Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coombabah State 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. Wizardman 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coombabah State Primary School

Coombabah State Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Advert-like article that doesn't establish the notability of this primary school. Doesn't meet any of the standards at WP:SCL. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, talks about "our school", seems to be using Wikipedia as a hosting service. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - They're not using Wikipedia as their hosting service; that's a lightly modified copy-and-paste from the school's own website, which is nicely done. Most of the article is copied from various parts of the website. ("Using Wikipedia as a hosting service" is the wrong issue.) --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Wikipedia is not a webhosting service. Keep Article has been rewritten and is fine now. STORMTRACKER 94 21:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - This school, more commonly called Coombabah State School, seems to function as a significant community centre for Coombabah (based on miscellaneous items I turned up in Google). I have found and added one independently sourced statement that weakly suggests notability. I have a hunch that there are other indications of notability out there waiting to be found (ideally by someone who is geographically closer to this school than I am). If this is not retained, some of the content DEFINITELY needs to be merged into Coombabah, Queensland. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted my "weak" due to the good work on the article by TerriersFan. --Orlady (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was asked to review my contribution here. As a result I confirm my merge above. While the article has improved markedly, the content is not independently sourced. The sources that are independent of the subject are to my mind trivial in nature. A mere mention of a school in an article does not suffice for that source to be used to assert notability. The source must address the subject directly in detail. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. No indication that this is anything other than a garden variety primary school. Lankiveil (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep Article as it currently exists makes claims of notability supported by reliable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Kudos to Terriersfan for his work so far and looking forward to a vote upgrade as the article is expanded. Alansohn (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Update: The improvements to the article provide additional sources; notability is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Orlady, notability is sufficiently conveyed and hopefully the article will continue to improve. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - OK, I have cleaned out the advert content and added sources. The page now meets WP:N with multiple sources and notable features such as the Japanese classes. TerriersFan (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • How does having classes confer notability on a school? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge IMO the references are not substantially about the subject - one is about technology in classrooms and cites this school as an example, the others are similar wrt different subjects. ie does not meet WP:N. Having said that, this article is in quite good shape considering it's a non-notable topic. Garrie 10:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - This looks like a borderline case for me. Multiple secondary sources have been used; further references in the article to source other sections would be beneficial to make clear the topic can pass WP:N, if that is possible. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge I'm with Garrie on this one - yes, there are secondary sources, yes, but saying what? I could find similar RSs about any primary school in the country and it would not make any of them any more notable. However the text within it could be used to improve the article on Coombabah, Queensland. Orderinchaos 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This school isn't notable. However, the article does cite reliable-looking third sources, and lots of other non-notable schools with similar citations have survived AfDs so I don't see why it should be deleted, except as the first step in a long over-due clean up of school articles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV. User:TerriersFan has done a nice job cleaning-up the article so earlier concerns of editors have been addressed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - cleanup has made this article worth keeping. JRG (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Update article has been cleaned up and sourced, but the school is still not notable. Most of the sources are from its own page. As Garrie says, two mentions of the school in the local newspaper aren't enough. Those editors who try to rescue every school article when it comes to AfD really should consider the merge option. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please refrain from characterising your fellow editors, particularly when such characterisations are false as minimal research would have shown. I know of none who "who try to rescue every school article when it comes to AfD". This is demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of elementary school articles are merged or deleted and correctly so. It is but a small percentage of elementary school pages that can be sufficiently developed to produce an encyclopaedic article. TerriersFan (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't see how this primary school is different then any other primary school, except that this one has a well written Wikipedia article about it. Having said that, I don't think that you should take Fee Fi Foe Fum's statement as an insult. I think that an editor who attempts to rescue each school afd is undertaking a noble cause. I nominated the article for deletion, I still think that it should be deleted, but I greatly admire the work that TerriersFan had put into it. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:TerriersFan that I know of no one who has or could ever attempt to "rescue every school article when it comes to AfD", but I do have a tremendous amount of respect for those who do endeavor to find articles that are worth keeping and make the effort to "rescue" an article from deletion. An unfortunately high percentage of AfD votes come from a very small number of individuals who have turned voting on articles their chosen task in life, drawing great pleasure from voting to delete the overwhelming majority of articles, while spending little if any time actually creating and improving articles. Given that the average article up for AfD is an easy mark for certain deletion, the fact that there have been so many -- probably around 100 or more -- articles that have been sufficiently improved after an AfD has started to merit retention, is a testament not only to the general notability of many schools, but to the genuine desire among a small group of people to expand the base of knowledge and information on Wikipedia about schools. Rather than trying to discourage individuals from improving articles faced with deletion, it seems to me that Wikipedia would be better off if those people who devote their efforts to AfDs actually contributed to improving articles, rather than tossing them into the trash. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with that. How about working on improving at least one for every one you work on deleting? DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Alansohn: Most of us would agree that you are one of the most valuable editors on Wikipedia. Your work on New Jersey is unparalled. But there are different ways of making Wikipedia better. You have to admit that without the afd, Wikipedia would look like a garbage dump. Not only would it be filled with nonsense, the borderline notability articles would be weak articles. As you youself admitted: "probably around 100 or more -- articles that have been sufficiently improved after an AfD..." Just look at the difference between this article pre-afd and post-afd. That being the case, if an editor would do nothing else but vote on every afd that comes through, they are contributing substantially to Wikipedia. Albeit, the contributions of deletionists aren't on your level, but they too, improve Wikipedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't want to stray too far, but as I see it, deletionists and inclusionists can be broken down into those who contribute by improving articles and those who don't, often spending great portions of their edits at AfD. 1) I would consider myself a contributing inclusionist. I hope to create and improve articles, and will be more receptive of retaining articles that others might question. 2) There are many contributing deletionists, who often do great work in building a narrow area of focus and may not be as accepting of questionable articles outside their field of interest. 3) Non-contributing inclusionists are often folks who participate at AfD with Keep votes that distill down to WP:ILIKEIT. Far less than ideal, but you can enjoy a book or movie, without ever having written or filmed one. 4) It is the non-contributing deletionist that can be the most disruptive. These are individuals who have decided that their "contribution" will be to decide what should be on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with not liking a book; if you don't like it, don't read it, but there's no reason to dowse all copies of the book with gasoline and burn them in a pyre. Genuine consensus can only be built if all parties have an equal stake in the result. Individuals who have never created an article and seldom edit and improve existing ones, but are willing to judge on the contributions of others by nominating articles for deletion and voting to delete at AfD, raise issues in my book. I've never heard of anyone browsing Wikipedia to make sure it doesn't have a particular article. If it was all up to inclusionists we'd end up with a lot of crap; If it was all up to deletionists we'd have nothing. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:N after excellent job of improving. Noroton (talk) 20:22, 27 December 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.