. --John (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An effort was made, however incoherent, to indicate how this school is notable separately. On that basis, I think we should give the article time to develop, rather than just assume a redirect is needed purely on the basis of it being a particular level of school. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited very heavily in the last few days, could you please point out what it is that would make this school independently notable? I've looked at a few of the diffs and all I see is a lot of crufty details about policies and electives you would find at thousands of other schools, all sourced to the school's own website. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to be argumentative, but that sounds like you are starting from a viewpoint of wanting to delete (or merge) it? Why not just relax and let things take their course? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beeblebrox that the subject of the article seems insufficiently notable. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with that, once John, Beeblebrox, and JoeSperrazza explain what steps they each took to establish that there were no available sources for the statement "Moody Middle was the first IBMYP School authorized in the United States", and why they felt that no other statement in the article deserved that level of consideration. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, boring though it may be (I hate this kind of thing), it's almost certainly a notable building due to its history. And in fact a notable school due to its history (did I tell you how boring I find this?) It would've been much easier just to get some experts here to begin with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three issues to consider with your comments:

If the building is notable, then an article about the building would be a possibility, but I don't see that transferring to notability about the school
Please provide WP:RS showing that building's notability
"what steps they each took to establish that there were no available sources for the statement "Moody Middle was the first IBMYP School authorized in the United States"" - I don't understand this statement. Please clarify.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the main claim to notability. (Although I would accept the others as well, since unused churches local to me would qualify for notability purely by their existence, and yes, they are much less significant buildings.) Did you look for sources for that statement? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a self-published reference in the article that doesn't state the building is notable for its age, only that it was first used in 1951 - which isn't particularly old for a school. Did you find any reliable sources, with appropriate coverage, etc., per WP:N, stating notability due to the building's age? What's shown in the article, at the state it was when I first looked at it, as well as in the one reference, I don't see even an assertion of notability. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we're going round in circles intentionally here or not :|. The statement seems to be an assertion of notability. No-one has said that they looked into finding sources for the statement. The article was already taken to AfD once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being intentionally obtuse, thank you. Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." I'll note I removed no such materiel from the article. If you can find such references and thus can add assertion of notability, terrific! That I or other editors commented here have not found even an assertion of notability and thus made comment here that the article lacks notability, and so perhaps does not qualify as a stand-alone article, does not place the onus on us to assert we searched and couldn't find what's lacking. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "The statement seems to be an assertion of notability", I assume you mean the one in the reference, because the article is silent on the issue. But the reference is self-published; it also isn't a clear assertion of notability. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict...) Seems to be some upset here that I don't want to be involved in. I haven't added or restored any material to the article. If you don't think the subject of the article is notable, then please take it to a second AfD. I have made clear what I considered to be an assertion of notability. You have a contrary view. There are processes for dealing with this. If you prefer to ignore those processes, have fun with whatever you do with the article. I won't be getting involved with that again. Bye. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No upset on my part, sorry you think so. I don't need to "take it to a second AfD". Rather, I merely stated "I agree with Beeblebrox" that a delete or merge might be appropriate due to its lack of notability. In doing so, I am following the process (not "choosing to ignore it", thanks again), namely discussing the article and its merits on its talk page. As I said, if it is possible to salvage the article by editing it to assert notability (not anywhere in the version that exists now) and provide citations thereof, swell. That's what this discussion was meant to be about (at least by me).

As you said on your talk page (to another editor, not me - we've never, ever had any discussions anywhere except here, on this talk page, tonight): "Try to deal with other editors in a way that reduces, not exacerbates, confrontations. Consider editing in topic areas that don't cause disputes and upset for you. Good luck!" Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, as I tried to explain, I just got here, so I haven't seen every previous version of the page and the few examples I selected from the page history did not answer my questions about this. All I was asking for was some explanation of what the claim to notability above and beyond that of any other middle school was, and hopefully a reliable source to verify that. I don't get what is so upsetting about that. Anyway, I don't see being the first school to be in the IB Middle Years Programme as much of a claim to notability. Per WP:INHERIT, even if we grant that the program itself is notable, that notability does not automatically transfer to this school just because it was the first participant. (as to the old AFD, that was nearly five years ago. Consensus can change. That's the point of discussing this now) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just got here, too (as a result of the comment on the article at ANI). I can only easily see what's here, now, and have no insight into prior AFDs, etc. I agree completely with your comments. I came, I saw, I commented. I have no preconceptions about the article nor about the editors. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just randomly dropped by here from the ANI discussion. Reading the article, I don't see any claim made for notability for the school, and notice that there are no external sources cited at all. Also, established practice is that elementary and middle schools are in general not notable. I don't see anything different about this school, or anything that satisfies the General Notabiltiy Guide. I would support taking this to WP:AFD. LK (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but since I'm actually proposing a redirect I didn't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and ref's carefully, and made corrections and improvements. However, a number of assertions in the document are not supported by the references. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've noticed on the Henrico County Public Schools page, you'll see many articles linking to various, individual schools. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 22:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information on individual schools in Henrico County- perhaps too much information for the main school district page. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in the references? Are there any that can be used here in this article? If so, perhaps you could add them where there are citation needed tags (assuming the text really is supported by those references). Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not references. The problem with writing district schools is the fact that the only reliable information about a school usually comes from the school's own website. No, I meant that if you wanted to merge this article with Henrico County Public Schools, you would, perhaps, need to merge all of the other schools in the county that have individual articles about them.► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I understand. (As an aside, the Henrico County Public Schools is a mess. Look at the Technology section, for example. Plus, the whole article has a dearth of citations). Another editor, Beeblebrox, was proposing a redirect, not a merge, as, in the case of this article, he believes this school lacks notability to have an article (from what I've seen, I agree - the language of the article doesn't even claim notability). We'll see what shakes out. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)If the other current stand alone school articles for the district are "sourced" to the same quality as this one, the verified content that would be suitable to merge back the the parent article would not actually increase the size of that article too much at all. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Encyclopedia Geek I think this article is relevant, some portions may seem unnecessary to you, but it does, for the most part, seem important. As you can view in the history, I added loads of citations to back up my edits. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Please read Wikipedia's definition of how topics are identified as "important" enough to merit a stand alone article. WP:N. It boils down to "significant coverage in third party reliable sources specifically about the topic of the article." I dont believe that your version of the article (which I have reverted as not meeting the consensus of discussions on this page) fails to meet that standard. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Indextookviewsgoals The revised article is lengthly, but it seems to have a greater number of sources. Perhaps you all should focus your resources on a page like Robinson Secondary School, another page for a Virginia, US school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia Geek (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for, so far, not automatically disagreeing with me. I do appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indextookviewsgoals (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Articles like this one seem to capture the essence of local buildings and life. I think that this one is no different. The article that used to be in here on sexting was one of the few that had proper citations. I'll undo the recent edit; it seems to now be two against one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkpdn (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Let's work on improving the article

It would help if prior editors of this article would:

indent your comments using colons
sign sign your comments, at the end, by typing in four tildes ("~"), like this ~~~~
assume good faith - there is no "conspiracy" nor taking sides, just a need to have proper references and text
discuss, don't edit war

Look, folks, I want to help, as do other editors. Help us help you:

The article needs proper references.I marked them in the body of the text with tags "citation needed" and/or "non-primary citations needed". You are clearly passionate about this article (and, by inference, the school). Great! Find the references and add them. I found at least one, and added it myself.
Don't add new text that lacks proper references. It doesn't help the article. Length does not make a good article.
Most importantly, have some assertion of notability in the text, and provide a reference for that. Is it being the first IB whatever? OK, help explain why that is notable. Start by explaining here, and let established editors help you craft the text. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. I thought that I had added additional sources for the new parts. Perhaps I did not.Encyclopedia Geek (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm sorry to say, you did not. You added sources that were (a) Primary, (b) duplicates of what was there. You also added text previously removed as being not notable. It would be swell if you reverted the edits (that another prior editor put back) and then let's work through the pieces, one by one, as numbered above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You also removed several of the citation tags, yet you said in your comments you intended to leave them. A first step would be understanding why the references are primary reference, and hence need improvement. Also, the proper method of putting in references would be a good thing to understand (look at the article - it is broken now). I'm offering to help! Post your references here, if you like, and I'll either explain how to add them, or add them for you, or explain why they're a duplicate (if they are) or primary (if they are). Thanks for your willingness to work, not just edit. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Look, Im sorrry to say that I agree with neither of you and will not even bother editing this page ever again. Just like that user a couple of days ago.Indextookviewsgoals (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)signature[reply]

OK, I'm sorry, too. I'm not glad to see the article improved, and do want to encourage you to make note of your concerns here. However, if you're moving on, best wishes. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not glad to see the article improved"- Wikipedia editors should assume good faith.74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say I want the article improved, and more help is better! JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. Maybe we can get this project done. This page has so many issues! This, however, is a job for more than 2 or three users.74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. I will countinue with this page, but think that User:Indextookviewsgoals is missing out.

I do not understand why the article on Sexting was removed. It appeared to be relevant to the school's history74.110.198.236 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The technology setion seems to short. This is not a nutshell page.74.110.198.236 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be beneficial if some of you all worked on the Henrico County Public Schools page, or the Robinson Secondary School page. Both of these articles are in far worse shape.74.110.198.236 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. As volunteers we are all free to edit wherever we like, or not at all. This article is a dreadful mess. This school probably doesn't even merit an article. Could those dissenting from this view please provide evidence from third party sources of the validity of their views. --John (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this article improved!

Let's get this done, one step at a time. I know that it can be done, because it has been done before. Good luck to us all!74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this are not constructive JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When does the anonymous editor believe this article has previously been better? I didn't see it in the history, it looks like it has always been pretty poor. --John (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His IP account was blocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

Encyclopedia Geek (talk · contribs) and Wkpdn (talk · contribs) are indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of Indextookviewsgoals (talk · contribs) who has been blocked for two weeks. --Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that, the Talk Page history is particularly sad, as the socks argue with each other and make conflicting assertions:

Let's work on improving the article: I'm with you... [1] "I'm with you. I thought that I had added additional sources for the new parts. Perhaps I did not.Encyclopedia Geek (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
Let's work on improving the article: No, not me. [2] "Look, Im sorrry to say that I agree with neither of you and will not even bother editing this page ever again. Just like that user a couple of days ago.Indextookviewsgoals (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)signature"[reply]

This is more than sock puppetry - it is disruptive editing (and, if you include IP editor 74.110.198.236, for whom the sock puppet investigation clerk had "no comment", as it had already been temporarily blocked, for vandalism), then intentional damage was part of the agenda, too.

You've misread the last bit, the 'no comment' was just that, not related to the block. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. What I was trying to say (which is what I thought) was that the clerk had no comment as he had not checked that IP, as it was already blocked (with the take-away point being that the IP was not CU'd). JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect

I noticed that the redirect didn't seem definite. A few users back (not those sock puppets) tried to prevent the article from being redirected. I, like him/her, think that it is probably a local landmark. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that.Mountainous Terrain (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainous Terrain (talk · contribs) and Space Shuttle Endeavour (talk · contribs) are indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of Indextookviewsgoals (talk · contribs) who is now blocked indefinitely. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Sockpuppet326 (talk · contribs). I suggest the editor should Wikipedia:Let it go. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.