Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balgowan Primary School
Balgowan Primary School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 8 votes to delete, 3 votes to keep. Block votes were ignored. Postdlf 21:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Balgowan Primary School[edit]
Maintained wholly by first contributor below (ie Iceaxejuggler). My argument is such pages are no more than vanity pages (I attended the school, so it must be notable). Prove it. Mandel 18:35, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. What is your argument for deletion? --Iceaxejuggler 10:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, his argument, apparently, is that it is vanity. I vote delete for non-notability. The bar is a whole lot higher, IMO for a primary school than an university. -Vina 23:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: What makes this school not just different from other schools, but of note to the world at large? How is this school such a remarkable school that it is known and will be sought out by the wider community? I see no evidence of such. Geogre 01:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I attended the school. I do not see how that makes it a vanity page - it's just something I happen to know about. The school had over 600 people when I was there. Over a number of years that is a very large number of people that have passed through its doors. In addition there will have been a large number of parents, relatives and locals for whom this school may have paid a powerful part in their lives. This entry might not say much, but it may be of interest to those that once attended the school to learn something of its early history and of its use as a hospital. It is also an article that other people may be able to expand - perhaps with name changes or other facts about the school - in principal, information that might be useful to people researching family history, their parents schooling, whatever. More importantly, I do not see the rationale for deleting it: why delete it? What harm is it causing anyone? Surely it's affected far more peoples lives - they've spent seven formative years of their lives there - than some long-dead English Lord whose only claim to fame is that his great-grandfather sucked up to the King? (But people seem happy for such lords to be there). Also worthy of note is that although there is not much information on this page, what little there is does not currently seem to be available anywhere else on the internet. --Iceaxejuggler 13:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, that last comment points out a problem with these school articles. In principle, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure topics. I don't want to overstress this, because I don't believe we do very much verification here—we do mostly rely on the good faith of contributors. If we deleted every article that hadn't been properly verified, we... well, anyway. I think that at the very least if the information in this article is based solely on the personal testimony of one person, that person ought to be identified on the article's talk page with their real name and some way of contacting them. Scientific articles sometimes reference "personal communication," and nonfiction books may cite "author's interview with so-and-so on thus-and-such date." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It can be verified. Information that the school exists can be found on the internet. As for some of the facts not mentioned on the internet these can be verified possibly by contacting the school or certainly by research in published sources in local libraries (or by published sources - histories of Beckenham - that are available by order over the internet). Even going by the criteria listed on the page that you link to there does not seem to be a requirement that the verification information be listed on the internet (and it would seem a bizarre requirement if this was the case). --Iceaxejuggler 08:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, that last comment points out a problem with these school articles. In principle, everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure topics. I don't want to overstress this, because I don't believe we do very much verification here—we do mostly rely on the good faith of contributors. If we deleted every article that hadn't been properly verified, we... well, anyway. I think that at the very least if the information in this article is based solely on the personal testimony of one person, that person ought to be identified on the article's talk page with their real name and some way of contacting them. Scientific articles sometimes reference "personal communication," and nonfiction books may cite "author's interview with so-and-so on thus-and-such date." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I believe you and I'm don't seriously doubt the information. However, the Talk page for the article is currently empty, there is no References section, and no inline HTML comments. Take a look at Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources. Do you have any objection to putting information about your sources on the Talk page? In particular, and I am quite serious about this, I think that if information in an article is based on personal knowledge, the Talk page should say so, should provide a means of contacting you, and, I believe, should provide your real identity. If you are going to provide difficult-to-verify information, then you should go the extra step to convince us that the information is verifiable in principle. I am a wishy-washy, vacillating school deletionist, whose principles are easily corrupted when the article is of high quality. You may feel that it is silly to invest further effort in this article right now, but I wish you would consider this in regard to future contributions.
- You may also feel that giving yourself as the source makes the article vulnerable to a charge of "original research," but that is a) a real issue b) that must (and can be) dealt with. For example, consider the statement "The school was built in 1914, and was originally intended to be a secondary school (this explains the height of the windows, which are too high for primary school pupils." If you say: "Source: personal conversation with principal John T. Doe circa 1994" then it is no longer original research. You have now established a way of verifying the information (contacting John T. Doe) and you have given the reader the information needed to make a proper judgement of the reliability of the information. This is what scholarship is all about: give the information and give the reader whatever is needed to trace, verify, and assess the reliability of the information. I don't do very much of this in my own contributions. Like most Wikipedia contributors, I am guilty of fairly low-quality scholarship. Nevertheless it is what we should be doing, and the more obscure the information, the more important it is to do it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless notability is more clearly established. It's a school. It's now a primary school but it wasn't originally intended to be. It was used for something else at one time. How is this any different from dozens, probably hundreds, of other schools? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It is notable because 1000s of people have spent 7 formative years of there lives there, i.e. it has touched their lives in a very significant way. What is your requirement for something to be notable? --Iceaxejuggler 08:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What do you mean by formulative? Significant in what way. All schools are attended by people, so does it mean that every single street, school, hospital, swimming pool, eatery, restaurant, address should be in Wikipedia? You keep saying it is notable. Prove it.Mandel 09:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Formative, not formulative. 1000s of people have spent a critical part of their youthful development at the school for most of their waking hours. The school has played a major role in making them the person that they are. I'd say having a significant role in the lives of 1000s of people is notable. What's your definition of notable? Anyway - as yours is the vote for deletion - surely the onus is on you to show that it is not notable, rather than for me to prove it? --Iceaxejuggler 09:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What do you mean by formulative? Significant in what way. All schools are attended by people, so does it mean that every single street, school, hospital, swimming pool, eatery, restaurant, address should be in Wikipedia? You keep saying it is notable. Prove it.Mandel 09:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Every one who writes articles here has the responsibility to prove that what they write is notable, not gibberish. Your argument is an inclusionist one: all schools are notable, not that yours is significantly so. So will it come to the point where every human being in the world merit an article in Wikipedia? After all, we touch each others' lives in more ways than one. The definition of notability has already been mentioned countless times -- there's no way to distinguish this one school from hundreds of thousands all over the world. If you can prove your school is special in certain ways that distinguishes it from others, that transferring from another school to this would make a significant difference, then that that would count as notable. Just see how many above and below has mentioned that. Mandel 07:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe that all schools should be included. (Perhaps there is an argument for restricting schools below a certain size, but Balgowan is large by the standard of primary schools.) Please argue against my case, not an extension of my case that I have not made: saying that all schools should be included is not the same as saying all human beings would merit an article in wikipedia, just as saying that all universities should be included is not the same as saying all schools should be included - I have outlined why I think that this school is notable - it has touched upon many 1000s of lives in a significant, ongoing way. And I do not see why you wish it to be deleted? I can see a possible utilitarian argument for the inclusion of information about Balgowan (outlined in my earlier comments). I do not see a strong argument for deleting it. Surely the existence of articles such as this would only become a problem if it impeded searchs for other, more notable information? And I do not see how this is the case, in this instance.--Iceaxejuggler 22:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've no idea how big the school is, and I'm tired of this argument. If you think all schools should be included, just state so. For the rest, see the voters' reasoning below and above. Mandel 13:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe that all schools should be included. (Perhaps there is an argument for restricting schools below a certain size, but Balgowan is large by the standard of primary schools.) Please argue against my case, not an extension of my case that I have not made: saying that all schools should be included is not the same as saying all human beings would merit an article in wikipedia, just as saying that all universities should be included is not the same as saying all schools should be included - I have outlined why I think that this school is notable - it has touched upon many 1000s of lives in a significant, ongoing way. And I do not see why you wish it to be deleted? I can see a possible utilitarian argument for the inclusion of information about Balgowan (outlined in my earlier comments). I do not see a strong argument for deleting it. Surely the existence of articles such as this would only become a problem if it impeded searchs for other, more notable information? And I do not see how this is the case, in this instance.--Iceaxejuggler 22:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Every one who writes articles here has the responsibility to prove that what they write is notable, not gibberish. Your argument is an inclusionist one: all schools are notable, not that yours is significantly so. So will it come to the point where every human being in the world merit an article in Wikipedia? After all, we touch each others' lives in more ways than one. The definition of notability has already been mentioned countless times -- there's no way to distinguish this one school from hundreds of thousands all over the world. If you can prove your school is special in certain ways that distinguishes it from others, that transferring from another school to this would make a significant difference, then that that would count as notable. Just see how many above and below has mentioned that. Mandel 07:53, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Count in 2 more delete votes from Improv, WOT. See above. Mandel 09:12, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry but my vote has to be for Delete. Apart from the big windows and the Blue Peter presenter there's nothing to distinguish this school from thousands of others. Jxan3000 11:00, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jayjg 16:41, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- D Generic primary school #4 I'm afraid. Chris 02:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - factual, verifiable entry. Mark Richards 17:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep this. Schools are notable. Notability is not a deletion criteria. Intrigue 21:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I fail to see how something that is not notable in any way can be considered encyclopedic, which is one of the criteria for deletion. Indrian 21:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.