Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakenham Secondary College

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakenham Secondary College

Pakenham Secondary College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Meritless article, seems like a compilation of vandelism.

  • Delete. Started life as a stub, has been heavily vandalised in the last few hours. Since the article has been around since January with no significant content there can't be much to say. BTLizard 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Vandalism removed and a tiny bit of information added. The school itself is relatively notable with a 2nd in the Rock Eisteddfod Challenge, which is more than what can be said of Galvin Park Secondary College, Erinbank Secondary College, Blackburn High School, just to name a few. The fact that an article has been a stub since January is no reason for deletion, less we delete thousands of other articles for the same reason. Vandalism is better dealt with by semi protection (all of it coming from anonymous editors) than deletion Guycalledryan 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 10:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its a school article. Its gonna be anon-vandalised. That's what school articles are for. oh, and luring new editors to the project by giving them shiny pages on their school to play with -- saberwyn 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, meh, vandalism aside, this school doesn't look all that notable. Lankiveil 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
To be fair, most of the schools in List of schools in Victoria aren't notable Guycalledryan 12:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of every other school article out there existing Article has several references on different topics about the school :: maelgwn :: talk 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, what about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Lankiveil 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Have added some references. Will add some more later. Assize 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Have added some more information. Has been in the news more often than other schools and organisations for that matter. Assize 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. The references I see all require a payment to get the article which is a no-no. I suspect the school may be notable based on athletics but we need multiple, non-trivial sources. JodyB talk 12:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand the argument about non-trivial sources, although I would argue there are three separate articles about the school directly in a major community newspaper (rather than a casual reference to the school). I don't understand the argument why paid articles are a no-no. I can't find a wiki-policy about that? Thanks. Assize 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - whether you need to pay to see a reference is wholly irrelevant. Whether its a subscription site or a book you have to buy it's the reference that counts and the fact that obtaining it might be expensive or inconvenient is of no moment. TerriersFan 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Per nom as Aquinascruft (Yes, it's my favourite deletion essay because it encoumpasses so many of the policy issues with School-related articles). Thewinchester (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- —Gaff ταλκ 17:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough in the article to make them notable enough to be kept. Better than the usual school articles. Davewild 17:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the article is sourced and of a reasonable standard. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Significant high school with enough to be said to justify an encyclopaedia article together with the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. I have also added a new section. TerriersFan 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Referenced and fulfils notability criteria. Recurring dreams
  • Keep Maybe there's vandalism but there are sufficient secondary sources to establish notability.Garrie 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep please the school is notable with many sources vandalism happens to many articles we do not erase them yuckfoo 01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep School is notable, can be independently sourced (although with the usual precautions on content to avoid cruft-creep) and is the major government secondary school for an entire region of outer Melbourne. There may well be a book in the State Library or the Shire of Cardinia library system which could help. Orderinchaos 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Orderinchaos. John Vandenberg 08:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The article content while sourced and well written seems to trivial in nature. Despite the seeming consensus about keeping High Schools, I don't think this quite gets there as an encyclopaedic article. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 06:05, 5 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.