Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abercorn Primary School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 07:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abercorn Primary School

[edit]

Non notable primary school. This comes very close to WP:NOT a directory, and fails WP:SCHOOL (which is only a proposal though). I can't see any argument not to delete these schools apart from "all schools are notable", which I (obviously) disagree with. I'll be AfD'ing here the other eleven primary schools of the same category as well, as they all are similarly basic (one of them has a notable alumnus, but that is a redlink anyway). Nothing against this county specifically, I just happened to come across one of the articles on it when patrolling new pages. Fram 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Other nominated schools:[reply]

  • Keep - the author (Ardfern) appears to be pursuing a project of documenting NI schools. While the articles in general could do with more content and contextualisation, this is not an unreasonable thing to do. BTLizard 09:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: if I would start a project of documenting all Belgian bakeries, would that be a reason to have three line articles on each and every bakery? While primary schools are slightly more important than bakeries, I fail to see how having someone who wants to document something is a reason to keep the articles. By that reasoning, every article shoudld be kept (except jokes and attacks), as they all try to document anything. Having a project, a category, ... is only a way of grouping things, but grouping unencyclopedic things does nnot make them any more encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. Fram 09:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Jcuk 10:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of primary schools in Northern Ireland. Catchpole 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I would welcome articles on primary schools, the current write up makes them little more than directory entries instead of articles. I recommend the creator to take a look at WP:BEEFSTEW for an idea on what kind of information should be included in a successful school entry. - Mgm|(talk) 11:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please judge these articles on their writing and not their supposed notability or lack thereof. We need to address the claimed directory-ness of the entries. Thank you. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed your note here instead of above the nomination, because while you are entitled to your opinion, it should not come before the original nomination, which was both for the notability of these schools and the directory-like entries they have now. Fram 11:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No guidelines or policies are useful here to argue for a deletion. Despite Fram's assertion that being a stub is a criterion for deletion, it ain't. WilyD 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I don't think that being a stub is a criteriopn for deletion, and I don't believe anything I said here reflects such extreme position. Articles that document subjects without any importance beyond their existence (i.e., they are a school) are directory articles. Nothing more of encyclopedic value can be said about them. Pointing out anything to the contrary (i.e. a reliable, reputable, verifiable source, per WP:V, asserting the importance of this particular school, would be a good argument against deletion. For now, all I have seen is the argument that all schools are inherently encyclopedic, which is equally unuseful to argue for keeping. The article is sourced, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's policy. And sourced... well, let's take Carrick Primary School, Warrenpoint: two directories (which Wikiepdia, again, is not), and an article in which it is mentioned in a list of 31 schools. The info given is correct (and I didn't claim otherwise), but of encyclopedic importance? Another one? Iveagh Primary School and St. Mary's Primary School, Ballyward are only sourced by two directories and are nothing more than directory entries themselves. Please, give me arguments to keep them, make it clear to me what importance they have beyond being a school, or else admit that all you have as an argument is that all schools should be kept. But please don't try to keep them by misrepresenting my arguments. Fram 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am representing your argument accurately. To take the top school (why not, since they're listed together) there is some information here beyond a directory - not very much, because the article is a stub. The article does clearly not say "Abercorn Primary School exists, and is a primary school" which might qualify as a directory entry. It refers to published documents on the school, et cetera. When evaluating articles at AfD, it's essentially sufficient to ask Is this article verifiable? and Is it encyclopaedic? - in this case, both answers are yes. While there are exceptions to the evaluation I expounded (i.e. WP:POVFORKs) it's generally accurate. The article is sourced, and its encyclopaedic. No argument has been presented for deletion that isn't false upon its face. Whether or not all schools are encyclopaedic, I have no idea (although obviously certain classes of things are invariably encyclopaedic) - nor is it really relevent here. Rather than say In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? (which almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a shit about this article? I find it's far more useful to ask Has some other source found it worthy of encyclopaedic type documentation and publishing? which gives a far less biased result, (although it isn't useful for pushing any agenda). Here, the article is verifiable, encyclopaedic, sourced and the claims that they're directory entires (at least in the case of Abercorn) is just plain false. Evidentally someone has found it important enough to publish this kind of information, which I'll take to mean it is important over the dubious unsupported assertions here to the contrary. WilyD 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the sources for Abercorn are not really of encyclopedic value: there is the school website, a directory service, and the school inspection report. So if I can find a bakery with a website, a listing in a directory, and a food inspection report, I can include it here as well? My arguments are not "false upon their face" and my assertions are not "unsupported", thank you. Fram 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you mean by Sources are of encyclopaedic value - Many, if not most towns and cities have articles that are nothing but regurgitated census data created by a robot ... This seems to be almost identical in "source quality/nature" to the school evaluation reports, for instance. With respect to a bakery there are policies/guidelines that apply (i.e. WP:CORP) where none apply here. The argument you present remains false upon its face, and your assertions on reasons for deletion remain unsupported. Claiming otherwise will not change this. WilyD 18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.

I take issue with WilyD's assertion that the test In my opinion, is this important enough to be encyclopaedic? "almost always results in someone saying Do I personally give a s**t about this article?." I personally don't give a !@#$ about VINSON, American Idol, or comparative sociology, but I understand that these topics in voice encryption, trends in pop culture, and academic research are all ultimately relevant to everyone, and therefore encyclopedic. But the existence of a school called Abercorn in County Down isn't relevant, or potentially relevant, to anyone outside of County Down. If, for example, some kid at that school discovered a method for cold fusion, then it might be relevant. But no one is making any such claim.

I also think that it's obvious that the institution of the primary school is important and encyclopedic. But this doesn't imply that every primary school is encyclopedic, any more than the notability of Home and Grocery store implies that my house and the grocery store I go to are encyclopedic. The burden is on the other side to show why Abercorn Primary School et al are distinguishable, and assertions such "Abercorn 'provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives'" just don't cut it.

Finally, proponents of including schools in Wikipedia often cite some characterization or other to the effect that encyclopedias are compendia of knowledge, info about a school is knowledge, therefore schools merit inclusion. To this I would respond that the nominated articles don't impart any meaningful knowledge at all. Everybody knows that there are primary schools in Northern Ireland (if not they could read Education in Northern Ireland), and knowing that one of them is called Abercorn, and it's in County Down, just isn't meaningful. Pan Dan 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Take a stroll through AfD and really give it a look and you'll see it to be the case. Notability is used either as a euphanism for SPAM, or to say Well, I don't care about it. - As for the article, it remains sourced, encyclopaedic, verifiable and everything else you could reasonably ask of it. The main thrust of the argument for deletion is it's low information content (because it's a stub) but this isn't a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) Others may use NN interchangeably with SPAM or "I don't care about it," but not me, and all the people voting "delete" in this debate have intelligent arguments that amount to a lot more than "I don't care about it." (2) I agree that the nominees are sourced and verifiable. The question is, are they encyclopedic? I argued above that they are patently unencyclopedic because they have no relevance or even potential relevance to anybody living outside of County Down. Now, can you say why the nominees deserve to exist on Wikipedia, but not the grocery store I go to, which enjoys news coverage from local business papers? Or local bakeries, which as Fram pointed out above, may have websites, and may be listed in directories and food inspection reports? Pan Dan 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not really sure exactly how far the influence of something has to spread before it's "encyclopaedic". I am, however, fairly sure it's not "the whole globe". As for a bakery, a concensus exists with WP:CORP, no such equivilent exists for government institutions. I continued to stand by my position that it is preferable to use the judgement of the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about whether this school is notable than it is to use my own bias. WilyD 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • (1) By analogy with WP:CORP, which distinguishes notable from NN businesses, I would argue we need to distinguish between notable and NN schools. And whatever criterion consensus would come up with for judging notability of schools, these schools just wouldn't make the cut. (2) I don't think the gov't of the UK has made a judgment that these schools are, or are not, notable. The gov't of the UK accredits, funds, and, I suppose, may run these schools to some degree. That's why they list them in their directory of schools. That has nothing to do with encyclopedic notability. If it did, then my home would be encyclopedic and notable simply by virtue of being listed in my city and/or county register. Pan Dan 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:CORP is a bad analogy because its a specific guideline - generalising from it is not really advisable (because it's a haphazard process of random guesses, essentially). No criterion concensus exists for schools, nor will one exist soon (if you see many schools in AfD, you'll know why), and to try to guess anything about how it'll turn out is simply impossible. The evaluation report is not simply a directory of schools, but a third party publication. At least until a WP:SCHOOLs guideline is set, trying to ram schools through AfD that pass every relevent criterion, policy and guideline is inappropriate. WilyD 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • My point was that any nontrivial guideline for schools would have to exclude the nominees at issue. There is simply no distinguishing feature here. If these schools were kept per whatever guideline we eventually adopt for schools, then all schools would be admissible under that guideline. Pan Dan 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I completely agree with Pan Dan. Wily, my great-grandmother lived in Northern Ireland and some of my cousins go to Brackenagh West Primary School, but I still don't think that Brackenagh - or any of these schools, for that matter, deserve an article. I find myself reading them and asking, "What's important about this school?" My response is, "Nothing." Then I ask myself "What impact has this school had on society as a whole? What's unique about this school as opposed to all other primary schools in the world?" And again, the answer is nothing. We have an article on primary schools that should explain what goes on in these schools quite nicely. It boils down to the fact that there is nothing unique to say about any of these schools, so the entries all amount to, essentially, a directory listing. I'm sure the schools are important to the children that attend them, perhaps even the graduates and certainly the teachers and parents. However, they're not notable (yup, I said it, and what I mean by it in this context is: important) outside of their respective towns. There are a bare minimum of several hundred thousand primary schools in the world. These are just like all the rest. If someone can supply us with a famous alum or notorious incident that occurred at one of the schools, I'd change my "vote" to keep, but just for that one. Srose (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:DP. --Usgnus 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: could you elaborate on this? I can find reasons in Wp:DP for merging ("Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article") or deleting ("Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)", but not directly or obviously for keeping. No one who has voted keep has indicated that any of these articles have potential beyond the current article. Fram 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article is unexpandable beyond its current form, being a stub is still not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, or merge some of them. Schools are not bakeries. They don't have to be important outside of County Down to be necessary to comprehensive coverage of education within County Down. Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge. Kappa 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, "Information such as enrolment, date of foundation, class size etc" doesn't need its own article. I suppose I agree with your partial suggestion, Kappa, of merging that info into a more general article. But second, Kappa, I really have to disagree with your assertion that this info "is encylopedic because it aids understanding of a topic people care about, i.e. it is knowledge." People who send their kids to schools in County Down care about it, and that's what local information sources are for. County Down parents aren't gonna come to WP to look for this info, nor should they. Above all, I urge a distinction between knowledge that is ultimately relevant to everybody like the info in the article on general Primary education, vs. knowledge that has no relevance or meaning to anybody living outside of a certain locale. Pan Dan 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
County Down parents should come to wikipedia for encylopedic treatments of local schools, because that's our job - being an encylopedia. By synthesizing multiple sources we can provide a service no-one else can (eventually in some cases) It's reasonable to make a distinction between general-interest knowledge and specialist-interest knowledge, but since we are promising everyone access to the "sum total of human knowledge", destroying all specialist-interest knowledge is the not the way to do it. Personally I am interested in schools in various countries (not include Northern Ireland as it happens) and I would love to be able to read encylopedic treatments of them without having to go there and/or learn the language. Kappa 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly feel that your or anyones interest in schools in various countries can be satisfied by articles like these? It's like reading a telephone book to get to know the people of a country. It learns you nothing about education in the area, or even about the individual schools, except that they exist. I would never AfD an article about the education in a region, but this is not about education at all. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't, that's a criterion for expansion, not deletion. The articles are stubs, but that's not important here. WilyD 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles which tell me where a school is and how big it is are a start. Articles which tell me the strengths and weaknesses of a school, or when and why it was built, are doing a very good job at satisfying my curiousity. Kappa 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What? In what way is this a disruptive nomination (borderline or not)? These articles are very similar, both in subject and in content. It would be ridiculous to Afd one of them and not the others (even in this AfD, the often misused argument "because unrelated article X is not deleted (yet), this one should stay to" is already used: imagine if the same could be said about a truly similar article!).
I'm amazed that some supporters of all school articles, no matter how uninformative, uninteresting, and unencyclopedic these articles are (and ever can be), feel the need to try to reason away the AfD by making borderline attacks instead of trying to defend the articles. All the defense we have until now is "the articles are correct" (true, but irrelevant), sourced (true, but irrelevant), and encyclopedic (untrue, but debatable). Most of these articles are only directory entries and thus fail WP:NOT fair and square: the few that have an additional line of info are still utterly irrelevant for anyone outside the village they serve, and would be better as short sections in the articles of those villages. All of them can be deleted by Wp:NOT, which is a policy. No one has explained why we need "comprehensive coverage of education in County Down" to the level of listing the number of students, the address of the school, or the distance between the school and the town centre. Wouldn't it be better if we had an article or even a paragraph discussing "education in County Down" instead of a bunch of extremely similar, uninformative directory listings of all individual schools, if your aim truly was "comprehensive coverage of education in County Down". With the current articles, I know nothing about education there except that there are schools. This is the most obvious and least informative info possible on the subject. Fram 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree it's far less disruptive than nominating them all seperately. I'd hate to have to have this argument a dozen times. WilyD 21:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has played out hundreds if not thousands of times already. In my opinion even a single school nomination of this kind is disruptive. Silensor 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary school nominations are occasionally successful (though I've never seen one that passes WP:V deleted) - this isn't like the constant noming of high schools that always end up passing, or the constant noming of lists just because they're lists. WilyD 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supercali-fragile-elastic-wiki-halitosis Keep because you tards just wont get it. Sorta like the concept of AFD.  ALKIVAR™ 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep all of the above. The nominator appears not to comprehend what the goals of this project are, so please allow me to quote the words of one of our founding fathers, Jimmy Wales: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Schools make up a valuable and important part of this complete sum. Silensor 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It requires quite a literal interpretation of Jimmy Wales's phrase "the sum of all human knowledge," to conclude that articles like the ones being considered for deletion are part of that sum. And a really really literal interpretation of Wales (which I hope is not your interpretation) would flatly contradict WP:NOT, and frankly trivialize Wales's vision.
In the case of the nominees for deletion here, the "knowledge" they provide is meaningless and irrelevant to anyone outside County Down, and for those in County Down, it's directory info. Now, those who seek to learn more about primary schools in Northern Ireland, as Kappa does (and I respect Kappa for that desire, make no mistake), can read the article on Education in Northern Ireland. I fail to understand how Kappa and others' quest is satisfied by reading that there is a school called Abercorn in County Down, 500 students attend it, and it "provides a secure and stimulating environment for children ... emphasis is placed on children showing courtesy to classmates, teachers and visitors and all staff endeavour to relate work to the children's interests and daily lives." And as Fram pointed out, there is no one here who has any ideas on how this article or its fellow nominees can be expanded. Pan Dan 22:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A school with 500 students is very different from a school with 100 students. A school which emphasises courtesy is different from a school which emphasizes achievement, or discipline, or independence. These things help readers to understand the school, hence they are encylopedic. What wouldn't help me to understand the school is its telephone number... that's the kind of thing I would look for in a directory. Kappa 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't understand how you can learn anything about the school through that quote (the one about "provides a secure and stimulating environment..."). It sounds like it came from a brochure, and brochures, like advertisements, sometimes lie. In fact it sounds like it could have come from the brochure of any public primary school in the English-speaking world, including those schools of which it's not a true depiction. A definite knowledge of what a school is really like can only come from talking to people actually involved with the school, and as such talk is never published, alas, there's no way for that kind of info to make it onto Wikipedia without violating WP:OR or WP:V. Now, the gossip might get verified and published by reputable newspapers if the school was especially notable for some reason--that's why some of us here keep talking about notability--it really is essential to an encyclopedic article. But for non-notable, run-of-the-mill primary schools like these, there's just no way to get complete, sourced articles, which is sort of the point that Fram has making all along, much more ably than me. Pan Dan 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it could be verified that Abercorn practices the (unremarkable) philosophy espoused in that quote, I fail to see what significance that unremarkable fact can possibly have to anybody outside of County Down. As for the fact that there are 500 students--I fail to see, again, how that bit of trivia can have any meaning at all to anybody other than a County Down parent. What would be notable is an overall assessment of the different philosophies of all the schools in Northern Ireland, and overall statistics on school size in Northern Ireland, but such info belongs in a more general article, such as Education in Northern Ireland. Pan Dan 01:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I want know about a school, the first things I want are its size, how long it has been there and its philosophy (assuming philosophy varies by school, as in the UK, instead of by district, as in the US.) For Northern Ireland I'd also like to know its religious profile. If I have these things I feel I understand it, in a basic way. To me these things are knowledge. If you tell me I can't have these things, they are "not knowledge", that I should read education in Kyrgyzstan and draw my own conclusions... well I think that you have denied me something very precious. Kappa 01:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the point remains that OR/V is impossible for non-notable schools. Pan Dan 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OR/V is answered by government inspections and coverage in local newspapers and books about local history. These can be already be found online for most of these schools and will be available for all of them sooner or later. Kappa 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the notability issue persists. The gov't inspections and coverage in local newspapers talk about things that could be said about any school. They don't distinguish the school. And I am not persuaded that if you want to research the religious profile (as you said above) of schools in Northern Ireland, that you would be best served by reading one article for each of the thousands of primary schools in Northern Ireland. Far easier and more reliable would be to read something that discusses primary schools in Northern Ireland in general, for example Education_in_Northern_Ireland#Integrated_Education (which should expanded, by the way). One simply gains no more edification from understanding "in a basic way" a local primary school—one of thousands in Northern Ireland—than from understanding local grocery stores, pubs, or coffee shops. Pan Dan 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Schools are inherently notable. Also, imo, mass AfD nominations are bad form. --Myles Long 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While mass nominations should be used only in cases where the discussion is the same for each article, I think that's exactly what you have here. What interest would be served by having a separate debate for each one of these articles? Erechtheus 01:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, we've established here on Wikipedia that High Schools/Secondary schools are notable, Elementary schools/Primary schools are NOT inherently notable. TJ Spyke 21:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOT (as cited by nominator) and lack of encyclopedic value. The "sum of all knowledge" does not mean trivia, indiscriminate, and directory entries. As a comment, "bulk" nominations are not improper (see listing multiple pages for deletion). Agent 86 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOT and others as above. wikipediatrix 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. per Spyke. Are we going to have to go through this with elementary schools now? Eusebeus 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - schools are inherently notable, hence my desire to build a comprehensive listing and articles for all schools in Northern Ireland (not just County Down as the originator mistakenly seems to think). Frankly I am appalled at this debate at all - I was following the lead of Schools categories in Australia, Hong Kong and even England - are you suggesting all the primary and preparatory schools articles there should similarly be excised? Primary schools are indeed notable in their communities and in Northern Ireland and are vehicles to attract more readers and contributors to Wikipedia. This has been proved as the lists and my stub articles are now being added to by other new contributors. Most of the articles are stubs to be built upon, or have we lost that concept? I would suggest that schools are more notable than say porn stars, but you are not suggesting excising those articles. Please let me get on with building an encyclopedia relevant to people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Remove this deletion threat please. Ardfern 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ardfern, I have sympathy for your project, even though I don't necessarily think it belongs on WP. But even setting that larger argument aside, why don't you list these schools on other pages, such as County Down or Education in Northern Ireland, for example? How do you propose expanding the articles nominated for deletion as they stand? Pan Dan 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for different reasons). School articles are notorious vandal magnets, especially if they're kept unwatched. Ardfern having taken the time to create these will also inevitably keep them on his watclist and be able to revert any vandalism right away. Bastique▼parler voir 00:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't think we can say every non-secondary school is non-notable by default, but they are also not notable by default as secondary schools are. The secondary school articles represent communities sufficiently, and secondary schools are often more than just schools -- they serve as significant sources of community entertainment and bonding (think high school football). I see no claim of notability in any of these articles. Erechtheus 00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per Myles Long above. Also, the articles are in development and Wikipedia, we are told, is not exactly short on space. --Mal 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per above; there have been countless school AfDs, and they almost invariably result in a decision to keep or no consensus. I could see a nomination taking place if their existence was unverifiable, but obviously they exist. The fact that we've got an editor who seems to be dedicated to these articles is even better. Catbag 06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have seen school AfD going in all directions, the last one I started was deleted: [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Hills Christian School], and the discussion was very similar to this one. In the end, after the deletion, someone made a redirect to the town of the school, which I obviously have no problems with. To argue that this one should be kept because other ones are kept is thus invalid, as the argument for deletion can be made for that reason as well. Fram 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Far more are kept than deleted from what I've seen. Catbag 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, actually, they do meet the criteria of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (and these articles are just that), and Wikipedia is not a directory (and an article like Iveagh Primary School is nothing but a directory entry). Can you give us an idea of what information, specific for any of these schools, would be added later on? You are basically saying that they are notable and interesting, but that that will only become clear when the article is expanded. If you don't have any info that supports that opinion, then it is only wishful thinking. Fram 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Since WP:NOT is being used as a justification for deletion, let's do a review of each of the criteria of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and see if any of the specific examples included fit this article:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Not Applicable
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).No
3. Travel guides. Not even close
4. Memorials. Nope
5. News reports. Not Applicable
6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Not
7. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. No. This is what was referenced in the vote, but it does NOT apply. This is not a directory; it is an article about a specific school.
8. Instruction manuals - Not Applicable
9. Internet guides - No
10. Textbooks and annotated texts - Not a chance
11. Plot summaries - Nope
I sincerely hope that we can get clarification as to which specific aspect of WP:NOT is being violated by this specific article. Otherwise, WP:NOT does NOT apply. Alansohn 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The answer is...#7. As Fram has repeatedly and reasonably pointed out, these are stubs, the info in them is directory info, and nobody voting "keep" has explained how to expand them into compelling encyclopedia articles. Pan Dan 14:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: like Pan Dan said (thank you)/ Take Iveagh Primary School: the complete article comes from the link "Schools Web Directory", except the age of the pupils and the number of them (a whopping 50, or some 6 per year...). That info comes from the other link, the Good Schools Guide, which is nothing but a directory (the information you getr when you follow the link at least). This article is nothing but directory information. It contains no info on what makes this school notable, how it would be interesting to anyone outside Rathfriland, how the educational system of County Down works, etcetera. The only reason anyone can give to have this article is that for them, all schools are notable, even if there is no info available except the address and number of pupils. I don't have anything against that position, although I heavily disagree with it, but I don't get why most people seem so anxious to admit that that is their criterion, and try to find other reasons, or try to make this AfD look negative on principle. But since this AfD seems at first glance to be going to a no consensus, I suppose we'll have to see in a year or so if a) these articles are indeed vandal magnets (a primary school with 50 pupils? I would be surprised), and b) if they indeed will have improved in a year time. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that very long signatures are bad for easy editing, but I don't complain about them ;-) Seriously, I don't understand the problem with mass nominations, as long as the articles are more or less comparable. Do you think there was anything wrong with e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse, and would you propose that I had made twenty different nominations (no wait, that's still a mass nomination: I should have made 20 consecutive AfD's over twenty weeks, I suppose)? Mass nominations are a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with comparable articles with comparable delete and keep arguments. Fram 18:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, touché, you should be pleased, used to have picture there as well! Fair point, on the mass-deletions, I’m not really a deletionist at all anyway. I’m more of a merge and redirect kinda guy. I have to agree with Ardfern (below) if a kid finds their old/present school here, they might add to it and find another article to add too and so Wikipedia grows. It's how I started and I am sure there are many more like me. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  Talk!  20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all based on precedent for schools. No real policy reason is given. Its not enough to name a policy page (like WP:NOT), but one must explain how it applies. As shown above, nothing in the articles goes against that (or any other) policy. This is no more a directory, than would be euqally tiny stubs on equally small townships. --Rob 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to earlier comments ::In the context of these articles, the concept of stubs seems to have been dismissed or forgotten by Fram and Pan Dan. I added the articles (specifically as stubs) to encourage other users (educationalists and professionals, not just school kids) to start to contribute and enter more information, particularly where I haven't been able to find a mass of starting information. Schools are a very good starting point to drive up interest in WP (surely one of the goals??) I thought WP was meant to be a collaborative effort and not about only adding fully and finally researched and completed articles - hence stubs - of which there is a vast volume in WP (and rightly so). Myself and other contributors will add more to the articles in time in the way that WP is supposed to be built up. Could we please be allowed to get on with important work for WP in Northern Ireland and draw this to a close. Ardfern 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: No, I have not dismùissed or forgotten the concept of stubs. I refer here to the WP:DP, which talks about stubs (with potential), which should get expanded, not deleted. I considered these stubs as stubs without potential: you can write more about them (and it may be verifiable and sourced), but in my opinion, it would still be an example of indiscriminate, unimportant information. I come back to my bakery example: you can write a stub about a bakery, and probably someone can come along and write something more, with info out a local newspaper, a food inspection report, ... This would still be a perfect object for deletion via AfD, as the consensus (WP:CORP) is that these are not important enough to list. The problem is that no guideline on schools has been agreed on, so that we have to rely on our feeling of what is and what isn't notable enough. Being a stub that may be expandable is not an argument against deletion per se: if the expansion would not make the stub any more notable, then it would still be fit for deletion, unless you feel that all schools are per se notable. The arguments about them being stubs is a non-issue. Either they are stubs, in wich case I can't delete them because they will be expanded, or they are full articles, in which case I can't delete them because they contain lots of info and work. This is of course false: the real choice is that either they are about notable subjects (keep), or they are about non-notable subjects (delete). While for some of the articles more info has been added after the AfD started (which is good), none of them has made the school any more notable. Fram 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Above the case was made on the basis these articles violated the deletion policy by containing only "directory information". Now you are saying they contain only "non-notable" information because any information about a non-notable school is inherently non-notable. This is now an argument based on assertion and not any kind of policy. Kappa 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all of these please per precedent they are notable verifiable and important to their communities too Yuckfoo 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excuse me? There is no magic precedent about keeping primary schools. In fact, none of your comment has any relevancy to the matter at hand. There is no evidence that any of these are in any way "important" to their communities and even if they were, so are a lot of little restaurants and hardware stores. We don't have articles on those. JoshuaZ 20:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Fram - Your references to both WP:DP and WP:CORP earlier are entirely spurious and indeed unreferenced from both areas. A reading of WP:DP shows that it makes no reference to "stubs (with potential)" or otherwise, and Primary schools articles have lots of potential if you choose to see it. WP:CORP makes no mention at all that "the consensus is that these are not important enough to list". Both statements are entirely unsourced and seem to be merely one person's opinion. I would be happy to see the quoted references. Comparing bakeries to Primary schools is also illogical and spurious, how can educational establishments not be notable. Obviously Wikipedians in Australia and Hong Kong didn't find primary schools non-notable and set a valid and important precedent - you will have an interesting time suggesting deletion of all those articles (which of course would be consistent with your view). You also didn't answer my question posed so long ago about whether porn stars are more notable than Primary schools - yet WP is stuffed full of porn star articles. Let's get rid of them. What about all those airline stub articles for airlines with one plane - let's get rid of them, or what about comics, why are they more notable. This sort of argument is the road to making this an entirely non-encyclopedic encyclopedia. Ardfern 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Slippery slope is a fallacy, and yes contrary to your above comment if one does judge them by WP:COR they wouldn't make it and many users would be in favor of getting rid of porn-cruft and comic-cruft. As to your comment about Australia and Hong Kong, could you expand on what you mean there? JoshuaZ 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JoshuaZ. Could you please quote the relevant part from WP:CORP to which you are referring - your point is again an unsubstantiated opinion. The references to Australia and Hong Kong were, I thought, pretty self-evident - both countries have many lists and articles referring to Primary schools, which they clearly see as notable - hence the precedent. See: Primary schools in Hong Kong, List of primary schools in Hong Kong, List of schools in Tasmania etc, Also: Schools in Belize, Primary schools in Singapore, Elementary schools in the United States. I think I rest my case, unless all of us in all those countries are misguided. Can I get on with the job now?? Please. Ardfern 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to "reply to user Fram", a few posts above: in the "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" of WP:DP, there is an ecplicit reference to "stubs but with potential", which should not get deleted. I agree;, being a stub is not a reason for deletion per se, and contrary to what people seem to have read in my posts, I don't think I have ever used it. I have used two main arguments for deletion: some of the articles are nothing but directory articles, and all of the articles are about non notable subjects. The first is a policy, the second is a general way of looking at what should be included and what not, again in the spirit of WP:NOT, the general rule that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no notability guideline for schools, and that is a pity, but if you put your standard for inclusion higher than "all schools are notable" (which, I repeat it, is in itself a debatable and valid position), then many primary schools, for example the ones up for AfD here, would be the first to go. I hope we can all agree on that? Now, when you try to find comparable guidelines and situations, one you easily find is WP:CORP, which I used not to show that schools should be deleted (as WP:CORP does not address schools), but that the arguments used that an article should not and can not be deleted because it is sourced and verifiable are invalid. A sourced and verifiable band, corporation, person, game, ... can all be deleted if they fail to reach the minimum standard for notability. Since there is no fixed minimum standard for schools, it is up to us, every AfD again, to decide individually what our standard is, and it is the right of the defenders of the articles to give as much information and sources as possible to make the articles pass the standards of more people. I hope that still everyone agrees? Now, the debate is about what your individual standard is, and if any of the articlss have given any info that would make them acceptable to more people than just those who think that all schools are notable. For me, none of the articls have done that, and as my standard is that a school is not notable for being a school, they all should be deleted. Fram 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of those schools in those categories look like they should be AfDed also while others actually have minimal claims of notability (and no, no matter how many times the claim is made, existence is not grounds for notability by itself). As to WP:CORP - the point is that if we did use that standard they wouldn't meet it (simply go through the list of criteria there). JoshuaZ 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into articles about corresponding villages/towns. If high schools are notable then so are primary schools in my opinion. Just because the kids are younger and take fewer drugs shouldn't affect that criterion. However, I don't think that means there should be atomic articles for each primary school. Much more useful to have the primary school discussed in the context of it's village and general population IN the article about the village/town. Support redirects to the village articles from these. — Donama 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You know, I have read, somewhere in Wikipedia space, how the encyclopedia is not limited on space. I suspect that many rules (regarding WP:NOT etc) were written at a time when space was a premium. Wikipedia has existed for a good number of years now (I remember when it was text-only), and start at a time when hard drive space was comparitively small and costly. Today one can buy a gigabyte of storage space on a handy USB keyring device quite cheaply. Hard drives cost less than 50p (Sterling) per Gigabyte. More importantly though, the size of hard discs is increasing almost exponentially. The first hard drive I bought was 20 Mb. My current memory is 50 times bigger! The current average hard drive storage space is over 4,000 times bigger. The current article about Abercorn Primary School looks to me to be about 1 kb. Two hundred of similar such articles would therefore take up 200k - less than 0.00025% of the average currently sold hard disc.. in total.
I personally don't see the reason why Wikipedia cannot be an encyclopedia on everything: we are not confined by shelving space, portability or storage space.
There are plenty of articles that exist already which are arguably less 'notable' than primary schools in a given region of the world. If an editor wishes to start an article on Navel lint, I don't see why this should be prevented. In fact that particular article's existance could be defended as being 'notable' as most people of the Western World have been 'victim' to it! In summary, at the minute, I feel like we have plenty to be getting on with, and we don't appear to be running out of space in the forseeable future. The rules, which I assume were written some time ago now, are possibly out-dated (in relation to the reasons for their creation). --Mal 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, WP:NOT (as with the rest) are basically This is an encyclopaedia. For other uses, please go somewhere - which is a perfectly reasonable statement. That's basically all WP:NOT says. That some editors insist that this is a directory entry (which any closing Admin can verify is false) is a seperate issue. Don't let people misusing policies lead you to make judgements on the policies. WilyD 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Schools are institutional and a school might affect thousands of people every day in a year. It constitutes the collective memory from generation to generation. Unlike shops, companies or houses, schools are heavily regulated by government authority with special regulation. It is difficult to establish a regular school comparing to bakery.

The very first line of WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". It can accept those topics not in paper wikipedia. While iterating through the arguments, "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" are repeatedly used but I cannot find anything relevant to the details of two clauses.

Can anyone clearly point out what it exactly violates?

  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
  2. Travel guides
  3. Memorials
  4. Instruction manuals
  5. Internet guides
  6. Textbooks and annotated texts
  7. Plot summaries
  • Wikipedia is not a directory
  1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics
  2. Genealogical entries or phonebook entries
  3. Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business

Someone says that it violates the last statement. But, it doesn't. It does not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc.

— HenryLi (Talk) 16:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating your denial doesn't make it anymore true. I have given this example article many times without getting a reply: in what way is Iveagh Primary School not a directory entry? For crying out loud, the only sources are two directories... Fram 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had been looking mostly at Abercorn, which is obviously not a directory entry. Admittedly, Iveagh is a pretty poor article - but the "sources are only two directories" is a really weak argument. Apart from which, none of the implications of WP:NOT seem to indicate it is a directory or directory entry anyways, as opposed to a stub. At some level they may look similar, but they're really not quite the same. WilyD 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Iveagh Primary School, it does not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc. as stated in the WP:NOT. It is not a directory at all. Its reference is a directory does not mean the article is a directory, but verifiable. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It contains more information than would be able to described with a generic description of a school - hence, it will be valuable for posterity, keep. John Riemann Soong 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Fram again. I notice you completely ignored my reference above to the primary school articles in many other countries which set the precedent for these articles. Delete these articles and these others surely have to go too - hardly acceptable or sensible. As an experienced Wiki-contributor I researched this before I started on primary schools articles for Northern Ireland. Perhaps some similar research on the part of others would have prevented this whole argument. I reiterate they are stubs and will be further developed. They are all linked to the towns/villages they refer to, but as these often have multiple schools merging the articles would not seem sensible. Ardfern 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that contributors have begun to expand some of the "offending" NI primary school articles already - hence proving the value of adding stubs in the first place and confirming the collaborative nature of our efforts to be encyclopedic. Ardfern 18:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Can you point me to all those articles on primary schools that have survived an AfD? I'll help you and give articles that don't have subarticles for every primary school, like Beaverton School District. In fact, none of the articles in Category:School districts in Oregon have links to articles about elementary schools (and hardly any middle schools): only high schools get articles. One other random example? Category:School districts in Indiana: many high schools linked, a few middle schools, not one elementary school. There are of course articles about primary schools (sadly), just like there are many, many other articles that have no place on an encyclopedia. I already get nasty remarks about nominating twelve related ones at once, so you can hardly expect me to nominate them all at once... But there aren't that many as you may think: 17 for the whole of Australia (Category:Primary schools in Australia), or 1 for Lancastershire (Category:Primary schools in Lancashire). There is also 1 in Cork (Category:Primary schools in Cork), which if kept is in need of a serious rewrite (even more than many other school articles is this just an advertisement, not an encyclopedic article at all). The content of many of these articles is depressing from an encyclopedic view (Millfields Primary School, Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Suria, Mearns Primary School (yeah, you can go shopping at lunchtime...)). In the few instances that many articles are created (Category:Primary Schools in Buckinghamshire), they have been left as stubs for almost a year now, with virtually interchangeable contents. Or can you tell the difference between Grendon Underwood Combined School, Steeple Claydon School, Whaddon Church of England School, and Long Crendon School. It's the proliferation of those non-articles (who by the way do not show any sign of being "vandal magnets", as was said above as a reason for keeping (in some twisted way)) that I want to stop. They are uninteresting, interchangeable stubs because they are uninteresting, interchangeable schools. Just like the twelve schools up for deletion here... Fram 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to myself. I got a bit carried away, I hope I don't come across to harsh or aggressive here. If any of my comments were offensive, just drop me a note and I'll remove them. I don't want to turn this discussion into a battle, but I suppose most of you know the feeling of frustration when your arguments don't sway your opponents, and you just can't understand how they can have a different opinion on something so simple (well, obviously it isn't simple). I'll step back a bit now and let the discussion finish... Fram 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, because schools are notable, atleast locally. bbx 18:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and so are restaurants and hardware stores and small town parks and lots of other things. Local notability does not imply notability. JoshuaZ 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Uninteresting, interchangeable schools" - nice - people in Northern Ireland and in those communities would be so delighted to hear this, just as much as this author is delighted to hear it and authors in USA, Singapore etc etc etc will be delighted to hear it. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I do have a problem when it is hampering work many of us feel is important however. As a result the frustration of Fram is, of course, nothing compared to my own. I prefer writing articles and building the encyclopedia rather than Wiki-navel gazing. This has taken up so much time and life is too short .... I agree with Fram, let the discussion finish and let us get on with the work. Ardfern 20:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further Comment By the way Fram I really enjoyed your selective quotation above of "bad" examples and their listing below - it just wouldn't have been right to use some of the "good" examples I quoted. Nice one. Ardfern 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability itself is not a policy (WP:N) because it is too hard to draw a line. Neither do WP:Schools. It is a trap to compare a school other things. Its nature is simply different. Another can compare it with the states and counties in the United States. You might never know what Valley County, Nebraska is. Why keep the county article if it is only locally notable? Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid is only notable to a small community. Why keep the article? — HenryLi (Talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abercorn_Primary_School&oldid=1144853535"