Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive effects of natural daylighting in schools


 * 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   merge to Light in school buildings. There is a long list of "delete" !votes based on WP:NOT, but just because the article is poorly written and formatted does not mean that it should be deleted. And few of the others believe the topic should remain as a separate article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Positive effects of natural daylighting in schools

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Odd essay, likely copydump (and therefore probable copyvio from somewhere...) &mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an essay. J I P  | Talk 03:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT.--Savonneux (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above arguments. sources are indicated, though: the creator can provide brief, sourced statements in the article on this subject, only if they can understand why this will be deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete But ask editor to add sourced material to daylighting which needs the information desperately.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I strongly agree with the point this essay makes, but it just looks like somebody copy-pasted their homework. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The handwaving WP:NOT arguments above are false because it is not "your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)" The article compiles numerous expert sources and so is an excellent contribution which we might well use in articles such as Daylighting and/or Classroom design.  The latter article shows how such material may be wikified and cleaned up to make it satisfactory and it is our editing policy to do this rather than deleting the contribution.  The claim that this is a copyright violation is unsupported and is a breach of our civility policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it was to be kept, to remain neutral surely the article would have to be moved to Dffects of natural daylighting in schools. That would be the only way this article could offer meaningful information on the subject. -- Pump me  up  14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources available for this. And didn't we recently have an article like this?  On light affecting the workplace or schools?   D r e a m Focus  13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Reads like a student's book report. Joal Beal (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Light in school buildings. That article has been established for a few months, wikified and has inline citations. Any relevant information in this article can easily be inserted to that one, which is a better title, less objective and does not sound like an essay title. -- Pump me  up  14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Delete appears to be a school essay, nothing in the article is actually a suitable subject. WP:NOT. -- Pump  me  up  14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Light in school buildings per Pumpmeup. Nice find. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Splunge for me too (ie light in school buildings, not daylighting as i suggested above).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2010 (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.