Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Wei Song School of Music

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 delete. Cunard has made some strong points regarding the potential notability of the school, however the overwhelming opinion here seems to be that even with a relatively large "group" of references, none of them in particular really expounds on the school beyond blurbs and mentions. I will happily recreate this in userspace upon anyone's request to work on finding more sourcing to bring this one back to life. Good discussion here from both sides though. Keeper | 76 03:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. Per user request, I've undeleted the article, blanked it, and redirected it to Lee Wei Song so said user can perform a merge using the page's history of editor contributions. Carry on, Keeper | 76 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wei Song School of Music[edit]

Lee Wei Song School of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am really hard-pressed to find anything on the Web about this school that is not either a blog, a forum, a job offer, or a page in which the school's name is not followed by "proudly presents." Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When I repeated the Google news archive search, I failed to find "plenty of sources that prove this school's notability". I found several of what looked like press releases published in various places, each of which told us of one incident, but not a single example of substantial coverage, and nothing about the school in general, as opposed to some incident in which the school was involved. Most if not all of the other articles were not about the school, but briefly mentioned it. I am also surprised at the statement "none of these sources is promotional": [1] reads to me exactly like a promotional press release, but evidently it strikes different people differently. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my statement that "none of these sources is promotional". If this article were a press release, it would say, "Come to our professionally-staffed school. We have a new branch in Jalan Imbi." However, this article is not a press release. A quote from the article is "A SINGAPORE music school has opened a branch in Kuala Lumpur, joining the growing ranks of similar institutions in the Klang Valley." The phrase I italicized is what never appears in a press release. Why would the press release of this music school say that there are similar music schools nearby, indicating that students can attend other schools? No, Lee Wei Song School of Music would not want residents in Klang Valley to know about the existence of other music schools. This would take away from the number of students who will enroll in their school.

    Furthermore, the author of the two articles from the New Strait Times is Ricky Yap, who has written numerous articles on diverse topics for The Malay Mail and New Strait Times. If Ricky Yap were promoting this school, he would have written only about Lee Wei Song School of Music.

    Similarly, this article from Asia Africa Intelligence Wire is not a press release. This article contains no promotional language and is written by Sharon Wong, who has no affiliation with this school. She is a reporter, who wrote about this school because she knew that it would be a topic of interest to her community.

    You argue that the school "[m]ost if not all of the other articles were not about the school, but briefly mentioned it." This is false. The reliable sources I cited above are solely about Lee Wei Song School of Music. The abstracts show that the articles are purely about this school. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing above indicates real notability to me. --Kleinzach 05:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources indicate real notability. Cunard (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable per our GNG. Eusebeus (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do the sources I provided not push Lee Wei Song School of Music over GNG? Cunard (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news is not the only way to establish notability. Since several notable singers were trained here, this caused me to consider this school notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been much debated on Wikipedia whether notability is inherited: does having had some students who went on to become notable mean that the School is automatically notable enough for an article all of its own? There are many Wikipedians who would say "yes", as Graeme Bartlett evidently would, but there are many more who would say "no". Personally, I am in the "no" camp. If the school were notable it would have received substantial coverage in independent sources, and those in favour of keeping the article would probably be able to find such substantial coverage: they haven't, and falling back on "even if there is no substantial coverage it is notable because it has had students who have become notable" seems to me a weak argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also part of the crowd that believes that notability is not inherited, but this argument is pointless when the school itself is notable. As I have pointed out above, multiple trustworthy news organizations have written about this school. This means that the school passes the general notability guideline, and the article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I pointed out above, I agree that notability is not inherited. However, I disagree that this school fails WP:N and WP:CORP. I have explained why the sources I provided are reliable and are enough to push the school over WP:CORP. Please explain why you disagree with my reasoning; don't just say that it fails this guideline. Cunard (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the articles cited as showing notability: none of them have significant coverage of the subject school - just by the by mentions. If the cited news blurbs are sufficient to sustain notability, nearly any local town with a newspaper would be filled with notable business establishments - as each will have some coverage from time to time - when they open, any new location - any award or achievent from the local rotary or sewing circle or fire department, what have you - and if they get burgled or other ill or good thing happening to them. For larger cities with bigger newspapers, nearly any business getting a review (doesn't your paper have restaurant reviews), etc. suddenly=notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2009 (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/Lee_Wei_Song_School_of_Music&oldid=1137984180"