Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphington Grammar School

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphington Grammar School

Alphington Grammar School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

School built in 1989 whose entire claim to noteworthiness appears to be the fact that a teacher at the school was involved in an automobile accident in which, through carelessness, he caused the death of a 6-year-old near the school. I do not accept that as a valid claim to the noteworthiness of the school. (If it'd happened in the school, maybe.) None of the information in this article that's actually about the school is sourced by anything other than the school's homepage, nor does it amount to more than a directory entry, nor do I find any potential independent reliable sources through various searches -- just directories. Shimeru 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sound like an ad, and doesn't assert notability. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pretty close to advertSkierRMH 10:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that it's almost an advert, also no claim to notability. Amists ^{talk • contribs} 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The school is distinctive because of its connections with the Greek Orthodox community, although it identifies itself as non-denominational. It offers classes in Traditional Greek Dancing. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do greek dancing classes confer notability? There is some media coverage of the teacher running over pupil incident, but it's limited local coverage and I still err on the side of deletion for now Amists ^{talk • contribs} 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable. -- Kicking222 14:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. This again falls into the catagory of "just cause it is a school/church/mall does not make it notable" argument :P Missvain 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet a single criterion of WP:SCHOOLS3. Denni ^talk 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Please stop quoting that - you are quoting in bad faith a proposal that is supported by only a handful of people and is being used to justify deletions of schools that wouldn't under other proposals. Precedent in Australia has kept all high schools like this. Just because the article reads like an advertisement does NOT mean it should be deleted, it means it should be fixed up. JROBBO 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Those who support keeping every school in the known universe are about equal in number to those who expect schools to demonstrate the same degree of notability as all other article criteria demand. The inclusionists "win" because any no consensus outcome always defaults to "keep". What evidence can you bring forward that "only a handful of people" support WP:SCHOOLS3? Of =course= it will justify deleting some schools - that is the whole point of a policy, proposed or otherwise. The structure and intent of WP:SCHOOLS3 is no different from WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB - all are intended to separate the wheat from the chaff. I will not stop quoting WP:SCHOOLS3 - I believe that it is use that drives policy. If enough people continue to use this set of criteria, eventually a proposed policy will become de facto policy. And high time in a situation where some claim "every school is notable". Denni ^talk 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

JROBBO, please stop assuming bad faith. While WP:SCHOOLS3 is currently in a state of some flux and I don't see it as necessary useful to reference, it isn't bad faith to reference a proposal. Furthermore, it isn't obvious to me that WP:SCHOOLS has any more backing. JoshuaZ 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, yet another nn school. Lankiveil 03:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
• Keep. Doesn't look like a directory entry to me, but does appear to be verifiable through normal sources plus limited news coverage. Merging to Alphington, Victoria is also a fair option. RFerreira 05:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• I suspect that a school that is 125 years old might well be notable for something, but unless someone provides evidence of that, Delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per TruthbringerToronto, serves a particular community.--Vsion 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Drugstores serve communities as well. That doesn't make them notable. JoshuaZ 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If Truthbringer can find any evidence that outside sources have considered the connection to the Greek Orthodox community notable then it might be notable. As it is, there is no plausible claim of notability that I could find. JoshuaZ`
• Delete as that this is a non-notable school. A kid getting run over by a teacher doesn't confer notability alone. (unless maybe Ted Kennedy's car was somehow involved, I don't know, we'll see.) However, as stated above, a school this old should have some evidence of notability. Trusilver 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Once you strip out all of the non encylopedic material and the directory information you have an article that fails all of the proposed school guidelines. Vegaswikian 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Schoolcruft. WMMartin 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep notable school!!! Audiobooks 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some basis to that claim at all? Adding exclamation marks doesn't make the claim any more persuasive. JoshuaZ 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote discounted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Important to Melbourne Greek Orthodox community. I guess. Herostratus 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No valid policy-based arguments to keep have been made. wikipediatrix 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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.