Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Nicholas Pre-School Playgroup

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas Pre-School Playgroup

edit

non-encyclopedic advertisement for a non-notable institution --DrTorstenHenning 08:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hm, why is this an 'ad' - seems verifiable and NPOV to me. Question - is non-notability a deletion criterion? --Doc (?) 08:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: verifiable (nice to see the OFSTED registration being used here), NPOV, useful. Oh, and no: non-notability is not officially a deletion criterion. Unfortunately we seem to have been suffering a bit of functionality creep as a result of which articles get nominated because the nominator has never heard of the subject…seems to me that an encyclopedia should contain many, many articles on subjects any individual reader has never encountered. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is someone trying to make a point here? If non-notability is a criterion for speedy deletion in the case of people, then non-notability in the case of (very small) groups of people should be a criterion for deletion. And I do not think I have to have a first-hand encounter with twenty-one pre-school children to assess their notability, or rather lack of notability. --DrTorstenHenning 09:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CSD for nn-bios of people is intended to solve the problem of people creating user pages in the main namespace, or mistaking this for a personal webhost and posting their personal details as an article. It is not intended to make it easier to get rid of allegedly non-notable information in general. — Haeleth Talk 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this was an obscure quantum physics term or ethnic music group, maybe we could talk about systemic bias against certain subjects. But this is a pre-school playgroup, and childcare is hardly an obscure topic. There is a difference between a subject which most people don't know about, like quantum physics and ethnic music genres, and a subject which most people don't want to know about, like playgroups in a certain area. This falls into the latter category, being of no interest to anyone except parents in the playgroup's area (which places it even more firmly in the ad category). --Last Malthusian 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, advertising, non-encyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. Dlyons493 Talk 09:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and this would be identical to literally thousands upon thousands of other hypothetical articles about playgroups. And dear God, please don't say pre-school groups are automatically notable now. --Last Malthusian 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 'tis not an ad. FireFox 10:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a preschool playgroup. Web forums with more users and bands with more fans are deleted each and every day. I can't imagine how this specific playgroup would ever be an encyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, it's not an advertisement – I trust User:Doc glasgow enough to be sure he'd never write an ad – but it is unencyclopaedic. Phil, notability is a subset of encyclopaediality, so you can drop that "delete voters are ignoring the rules!" canard right now. And if you could refrain from accusing those who argue in good faith for deletion of only voting delete because we haven't heard of the subject, that would be nice, too. And as for Doc glasgow's innocent-sounding comment ... you should both know better than this! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK - I'm going to get some stick for this - so I've put an explanation on my talk page. But to keep the debate going - keep. --Doc (?) 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - test a case perhaps - but not make a point - since I'm not sure what point I'd be trying to make. --Doc (?) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stu 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. even though non-notability may not be an official criterion for deletion it doesn't mean that "votes" to delete based on that criterion are somehow wrong.--Kewp (t) 12:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless this article was created as a WP:POINT (I WP:AGF). Articles that no one has interest in are not created. Articles that are not verifiable are not allowed. The intersection of articles people have interest in and that are verifiable are articles that should be included. Clearly, this article is in that intersection, given that I have verified it via the linked website and it was created. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that argument's just not true. Plenty of vanity articles deleted on AfD are 'verifiable'. A small website, or a forum/Usenet posting, or even an article in the local paper can all 'verify' the existence of a non-notable person - all those apply to me just for starters. But we delete them anyway because we do, in fact, consider articles which are devoid of interest to anyone but the people concerned unfit for Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The CSD for nn-bios of people is intended to solve the problem of people creating user pages in the main namespace, or mistaking this for a personal webhost and posting their personal details as an article. It is not intended to make it easier to get rid of allegedly non-notable information in general. — Haeleth Talk 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)" Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in all conscience. I actually wanted to vote keep, but that would put me on the wrong side of WP:POINT. — Haeleth Talk 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've all forgotten to look at the talk page, haven't you? ROFL. LOL. ROFLMAO. I'm going to die laughing. -Splashtalk 13:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK - creating this was a mistake. I din't think it was a violation of WP:POINT as I wasn't making a point, but conducting an experiment (see my talk page) - and I didn't think it was really disruptive. But I am willing to accept the consensus of others that I should not have done this. The article should now be deleted (and I'd welcome someone using WP:IAR and doing so). I apologise, without reservation, to eveyone who feels I have wasted their time. --Doc (?) 13:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we can can bend WP:CSD G7 user mistake (despite some post-creation edits). --rob 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be too harsh on yourself. Judging by some of the responses, there are actually people in favour of giving any group of snotlings automatic notability. So I guess there'll be some genuine playgroup articles on AfD pretty soon. Hell, if yours is to be deleted under WP:POINT instead of WP:NOT, then someone could just recreate it saying it was of genuine interest. --Last Malthusian 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I'd been smarter, I'd have created this using a sock, then it would have stood or fallen on its merits and not on the community's reaction to my stupidity. --Doc (?) 13:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually quite an interesting point. Would the outcome of a deletion debate have favoured a creation by an unknown editor over that of an established one? It surely shouldn't, and should preferably favour neither. -Splashtalk 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I can't find 'breach of WP:POINT' on the deletion criteria (unless this is discuption or vandalism - in which case speedy it) it should rest on the article's (dis)merits and not the intention of the creator. But anyway.... --Doc (?) 16:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having been penitent over creating this - I don't want to be impolite. But it is NOT an ad. --Doc (?) 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OED=A public notice or announcement: now, usually, in writing ... - the article announces services offered on a commercial basis and has a link to their website. You didn't intend it as promoting them, but I can't see their advertising manager being too unhappy with what was written. If it quacks like advertising ... Anyway, that's my view and I'm not getting into a debate on the subject :-) Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quick, delete Microsoft ;)! --Doc (?) 16:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tempt me :-) And I could say (?) told me to!!! Dlyons493 Talk 18:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into a larger article about playgroups in general, maybe create a "List of Pre-School Playgroups"? TastemyHouse 14:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the least notable thing ever, as in "Mrs. Jones's Grade 8 English class"-level notable. I mean, at least some skateboarders had heard of that handrail (and we ended up keeping that). WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, or a business directory. And by the way: I'm probably more likely to vote keep on an article by an editor I know and respect, but not if it's a pre-school playgroup. Sorry. Lord Bob 14:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please feel free to incorporate any additional information into the new St Nicholas Primary School article. Silensor 19:28, 29 October 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 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/St_Nicholas_Pre-School_Playgroup&oldid=1185335756"