Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eltham East 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 was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eltham East Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. TheRanger 21:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Notability is not asserted nor can it be. Looking in Lexis-Nexis, I see that there are sources about a choir associated with the school, which justify an article about the choir perhaps but certainly not the school. I can find no non-trivial, non-local sources whose primary subject is the school itself. It even fails the excessively permissive WP:SCHOOL. Pan Dan 22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details.TheRanger 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the town page per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the town page or respective school district as WP:SCHOOLS logically suggests. RFerreira 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per lack of content. Cynical 11:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all enduring public institutions. Lack of content is not a valid deletion criteria. --Centauri 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) "Lack of content" is a valid merge criterion. (2) "No demonstration of notability" is a valid deletion criterion. (3) "Enduring public institution" is not a valid keep criterion. (I suppose you would favor having an article on every DMV office?) Pan Dan 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Notability" is not even properly defined - let alone being a valid deletion criterion. Verifiability is a valid retention criterion. --Centauri 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Notability in general has not been defined in any official Wikipedia policy. However, by analogy with existing policies (e.g. WP:CORP), which require multiple, non-trivial, featured coverage, I have made an argument above (and I think it's a good one) as to why this school is not notable. Your argument as to why it's notable is based on a sweeping (and I think unjustified) generalization. Pan Dan 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted.TheRanger 14:53, 21 October 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.