Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Sing Primary School


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Sai Ying Pun. Looking over the discussion, only the merge !votes have policy on their side. A long history does not convery notability. No additional sources were offered in this discussion to strenghten the idea that this primary school is notable under the GNG. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Li Sing Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Primary school. Convention with such schools is (I understand) to delete and/or redirect. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a government school named after a business man and charitarian in the early years of Hong Kong (1860s). --minghong (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Minghong. I understand that you are the creator of the article, and thank you for your contributions.  However, our general convention is not to have stand-alone articles on primary schools.  The fact that the school is a government school, or that it was named after a person who lived a long time ago, or that he was a businessman or philanthropist, does not confer notability on the school.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: WRONG! and deceptive comment. There is no such "general convention": there have been endless talks about the topic but no consensus has been reached. The mass deletion is the statistical result of people like you conducting a mass deletion campaign, not the result of any Wikipedia guideline or convention. Your "thanking" the article's creator appears as plain inadequate to me. olivier (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I indicated above that "our general convention is not to have stand-alone articles on primary schools". I based that on my observation of closes of AFDs of primary schools -- they have from what I've seen not been to keep stand-alone articles for primary schools, unless there is a special showing of notability, which in the articles I've seen brought to AfD has generally not been the case.  Either they have been redirected (as Kud, for example, indicates has been the case in 100s of AfD closures), or they have been deleted.  In fact, some editors have indicated that the convention to redirect such articles is so great that they should be redirected without any discussion if an editor believes that a redirect is in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Merriam-Webster online: "convention d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention." That's very close to what we call "consensus", here on Wikipedia.
 * There is no such agreement or consensus. There may be several active and vocal users in favor of deletion, but many others object it, therefore talking of "our general convention" is inappropriate. olivier (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had used the phrase to refer to "a practice ... widely observed in a group ... a custom". Which, along with "General agreement on or acceptance of certain practices or attitudes" is what the Free Dictionary defines the phrase as.  Apologies if you thought it meant anything other.  And, as you see above, I didn't say the practice was (as I understood it) to delete -- but rather to delete and/or redirect.  Said another way -- the general practice that I have seen of such primary schools, which only state claims such as "named after a businessman" who lived a long time ago, is that they are not sufficiently notable to Keep, but rather the practice with them has been to not keep them as stand-alone articles (whether by redirect, delete, or in some cases where appropriate RS-supported material exists, by merge).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, the term "convention" was ambiguous in this context. A redirect is practically very close to a deletion, as the content becomes only visible in the article's history, making it invisible to most Wikipedia readers. The article as it stands today gives valuable insights into the history and current situation of primary education in Hong Kong, and for this reason the material is worth being kept. A pure blanking+redirect to Sai Ying Pun would remove this from Wikipedia, and I don't see it as an improvement. olivier (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The convention only exists with regards to non-notable schools. This is not the case here. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect (blank, and merge any useful  content) tper nominator's own suggestion. Non   notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge Keep to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Olivier's arguments are compelling below regarding the historical value of this school. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and strongly object to the deceptive wording of the nomination. There is no "convention" to delete such articles. Also note that User:Epeefleche is engaged in a mass AfD'ing of primary schools across Wikipedia, resulting in unassuming and sincere editors fighting a deletionist (see User talk:Kudpung for some details). This has resulted in articles blanking and turned into a redirect without any part of the article being merged into the redirect target. Moreover, this article's creator User:minghong lacks English language fluency, as self-described on his user page and there is a risk of this being taken advantage of in this discussion. Finally, this specific school is one of the few early schools of Hong Kong still in operation and it has substantial historical value. Also, in its early days, education received in such a primary school was the only education many of the students would receive in their life. Finally, good references in Chinese language can certainly be found. Deleting the article will just prevent this from happening. olivier (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's keep in mind when doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking other editors. Stubbleboy 04:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - As is usually the case with primary schools, per what is basically an established consensus. None of the arguments that have been made seem to describe this school as more notable than other primary schools, beyond "it's old".--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I concur with Olivier's sentiments about the mass deletions. As per Olivier this is a very old school with a long history. The sources are all in Chinese, and the links need fixing. Specialist help is required not deletion. Note too that there is already an article on this school in the Chinese-language Wikipedia. There is no requirement that sources have to be in the English language. As no Chinese-speaking contributors have contributed to this debate no one has been able to verify the sources or translate the content of Chinese Wikipedia article. Dahliarose (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you linked to and read the Chinese sources and checked for others? I have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Sai_Ying_Pun. --Ifnord (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is actually no ref-supported, non-challenged text to consider merging.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect Blank the page and merge any useful content as suggested by Epeefleche and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Stubbleboy 03:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.