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 keep, but as this is a copyvio someone will need to take the initiative to start anew. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siglap Secondary School[edit]

Siglap Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Questionably notable, but fails on OR, no sources, probably WP:AUTO and promotional as well. I prodded it but author removed tag only adding link to school website. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep all public schools. `'mikka 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (reluctantly) - As it is, most secondary schools have a Wikipedia article. I think a policy is needed defining which schools are notable and which aren't; however, as it stands it would be unfair to delete this article. Walton monarchist89 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Policy, hmmm. Too bad no one's ever thought of that before. JChap2007 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Walton, hope you don't mind me repeating what I said at the other school AfD, but it would not be "unfair" to delete this article. Looking at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools_for_deletion_archive, a number of school articles have been deleted due to failure of WP:N. Also, I have prodded a number of school articles whose deletions went through uncontested. If this school article is deleted, it won't be alone at all. Pan Dan 15:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per existing consensus regarding secondary level educational institutions. Yamaguchi先生 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per existing consensus that there must be evidence of non-trivial external sources. As far as I know there is no consensus that all secondary schools are notable. In Siglap's case, as there is what some might consider a claim to notability (being the first coed secondary school in Singapore) I checked some databases. Nothing non-trivial appears in Lexis-Nexis, Proquest, Infotrac. I can't even find independent verification for the claim to notability[1][2]. I suppose there's no reason to doubt the school's website on that point, but it's not a convincing claim to notability if no reliable source outside of the school have, er, taken note of it. Pan Dan 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even a quick g-news archive search brings up some non-trival pieces on this school -[3] [4] and Southeast Asian Games multiple gold medalist Lee Wung Yew is alumni.[5] --Oakshade 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough source material to write a Wikipedia article. The first article you link to may give us "In 2005 Siglap began employing career planning consultants." The second article doesn't mention this school at all. And the athlete's connection to Siglap is trivial (because the sources don't discuss this connection, they only mention it in passing). Pan Dan 00:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per norm. Killroy4 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is certainly no consensus that all secondary schools are notable. This one, sadly, isn't. What makes a school notable is if it does something more than just exist and teach students. This one, sadly, doesn't. WMMartin 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please there are multiple google news stories for this school and meets verifiability yuckfoo 20:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio Tagged as copyvio, http://www.siglapsec.moe.edu.sg/school_infos.htm --Vsion 03:40, 31 January 2007 (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.