Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Anthony's Primary, Dimbulah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0(scribble) 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] St Anthony's Primary, Dimbulah
Sub-Stub, VERY few Yahoo or Google hits (over half of which point to this stub), no notable alumni or events. No chance to grow into anything more then an yellow pages entry. Also per Schools for Deletion. Delete. Gateman1997 17:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, should be given a chance to grow, or merged somewhere. Kappa 18:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The Yellow Pages at least give a phone number. Pilatus 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. WMMartin 18:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Dunc|☺ 19:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, important school for the town of Dimbulah. Its students made some touching drawings calling for World Peace. Those hawks should take a look. --Vsion 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It's a school CalJW 22:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Making drawings for world peace does not make you notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Dimbulah unless someone can demonstrate there is a high probability of it growing legs and walking off. Come on, it's part of the town, the town article is short, this is a sub stub - surely it is just of so much more use to anyone looking to have the sections of info together? So have a short section on this primary school (and Dimbulah State School, founded in 1914) in here. I'd also like to point out that it appears this article doesn't even have the name right - it's St Anthony's School, not St Anthony's Primary. [1]. Not sure how the keepists missed that one when they've already said it's an important school. There is now more info on the school in the Dimbulah article than there is in this sub-stub. Average Earthman 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. Not likely to grow much, but I don't see any point in deleting such information as we have about the institution. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete no demonstration of notability. Dunc|☺ 01:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete no demonstration of notability. Jonathunder 01:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A permanent public institution in existence for nearly 40 years. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article is content-free. --Carnildo 03:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Average Earthman's argument. Cmadler 14:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Unfocused 20:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. no demonstration of non-notability. --Nicodemus75 22:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you mean no demonstration of notablity? Something doesn't have to demonstrate non-notability but does have to demonstrate notablity. But that's neither here nor there as notability was not the basis of the AfD.Gateman1997 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- I meant exactly what I said. "Something" (as you put it) does NOT have to demonstrate notability. As per Wikipedia Policy at WP:DEL, Lack of Notability is not a listed criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". Your AfD does have notability as a basis, as per your statement above: "no notable alumni or events". Non-notability of this school has not been established in any event (even if this were a valid criteria). Also I do not see you replying to other votes which state "no demonstration of notability" as a comment for their "delete" vote that "notability was not the basis of the AfD". --Nicodemus75 05:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Re: non-notability, regardless of whether the subject is notable or not, the article should attempt to establish notability, which this does not (unless one considers all schools inherently notable, which is obviously not agreed upon). This might be considered a vanity article, and would be deletable on those grounds (this is obviously my preference). Or one could say it is "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" in which case we could "merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect." If we were to merge and redirect into Dimbulah, consider how little content there is to merge. (Average Earthman noted that there is more info on the school in the Dimbulah article than there is in this stub.) Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for re-phrasing the entire debate about school articles. I disagree that an article should attempt to establish notability - this is not WP Policy - only your own assertion. Given the high number of schools (even primary schools) that survive the AfD process, it is clear that schools may be many things - however "vanity article" is not one of them. The entire ongoing debate exists because there is a disagreement over the premise that schools are inherently notable, in the first place. Simply restating that you do not think schools merit articles by virtue of being schools, is no more productive than my repeating that "schools are inherently notable" on each and every AfD. The point I was making the above response, was simply that "non-notability" is not a valid criteria for deletion as per WP Policy. Like it or not, that is a fact - your opinion that schools should "attempt to establish notability" notwithstanding.--Nicodemus75 07:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Re: non-notability, regardless of whether the subject is notable or not, the article should attempt to establish notability, which this does not (unless one considers all schools inherently notable, which is obviously not agreed upon). This might be considered a vanity article, and would be deletable on those grounds (this is obviously my preference). Or one could say it is "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" in which case we could "merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect." If we were to merge and redirect into Dimbulah, consider how little content there is to merge. (Average Earthman noted that there is more info on the school in the Dimbulah article than there is in this stub.) Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I meant exactly what I said. "Something" (as you put it) does NOT have to demonstrate notability. As per Wikipedia Policy at WP:DEL, Lack of Notability is not a listed criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". Your AfD does have notability as a basis, as per your statement above: "no notable alumni or events". Non-notability of this school has not been established in any event (even if this were a valid criteria). Also I do not see you replying to other votes which state "no demonstration of notability" as a comment for their "delete" vote that "notability was not the basis of the AfD". --Nicodemus75 05:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you mean no demonstration of notablity? Something doesn't have to demonstrate non-notability but does have to demonstrate notablity. But that's neither here nor there as notability was not the basis of the AfD.Gateman1997 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- One could just as easily say "Delete, and stop creating school articles until consensus is reached." Permitting the addition but not the deletion of school articles would, in effect, be a decision in favor of inclusion, and one which would have the further effect of ending this debate (consensus would never be reached). Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Permitting the creation but not deletion of school articles is effectively what we do now. But nominating schools for deletion does allow us to repeat the same debate hundreds of times, what could be more fun? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- One could just as easily say "Delete, and stop creating school articles until consensus is reached." Permitting the addition but not the deletion of school articles would, in effect, be a decision in favor of inclusion, and one which would have the further effect of ending this debate (consensus would never be reached). Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Vsion. The suggestion that this article has no opportunity to grow beyond a YP entry has already been disproven since it was nominated for deletion. [2] What is the motivation for attempting to remove these from Wikipedia? Why not go on a quest to remove vandalism, correct inaccuracies, or write articles about topics you are interested in? This particular form of deletionism does not seem to be very productive based upon the results Tony Sidaway has been publishing. Just my thoughts. Silensor 17:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- keep please silensor is right just look at how much better this article is already so why not let it keep getting better erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 07:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep --Mysidia (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep useful article. --rob 08:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
