Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epsom Normal 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't sleep, clown will eat me 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epsom Normal Primary School

Non-notable elementary school. Deprodded and deprod2'd by User:Kappa Anyways, delete for lack of notability as an elementary school. Wickethewok 05:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, we should be able to find out about schools we are interested in whether or not they are "notable" to random page users. Kappa 05:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Past general consesus seems to be that universities are always notable, there is dispute on the notability of high schools, and below that (middle school, primary, etc...), past consesus has been that they are not inherently notable. Wickethewok 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• When I want to learn about something, I don't care if a random page user would find it notable or not. Kappa 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• You could really say that about anything though. Wickethewok 07:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes but I wouldn't feel stabbed in the back if wikipedia deleted all its contents on my local corner shop. Kappa 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Are you saying Wikipedia has an article about your local corner shop? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems unlikely, LOL. Kappa 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I am not sure what this "consensus" is that the nominator speaks of, it certainly does not coincide with my reading of User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive nor Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. Silensor 06:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thats been my past observations at least, though my observations could certainly by skewed. Wickethewok 07:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and send to detention Sorry, but this stub has no claim of any notablility, not verified for any fame or reason to be listed here. No history...nothing. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 06:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless some specific claim to notability. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete school Musaabdulrashid 06:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non notible school. There is nothing in the article that suggests that it has any encyclopedic worth. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep once again submitter fails to realize that notability guidelines are just that guidelines not policy. The only policy that matters here is verifiability. Is this factually correct? Do we have sources? Since the answers to those questions are a clear yes, this should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable primary school. As per my usual standard, unless they have some claim of notability OUTSIDE of being a school, then I will vote for deletion. Viridae^Talk 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete totally non-notable school. Can't see this "if I want to learn about something" argument - Google exists, and there's a whole internet out there besides Wikipedia where you can learn things. This article doesn't tell you anything the school website doesn't, which is usually the problem with these articles. Opabinia regalis 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• speedy under CSD7. no notability asserted. Quite an old primary school in NZ. So wot? Ohconfucius 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, verifiable, well-referenced article with lots of potential for expansion. JYolkowski // talk 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Very few elementary schools rise to the level of encyclopedic importance... just as very few elementary school students, while in elementary school, do. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete with over a houndred years of excistence it has at least a small claim of notability, but elementry schools need to exceptional to be notable enough for inclution in WP, IMHO. --Eivind^t@c 20:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I continue to find the assurtion of notablility as the standard for articles problematic, but even those that support the standard have maintained an institution of a given age should meet the standard and I think something that has existed for >100yrs should merit inclusion. Wakemp 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Age is not an adequate assertion of notability. Being first in some significant way (not in a sub-national geographic unit) might make the cut. With no adeqaute assertion of notability, keeping it violates the WP:NOT policy against being an indiscriminate collection of information. GRBerry 01:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- meets all content policies, topic is notable as an important institution in the community. Good stub. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My god, these "All schools are notable people", while they are as entitled to their opinions as I am to mine, sometimes really irk me. How is this single elementary school, with no significance stated nor claimed in the article, notable enough for WP? -- Kicking222 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • By being important to its local community, and by wikipedia not being paper and aiming to help provide universal access to the "sum total of human knowledge". Kappa 00:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not Google. Please provide some reason that this school is notable beyond it's local community. Please cite independent, reliable, reputable, third-party non-trivial sources that show this school should be listed. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Why wouldn't importance to the local community be enough. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It is never enough. Bands that haven't done anything significant out of their community don't get a mention in wikipedia. The only pub burnt down in my home town - that was massive for the community, but doesn't warrant an article in wikipedia. Why should schools not get the same treatment? What makes every single school so notable that it needs its own article? Viridae^Talk 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Importance to the local community is usually not enough because it usually means there a dearth of sources that genuinely meet the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. A school's own website is borderline, as a source. I personally wouldn't reject information from such sources, but I'm not very happy about school articles where the only real source is an external link to the school's website. In the case of the article under discussion, at this moment we currently have a very odd situation in which there is an external link independent of the school... but that link is not used to support any facts that are currently in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Verifiability is all-important, but that standard is only relevant to notability to the extent that articles on non-notable things are often also unverifiable. School AFD's would be more interesting if the basic verifiability of these articles was under fire, but generally its not. (As far as school websites go, I usually consider these okay sources for basic info, e.g. enrollment, principal, location, etc., especially for government schools.) To address the other points made above -- mention of that burned-down pub might be worth including in the article on the community, if it was as significant as you indicate. Nor does a keep vote on this AFD imply that the school deserves "its own article"; discussion of whether to merge the article belongs on the article talk page; the primary question here is whether the content should be deleted. A keep consensus never precludes a merger that retains the content. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
              • There are a lot more things that are verifiable than are on wikipedia - mainly because they are not notable. AFD revolves largely around verifiability and notability. Schools are the only thing on wikipedia where the majority of keep votes ignore the notability. Viridae^Talk 00:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't think people are ignoring the notability so much as there is a dispute over (1) whether notability is an appropriate standard, (2) whether schools are notable or not. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep School articles get people interested in Wikipedia. Piccadilly 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• So would porn and blogs and letting people write articles about themselves. Attracting new people to Wikipedia has never been a valid reason for keeping an article. *shrug* Just thought I should be annoying and point that out... :P Wickethewok 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep please schools are notable and interesting subjects Yuckfoo 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GRBerry (and it's not as if 100 years is a very long time). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Allow the article to grow organically. There is no innate reason why primary schools are not just as important as high schools. GBYork 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why is it that we have so few Wikipedia biographies of six-year-old children? Age discrimination? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Since BGYork likes to use that arguement, I will counter with Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Come on, "grow Organically'? The article has been around since 10/2005, and it's still a stub. Only the recent AfD encouraged any 'growth'. There is an innate reason that primary schools are not as notable or important as high schools. School athletics and the fact that this (High School) is where people prepare for college (and/or the rest of their lives). Not everyone graduates highschool but nearly everyone has gone through a primary school. I've never heard of a college recruiting from a primary school. The only time I have heard about primary schools in the news is when a child is sent home for some violation of zero-tolerance or (and I hate when I hear it) some child is injured or some maniac goes nuts in the school. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I actually favor deleting nn primary schools but the age (120 yrs) and the existence of an English/Mandarin bilingual curriculum (which I presume is rare in New Zealand) strike me as (marginally) enough notability for a topic that doesn't have WP:V or WP:NPOV issues. Eluchil404 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment I would contend that it does have WP:V issues as one of the sources cited is a government article just talking about school (as the government has tens if not hundreds of these reports...are all the schools notable then?). The other link gives an error however a google cache shows an article created for a government newsletter/magazine. If that is all WP:V requires, lets nominate every primary school around the world as notable--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Verifiability criteria has been satisfied. Bahn Mi 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The school was formed in 1886, and the backstory regarding Chinese integration is an interesting one. Yamaguchi先生 08:28, 17 August 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.