Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Science and Technology, Singapore


 * 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. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 09:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

School of Science and Technology, Singapore

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Withdraw nom due to improvement to the article. Advert by communication director for school.  Refs are WP:SPS and blogs. Previously deleted for copyvio, now pics all show "own work" tag of page creator, but I don't have a way to check them for copyvio (or don't know how). Recommend delete and if recreation allowed, it should go through AfC where the spam can be filtered out. GregJackP  Boomer!   04:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article could stand to be shortened significantly to avoid trivia, this does appear to be an actual high school which has been covered in the Singapore media (see Google News results). It is unusual for a high school's article to be deleted at AfD, and I doubt it will happen this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a government accredited high school. We do not delete high schools. The article needs to be cleaned up to remove any puff and COPYVIOS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has now been basically cleaned up to  remove the puffery. Checks for COPYVIO  still  need to made, references to  be checked, and images verified that  they  are indeed the own work of the uploader. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Article restored by editor/employee less then a day after removal for copyvio. Even in the present state (after the removal of most copyrighted pictures and Kudpungs edits) it looks more like an advertisement than a clean description of the school. And I don't like to see an article restored in advertisement-look, plain ignoring the reasons for deletion. The Banner talk 08:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Anyone seen the editor engage in discussion?
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verified secondary schools are invariably held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even when it is a plain advertisement without independent sources? The Banner talk 17:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, the advert w/o independent sources is a ground for deletion, but it should not be a bar to recreation. This one may be improved enough to keep (haven't decided yet).   GregJackP   Boomer!   18:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, there is nothing here that  cannot  be addressed - sounding like an advert is most  definitely not a criterion  for deletion; we are here to  build and encyclopedia and if commentators here would spare a few minute to  clean this article up  as I  did, the Wikipedia would be a better place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Kudpung. More alarming is the fact that a new SPA showed up at the artcle, removing the AfD and maintenance templates and restoring a lot of the promo. I have reverted that, but it is a nasty marker of the problems of the article... The Banner talk 11:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't  see any problem that can't  be solved with rollback and page protection. Deleting the page is absolutely not  necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The keep a close eye on it, because remarks like We've already inform the Ministry and they will be looking into this closely as well. is often an announcement of trouble. On the positive side: Lumcarol did follow my advice to stop working on the article and just put the sources on the talkpage. The Banner talk 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no reason to delete. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort - I  suggest  you  also  keep  an eye on it  as you  are so  concerned that it  should be deleted.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Fixable, and I did some of the fixing--removing the details on just which dignitaries were present at what ceremonies is frequent in school articles--it basically amounts to promotional namedropping, and simply needs removal, and also removing  duplication and excessive illustrations. I started the job last night, and I finished just now. I have almost never seen a school article which can not be rid of promotionalism, at the worst by stubbifying,
 * That the fixing I did was then reverted by a SPA is not unusual. This sort of vandalism happens to all sorts of articles, and at school articles (and some other types of articles, like media celebrities) it is rather frequent. If we started deleting articles that SPAs had messed with, there wouldn't be much left of the encyclopedia. We have a proper way to deal with it: we revert the SPA, we block them, and, if another shows up, we semi-protect or even fully protect the article.   DGG ( talk )


 * Keep (if notable) [redirect to Education in Singapore if not notable] - If the school is notable, the article should be kept. IMO, the issue is this.  Based on independent, reliable third party sources, does the school deserve a one line article noting that it exists?  If so, the article should be kept based on information provided by those sources, and nothing more.  If not, redirect it to Education in Singapore or a similar article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The school exists and should be kept since there are WP:RS for it. Also, it appears that the nominator has withdrawn this deletion request, I think. --Artene50 (talk) 04:27, 14 September 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.