Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Faith 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.--Wizardman 01:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living Faith Lutheran Primary School

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

A non-notable school in Australia without any independent reliable sources. The article is well written, especially given the apparent age of the writer, but it is not written in the tone expected of an encyclopaedia. The article was tagged with a PROD and was removed without a reason given. While the creating editor should be encouraged, the topic is just not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, looking through the Google News Archive results turns up little of importance. John Vandenberg 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Have added some references. The school finished third in a State competition, so it is somewhat different to the usual school articles. Assize 11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not convinced this decidedly local event makes it notable. Orderinchaos 12:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why is the Murrumba Downs event a local event, when it is an Australia wide competition shown on Channel 10? Assize 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Murrumba Downs is a single suburb in Brisbane (locals would say Pine Rivers). On looking at the site linked as a reference I can't see any evidence that this school or the sub-regional contest appeared on national television. It should be noted they came *third* at the state level in the event - i.e. not first or second, and didn't compete nationally. Orderinchaos 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom and ors as another example of Schoolcruft. The subject lacks notability clear cut and dried. Thewinchester (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:SCFT is not an official Wikipedia policy. Isn't your argument that two articles in an independent News Limited newspaper does not constitute non-trivial coverage? Assize 12:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nor is WP:VSCA a policy either, but its oft cited in AfD debates. And the nominators and ors have already made sufficient arguments, why say any more. Thewinchester (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with the first part of Assize's comment - if you want to cite an essay, it should be after the guideline or policy on which the deletion ground is based. eg per "WP:N, WP:RS/V/others and an example of WP:SCFT" would work. Keep/delete votes should always ultimately hinge on which Wiki policies or guidelines it meets or violates. Orderinchaos 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While it could be argued that the Walkirri dance competition establishes notability, it would be a pretty low bar and the local bowls tournament is a local, trivial event. Not every mention of a subject found in a google search is suitable as a source establishing notability under WP:N. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Most articles seem to get under a pretty low bar, particularly music and websites (not that I am arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and if you look at Fanny Furner, a single mention in a paragraph of a newspaper, oh dear... ;) Assize 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteRegional here is part of a state, rather than in the US, where it means usually multi-state. One win in a sub-state level competition is not notability, nor is a third place finish in a state competition. Enough competitions, enough subdivisions, and everyone can win. The other content in the article puts this in better perspective. DGG 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Isn't this confusing Notability with fame. Notability is conferred by having secondary sources on the subject, not what the secondary sources are about. There are tons of schools that don't have newspaper articles about them. A school in country NSW has more importance to a country town than a city school, so the bar on notability is somewhat lower. If inclusion in Wikipedia is based only on large city newspapers, then small country town schools will never get included. The issue I would suggest is are the two newpapers sufficiently on subject to confer notability. Assize 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way round. Big city newspapers do not even attempt to cover all the elementary schools in a city, nor even all the high schools. The NYT covers a NY school when something noteworthy happens. Where the local schools are covered is in the neighborhood newspapers, which play a similar role to town newspapers: they print the local news, and hey don't prove notability for anything. A school can be just as much the center of a neighborhood in a city as in a town--real estate ads often include the district. An article about a neighborhood could appropriately list the local schools, as could an article about a town, see for example Cobble Hill, Brooklyn--there's a section that lists the 3 schools, and even includes some non-directory information about each one of them--information that could conceivably be used to justify an article. It's the small towns which have local history information--the smaller, the more detailed. DGG 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. While the dance competition result is of some note, the only coverage was in the local paper. There is some media coverage but none that could be called non-trivial. Might be a possible merge if we had an article on Lutheran schools in Queensland. [1]. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - As the article stands, it is almost entirely cruft. While WP:CRUFT is not an official policy, it is certainly discouraged and there is very little that is actually notable mentioned in this article. The article may be improved to satisfy notability... but as it stands it does not.--Yeti Hunter 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete what it won appears to be a local competition of some description (one of those Eisteddfoddau that every school enters). It came third in something else with a wider base, but I'm not convinced that the larger thing confers notability. If kept, the article will need to be considerably re-written. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per above. Third in a big competition is not evidence of notability, and neither is winning local competitions. Does not appear to be otherwise notable. Lankiveil 11:33, 14 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.