Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Conder 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 delete. Wizardman 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Conder Primary School

Charles Conder Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability and no context given. Farosdaughter 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The school may be notable but the article is written like an advertisement. — Wenli (contribs) 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have actually added that the school is in Conder, Australian Capital Territory and that it is named after artist Charles Conder. Google News Archive comes up with a couple of hits [1]. It might be better as part of our article on the suburb of Conder. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment A couple of hits is right: one about Karyn Gordon, one of the teachers, and another about the local wetlands, which the school students studied. Create articles about the teacher and the wetlands, if you find something else about them.Garrie 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge / Redirect to Conder, Australian Capital Territory per WP:LOCAL (the school's already mentioned there so only the redirect is left to do).Garrie 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. When will people stop trying to judge notability based on the current state of the article? It's a completely nonsensical approach. Rebecca 14:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Rebecca, what other criteria should we use? It is up to the author to assert notability. Are we to do original research on our own or something? Gee, my knee! Realkyhick 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. You could actually do some research of your own, and we could actually have a discussion about the actual notability of the school, instead of arguing "well, I don't care about the notability, but I'll just vote delete anyway." Rebecca 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N, as notability is not even asserted, and WP:V, as no asserted facts are cited to WP:RS. It can always be re-created if someone is sufficiently moved to write a proper article. For now, it needs to go bye bye. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason for deletion provided; just saying not notable doesnt count as a reason. The prod was procedural, the deprod was thanks to the watchful eye of User:DGG. There are 150 results in .gov.au which can make for a reasonable article. In comparison, St Edwards College , which was recently kept (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Edward's_College,_Gosford), only has five results on gov.au. John Vandenberg 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete based on Gooogle test, a non-notable primary school, and no assertion of notability, per Butseriouslyfolks. Bearian 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect. Except that schools are not explicitly mentioned there, this fails CSD A7. If anyone seriously wants to Keep, edit the article to assert notability. Anomie 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not asserted, and I suspect this is because the school is not notable. Lankiveil 10:26, 29 June 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.