Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North View 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

North View Primary School


Non notable primary school. Contested prod. Requested explanation from main editor on notability, none provided when prod removed QuiteUnusual 09:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I felt that if schools like Northland Primary had articles, Northview primary deserved an article as well. Skyline supra 11:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yet another directory-style listing. Kavadi carrier 10:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still delete per nomination though I notice the article has been much expanded. This looks like another school that's notable within Singapore only. Kavadi carrier 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 11:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The existance of other non-notable school articles is no grounds for keeping this one. Please read Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Kavadi carrier 11:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I will comment no further. -- Kicking222 15:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete But willing to change my opinion if any of the mentioned alumni can be shown to meet WP:BIO. Google searching for them was less than helpful, I found some possible references to Tan Gim Hwa but that was it. (I was using the English spellings, so if someone has some idea what would be reasonable other language searches they should probably do it). For now, the only claim to notability is non-notable alumni. There may also be WP:V concerns in terms of sourcing the article. JoshuaZ 20:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable school. Montco 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Additionally, I'm not even sure what the grade level of this school is, that's how bare-bones a directory-type article it is. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep BAD FAITH NOMINATION, only created a few days ago! Please allow for organic expansion of the article.  I'm sure verification is possible, but as you know, Rome wasn't built in a day.  -- Librarianofages 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no need to call it bad faith. Please WP:AGF. And whether or not Rome was built in a day isn't very relevant if a school is fundamentally not-notable. Also, while we're at it "organic expansion" is nothing more than a buzzword. Please try to make an actual keep argument. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I agree it isn't proper to assume bad faith, I think it's also disingenuous and improper to discount someone else's reasoning out of hand like that. Organic expansion is a perfectly legitimate description of what happens to Wiki articles as they are noticed by users with knowledge of the topic over time.  We don't have to have this Wikipedia project wrapped up and finished before finals, you know.   Un  focused  09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask then what the word "organic" adds to the phrases "organic growth" or "organic expansion"? A good sign of something being a buzzphrase is the presence of irrelevant qualifiers. Furthermore, I question the assertion that this an article that even would see any signigicant expansion if we gave it time. Both Kappa and I attempted to expand it and it is still a small stub. This won't be any larger than a stub. JoshuaZ 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps reading this article will help you understand the analogy. If not, I'll be happy to explain further.   Un  focused  18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ENC. — Encephalon 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep! Schools are important and Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT  as wikipedia is not a directory and that is what this looks to be TheRanger 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am agreeing with User:Libraianofages. The article was created on Nov. 4. A day later it's AFD'd. IMHO, you've got to give at least a week before trying to delete something like this (ie, something non-speediable). Or were we feeling bitty today? Although, if this were a week later, my vote would be to delete. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We could always see if User:Skyline supra continues to refine the article within the remaining four days of this nomination. Eventualism does have limitations. Kavadi carrier 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A school is no more notable than any other building within a community. Frankly, most should qualify under speedy a-7.  Unless the school can assert some notability from the creation of the article, it should be deleted. Resolute 04:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless notability explained. utcursch | talk 13:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. This school is listed in List_of_schools_in_Singapore, a huge and unwieldy article, which would not be an appropriate place to put the additional detail contained here.  I expect this article will grow as have many of the others listed there.  The achievements shown are notable, and I expect documented notable alumni will be added.  I know of no reason why Wikipedia cannot be inclusive of "Encyclopedia of Education", of which Singapore has surprisingly good coverage so far, in my opinion.    Un  focused  18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion of notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is demonstrated within the article, topic looks encyclopedic and worthy of coverage.  Silensor 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets all content policies, therefore no reason to delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, the article meets all content policies. Certainly WP:NOT is among those. There's no reasonable interpretation of WP:NOT that would exclude this article. (Nor is it clear that deletion would be a reasonable fix if the article did not meet WP:NOT, though in this case that is beside the point.) Christopher Parham (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of random information. And as to how to deal with those two issues, what would you propose other than deletion?JoshuaZ 05:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You make reference to two sections of WP:NOT, that A) Wikipedia is not a directory, and B) Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. WP:NOT defines these terms as follows: A) Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. NOT APPLICABLE, and 3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business Now this what is raised as an issue, but WP:NOT defines this as For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. There is just nothing in this clause of WP:NOT that seems relevant to making this particular article improper. B) Next we have Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is defined as 1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOT APPLICABLE; 2. Travel guides. NOT APPLICABLE; 3. Memorials. NOT APPLICABLE; 4. Instruction manuals. NOT APPLICABLE; 5. Internet guides.NOT APPLICABLE; 6. Textbooks and annotated texts. NOT APPLICABLE; 7. Plot summaries. NOT APPLICABLE, Again, there is no aspect of this clause of WP:NOT that seems applicable in any way to this article. WP:NOT is often thrown out as a justification to delete articles, but I agree completely with Christopher Parham that it simply doesn't apply in this case. Alansohn 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the first point, this entry is little more than an address easily in the "phonebook entries" category. As to the second point, it should be apparent that the list there is not intended to be exhaustive. In fact, almost daily, articles are deleted per WP:NOT's "random collection" criterion even if they don't fall into exactly one of those categories. JoshuaZ 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's printed in your phone book, but in mine, phonebook entries look like North View Primary School 123 Main Street  123-456-7890. This article far exceeds what a phonebook entry is, by any reasonable definition of the term. The fact that WP:NOT's "indiscriminate collection" clause is used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia", and the fact that there are many people who misuse it and get articles deleted, does not make it a valid argument. The examples provided are intended to serve as cardinal prototypes of "indiscriminate collections", and none of them are within miles of this article. How can we meaningfully apply Wikipedia criteria if their clearcut meaning can be changed to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. You don'texcuse bad arguments to keep (e.g. the fact that some similar article was kept doesn't justify retention of this one), why should a bad argument re WP:NOT (e.g., other people use it to mean something other than what it says and they delete articles anyway) be acceptable? Alansohn 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Frequently, information that on its own is random can be placed with other relevant information to create a good article. Deletion is rarely the best thing to do with verifiable information; the ideal solution is to present it in a digestible format in its proper context, so that it is accessible to those who will find it useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article as it stands now does not seem to meet the retention standards set by WP:SCHOOLS. However, this is an article that was one of the first created by a brand new user. While it lacks sources (thanks to Kappa and JoshuaZ for taking the time to do some research and make improvements), it does make claims of notability regarding alumni, which I was unable to verify, perhaps as the school is in Singapore. That the article was prod'ed hours barely six hours after the article was created, and then put here on AfD less than 12 hours after that is simply not adequate time to allow a fully formed article to be created. While I have no reason to believe any bad faith was involved, I do not feel that anyways near adequate time was allowed to improve the article or address the prod tag. Alansohn 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abandom AfD This is another instance of the Wikipedia delete, delete delight song. A new user should not be welcomed by this song however bad their article is. Yes, OK, raise a concern on the page, tell them how to address the concerns, and if they don't improve then put an AfD, but with such a new article and new use an AfD notice so soon is simply an abuse of process. --Mike 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn schoole, and would Mike take the same view if the newbie wrote an article about his/her pet? c'mon we don't relax keepability standards based on the newness of the article's creator. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Carlossuarez46 - come on lets keep this in proportion, most schools have many pets, therefore by your own argument if it is arguable to have an article about one's pet then it clearly is acceptable to have it about numerous pets, and their owners! But seriously, almost all schools should be in Wikipedia in some form or other. There are many advantages to WIkipedia to have them in. Very oftent he writers are new users and therefore the AfD is inappropriate and all in all I don't know why there is so much time wasted trying to get them deleted, it only does the reputation of Wikipedia a great deal of harm! --Mike 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Bad faith" means, nominated for deletion for some ulterior purpose - i.e., not because I believed the article should be deleted per Wiki policy. If you study the whole history you will see that I put a prod on this article as it is a primary school, generally considered not notable in previous AfD debates. I told the creator of the article on their Talk page that I had put the prod in place, explained why, told them how to remove the prod and asked for them to make clear why the school was notable if they removed the prod. The prod was removed without any further edits to the article. I then brought it to AfD and told the creator I had done so. A lot of effort to go to if I just wanted something deleted for a "bad faith" reason, don't you think. QuiteUnusual 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article needs time to develop. It already shows that the school competes and even wins in interschool competition. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have created a new article entitled Schools in Yishun which can be a start toward building an encyclopedic treatment of this and the other weak, directory-style stubs. I believe that the guideline WP:LOCAL provides reasonable recommendations and I am trying to see them through. To that end, it would be helpful if this article were made into a redirect rather than merely deleted. Very little of the information currently in the article is of encyclopedic interest, other than the fact of its existence. The linked articles, however, do contain some information of general interest regarding Singapore's approach to education. --Dystopos 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per above. "Schools are notable" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument from evidence. This is a directory entry, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per comments above by Alansohn.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 06:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above commenters. This article should be given time to develop.  Yamaguchi先生 06:38, 9 November 2006
 * Delete per WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:LOCAL. Vegaswikian 07:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete primary school without any claims to particular notability. Eluchil404 09:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn, deletion seems hasty to me. Accurizer 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for expansion per Alansohn's comments above. bbx 09:09, 11 November 2006 (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.