Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghiyasuddin 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 of the debate was no consensus. -R. fiend 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghiyasuddin School

Non-notable less than 15 year old school. Accomplishments listed on their web site show nothing spectacular. I'm sure its nice and all, but no reason given for why it belongs in an encyclopeida. Johntex\^talk 09:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep It's a school. This encyclopedia does not have to be squeezed into 32 volumes CalJW 10:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it was the first primary school built, maybe. This would be better off as an article titled "Primary Education in (Insert name of country here)".--inks^T 10:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How is that a reason for deletion? Kappa 14:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep article may not be perfect but no strong reason apparent to favour deletion --Isolani 11:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and to address systemic bias. Nice to see my creation getting some attention though. Kappa 14:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, amazingly, this article actually has some information on it that lifts it above phone book status (opened by a President, named after someone with a claim to notability). Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to take some pictures of flying pigs for Wikicommons. --Last Malthusian 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Let me know how those pictures turn out.--Isotope23 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I realize that there are a tremendous number of arguments for and against retaining school articles, but whether the school is named after a notable person should be irrelevant. If a school is named after Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, that doesn't make it more notable than if the exact same school were named after the neighborhood in which it is located. If Ghiyasuddin, the school's namesake, is notable, then an article should be written about him rather than have his biography in an article about the school. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful article, which helps people learn about another country. --rob 16:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although it isn't amongst the best I've seen, there already exist numerous articles on other infamous schools, and as CalJW says, Wikipedia doesn't have to be squeezed into a certain size... bjelleklang 16:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean non-infamous? Negative plus negative prefix which has linguistically ameliorated in this case :). Marskell 23:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and to resolve systemic bias. Silensor 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Inkypaws
• Delete per nom.Gateman1997 22:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Marskell 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Systemic bias? Isn't that why we have 3.5x10^25 different language-based Wikipedias? And I think to myself - a school named after a person who introduced breadfruit. Now there's a reason for a claim of notability. CalJW may not be concerned with squeezing Wikipedia onto paper, but I am concerned with being able to squeeze Wikipedia onto servers (which are a little more expensive than paper), and onto access time. I think of you, CalJW, every time it takes a Wiki page 40 seconds to load. Denni☯ 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah we have 3.5x10^25 different language-based Wikipedias so we can all get everything we need just by learning 3.5x10^25 different languages. Kappa 02:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please we should not have to know hundreds of languages to get information each wikipedia can store this okay Yuckfoo 02:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - "....wikipedia's coverage of the many aspects of any country..." *ahem* --Oblivious 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The school is not unique as suggested for an article in WP:PJSCH. There is no claim in policy that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:PJSCH suggests that almost all schools are unique enough for an article. Kappa 06:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As Kappa notes, WP:PJSCH is an openly inclusionary model and certainly not authoritative (in the sense that it is somehow a binding set of principles). The enthusiasts for listing every school on the face of the planet will of course disagree, but this is just another nn assemblage of bricks. Dottore So 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the short school description with List of schools in the Maldives per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Last Malthusian. This entry actually contains interesting info. (Build with help of Japanese, named after person to introduce breadfruit to the Maledives and opened by president.) It's shorter than I'd like, but not a regular non-encyclopedic phonebook entry. Based on the size of the Maledivian community there's a fair chance the school also holds a record of some sort. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Also named after Muhammad Ghiyasuddin, who ruled the Maldives as a Sultan. --Oblivious 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per nom. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. Xoloz 09:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Schools are worthy of having a place on Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep. All school noms are bad-faith hideous wastes of everyones time. Any user that is aware of this and nominates a school has violated WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be better to assume good WP:FAITH, no? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "All school noms are bad-faith" is itself a bad-faith comment. Marskell 15:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You raise a good point. I have corrected my comments and apologize for assuming that the nominator was aware of the hideous waste of time that school nominations inevitably are. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • ... also if all NN schools are to be deleted, then all NN movies (from hollywood, bollywood, tollywood, and god-knows-what-wood) should also be deleted, right? so... i say strong keep --Oblivious 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • So your reasoning is that "if all schools that don't deserve to be in Wikipedia should not be in Wikipedia, then all other articles that don't deserve to be in Wikipedia should not be Wikipedia". Sounds fine to me (even if bordering on circular). Put the articles you feel are NN up on AfD, and vote in a manner consistent with your reasoning.--inks^T 03:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Inky please don't misrepresent others' logic. Kappa 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Speak for yourself. You misrepresent the logic of people voting "keep" on schools on a regular basis. If you have a problem with my interpretation, debate it, and do it on my talk page, not here.--inks^T 05:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Your misrepresentation of Oblivious' logic should be discussed here, in context. Oblivious is clearly not claiming that Hollywood movies should be deleted even when "non-notable" of their type. Why aren't you listing non-notable pokemons and Hollywood movies on Afd, if you think it's appropriate? Kappa 05:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
                • We've moved on from debating this AfD, to you debating my interpretation. It's much more civil to have this sort of discussion on my talk page, because it very much disrupts the debate here, kinda like having a brawl on a sidewalk. Any contextual issues can be solved with a link back here. How about it? Respond on my talk page, please.--inks^T 05:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Uh - Inky didn't respresent anyone's logic. Oblivious asked what he thought was a rhetorical question with a "no" answer and Inky surprised Oblivious with a "yes" answer... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hipocrite, I thank you for retracting your allegation that of bad-faith. However, I feel compelled to point out that I believe in this nomination and I am not attempting to make any sort of point, other than that this particular article fails the test of notability and should be deleted. If you look at my Contributions, you will see that I nominate a fair number of articles for deletion because they fail notability standards. Schools are a very small percentage of my delete nominations or votes. Schools, businesses, destroyers, girrafes, eggplants, people, or any specific instance of any other thing needs to be notable enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia or he/she/it should not be included. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that all schools are notable or that all schools should or must be kept. I believe the true waste of time is in creating and defending non-notable articles, not the effort to have them excised from the project. And to answer Oblivious' question, my answer would be "absolutely", not notable bands, movies, etc. should be deleted are deleted here everyday. Schools do not have a policy protecting them from the same legitimate scrutiny. Johntex\^talk 21:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will second the "clap, clap" for a mature retraction. And I will also second John's larger point. I won't nom schools (I never go looking for them anyway) but I vote delete when there is no assertion of notability beyond "the bricks and mortar." I'm sure a lot of work has gone into the school's project but there is nothing binding about it. Wiki is not a directory. Wiki is discursive but not indiscriminate. I simply do not find schools notable. Marskell 21:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It is dealing with the inflexible inclusionist that makes me a more inflexible deletionist when I would much rather be flexible. I am quite prepared to vote in favor of a school article where some merit is shown, but I will fiercely resist blanket approval of schools simply because they are schools. Denni☯ 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is dealing with the inflexible inclusionist that makes me a more inflexible deletionist when I would much rather be flexible" is as clear a way to put it as I can imagine. Marskell 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Denni how can you claim to be flexible when you aren't even prepared to share server space with schools? Kappa 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• From your comment, it seems to me that you are not interested in reading any posts other than your own. Not only have I stated repeatedly that I support school articles where the school can show some reasonable degree of notability, but I have even (gasp!) actually voted to keep some school articles. What I am not prepared to do, Kappa, is to share server space with articles on every so-called school on this planet, most of which are uttterly lacking in anything worthy of note. Have you even once voted to delete a school article? Thought not. Denni☯ 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

His reasoning is the same as mine - schools with notability, just like every other subject. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, it just need to be expanded. There are many school articles that started out as stubs and later became full articles after contributions by multiple users. Hardly any of these full school articles are nominated for AfD. --Vsion 04:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Precisely. If a school article contains information which demonstrates the school is of note, and is what could be described as a full article, it will not be deleted. It seems those who contribute school articles feel all that is necessary is to name a building as a school, and that constitutes enough info for it to deserve to be kept. Denni☯ 21:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another school targeted for easy deletion because it is in Asia. Help fight systemic bias against Asian schools by voting keep.--Nicodemus75 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What a load of rot. You have no evidence of systemic bias because none exists. Most normal Wikipedians will vote to keep or delete articles on the basis of their content, not their subject. It is those like yourself who vote to keep on the basis of subject that see plots where there are none. Denni☯ 23:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You and many other presumably "normal Wikipedians" want to delete articles based on their subject (being a "non-notable school"). Kappa 00:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Skritch skritch skritch (sound of hair being pulled out). Maybe if I type r e a l l y s l o w l y, I won't be misunderstood. I will vote to delete an article on anything which does not have requisite notability. I do not have some special vendetta against schools. I will also vote to delete articles on destroyers, pokemons, and star trek characters which are not demonstrably notable. However, I do not vote to delete schools categorially in the same way that some vote to keep them, that is to say, without apparently even reading the articles to ensure something is actually being said. Denni☯ 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • If you vote to delete villages, Simpsons episodes, and metro stations which are "not demonstrably notable", you are not a normal wikipedian, and you are wasting your time and that of the editors who will have to outvote you. Kappa 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • • That, Kappa, is the whole point. If you want your way, you will have to outvote me. I will be here, and I will not let you get your pathetic little article for free. Denni☯ 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • What? That's a personal attack if I ever saw one. No need to go around calling others "abnormal" because they hold a different viewpoint to the majority. In accordance with WP:NPA, you might want to reconsider that statement.--inks^T 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • This from the editor that calls the philosophical position that schools are inherently notable, "stupid". Please don't go around lecturing others about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL until you clean up your own act.--Nicodemus75 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Please. Firstly, describing a philosophical position as stupid is not an attack on the person who holds it (eg. You are stupid vs You are a Nobel Prize Winning Wikipedian, but your argument is stupid). Second, I've only ever called it stupid once. Third, I retracted it and apologised the moment it was pointed out to me it was rude. Fourth, my conduct has no bearing on the rudeness (or otherwise) of your conduct. Even if I've called you "abnormal", it doesn't grant you license to call someone else "abnormal". In constrast, your use of the term "not a normal Wikipedian" was clearly directed at the individual, not the arguments he was advancing, and you're making up excuses to justify it.--inks^T 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Please. First of all, it is at best uncivil to refer to someone else's philosophical position "stupid", and a great many editors on WP would consider it a personal attack. Next, I (nor anyone else for that matter) have not referred to anyone as "abnormal", in fact, you are the only one to have used this term so far. Next, it was Denni (like yourself, one of "those who routinely nominate or vote to delete school articles") who first made the statement that: "Most normal Wikipedians will vote to keep or delete articles on the basis of their content, not their subject," indicating that those of us who vote to keep or delete on articles on the basis of their subject are somehow "not normal Wikipedians" by obverse implication. When KAPPA (obviously not me or my sockpuppet) simply retorted about what 'must' constitute a "normal wikipedian" by that standard, you accused him of making a personal attack. As to your contention that your misbehavior doesn't give "me" (or in this case, Kappa) license to abuse others, you are correct, but your abusing others or being uncivil and then going about admonishing others for being uncivil does make you a hypocrite. What I'd like to know, is why you weren't rushing to remind Denni about his uncivil statements when he suggested that those of us that decide to vote on the basis of subject are "abnormal" (as you put it).--Nicodemus75 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps you should get out a dictionary and look up "normal", Nicodemus. No, wait, let me do it for you. "normal - adj. 1. regular, usual, typical" Not so scary after all, huh? No mention of brain scans, ECT, or twitchy eyes. No, school inclusionists are probably not "normal" Wikipedians. "Normal" Wikipedians actually take the time to read articles before voting on them, and actually ask themselves whether an article contains anything of merit before deciding to keep it. This is true of schools, pokemons, and star trek characters. If stating what is apparently true can be construed as a personal attack, then all of us are in big trouble. Now can I help you with the definition of "abnormal"? Denni☯ 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not about viewpoints, it's about actions. Many normal wikipedians think "delete Simpons episodes" but they don't bother voting that way when they realize there's no consensus to do it. 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree with Denni. No one has mentioned Asia. The nom, votes and argument would be the same if it were Kansas School, Kansas City, Kansas. The repeated recourse to systemic bias in these keep arguments is specious. Marskell 00:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The claim that there is not a systemic bias against schools outside of the English-speaking geographical pale is specious. By their very nature, there is a systemic bias against schools whose primary source references are in another language. This renders what "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools" consider to be articles of an inferior quality and more likely to garner delete votes on the basis of a poorly-written article and difficulty of verifiability. Asian schools have been conspicuously targeted in the past 45 days by a variety of "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools". Apart from the bad faith mass-nomination of 24 schools in one day in September, Asian schools represented 15% of all school AfD nominations in the month, while representing a much smaller percentage of the total number of school articles on Wikipedia. If that doesn't consitute a systemic bias, I am not sure what does.--Nicodemus75 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • A systemic bias is systemic. It does not pop up suddenly one day or one month, and the number of school pages that show up in a month is small enough that statistical fluctuation is everything. I would also question your use of the term "conspicuously targeted". I can only assume that you see a plot a-hatchin' when you use language like that. First, there have not been a whole lot of Asian schools nominated, Second, the vote counts for those schools was pretty much the same as it usually is, with the usual cast of character casting the usual distribution of votes. In fact, one Asian School, Apeejay Public School, actually garnered some keep votes from some (myself included), who, as you so quaintly put it, "routinely nominate and vote to delete schools." If you really wish to test this conspiracy theory of yours, you may want to go back to those delete votes and see who it was that originally brought them to AfD. I expect you will find they were nominated by a diverse group, including some who do not participate here on a regular basis. Denni☯ 06:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 06:52, 13 October 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.