Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingnan Primary School Old Student Association

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 DELETE. Postdlf 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lingnan Primary School Old Student Association

non-notable - nomination by User:Robinh

I've always abstained in the notability of schools debate - but this is a step too far for me. Delete this - unless someone wants to create an artice on the school and merge some of this stuff. --Doc (?) 12:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the problem is not of notability - it appears this looks more like some legal document than an encylopedic article. -- Natalinasmpf 13:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, non-encyclopedic. --OpenToppedBus - My Talk 13:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
'Strong'Keep'=-- THe article has modified and became more encyclopedic. Thus, I strongly demand that, this article should be kept. (Unsigned vote from 219.79.205.97
Keepand'strong'--- This article is a history of a special school club. This is encyclopedic, since it is a brief introduction of an association.And the association is very special. Moreover, Thois aarticle has been modified. Thus, I strongly believe that this article is worth staying in here. Thanks (Unsigned vote again from 219.79.205.97)

It's too bad these "two" voters weren't logged in. It's possible that they are both students from the school in question, using a common proxy, but we can't know for sure.... -Harmil 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should Keep this page. And In my opinion, I would vote it as strongly. 1st,This page is not an legal document.2nd, I see this page has been edited to be a better one. I think this page is fun and worth keeping in the wikipedia. (Unsigned vote by User:Peterwanhk
Delete First the schools, then the teachers, now the old boys. It will not be long before each student gets an article--Porturology 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment The people voting for keep above have edited the article under discussion. Robinh 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robinh, the Deletion Policy makes it quite clear that good faith votes from the author of the content are acceptable. Of course, the same policy makes it quite clear that double-voting is not acceptable, so I think you're chasing down the wrong problem. -Harmil 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OpenToppedBus. Way below the bar for encyclopedic notability. No references means questionable verifiability of most of the claims anyway. Quale 15:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most school clubs are not notable, and I think detailing every little thing that happens in them as this article does explains very well why that is. Dcarrano 15:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Lingnan Primary School. Only the Brief introduction is encyclopedic, in my opinion, and that's already in the LPS article. An page documenting the last five years of who has to be president and who will chair the Christmas party belongs in the association's own archives or webpage. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DoubleBlue -Harmil 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable organization of former students. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity from a school that should be deleted too. Dunc|☺ 18:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable vanity page. --Carnildo 20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Sock-puupet limit has been exceeded", as RickK would say. NN, vanity, unencyclopedic. --Scimitar 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete royblumy 23:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and request an amendment to the guidance about not voting if consensus you agree with is already reached: "one should always vote when there are sock puppets about, that one may assist in the demise of their article". -Splash 01:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sockpuppets and NN. Schools themselves are fine, but draw the line there with respect to schoolcruft. Xoloz 04:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable school promo. JamesBurns 04:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
Delete - what's next - invididual school janitors? - Skysmith 08:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be 'Kept' .It is about the history of an association. I think it is worth the keep this article. (preceding unsigned comment by 219.79.53.122 09:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. This schoolcruft is getting absurd. --Idont Havaname 22:37, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.