Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geylang Methodist Secondary School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (apparently) Deleted, perhaps because of the copyvio, and possibly ignoring the late Keep votes resulting from GRider's posts on multiple User_talk pages. The admin who deleted the article did not close the VfD in the usual way. I am just adding the closure templates. --BM 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyvio on March 5 after being listed since February 20. dbenbenn | talk 13:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geylang Methodist Secondary School

[edit]

Article fails to establish notability. Delete.-gadfium 05:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable - 350 Google hits. Megan1967 06:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless its the only Methodist school in Siagapore or something else that would make it notable pops up --nixie 06:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this and all school articles. They won't get better if they don't exist, and it would be amazing to have a proper article about every school in the World. Wincoote 07:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it would be detrimental. The important words are "proper article". An encyclopaedia is not simply a directory. It contains knowledge, not mere information. To be worthy of a "proper article", an entity that is one of thousands (or, as in this case one of hundreds of thousands if not millions) has to stand out from the crowd for some reason. There has to be something more than can be inferred from the fact that it is a school (and thus has all of the things that that entails, such as enrollment, teachers, songs, crests, buildings, sports teams, and so forth). High schools in Connecticut, before its deletion, showed how large numbers of entities with lack of individual notability can be handled. But even that approach comes with caveats. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. The vast majority of schools in the world are not notable. Make articles for the notable ones, put them in appropriate categories and Wikipedia becomes a better place. Carrp | Talk 07:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasons why notable schools get deleted while articles about fictional bus drivers get kept is due to systematic bias. If this article get deleted than I hope the delete voters won't object to deleting Ernie Prang? But no, you would all be voting keep. VFD is broken. I have seen countless articles get deleted because of this problem and this is another example. Norman Rogers\talk 09:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No, most people are voting merge on Ernie :) Other than that, concur with Carrp, Delete. Radiant! 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is this one more notable than the average secondary school? Kappa 11:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The reasons why notable schools get deleted while articles about fictional bus drivers get kept is due to systematic bias — That is a flawed argument that assumes the erroneous premise that the schools actually are notable. Out of the millions of schools in the world, the overwhelming majority are not notable (despite all of the efforts of academic boosterism to the contrary). School articles get deleted because there is nothing of importance to say about the schools and the articles are tantamount to directory entries. Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
Notabillity is a POV, which is sculpted by systematic bias. You have the bias that schools are not notable as your POV, but realize that there are other people who think that they are notable. If you don't think that they are notable then don't read them, but getting them deleted and denying the people who do think they are notable to write about them is bad. Thats why deletionists are bad for the Wikipedia project and they must change their ways. Think KEEP, make Wikipedia more comprehensive and therefore useful, or a merge and redirect to an article in your POV is notable enough to include. For exmaple, a few weeks ago, someone wrote an article about MY former school! Instead of listing it on VFD, I merged and redirected it into the town that it was in, that is a much better soloution. See article about it. If more people kept or merged and redirected there will be less aruments on VFD and Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia. Norman Rogers\talk 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio - I normally vote to keep schools, but in this case the article is a copyvio from [1]. - SimonP 14:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if copyvio is resolved. Very few secondary schools are encyclopedically notable, and there is no reason to consider this an exception. --BM 16:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if copyvio is resolved. Necessary to the coverage of its local area. Kappa 03:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Merge information into article about the local community and delete - Skysmith 09:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if the copyvio is resolved, I'd need a LOT of convincing. Delete. --Calton 10:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable.--Centauri 12:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That may be your opinion but it is far from consensual. Radiant! 13:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the copyvio is fixed. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote keep. In my opinion schools are notable. --JuntungWu 14:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Realising that while my opinion is non-consensual, educational institutions of all sorts are still much more inherently noteworthy than the average Pokémon. May be persuaded to change my vote if we remove Pokémon-related boosterism but until then, keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 19:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools are not inherently notable. No evidence available that this one is notable. Delete even if copyvio is resolved. GRider has a good point but "Wikipedia is inconsistent." We must take these nominations as they come to us. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Grue 13:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I know people of good will have strongly held opinions about inclusion of school articles, but this is ridiculous. The article lacks any meaningful content and comes very close to qualifying for speedy deletion ("very short articles with little or no context"). Delete, add mention to some relevant local article if available. RadicalSubversiv E 13:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous article, candidate for speedy deletion, exposes radical school inclusionism. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The current non-copyvio version is almost nonsensical, and the copyvio version neither establishes (nor attempts to establish) notability. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Like Aranel said. Delete.
  • Delete. Not notable. 66.188.220.252 05:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Note: Unsigned and/or unregistered votes do not count on VfD. Please register an account with Wikipedia first and have some contributions before voting here. --Andylkl 23:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions. Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep the article, rewrite it so it's not a copyright violation.--BaronLarf 19:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Whats the point if it's a copyvio. RaD Man (talk) 22:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the copyvio, I'll vote to keep if original content turns up. Wyss 23:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Willing to change vote if there's useful/factual content there. --Andylkl 23:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable -CunningLinguist 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. JuntungWu 12:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (if copy violation is fixed). schools are notable RustyCale 13:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As others said, it has to be fixed first thou. But as a Singaporean, I have to point out that it is one of the few Methodist schools in Singapore, so it may be worthy for an elaboration on its history.--Huaiwei 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:56, 6 Mar 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geylang_Methodist_Secondary_School&oldid=1137877630"