Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyndale Primary 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 of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndale Primary School

Non-notable primary school with no listed achievements. BlueValour 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Frankchn 02:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. --Hooperbloob 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a school and that is notable. --Kev62nesl 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Not notable, no real content either. I'd say high schools are notable, but not primary schools. --Rory096 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rory096. --Coredesat 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Schools are not automatically notable. Tychocat 09:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Can someone please explain the logic behind the argument 'high/secondary schools are notable, but primary/elementary are not'? Bear in mind that for many communities around the world, only 'elementary' education is available. Markb 09:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose to me at least it's the maturity level of the students. High Schools are often a place where strong memories are formed; where the beginnings of a trade are learned, and they are typically larger institutions than primary/elementary schools—often graduating tens of thousands of students while they are in service. So I think there's a weak case for High Schools being called notable. I don't see one for primary/elementary schools, unless they're unique in some respect. — RJH (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't buy the notion that any schools, high schools included, have automatic, inherited "notability" or worthiness for an article. One could make a reasonably logical argument though for the cultural importance of high schools in American/Canadian culture as pointed out by RJH. 30 years from now, people will still be attending High School Reunions... nobody formally gets together with the people they attended middle/jr high with. Also consider that HS is the first level of schooling that gives students some sort of usable certification of learning (i.e. a diploma). Of course IMO, having a hard cutoff for HS leads into the possibility of systemic/cultural bias as pointed out by Markb above. Of course to me, it is preferable to judge each article on it's actual merits rather than blanket "school = keep" or "school = delete".--Isotope23 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Potential for expansion, and Wikipedia isn't paper. David L Rattigan 10:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it has been around since 1956 (according to the school's website [1] it appears to be devoid of notable past events or interesting features. In other words, non-notable. Kimchi.sg 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while precedent has established that high schools are inherantly notable the same is not true of primary schools. Ydam 10:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing notable has been asserted or found about this primary school. Re: Ydam's comment, I'd like to know where a precedent has been set that high schools are inherently notable. - Motor (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents. I don't necessarily agree that high schools are inherently notable but nearly every one that comes to AFD gets kept. I would call that a precedent. Ydam 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the school AFDs resulting in "no consenus" is hardly what I'd call setting a precedent for being inherently notable. But this isn't the place to discuss it so... - Motor (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a consensus and a precedent though, for instance legal rulings don't have to be unanimous by judges/juries to set a precedent, but anyway we digress... Ydam 13:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete... no inherent notability for schools.--Isotope23 13:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's just a primary school, and one with no established uniqueness or interesting qualities. -- Kicking222 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per long and well established precedent Jcuk 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Primary schools are for 10 year olds and under - no precedent - the precedent is for high schools. BlueValour 15:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Primary schools in the UK cover reception and years 1 - 6, that's up to age 11. A pupil spends more time in primary school than in secondary schools, with a leaving age of 16. Markb 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Notable school - merge into district or town if appropriate Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not attempt to establish notability. -- Docether 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this institution is notable to the community which it serves, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, and per long established precedent. Silensor 16:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't see any "long established precedent" for keeping this article. And saying that it is notable to its community can be used to justify the inclusion of absolutely anything that all... you are effectively scrapping the notability requirements althogether. And Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete - Motor (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What notability "requirements" are you referring to? Furthermore, if you can't see the long established precedent, dating back to May 2005, then I'm not sure we have much more to talk about. Silensor 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment, my reading of those Wikipedia:Schools "proposals rejected by the community" that you linked to is obviously different from yours. I've also read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents and can't see a "Keep" precedent for schools there either... just a lot of arguments and indecision. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer where I can find this precedent? I was referring to notability guidelines like WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:CORP or any of the others... using your "notable to its own community" wording, it is possible to justify the inclusion of anything at all. - Motor (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • The precedent for keeping all non-copyvio verifiable K-12 schools is at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
          • This does not appear to be setting any kind of precedent. That is WikiProject to catalogue and coordinate the response whenever a school is put up for deletion... presumably, the first shot is to claim that there is a precedent for "Keep" when there isn't. - Motor (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Look at the list, it shows all verifiable real K-12 schools being kept (in the absence of copyvio). You seem to have some sort of alternate definition of the word precedent. --Rob 22:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I see a list of articles that were block voted into (mostly) no consensus by a project that was set up to do just that. I see a Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents document that states clearly that "no consensus" is the usual result... you seem to be the one making up definitions here. There is no precedent for "Keep"... and despite the repeated misleading claims thrown around, there is nothing backing up statements that schools are inherently notable. - Motor (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly non-notable. These school articles are the shame of Wikipedia, and have utterly destroyed its credibility as a serious encyclopedia. Do you see articles on schools like this in Britannica? Nope. Think there might be a reason for that? Ooh, I wonder. — Haeleth Talk 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're ashamed of Wikipedia, and prefer Britanica, you're welcome to go try and write for Britanica. Given their lack of articles and readers, compared to Wikipedia, they could probably use all the support they can get. --Rob 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, and equally Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. - Motor (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. This was hashed out well over a year ago, there is no consensus to delete non-copyvio articles about verifiable schools, they are notable and WP:NOT the Encyclopedia Brittanica. You may want to look into a more productive use of your time. Silensor 20:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This was not "hashed" out. A discussion happened, and no decision was reached. This is very different from you running around making claims that precendents were set, and that schools are somehow inherently notable. The reason there is often no consensus on these votes is because you have an organised project to show up and block vote them into stalemate. However, I do appreciate your sincere concern over how I use my time though. I like to make a suggestion of my own. Maybe you should spend your time more productively, say, by not making false assertions about past discussions in order to mislead people planning to vote here? Thanks. - Motor (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion. -- Usgnus 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are notable in my opinion. HighInBC 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is notable really we are not britannica Yuckfoo 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Usgnus: "Needs expansion, not deletion." --Stephane Charette 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Dandenong North, Victoria. Its very short, and the school doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article. Extraordinary Machine 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school. CalJW 05:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and verifiable. Golfcam 17:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth; perfectly verifiable, perfectly notable. Bahn Mi 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kimchi.sg and Motor's comments above; coming soon, articles on kindergartens. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable school and is certainly verifiable.--Auger Martel 10:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic- needs time to develop. --JJay 19:53, 17 June 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.