Talk:Federal Way Public Academy

RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unanimous consensus not to merge. --GRuban (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? Here is the revision for the rewritten article. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. After the AfD was closed as "merge", I rewrote the article. A deletion review resulted in no consensus. John from Idegon redirected the article without merging anything, writing, "Per the AfD....merged all the content relative to the target article to the target article. It was all aready there. Merged."

  The only material about Federal Way Public Academy in Federal Way Public Schools is in the inclusion of a list: "Public Academy (6–10)". It is clear that no merge has taken place. As DRV voter Thincat (talk · contribs) wrote:

  the AFD nominator in their nomination[1], later comment[2] and subsequent action in creating a redirect[3], has not been distinguishing between merging and redirecting. The creation of the redirect was, indeed, disrespectful of the AFD discussion and its close.[4] The problem I see is that placing any substantial amount of this content in the target article will make the target unbalanced to the point of looking silly. I don't know what's best here but I think the outcome owes more to point-scoring over the article that any wish to help the encyclopedia.

  And as SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) wrote:

  Until merged, I see no suggestion that it should be pseudo-deleted. Discussions on the details of the merge may reverse the decision, especially with more sourced material being introduced.

  I oppose a merge because it would be undue weight and a merge of nothing or several sentences would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia's readers. The rewritten article discussed the school's history (conception, approval, opening, and expansion) and academics (enrollment, high test scores, and programs).

  The rewritten article is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" per G4. Recreation of a page, so it is immune from G4.

  The deletion review discussed whether the AfD close was within discretion. There was no consensus on that point. This RfC discusses whether a merge is still advisable after my rewrite.

  Cunard (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, Unscintillating (talk · contribs), for restoring the article. I agree with your edit summary: "AfD does not bind AfD admins into content discussions, and is moot now in any case." Cunard (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging AfD participants: John from Idegon (talk · contribs), Necrothesp (talk · contribs), Just Chilling (talk · contribs), SwisterTwister (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), D4iNa4 (talk · contribs), Egsan Bacon (talk · contribs), and Onel5969 (talk · contribs)

  Pinging DRV participants: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), Unscintillating (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Thparkth (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), and Lankiveil (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD merge closes do to some extent bind subsequent editors. Otherwise there would be no point in having a merge close. That said, it's always a question just how much should be merged. Sometimes the close specifies. For elementary schools, we normally do just merge the name to a list. But sometimes it can be appropriate to add a sentence or two. It would be so here.

However, this is possibly close enough to the criteria for an article that I think it would need a 2nd AfD. I'm not sure what I swill say there, but it might be weak keep, as one of the exceptions to the general rule. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

1st March RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? Responding to RFC not having previously read the articles. As I understand one article is about a group of school and another is about a particular school. It seems to me that a successful merge will present difficulties. If all schools in the group are listed on the page then the single school article could link to that page. Isthisuseful (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your comments that a merge would be difficult. I've moved your note (which was in a separate section) under this RfC's section. Cunard (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also responding to RfC not having read the article. I endorse what Isthisuseful has said - it's not entirely unknown for schools that are part of the same district (or area, if you're from England) to get their own individual articles, completely separate from the article that covers that area --The Historian (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge or redirect - as an inclusionist I believe there's plenty of room for an article about this academy. However, the article should obviously not include undue praise or puffery. One simple way of keeping the article short and sweet is by not making a keep contingent on more material. In my view Federal Way Public Academy is too long right now, but nobody who wants to keep the article from deletion has incentive to trim it when trimming might result in deletion. -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

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.