Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts


 * 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 keep in a rare July snowstorm. NAC.— S Marshall T/C 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)'''

Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  p Stats )

Per WP:GNG. No sources given for so many years. Fails guidelines as the page lacks sufficient and reliable third party independent sources Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be a degree-granting institution, which would indicate notability. Obviously 3rd party references to cover this and other statements in the article would be preferable, but that is a matter for normal article improvement rather than AfD. I've added a first reference to the article. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - this is immediately seen to be a major institution, with abundant Reliable Sources to prove notability. Google News finds 336 entries including Channel News Asia, New Straits Times, AsiaOne, VNExpress. For example AsiaOne 26 Dec 2008 shows 70 year celebrations of arts at Nanyang. ChannelNewsAsia 22 Aug 2009 shows that Singapore's Education Minister spoke about Nanyang. There's much more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (and admonish nominator) Prestigious tertiary arts institution in Singapore. An articles-only search of Newspapers.SG finds 3933 Chinese-language results for "南洋艺术学院" and 2780 English-language results for "Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears there are reliable sources on the subject -- just from a short Google Search, of all things -- so I don't buy the nom's argument. But, I do think the article needs a great deal of help in citations and making some content more concise and readable. Lord Roem (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I very much understand that this school exists. But, though notable, this page clearly lacks independent third party sources. Per WP:GNG, such refs need to be added promptly. If sufficient refs can be added, I will gladly withdraw my nom. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Without wanting to labour the matter of WP:BEFORE, point C1 says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." and D3 says "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." AllyD (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verified tertiary institutions are deemed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This instition exists is Singapore and has many local verifiable sources for it. --Artene50 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is for deleting non-notable subjects, not to force improvements on articles of clearly notable subjects, and even a cursory search reveals many available sources. When Wikipedia accepts articles on even high schools, this institution should not even have been nominated for deletion. —Lowellian (reply) 21:05, 26 July 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.