Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew's Junior School

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep or merge. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saint Andrew's Junior School
More primary school cruft. Dunc|&#9786; 20:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep' all of these please dunc why do you keep on doing this? Yuckfoo 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well firstly because it's unnotable cruft, secondly because it needs to be demonstrated that attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by organising votes to keep is wrong. There was a previous concensus to delete unnnotable primary schools and for good reason. Now whether its an intentional stance or not, you get the yes men to come along and vote for you. Dunc|&#9786; 20:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please consult WP:POINT & WP:civ. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yeah, Dunc. Until this gets solved in the Schools policy, it makes no sense to keep adding them on here. jglc | t | c 20:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and resist attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by flooding it with hostile nominations. Kappa 21:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I think from a reader-friendly point of view this group of related schools that share a name would probably be better served merged into a single article. DS1953 21:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and resist attempts to subvert vfd and keep worthless articles. --Carnildo 21:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly non-notable; article is complete schoolcruft. Hermione1980 22:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Saint Andrew's School, then delete. This "article" is a single sentence, and were it on any other subject there would not be a host of keep votes. Also, Kappa's suggestion that this is an attempt to subvert VfD is out of line. This article is a perfectly acceptable candidate for deletion due to a lack of content.  This actually should qualify for speedy because it only gives information that is readily available in the article's title. I would advise a little less rhetoric and a little more reasoning on the article's qualities, rather than its subject matter. --Scimitar 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it was about the article, Dunc could have used a cleanup tag, or gone ahead and merged it. Kappa 00:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:From wikipedia's policy page on vanity articles: Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools (italics mine). Simply being about a school does not make that article immune to VfD. --Scimitar 22:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, schoolcruft, and resist attempts to subvert vfd and intimidate voters by flooding it with hostile keep votes and comments. RickK 23:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do something useful instead. CalJW 00:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Please write something useful instead. There are dozens of reasons for this to be deleted.  It is vanity.  It is a non-exclusive name.  It has no useful content.  Then again, I'm actually reading the article.  Do the Schoolwatch people do the same?  Geogre 02:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable schools cruft. JamesBurns 03:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see nothing notable about this school. What makes it different from millions of other primary schools? NatusRoma 03:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to city article. I would think that the nominator would find the process of Merging to be easier then putting these on VfD. Did anyone look at Saint Andrew's School which has no text and only pictures and external links? Vegaswikian 06:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, Merging this with Saint Andrew's School seems to be the best course of action right now. That article looks a little starved (and probably qualifies for a speedy deletion) right now. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or merge with Saint Andrew's School. Good stub. Nothing wrong with it. The last 70 or so school deletion discussions that have reached a conclusion at the time of writing have all ended in keep (one article about a school playing field was merged).  WP:SCH contains good advice on how to avoid fruitless school deletion discussions.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. Double Blue  (Talk) 14:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. I have to point out Saint Andrew's School does not even exist as an entity, and actually needs removal overtime.--Huaiwei 14:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you say Saint Andrew's School does not exist?  Double Blue  (Talk) 17:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's because the so-called "St. Andrew's group of schools" merely describes a group of affiliated schools. It is not one educational institution, the same way Anglo-Chinese School actually dosent exist as one insitution either. There are many other similar groups of schools with affiliations, such as the schools in the Rafflesian umbrella (Raffles Institution, Raffles Junior College, Raffles Girls' School (Secondary) etc. Unless schools actually merge into one, like what happened with Hwa Chong Institution, it makes little sense to be talking about a brand name instead of the various institutions represented.--Huaiwei 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Unified School District is a group of affiliated schools. University of Oxford is a group of affiliated colleges. The United States of America is a group of affiliated states. Saint Andrew's School share a principal, site, and management with its affiliated schools and if these articles are merged, is the best place for them. Double Blue  (Talk) 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm....not really. SAJS's principal is Mrs Wai Yin Pryke. SASS's is Mrs Belinda Charles. SAJC's Mrs Lim Chye Tin. SAJC's new campus is still being constructed as we speak, and currently is located away from the other schools. We have other affiliated schools moving to neighbouring sites, but that dosent mean the school has merged into one. For clear definitions of the status of Singapore schools, it is far better to refer to the School information Service of Singapore's Ministry of Education page instead, because so long that these schools are listed seperately there, they are still officially considered seperate institutions.--Huaiwei 19:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I goofed on using the term "principal" but the rest is true. Perhaps the head of SAS is still termed "warden"? Anyway, it's not necessary for the physical schools to be merged for the there to be an article on Saint Andrew's School. Furthermore, Page 4 of the history of Saint Andrew's School and others show these schools all developed from the same institution. We have verged from the focus of discussion of this page. My point is that SAS page would be the site of merger of SAJS, if necessary. Double Blue  (Talk) 20:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but this phenomena of schools sharing the same heritage, or having split off from the same institution, is still not unique enough to warrant special treatment, at least in the Singaporean context. We do have several schools with different school names, yet are closely affiliated, and it is not always practical to lump them together (for eg, my former sch, Montfort Secondary School, is affiliated to St. Gabriel's Secondary School and Assumption English school, along with the associated primary/junior schools. What shall we call this unified entity, then? In addition, all these schools are Catholic schools, which are in turn affiliated to all other Catholic schools in Singapore. Where do we draw the line?). I personally feel that each school should have its own entry, provided they have substaintial material which are encyclopedic.--Huaiwei 20:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current article is lacking because of systemic bias, not because its non-notable. How is it going to grow if you keep killing it off when they are young? -- Natalinasmpf 15:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or expand/rewrite. &mdash; Instantnood 19:38, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find it sad that Duncharris (Dunc) has practically admitted to breaching WP:POINT simply because he doesn't agree with the recent trend toward keeping schools.  -- Un focused 04:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vsion 06:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid stub. SchmuckyTheCat 15:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep RJH 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another so-called article that harms wikipedia by being totally useless. Indrian 04:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quale 18:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Saint Andrew's School and expand that one instead. StopTheFiling 18:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Saint Andrew's School. While we are on the subject, pull in Saint Andrew's Secondary School and Saint Andrew's Junior College and put it all in one page. Those pages whould also be up for deletion too, Speedy in fact. I feel that this does not warrant having 4 seperate pages with lack of detail. By the way, most of the pictures in the template don't apply to this school. Huaiwei, I understand what you are talking about there, but the 3 schools were originally one school ever since its founding (1862) until the 1970s or 80s when the 3 schools then split. So in essence, they are actually the one and the same school. This is not the same as brother/sister school affiliation (eg St. Andrew's and St. Margaret's) or affiliation by religious movement (Fairfield Methodist and Paya Lebar Methodist) or branch schools (Anglo Chinese School (Independent) and Anglo Chinese School (Barker Road)). I was from St. Andrew's, by the way. Sandstorm6299 14:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .