Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingnan 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). A vote was made to "pony" as well. Let's see... Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lingnan Primary School

Friends, I implore you to delete this crap about some random chinese primary school written in pigeon English and with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Dunc|☺ 13:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Do you mean Pidgin English? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, he means pigeon, because deletioncruft is for birdbrains.--Centauri 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I gotta admit, that was pretty funny. Lord Bob 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because its on this list List of schools in Hong Kong Whats the point of deleting an article someone probably created after reading "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." *person clicks on redlink* thinks 'wow I can help by expanding it' then its deleted. Astrokey44 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Because it's a vanity article that is clearly cruft. There should be links to primary schools from List of schools in Hong Kong because there should be no articles on primary schools. Dunc|☺ 14:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable school under attack because of multiple examples of systemic bias. Asian schools are now a constant victim of deletionist attack. Help fight the systemic bias by voting to keep. It is also disruptive to nominate articles which are already incorporated into list articles.--Nicodemus75 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Huaiwei
  • Comment the allegation above is just false. American elementary schools are being routinely proposed for deletion also. No systemic bias. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Prove it.--Nicodemus75 16:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The following U.S. elementary schools were put on AFD just in the last two days:
        1. Gracey (Leontine) Elementary School
        2. Hialeah Gardens Elementary School
        3. Ada Merrit Elementary School
        4. Air Base Elementary School
        5. Amelia Earhart Elementary School
        6. Arcola Lake Elementary School
        7. Auburndale Elementary School
        8. Avocado Elementary School
        9. Madie Ives Elementary School
        10. Twin Lakes Elementary School
        11. Van E. Blanton Elementary School
        12. Village Green Elementary School
        13. Vineland Elementary School
        14. Virginia A. Boone/Highland Oaks Elementary School
        15. W.J. Bryan Elementary School
        16. Wesley Matthews Elementary School
        17. West Homestead Elementary School
        18. West Laboratory Elementary School
        19. Whispering Pines Elementary School
        20. William A. Chapman Elementary School
        21. William Lehman Elementary School
        22. Winston Park Elementary School
        23. Zora Neale Hurston Elementary School
        24. Acton Elementary School
      • Satisfied?—Wahoofive (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Not at all. 23 of these nominations were a mass-nomination by the same editor attacking the Miami-Dade school district specifically. Further, even were that not the case, this does nothing to prove that there isn't a systemic bias against Asian schools, which I continue to contend there is. Please prove there is not since you claim the "allegation is just false". Nice work duplicating Schoolwatch listing though.--Nicodemus75 21:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • There is certainly systemic bias against Asian schools (and other Asian topics) due to lack of English-languages editors knowledgable about (and interested in) them, but these AFD nominations are not related to that. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Disagree entirely that these AfD nominations are not related to the systemic bias against Asian schools. Quite the opposite, I submit that these AfD nominations are targeted against Asian schools because of the systemic bias, the nominator being fully aware that poorly edited Asian schools are more likely to attract delete votes because the of the inherent problems of cleaning up the articles to a better, more encyclopedic standard.--Nicodemus75 22:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless material is added during vfd showing notability. This is not systemic bias - schools in all countries should have the same criteria applied. I've now discovered Wikipedia:Schools which clears some things up. Dlyons493 16:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Please post evidence for Asian schools are now a constant victim of deletionist attack to help addressing any such problems. Dlyons493 15:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In the past week, the following 6 Asian schools have been nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manila Waldorf School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenview secondary school, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame College, Dhaka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingnan Primary School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhenghua Primary School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementi Primary School. If one discounts the mass-nomination made by user Dismas of 23 schools he was able to find in the Miami-Dade school district, the Asian schools nominated represent 32% of the nominations in the past week. There are more nominations in this past week against Asian school articles than in the preceeding four months. The recent spike in proportion of Asian schools being nominated for AfD is clearly an example of systemic bias, as is the nominator's comment concerning pidgin English. I am astonished that given that the nominator used the phrase "some random chinese primary school" , anyone would challenge my assertion that this is an example of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 16:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The statement that it's a sudden spike actually argues against it being systemic bias, which would have been ongoing. Nominators of American school articles often ridicule their language as well, and use terms like "some random Iowa school". How is it that you view a whole bunch of Miami schools getting nominated as an individual vendetta, but a whole bunch of Asian schools getting nominated is "systemic bias"? —Wahoofive (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I may be wasting my time in trying to explain it, if you do not already see the bias. The spike in nominations of Asian schools is systemic bias, precisely because the attempts to delete American (and Canadian and British) schools have failed so miserably. Nominating Asian schools is an attempt to focus deletion attempts on schools which are de facto less well-known, less "notable" (whatever that really means) and less likely to be improved by a Wikipedia community made up largely of native-English speakers from the United States, Canada and the UK. Thusly, Asian schools being mulit-nominated for AfD is an example of systemic bias because (as this nominator has already stated) "the deletion of even one article is a victory". It is easier to delete a school article which is not from a native-English speaking part of the world because such a school is far less likely to be improved and brought up to standard when compared to those in English-speaking parts of the world. Hence, those voters who will approach the AfD with no stated view on the inherent notability of schools, will be more likely to see a poorly-written, poorly-edited school article when it is from Asia than from Florida, and are more likely to vote to delete it. The entire scenario is textbook systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 22:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • If what you say was the nominator's intent, it has failed miserably, since as of now there are zero delete votes and many keep votes. Still, alleging systemic bias is an attack on all of Wikipedia, and using the seeming bigotry of one nominator as evidence of a weakness of the entire WP community is not fair. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't know how much more clear I could be. Schools from parts of the world that do not speak English as a native language suffer a systemic bias because they will be less well known in a community that is made up of native-English speakers. You are correct, this bias exists in the WP community as whole - by definition. Schools in North America, the UK, Australia, etc. are going to be more numerous, more well-known, more "notable", be the subject of more edits (all of which are objectively true) than schools in areas where English is not the native language because the English-speaking WP community is made up of people largely from those places (and thusly will be better acquainted with schools in their own geographical regions than "some random school in China"). A multi-nomination of schools from Asia is an exploitation of this systemic bias in order to achieve the end of "getting even one school article deleted." I am well-pleased that this attempted exploitation of the systemic bias is failing in this case.--Nicodemus75 22:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Attacking contributors for their "pigeon English" is a sure way to increase systemic bias. Kappa 16:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I don't think this school was nominated because it was Asian. The nom has indicated they wish to delete all primary schools, and has tried deleting American ones also. However, I think the text "...crap about some random chinese primary school written in pigeon English" was very poorly worded, and invites misinterpretation. --rob 16:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)I'm abstaining at the last-minute, due to problems of verifiability. I have tremendous problems with the nominators comments about certain people, general hostility towards schools, and the SPAM tactis; but I've decided verifiability is to big of a problem in this case, at this time. Abstain --rob 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Kappa and Rob on pigeon English - that's not a helpful term. Dlyons493 16:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to counter geographic bias on Wikipedia. The author's comment about "pigeon English" is rather offensive, to boot. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 18:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dunc, I must politely request that you refrain from insulting these articles and the creators of these articles, you are violating policy by continually doing so. Silensor 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are inherently important enough to deserve their own articles. Wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Pony Wikipedia:Schools needs revisiting. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Besides generally agreeing that school articles have a place in wikipedia, this primary school is apparantly related all the way up to Lingnan University (Hong Kong). Certainly dosent seem like just another "random chinese primary school". --Huaiwei 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Please make note that several Wikipedians have made requests that we keep these discussions civilized. We may not see eye-to-eye on what is important, but that is no reason to insult someone, their beliefs, or their contribution(s) to Wikipedia. This is a community driven project. Bahn Mi 21:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. This goes especially for those who want to make any intricate speeches or tirades about the merits of keeping or not keeping school articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Im getting tired of schools being nomintated if i c one more school being nominated in the next 2 days I will change all my delete votes for all those schools into Keep and maybe even join Wikipedia:Schools and help out and vote keep for school articles period. This is getting very out of hand and everyone should agree with me. --Aranda56 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I hold you to that committment? :-) --Nicodemus75 22:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deletioncruft madness. This school has existed for over seventy years! --Centauri 22:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; elementary schools are NOT NOTABLE!! ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is old school. Klonimus 23:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Asians do not belong in Wikipedia. I mean, Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, so only the United States should have articles. I fail to see how this point can be argued. Any American schools you may see on AfD are pure coincidence. On a serious point which less facetiously mocks those who go on about systemic bias, schools are not inherently notable regardless of which country they're in and which bird's English the articles are written in. Lord Bob 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We must be closing in on the day when even Dunc accepts that nominating schools is not a productice activity. CalJW 00:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We must be closing in on the day when even CalJW accepts that not every concrete block construction is notable. Denni☯ 01:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vegaswikian 06:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful when one does research on the history of a place or an organisation. It should be marked as a stub for expansion. HenryLi 16:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, request all parties to mind civility and good faith. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, naturally. Have cleaned up English. Vizjim 03:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another non-notable school. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. *drew 07:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Consensus so far has been to keep schools (see Archive and Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonencyclopedic --redstucco 09:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• This page has 4 sentences. The first states that it concerns a primary school. The second and third name a principal and a "consultant principal;" for both, not even a first name is provided, just the Chinese surname. The concluding sentence mentions that Lingnan Primary School has an association with its old boys society (almost as if that is unusual—I suspect the author is trying to relate something else?). There is not even a passing, stray nod toward any kind of verification. Not even an external link (even to the usual non-independent, poor sources). Not one reference. No mention even of those well-known bestowers of encyclopediability—telephone numbers. Every time you think you've seen the worst examples of complete indifference to the most basic requirements of Wikipedia articles, something turns the corner on AfD and proves you wrong. When people (on both sides of this issue) vote in a partisan manner (ie. to always "keep" schools or to always "delete" schools) they damage WP, because no attention is paid to the true arbiters of encyclopediability—the authority that is forged from having multiple, good quality, independent, subject-focused sources that will satisfy WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:N. At its heart writing an encyclopedia article is simple: like any scholarly article, you need to always source all your statements to good references. That is and has always been the crucial requirement. If it is difficult or impossible to write a good article because there is simply a lack of sources to satisfy WP:V, that is an indication that the subject cannot be given encyclopedic treatment in a separate article of its own. Conversely, if there is an abundance of quality references, that article will deserve a place even if most people have never so much as heard about it. This article has remained in this utterly, completely, unverified state for 3 months. Delete.—encephalon 12:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • There are few to no "multiple, good quality, independent, subject-focused sources" for Haddersfield, Jamaica but its here because it's a real village. Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive and does the best it can with what is available. Deleting important information for the sake of being "scholarly" damages wikipedia because it damages the users who need it. Kappa 13:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You are, of course, quite mistaken, Kappa.
      1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is the very first thing you read under Key Policies (WP:RULES), the main page of the essential rules that govern this encyclopedia. It is the very first thing that you read in the fundamental five pillars (WP:5P). The fundamental requirements of encyclopedia writing are enshrined in the basic, fundamental tenets of its policies. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV are each and all fundamental rules that we may not ignore as we please: they are there for a reason—if you want to write an encyclopedia, you must pay attention to sources and verifiability. On Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR are especially important—in fact they are crucial; I would say they are the single most important set of tenets that we have to follow. Why? Because of the particular nature of our encyclopedia: its editors are anyone and everyone, and it is open to editing by anyone and everyone. We do not have professional editors and scholars writing our articles, we do not have submissions for peer-review, we do not have experts endorsing them. The only safeguard we have against a deluge of nonsense, falsehoods, misinterpretations, lies, hoaxes, and other undesirables is to reference what we write to independent, reputable sources (either primary or secondary).
      2. If you wish to write an article about something you know about—your dog, say, or a little school across the street, by all means do so: as long as you can meet the above requirements. If your dog is the last of a special breed that was studied in a peer-reviewed National Geographic report, please, by all means write about him and reference the article. If your school has an 852-year old history and is the subject of several works, including at least one entry in an encyclopedia, please, by all means write about it and source your entry. If you work on an unusual pathological process that few WPns have even heard of, but which is well-studied by scientists, may I implore you—write about it and source it.
      3. But if your dog, school or work lack such primary or secondary sources, please—pause. That is an indication that it is not suitable for an encyclopedic entry, at least for now. If independent verifiable information on your school is so hard to come by that it's not even possible to determine trivial information like the name of its principal, please—do the honorable thing and desist. If the only "source" you can find for writing your article is an external internet link to a completely non-independent source in a foreign language, whose information the overwhelming majority of English WP editors have absolutely no way of verifying, please—do the right thing: maintain a respect for WP's policies and vote to remove the page, even if this goes against your personal preference. WP does its best, indeed. Its best does not include breaking its own fundamental policies to include unverified material.
      4. Haddersfield is a poor comparison to this apparent school. As someone who has spent a lot of time thinking about WP, its policies, and the seemingly intractable debates that surround some of its articles, it seems to me that poor understanding of fundamental policies underlie much of the disagreements. The difference between the two is two-fold.

      • A. Every single claim in the Haddersfield page is verified. It has a link to an independent source, which, even if principally only a map, verifies what is being said in the article, and indeed adds likely dependable information not found in the article. Furthermore, the source is not written in Japanese, ancient Greek, or in some other way that will render it inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of editors and readers of English Wikipedia. It's written in the acceptable language: English.

        B. Haddersfield is a town with a very old history. It was founded in a parish (St Mary's Parish) that was one of the very earliest Spanish settlements in Jamaica after Columbus' landing in 1494. In fact, St Mary's Port was the second town to be founded in Jamaica by the Spaniards. There was also an English presence in the area after 1655. It is virtually certain that such an historical place will have independent reliable primary or secondary works focused on it, written by local authors, historians, geographers and others. It is therefore not unreasonable to take the long (or eventualist) view with respect to the page, as long as the current page contains fully sourced and verified statements.

      5. The article on this alleged school of course does not meet any such standards. Every claim it makes is unverified. There is no indication that there is any work extant on this school that can form the basis for an encyclopedic article. Furthemore, because the vast majority of schools are never the focus of historic or scholarly study, it is fair to require that some evidence of the existence of good sources be presented before one votes to keep.

      6. I realize the difficulty with the group of articles that fall in the gray zone, Kappa. I've thought seriously about article-related policy on WP because I've wanted to find a fair approach that above all preserves the intergrity of the encyclopedia and its core policies; I think it's possible to have logically-consistent decision-making with respect to most articles. I've pointed out to you before that your approach is not logically consistent, and involves seriously compromising some of the most important WP policies—principles that lie not only at the heart of encyclopedia writing on WP, but are held sacrosanct by every scholarly enterprise worth the name. When WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS et al are thrown to the winds in order to support a partisan view (eg. keep schools at all cost), the encyclopedia suffers for it. You are prepared to accept into the encyclopedia things for which you can find little or no verification, simply to support keeping a page; they could well be utterly untrue. I can never, will never, do the same.—encephalon 10:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Good God, if you'd spent a quarter as much time researching and writing about the article under nomination for AfD, as you did writing this long-winded (and ultimately pointless) response, the article would meet all of your requirements. Despite all this, the AfD will still end in no concensus.--Nicodemus75 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

1. It didn't take me long to write the above, because I've thought about policy in this area for quite a while. I also keep a record of AfDs that I have participated in or which I find interesting, for reference.
2. If I'd spent that short time on this article I'd have achieved nothing. The online search I've performed seems to indicate that there are no independent, reputable sources focused on this school (in English) that would enable me to write an encyclopedic article on it. There is some possibility that such works exist in communist China, in a Chinese tongue, in some library or archive, but you will understand that I'm disinclined to pursue such avenues in particular for what is of vanishingly small import.
3. They are not my requirements. They are Wikipedia's requirements. I happen to try and follow them.
4. If the post is pointless, that will be regrettable. But not for my having written it. It will be regrettable if I'm wrong but no one showed me where, or if I'm right but no one cared.—encephalon 15:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• The idea that all articles require sources in English has no consensus and would be tremendously damaging if accepted. Websites of state-registered schools are a reasonably reliable source of information for details such as who the principal is. Also state-registered school have to be documented by that state, providing a potential independent source like those we can imagine are available for Haddersfield. Kappa 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Kappa, you can't be serious. This is English Wikipedia. It aims to have articles on a broad range of topics—but not at the cost of that all important principle, verification. On this encyclopedia, verification lies in the hands of you and me—ordinary editors, not experts in Chinese. The lingua franca of English Wikipedia is, to state the patently obvious, English. If we cannot even read the documents which supposedly provide documentary evidence of this alleged school, how on earth are we to verify it? Come now, Kappa.—encephalon 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Frankly I'm tired of your patronization and arrogance. You are free to interpret policies as you wish but please try to understand that reasonable people may differ. Kappa 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's a load of bollocks. There's no patronization in that, and here you are insulting him by blowing off his opinions as unreasonable. --Blackcap | talk 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• I was very surprised and more than a little saddened to see this note. I've always treated you with respect, as I do everyone on WP, and have never supposed that reasonable people may not differ. I've continued to treat you with respect even though I've reason to think you have sometimes been unfair to some of your fellow editors [1], [2], [3]. However, it's possible for all of us to say things we don't intend to be hurtful, but which others can construe as harsh. So I've carefully re-read my comments self-critically, with the intention of removing and apologising for any such remark, but I cannot find anything objectionable (if you do, please let me know Kappa). I never make personal attacks and always try to be well within the bounds of civility, so these are never concerns. As to your own response, characterizing someone as arrogant is a clear, outright personal attack. I'm not going to ask you to modify your comment or your tone as it doesn't hurt me in the least, but I hope you find a more productive way of discussing your views with all of us on Wikipedia.—encephalon 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Sometimes I wonder if time is a good factor to consider when it comes to the ability of articles to grow in the long term. Saying this article will not grow because it has not for the past 3 months appears to nullify the probability of someone adding data tomorrow. In addition, I may also remind, that sometimes basic geography, economics, and realities of life do create stretched and compressed time scales when it comes to articles on different regions. How fast would you expect an article related to Africa to grow compared to one in North America? If we use time as a criterion, I suppose it will not be long before this site becomes another strong representation of the lopsided world it already is.--Huaiwei 13:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not using time as a criterion, Huaiwei. I am using the criteria all of us should use: the principles central to writing encyclopedic articles on WP. Pages which violate those policies should be removed, whether they've been on WP for 3 weeks or 3 years, whether they pertain to the United States or to sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, pages that are written in accordance with such principles should be kept, no matter how obscure or unknown to WPns at large.—encephalon 10:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If I may quote correctly, you said "this article has remained in this utterly, completely, unverified state for 3 months". I clearly see that time was a criterion in your view, and I do not think I misread it at all, unless a month is not a time frame? You state this article should conform to wikipolicies applicable to the entirety of wikipedia. Sure. Now, show us which wikipolicy states that time is a criteria for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand. The reason the page should be deleted is that the claims it makes are unverified, and every indication is that it is for practical purposes unverifiable per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. I also stated that the article has remained in that poor state for some time—this is simply an observation about the length of time the article has been in violation of WP policy. The length of time is not the reason for deletion, the violation of WP policy is. Regards—encephalon 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Encephalon. --Idont Havaname 16:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Encephalon. --Blackcap | talk 04:55, 2 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.