This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Pinging Necrothesp. I've been removing 15 paragraphs of completely unsourced and promotional content on this article. Apparently, it is claimed that the external link to the organization itself is a "source". I do not find this to be encyclopedic and have challenged this content. I'm opening a discussion here to discuss the matter. Waggie (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The organisational website of an organisation is a perfectly acceptable source for its own activities. How can material about a government military academy possibly be "promotional"? What's it promoting? See WP:ABOUTSELF. I also find it odd that you prodded the article. Do you really think a government military academy is non-notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's promotional as it discusses the school in detail without sourcing. Where's the sourcing? Where's the balance? For that matter, where on the website does it say any of these things? I PRODded for the complete lack of sourcing (which I explained in the PROD rationale), but since you bring up notability, where in the notability criteria does it state that a government military academy is de facto notable? Additionally, we still expect sourcing, regardless of whether it's de facto notable or not. Some good reads are Wikipedia:Businesses_with_a_single_location#Government_agencies, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and WP:NUNIT. All of which point out that reliable sourcing is required. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's common sense that government organisations like this are notable. It doesn't need to be written down. Wikipedia is not governed by rules. Proof such an organisation exists is perfectly sufficient for an article. And you really have misinterpreted WP:PROMOTION. Please don't try to tell an experienced editor about Wikipedia procedures. You should note that Wikipedia:Businesses_with_a_single_location#Government_agencies only refers to sub-national governments, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not refer to military training schools, and this is not a military "unit" as such so is not really covered by WP:NUNIT, although given the commander is a colonel it could be said to be covered by criterion #2. No school like this in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, etc, would ever be deleted, so WP:SYSTEMIC could also be said to apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, if you think this article should be deleted you should take it to AfD, not use PROD, which is only for uncontroversial deletion (which I don't think anyone could possibly think this was). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst the content-related discussion here, you seem to be taking issue with my conduct. If am I correct and you are upset with my conduct for some reason, then I am happy to discuss it with you at a more appropriate venue.
Regarding the content: I've already explained the rationale for my PROD, discussed notability with you (though it was not the rationale for my PROD), and explained the reasoning behind the removal of the content.
Regarding deletion, not once have I argued with you about this except by tangentially addressing the topic of notability which you raised. As such, an argument about notability is pointless. I started this discussion because you restored 15 paragraphs of unsourced content and removed the unsourced tag - I wanted to avoid further reverts that restored unsourced content against WP:V. I'm fine with settling on a stub for this topic, you're the one that keeps bringing up deletion. The external link can provide enough of a "source" to support a stub on something in this topic area.
To address the WP:SYSTEMIC essay: "Wikipedia tends to underrepresent the perspectives of people who lack access to the Internet, use mobile devices to access Wikipedia, or do not have free time to edit the encyclopedia." Singapore is English-speaking (the vast majority of the populace speak English fluently, if not natively), considered a first world country, many people have access to gigabit fiber to their homes, has a fairly decent media industry, and according to Wikipedia Views Visualized, 81% of traffic to all Wikipedias is to the English-language Wikipedia. If you require sources for any of this, please let me know and I will provide them.
Regarding WP:PROMOTION, extensive and unsourced detail about a topic is promotional. If one topic is allowed to disregard WP:V, where another is not, than Wikipedia is being explicitly promotional of that first topic.
We seem to be working at cross-purposes here. Surely we have the same goal (ie: to improve Wikipedia)? I've read your userpage and I suspect you are lumping me into a particular category of editor that you seem to take issue with, and are reading more into what I'm saying and doing than is truly the case due to that.
With respect, if your only issue is with my conduct, then this isn't the correct venue for such a discussion. I'm happy to collaborate here on content issues with the article, if you like. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
