Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Tree Steiner 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 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Tree Steiner School

Silver Tree Steiner School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article on non-notable school in WA, it fails WP:N, and WP:ORG. Asserts no notability what-so-ever. Twenty Years 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete While the Steiner movement's work in Australia may be notable, individual schools are clearly not - almost by definition they'll be very similar to each other, and very small, and lacking in reliable sources documenting much more than their existence. Orderinchaos 13:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • To expand, from a talk page comment I just wrote, I doubt the history and challenges between one school and the next would differ much (and may well be heavily interlinked), but they'd certainly face unique challenges collectively as a group. A friend of mine has a kid going to a Montessori primary school, so I'm well aware of the potential for an interesting and probably well-sourced article. Orderinchaos 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable school and lack of reliable sources. Keb25 13:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. nothing especially notable here. —Moondyne 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - having attempted to cajole the original writer of this article to provide further information - that is all he came up with - there is notability on the basis of its location and historical context - but once again knowing the school and their own attitude towards such issues - it would be unlikely that I would be able to provide the third party sources in the time that afds run - I would suggest that it seems so easy to join the N issue from the writers inability to understand basic research procedures - once again where the afd system can be used - and show little or no understanding of issues of where some articles come from. cheers SatuSuro 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be more than open to the article being re-created, if these third-party sources are found, but find you will not. Hell, its part of EiA - im definately into helping the page out. I think what OIC suggested is quite on the money, i was originally going to prod the article, but being a Steiner school, i thought it deserved an AfD. The school network is itself notable IMO, so maybe this could be covered in that article, when it is created. Twenty Years 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment - would suggest following on from OIC's comment it would probably be better to have a steiner schools of WA article - it would not fall into the primary school = not N, process and would be more likely to have a few easier to find refs to cope withthe N issue - either merge up or start new SatuSuro 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I wouldnt go quite that far. Maybe a Steiner schools in Australia article? Twenty Years 08:44, 2 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.