Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Launceston Christian 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 Keep. No attempt was made to justify deletion. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Launceston Christian School

Notability of the school not asserted -- Koffieyahoo 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm one of those annoying "high schools have inherent notability" people. AdamBiswanger1 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(In response to the clarification requested on my talk page by Koffieyahoo) Well, in my opinion high schools are of borderline notability. Usually high schools have tens of thousands of graduates, each one spending hours and hours there for a four year period with countless memories during a time of transition in their lives. Some have more students than say Bryn Mawr College. Also, to try to delete every article on a high school is an unspeakably futile act. It just can't happen, and even if they were deleted they'd just pop right back up like weeds.

• Keep So am I. Ace of Sevens 02:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if only to be consistant. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools is trying "to write quality articles about schools around the world." IslaySolomon 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not a "schools are inherently notable" guy. In addition, since I was wondering if a private Christian school in Tasmania is an odd occurrance (in which case, my vote could be swayed), but I couldn't figure it out: a Google search shows 70 Christian parent controlled schools in all of Australia, but I searched "Christian Parent Controlled Schools of Tasmania", and the WP article is the only Google hit for said phrase. -- Kicking222 02:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure that this matters, but this school only has about 500 students in grades 1-12. ([1], page 5, overview section)--Kchase02 T 03:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Secondary schools (and the schools that incorporate them) are kept virtually ab initio and by virtue of their existence; notability in essence only helps and an absence of it really does not stop them. Whether this is good or bad is not for me to say, but I try to be pragmatic. Thus, because in spite of the cogent arguments for and against, very few AfDed schools are ever deleted, I will go with the majority. See Schoolwatch. SM247^{My Talk} 03:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. This is a recording: "WP:SCHOOL is not a policy, and 'all schools are notable' is a POV statement." --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete againt the rising tide. Coredesat is correct about the policy so we need to assess on other grounds. I've read a flyer about a parent controlled school that is < 20 years old with < 40 students ( clearly not notable ) and this school is not far advanced enough from that level. If we don't set a line somewhere on inclusion then every masonry box with the word School out the front will have it's own article. Fails to have any notable alumni, press coverage etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 04:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important entry, keep per AdamBiswanger1 -- Librarianofages 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep secondary schools are inherently notable IMO. --Pboyd04 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There have been 3 references to this in the Hobart Mercury so there is some verifable material available about this school. Capitalistroadster 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  I have no doubt the every school around for 20+ years has at least this number of local press mentions. Were the references more than school fete or building dedication announcements ? --Peripitus (Talk) 08:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps schools being around for 20+ years being mentioned in the media is the result of them being inherently notable. The media concentrates on what is notable after all. HighInBC 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The media concentrates often on what will fill the required space and is of local interest. If media mention alone governed notability then articles on local Pumpkin Fairs would survive AfD --Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unless someone establishes WP:V this directory entry should be deleted no matter the outcome of this straw poll. Opinions on notability don't override policy. ~ trialsanderrors 06:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: They sure do if (a) there is no policy governing which level of school is notable or not, and (b) the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are notable. I think that's a crock myself, but the evidence is unmistakable that school deletionists are in a small minority. RGTraynor 08:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. If in the opinion of the closing adminsitrator verifiability has not been established, editors can cite WP:N (an essay) as much as they want, it still doesn't override policy. Your opinion is a popular one, but it reverts the actual hierarchy of rules. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The school's website is linked, which verifies the school exists. I'm confused about why you're citing WP:V.--Kchase02 T 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Self-published sources (online and paper) is insightful. -- Koffieyahoo 09:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but what's the argument? That the website is a hoax? Strict application of WP:V seems misplaced here. Other than the usual self-promotion and hyperbole, the website satisfies the spirit of policy, if not the letter.--Kchase02 T 09:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article as it is now falls under WP:NOT a directory, also a policy. If there is verifiable encyclopedic material on the school, it passes policy and editors can discuss whether it passes their own interpretations of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Schools are generally notable.--Kchase02 T 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep allow for organic expansion —Pengo 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not in favor of deleting a verified article, and I think that teaching at secondary level is sufficient for notability. My own POV of course. Kevin 10:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, schools are usually non-notable, in my opinion, and private schools are even less notable on average. Beyond its existence, the article makes no claims to the school's importance or notability. Even basic information is missing, like the number of students and how long it has existed. Since it is a kindergarten to year 12 school, it is likely that it is very small. -- Kjkolb 11:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable school. --Roisterer 14:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This fight was lost a year ago. Rebecca
• Keep and expand. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Could provide useful reference material for future articles. --AlexDW 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per well established precedent seen at Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Schools for deletion archive. --Rob 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing in this article demonstrates why it is encyclopedic. We're not building a phone book. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, schools are not inherently notable (but an individual school can be notable), and "precedent" is meaningless because stare decisis does not apply to wikipedia. Agent 86 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's true enough that there are no binding decisions, but consistency in inclusion of similar articles seems a reasonable goal to strive for.--Kchase02 T 20:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: No more so than it does in real life, since stare decisis is a credo found nowhere in black-letter law. That being said, if you think that precedent is meaningless on Wikipedia, go ahead and file AfDs on various high schools, and see how far it gets you. RGTraynor 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm usually for keeping schools, but only 530 students in K-12? This one is microscopic and is not notable. JChap 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also think wikipedia can afford to see the high schools as notable. Also, since the prod tag the article has been improved. HighInBC 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment This article needs to be expanded alot, I am voting keep because I see effort to improve. If it has not improved in the future and voted for deletion again, I may think otherwise. HighInBC 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If people are looking for verification that the school does really exist, there are some Australian government pages that reference it: [2], [3], etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A few other decent ones, included because they might be useful for expansion, if someone's so inclined: [4] and [5]. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Dear school deleters: it's a lost cause. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the arguments provided in Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This and other verifiable secondary schools are notable enough to be included on a site which aims to provide the sum of all human knowledge. Silensor 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an important and notable school. Carioca 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Schools are an important place to learn about what an encyclopedia is and is not -- MrDolomite 05:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I also subscribe to the belief that "secondary schools have inherent notability" as AdamBishwanger1 put it hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, most schools are notable, as is this. bbx 15:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep schools are notable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, althought I don't think that my vote is going to be the deciding one :P -- Chuq 03:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 04:56, 6 July 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.