Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Brunswick South Primary School
- Non-notable primary school. Numerous trivial mentions from sources, but nothing on the school itself. - Tiswas(t) 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, with 27 Google News Archive hits, and a dedicated recent contributor Eyedubya (talk · contribs), there may be sufficient notability for this article. John Vandenberg 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep About 6 of them talk about it in a substantial way, but teat is certainly more than the usual zero. But I am concerned because they are all from a local newspaper, & I though it wsa necessary to show notability beyond the local community , for local events. DGG 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- What sways me towards a keep is that it is old enough, in Australian terms, to have heritage listed buildings. It is in inner Melbourne, so the local rag is not so local (hence it's owned by a media mogul rather than a chap with a chip). John Vandenberg 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Article was prod'ed a mere 27 minutes after being created and thrown to the dogs here at AfD in under 24 hours. Reliable sources are provided but need to be integrated into the article. An excellent day's work. Alansohn 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I am with Alansohn here. This is an entirely decent start to an article and inexperienced editors should be helped and encouraged not have their work immediately prodded. Oh, and there is sufficient notability in the sources to meet WP policies. TerriersFan 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While there are a number of sources, are they sufficiently strong to warrant an article. It also needs to be edited to remove reference to staff unless they are particularly notable in the school's history. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I take an essentially pragmatic view on this. The sources need weaving into the article and until that is done it is hard to assess their notability. However, as DGG mentions, it is a delightful surprise to have any sources and there is sufficient here to keep the article for the time being. On the staff, it is normal to include the name of the Principal (as it would be the name of the CEO of any organisation) but I have taken out the VP. TerriersFan 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I proposed the article for deletion to garner more consensus - There are a number of sources (reliable or not), but the content of the sources contains only trivial mentions of the school. My concern is that there are not enough non-trivial mentions, where the school itself is the topic, or at least not merely mentioned in passing. A quick perusal of the news archive link gives the impression that we are reading the schools monthly bulletin. That being said, if appropriately sourced and worthwhile articles can be embodied in the article, I have no problem at all with the article staying. But they do need to be added, and not merely intimated. - Tiswas(t) 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I am generally of the opinion that primary schools are not notable unless they have another claim to notability, this one appears to have done so, although the prose of the article needs to be brought in line with Wikipedia standards. Orderinchaos 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Assuming this school was embroiled in Kennett's proposed sell-offs then it will easily meet the primary inclusion criteria of mulitple independent sources.Garrie 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, with due respect to the good faith contribution involved here, I don't see how this particular school is any more notable than your other garden variety primary school. Lankiveil 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per above. The quality or number of sources is not relevant to topics that are inherently not notable, such as most primary schools. Eusebeus 11:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm personally of the opinion that if the source and profile of the source and its commentary is high enough, it can result in the subject meeting notability. However there is some argument that it should be in a different article about Kennett's school closures (which does not yet exist), rather than about the school itself, which would not be notable without the commentary. Orderinchaos 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of categories of articles where there is established consensus of inherent notability: Federal and state elected officials, municipalities and places, major highways, etc. There is absolutely nothing that is "inherently not notable"; this claim is false in and of itself. The overwhelming majority of elementary schools will have a great deal of difficulty demonstrating notability with non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources, and this one is one of the small number of exceptions that has distinguished itself from other such schools and other such articles. A vote that argues for deletion by stating that the article should be deleted irrespective of the "quality or number of sources" is not relevant and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N is only a guideline. But the requirement is has it received significant coerage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. THAT defines notability on Wikipedia, not the "dictionary" definition of notability. If you object to that definition then do so at WP:N and come back here with the new definition.Garrie 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't mentioned dictionary definitions of notability, so I'm not sure what it is that you're objecting too. I agree with you that notability needs to be established for articles, though I pointed out that there are many categories where there is broad acceptance of inherent notability. While you seem to be acknowledging that there are standards that can be met to demonstrate notability, we have a statement above that primary schools are inherently not notable and that articles for such schools -- such as this one -- should be deleted regardless of the "quality or number of sources". There simply is no support in any Wikipedia guideline or policy to support that statement. Alansohn 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this one not inherently notable; what is your reasoning? Wikipedia:Schools has a stricter sourcing requirement than merely WP:N, but this subject has a significant book by a decent author[1], and according to the NLA the book is held in 7 libraries. What's more, the main contributor to the article is rapidly expanding the article. John Vandenberg 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- By inherently notable, I mean a category of article that doesn't have to prove notability. A tiny municipality in the outback doesn't have to provide sources to demonstrate why it's more notable than other similar podunks; it -- and every single municipality, no matter how small or trivial -- is notable by definition. Other types of articles have the opportunity to demonstrate notability by providing reliable and verifiable sources, a standard that this article has satisfied. What I am objecting to is the unfounded and unsupported claim that schools can never be notable, regardless of the "quality or number of sources". Alansohn 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this one not inherently notable; what is your reasoning? Wikipedia:Schools has a stricter sourcing requirement than merely WP:N, but this subject has a significant book by a decent author[1], and according to the NLA the book is held in 7 libraries. What's more, the main contributor to the article is rapidly expanding the article. John Vandenberg 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't mentioned dictionary definitions of notability, so I'm not sure what it is that you're objecting too. I agree with you that notability needs to be established for articles, though I pointed out that there are many categories where there is broad acceptance of inherent notability. While you seem to be acknowledging that there are standards that can be met to demonstrate notability, we have a statement above that primary schools are inherently not notable and that articles for such schools -- such as this one -- should be deleted regardless of the "quality or number of sources". There simply is no support in any Wikipedia guideline or policy to support that statement. Alansohn 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N is only a guideline. But the requirement is has it received significant coerage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. THAT defines notability on Wikipedia, not the "dictionary" definition of notability. If you object to that definition then do so at WP:N and come back here with the new definition.Garrie 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of categories of articles where there is established consensus of inherent notability: Federal and state elected officials, municipalities and places, major highways, etc. There is absolutely nothing that is "inherently not notable"; this claim is false in and of itself. The overwhelming majority of elementary schools will have a great deal of difficulty demonstrating notability with non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources, and this one is one of the small number of exceptions that has distinguished itself from other such schools and other such articles. A vote that argues for deletion by stating that the article should be deleted irrespective of the "quality or number of sources" is not relevant and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm personally of the opinion that if the source and profile of the source and its commentary is high enough, it can result in the subject meeting notability. However there is some argument that it should be in a different article about Kennett's school closures (which does not yet exist), rather than about the school itself, which would not be notable without the commentary. Orderinchaos 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see anything in the article that asserts the notability of the topic other than the unreferenced claim that the State Government was unsuccessful in shutting the school down. The rest of the article, while providing context and background and well written and presented does not assert notability. Most of the sources shown, such as the list of polling places in Wills, mention the school in only a trivial sense. In common with the vast majority of primary schools in Australia, it is unlikely to be able to assert notability any time soon. With regard to the decision to keep or delete, I am not sure that encouragement of editors is relevant. While new editors should be encouraged, I don't see that as a reason to dilute standards. It would be better to point out to the editor why the article was tagged for deletion, point them towards the relevant guidelines and policies and offer assistance if needed. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's encourage them then to improve the article.DGG 02:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. There was a high-profile battle over its survival; it was rare for the time in that they were actually successful. It easily meets the criteria for proper sourcing, and should thus stay. Rebecca 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance you know when this battle occurred, or a reliable source that mentions the battle? See Talk:Brunswick South Primary School#School closure by Kennett. I looked and found nothing. John Vandenberg 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per John Vandenburg, DGG and Garrie. The article is sourced (rare for a school article), and there seems to be enough to have a good article after a cleanup. Cleanups are not a reason for deletion. JRG 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep per JRG :-) ISBN 0731603257 is a book about the school and is in the NLA: OCLC 27549319, and user Eyedubya has just made a large expansion of the article - very nice work! John Vandenberg 12:20, 21 May 2007 (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.
