Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahroonga Public 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. Arguments to keep consist of asserting schools are inherently notable, and the existence of other school articles. Neil ☎ 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wahroonga Public School

Wahroonga Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article asserts no notability, it was started like most schools, because of a need. It fails WP:N and WP:ORG, has no WP:RS and is not WP:V. Fails them all. Twenty Years 02:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It already has a mention in the Wahroonga, New South Wales article. Capitalistroadster 02:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Education in Australia has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good stub on a notable school. Could do with some refs, but they should not be hard to find. Rebecca 03:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I have found no information on this school that seems to be any different from most primary schools. It was used as a polling place see here, like most schools. Apart from a few mentions on the NSW Department of education websites (see here), and its own websites. I have all but failed to find anything. Twenty Years 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools are inherently notable by consensus. -- Librarianofages 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What consensus? I haven't seen any consensus on the inherent notability of schools. Schools, like anything else, need to demonstrate notability. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:ITSA - also, no consensus exists anywhere of this nature - I'd note how many successfully concluded AfDs have in fact deleted Australian schools during 2007 (the notable ones survived the process easily, in some cases unanimously). Orderinchaos 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Eusebeus 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote - it is a dicussion, and so you need a reason. JRG 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Rebecca. At the very least it should be merged into the local article as per WP:LOCAL. These continual nominations are done in bad faith, considering there is no consideration by the nominator to merge information at all. JRG 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you found any reliable sources so that the article may meet one guideline on wikipedia? Possibly WP:N or WP:ORG? In my search (see above) i found nothing. Twenty Years 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. - pretty standard school fayre. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This is note a vote, its a discussion to determine consensus (which you know, you are experienced), can you please elaborate on your keep vote. Twenty Years 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It means keep the info and/or merge, rather than remove it, as it will be included in any comprehensive article about the suburb it is in. 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
Why should it be kept, that is the question. Twenty Years 14:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Thsi unreferenced article is apparently about an elementary school, and we have generally deleted those unless they meet WP:N with substantial coverage by multiple independent and reliable sources. Contrary to the assumption of some editors above, "pretty standard fare" about elementary schools has led to deletion in most cases. Edison 13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to Wahroonga, New South Wales. No claim to notability whatsoever--victor falk 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There is plenty of categorized public schools on wikipedia. Why not this one. Clean the article up and categorize. scope_creep 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Categorisation is not an argument for keeping an article. Articles are kept on the basis of notability. Please clarify why it should be kept. Twenty Years 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The policy on primary, secondary, public, middle, whatever type, is muddled on this fact in Wikipedia. Some schools are allowed to stay in, some school articles are deleted. I say add them all. Every school is used by hundreds of people a year. The community also tend to use them extensively. That makes them notable. The fact that they are not in some 200k pages on google, is not a qualifier, or the fact they have famous people who was a pupil at it (which helps), but the fact that so many people use them, means they should all be added. The constant fact that every school needs to go through this long and arduous task of AFD is a waste of time as resources which is clearly and urgently needed elsewhere in maintenance in wikipedia speaks for itself. In particular the fact that so many people use these places, and could be future wikipedians. The first thing they do is, see who/what is in Wikipedia, and they find out their school is not in, but a school along the road, next district, which is the same type of school/same layout/etc, but that is included, must be galling and has the potential to drive them away. I say, add them all. scope_creep 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment In a similar vein, your argument would be better suited for a discussion on WP:N rather than in an actual AfD. --SesameballTalk 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • 'Comment So "Every school is used by hundreds of people a year." Every public toilet, mail box, phone booth, and vending machine is used by hundreds of people a week. By this argument they would be even more entitled to articles. Edison 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on the basis of no secondary sources establishing notability. --SesameballTalk 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, another fact if memory serves me, according to the UN, schools are not organisations, so WP:ORG does not apply in this instance. scope_creep 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability and no indication of references whatsoever. Does not seem to meet WP:ORG and for the information of Scope Creep, Wikipedia is not the UN.Garrie 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with Wahroonga, New South Wales. Auroranorth (sign) 10:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge key information with Wahroonga, New South Wales per established precedent. No notability asserted that justifies standalone existence. TerriersFan 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely non-notable primary school with no non-trivial reliable sources detailing more than its mere existence. It should exist as an item on a list "List of primary schools in metropolitan Sydney" or somesuch, but not as an article on its own. Apart from the date of foundation, nothing to merge here. Orderinchaos 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools are not notable unless they have developed a cure for cancer or had a number 1 hit song. On a more serious note, WP:ORG states that an "organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered" when they are a local organisation. A school that's been in existence since 1944 seems to fall squarely within the criteria. Assize 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or at best Merge. Support seems to be based on WP:ILIKEIT. How can the school be notable when there is nothing in the article supporting this. There is no consensus that every school is notable, in fact there is likely a significant consensus that schools earlier then the equivalent of US high schools are in fact not notable. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:RS. Vegaswikian 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My argument was not based on "I like it", which is not a wiki policy, but on WP:ORG. There are at least seven substantial references found for this school on Google for 2006-2007 and which are now on the article. Assize 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep given the references found for the article. I would accept a merge as a compromise if the article could not be kept. Given the content, I don't think a delete is warranted and I would ask the closing moderator to consider that references have been found since some of those requested delete. JRG 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Forgive me if I am wrong, the references cited in the article appear to be somewhat incidental references, that have little/no encyclopedic benefit; with titles such as The cool principal - Parking space sold to help fund classroom ventilation, Enrolments rise in some public schools and Foul school toilets leave kids no option. Twenty Years 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply. I don't think the articles can be categorised as trivial. The school is the only subject of each of the articles except for the one on raising enrolments. There are more references for the school, but I stopped at seven, which is fairly amazing for secondary sources in wikipedia where some articles only get one reference in some obscure paper in Nieu. It's not a great article by any standard, but I am only trying to establish notability. Assize 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • By no means are the articles themselves trivial. But the way in which the school is mentioned in those articles is completely trivial and lacks any benefit to an encyclopedia like this one that we are building. Twenty Years 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Orderinchaos and nom. Articles are trivial and do not establish any notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:33, 6 November 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.