Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenview secondary school

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenview Secondary School

Yellow Pages style entry that consists of just one sentence and hasn't improved since its inception two months ago. Pilatus 15:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect to Greenview Secondary School (with correct capitalisation). A little information (i.e. where it is) is better than nothing if someone were to look this up in Wikipedia. I don't believe that two months with no improvement is grounds for deletion - it may be improved at some point in the future. However, I'm not sure what the policy is on whether or not schools need to be notable (or have a certain number of pupils) for inclusion - if there are any such grounds and this one fails, my vote should be changed to delete. CLW 15:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would argue that otherwise unremarkable schools should be merged into the community that they serve, in this case Pasir Ris in Singapore. And I'd also say that visits by government officials to celebrate the suburb building program or short features in a TV program don't raise the institution above the bar. Pilatus 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Also covering education in Singapore is an excellent way to reduce systemic bias. Kappa 16:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though it will likely be kept. It's still a non-notable and wholly unremarkable school.--Isotope23 18:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this is school is significant to the people of the community it serves. Additional reasons to preserve this are located at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So's the German butcher shop down the street from my house, but it ain't getting an article. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I see nothing wrong with that. As long as the information is neutral, and can be verified. Not to mention a public institution that serves thousands per year is notable. -- Natalinasmpf 15:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Will you also welcome neutral information on my house, my car, etc? These are easily verifiable subjects, but they do not belong in an encyclopedia any more than this school does. Cmadler 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think you can easily verify the existence of your car. We only have your word to believe. That's the main problem with vanity pages, the verifiability of matierial, or boasts of achievements. I have no real problem otherwise. It's very easy to verify a public institution, but less so for private property, where notability comes in as a qualifier. For a public institution, the argument of notability doesn't apply. -- Natalinasmpf 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. This is an encyclopedia not a guide to irrelevant Singaporese schools. Dunc|☺ 19:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Usual reasons. WMMartin 21:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Dunc --Aranda56 22:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 2 months is nothing. Renominate in 200 years. CalJW 23:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete immediately. Maybe in 200 years someone will come up with something worth writing about it. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For goodness sake we're just trying to lay out a framework to build upon. If you keep repressing it articles like this will never have a chance to grow. I can see some use where we will be tying this in into a larger taxonomy as a whole. -- Natalinasmpf 02:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools. Butcher shops do not teach you math. --Vsion 04:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not an article. No opinion at present as to whether schools are inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really does not say much. Vegaswikian 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete like what Isotope23 said.--redstucco 09:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Inherently notable school in Singapore. Looks like deletionists think Southeast Asian schools may be vulnerable.--Nicodemus75 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep high school for usual reasons. --rob 09:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. Cmadler 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23. *drew 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not just because it is a school, but it is an exceptional one in terms of its archivements.--Huaiwei 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep How can school articles ever become notable if people attempt to mass delete them when they're just starting out? I'd like to see people try to do this to other stub articles... they'd be eaten alive. why should this be any different? The only non-notable information is vanity, and nonsense... schools aren't vanity. Also, all Secondary Schools are notable. PRueda29 02:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- DS1953 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is useful still. |Ruennsheng 11:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep advanced 03:05, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.