Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran 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. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immanuel Lutheran Primary School

Immanuel Lutheran Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This primary school seems to fail WP:ORG; no secondary coverage is known, and the article doesn't even give a hint as to why the school would be notable, apart from a strange episode in the school's history. PROD was contested with comment: "seems more notable than most". To me it doesn't seem so. Anyway, no secondary sources are given to demonstrate why it's notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: NN college with no outside references. - Rjd0060 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion, no sources, no notability. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but add references as school is over 100 years old and schools that are around for that long had a notable influence on its many students. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN school - oldest children for a SA Primary school appear to be 13 years old per Education_in_Australia. An elementary/junior high school in US terms. Hard to demonstrate notability. (NB: it's not a college; the founding institution is a college.) -- BPMullins | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Primary schools are generally non-notable Computerjoe's talk 15:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify the procedures, in agreement with DGG below: The article is not a candidate for speedy deletion (A7), since it asserts some notability (although I do not think the assertion is valid). Rather I put it up for proposed deletion; that was contested, so I sent it here for further discussion. That's all perfectly legitimate (although I would sometimes prefer more detailed rationales). --B. Wolterding 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. The Wikipedist 18:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into an article on the college unless sourced independently. Many primary schools, perhaps most will not be notable, but if the article says anything that indicates notability at all, they can't be speedied. this one indicated a noteworthy sports center, and I thought it was among the more extensive elementary school articles so I removed the Prod. Anyone at all, even the author, can remove a prod; hen the person placing the prod has the choice between leaving it alone, or sending it here--I am not surprised it came here. What it needs is sources. If they can show the school or its programs have received coverage according to WP:V, then I think the article could stand. GRC raises an interesting point about age. Obviously, this will depend on the location--I would not say a school in the UK or most US Eastern cities founded in 1895 ago would be per se notable. In Australia, I don't know. (this is different from historic buildings--the school is in a modern building). But --B. Wolterding is right that the primary school is not old. The event during WW I also concerned the secondary school. the notability project should have considered a merge first--or, since there is not at present an article on the college, writing even a stub, or asking for one to be written. Actually, I could have done the same. DGG (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • delete It's time to face the fact that most schools should not be listed here.Ridernyc 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is yet another non notable school. As stated by Ridernyc; "most schools should not be listed here". There needs to be a review of the criteria or better application of what exists. --Stormbay 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 October 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.