Talk:Trinity Anglican School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Trinity Anglican School is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland.
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

First of all, it's a stub and an orphan. Secondly, it's a school that's not notable for anything at all. It's just a random Australian school. PMC 06:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Gah! See all the problems that damn Temasek Secondary School article has caused? DELETE!!! Exploding Boy 06:48, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I see it's causing people to get worked up over nothing. I don't see any other problems it's caused, no. --Camembert 12:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An orphan can find a home and a stub can be expanded - they are not reasons to delete an article. The assertion that it is "not notable for anything at all" is rather questionable - it appears to have educated thousands of people and given employment to hundreds. If you think that's not notable, well, ok, but I disagree. So long as the info in the article can be verified against a reliable source (and in this particular case, I would consider the school's website such a source), I don't think there's any reason to delete. --Camembert 12:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I see no reason to have articles about every school on this planet. By your rationale, I should write articles about the noodle shop on my corner (has also fed thousands and employed hundreds), the corner shop down the street (ditto), the guy who sells chicken shish kebabs out of the back of his van, and the guy who fixes bikes out of the back of his. Basically, unless a school has employed or educated someone of note, or has acheived fame or notoriety or is notable for some other reason, I see no good reason to write an article on it. Exploding Boy 13:37, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't be silly. By my argument you could have articles about none of those things, because you could not verify information about them in a reliable source. --Camembert
        • Of course I could, if by "reliable source" you mean things like websites. By the way, have a look at Wikipedia talk:What's in, what's out. Exploding Boy 13:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
          • I said "in this particular case" I consider the website a reliable source, because I trust schools to have reliable websites. I know that that information is going to be backed up in government documents, school reports and so on. I don't trust noodle shops or men who sell kebabs out the back of their vans to have the same. Anyway, do you really think that corner shops, let alone people who fix bikes, have the same sort of importance as a school? Seems a slightly odd position to take. And I have looked at Wikipedia talk:What's in, what's out - it shows us that some people think these articles should be deleted (I can tell you that not everybody thinks that). It doesn't seem to explain why they think that, so I don't find it compelling. --Camembert
        • The point is that schools and noodle shops (read: restaurants) are both social institutions, and some of them are more notable than others. Articles on McDonalds or Maximes I can see. Same with articles on Eton or, I don't know, the first English language school in China, yes. But on every school? Why? Who's going to search for an article on Monterey Elementary School or Trinity Anglican except perhaps people who went or worked there? And what can be said about them? Exploding Boy 14:15, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
          • You're right, of course, that articles on schools won't be of very wide interest, maybe you're even right that only people who have gone there or live in the area will look them up, but that's OK: not everything we write about has to be of global significance. As for what we can say about it - maybe history of exam results, reports fron inspectors (ie, neutral reporting about how good a school it is), details about the buildings (who was the architect and so on), when, how and why it was founded... the same sort of stuff you'd write about any other public institution, really. I mean, I'm not arguing this is the most important subject in the world, but for people in the area it's probably pretty important, and to delete it just because most of us don't find it interesting seems a bit silly. --Camembert
  • Keep. Information about schools commonly appears in books on local history. We already have articles on towns and suburbs. Notable institutions within those towns and suburbs are the logical next step in extending Wikipedia's coverage. A comprehensive discussion of local history cannot occur without dealing with these institutions. -- Tim Starling 14:37, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I question the usefullness of most of those articles, but there's probably nothing that can be done now. That doesn't mean we should add more useless articles. Lefty 17:30, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are notable institutions. -- Graham :) | Talk 14:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 17:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - schools are not inherently notable. -- Cyrius|&#9998 17:14, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is slow enough as it is. We don't need more unnoteworthy crap. Lefty 17:30, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is slow because it gets 130 requests per second during peak times, not because the database is large. Doubling the database size would only add a few milliseconds to the request time. However, it is true that all those people are attracted to Wikipedia for the large amount of information contained herein. Perhaps we should strategically delete popular articles in order to reduce server load. -- Tim Starling 00:59, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Since you're a programmer on the project I'll accept your statement. However, useless articles still clog brainwidth (e.g. search results), and this article won't be read by anyone who doesn't already know its contents. In contrast, articles on esoteric math and science subject may be checked by interested laymen and specialists in other fields. Lefty 12:31, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
        • "This article won't be read by anyone who doesn't already know its contents" - what a strange assertion. I don't see any reason to believe that. And what's the difference between somebody interested in maths checking obscure maths articles and somebody interested in Cairns checking this one? --Camembert
  • Delete. I gave this one some thought, and I fear this will become a repository for every little school in every little corner of the planet if this isn't nipped in the bud. It's doubtful that anyone would care to look up the place at an online encyclopedia. IMO, this may even border on a vanity page. - Lucky 6.9 20:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I sincerely hope that Wikipedia will become a repository for every little school in every little corner of the planet. Every city, every town, every suburb. Detailed information, local knowledge; verifiable, well written and respectable. Vanity is promotion of oneself, not promotion of one's community. -- Tim Starling 00:59, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • In that case, I think my house, as part of my suburb, needs a detailed Wiki article. I shall go prepare it immediately - or is it not quite Wiki material? Where do we draw the line, Tim? PMC 02:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • The answer is that you draw the line based on motivation. You appeal to our hatred for vanity by citing a case where the only possible motivation for writing an article is self-serving. I am saying that articles written to provide neutral, interesting information, even if it is only interesting to perhaps 10,000 people, should be kept. After all, many of our higher level articles on mathematics and science may only be of interest to a few thousand people. Nobody is suggesting that they be deleted. Articles which are written for self-serving purposes should generally be deleted. -- Tim Starling 05:20, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. Schools are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real. Potentially expandable into something useful. I think schools are inherently notable, at least as much so as random municipalities and bus stations. I would like to see a recommended format for school articles developed, though. Jgm 14:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Particularly with respect to things like secondary schools, the burden of proof should be on the writer to show that the topic is notable by the inclusion of suitable material when the article is first posted. In the case of a topic that is intrinsically encyclopedic, there is some point in posting a stub as a placeholder and a stimulus to get the ball rolling. Person A may know that the topic is encyclopedic, but not know enough to write the article, and may post a stub in hopes of stimulating some other person to carry the task on. But in the case of a high school, the first poster is likely to know more about the topic than anyone else who is going to come along for some time. If he knows something interesting about the school, he should say it right off the bat. If it's just the school's location and slogan, the contributor should be politely informed that the article is not up to Wikipedia standards and has been deleted, and that he is welcome to resubmit it if he can add enough to it to justify its inclusion. Dpbsmith 00:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Amen. PMC 05:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • So you're not convinced that the school is notable by virtue of it educating thousands of people? OK. I look forward to you attempting to get the articles on all those tiny American towns with a dozen people living in them deleted ;) Look, I admit this article is short (though we have plenty shorter) and I fully realise that it may be some time - years, maybe - before it is expanded, but so what? Eventually, such expansion will happen. This is how the Wikipedia works; if we demanded articles arrived fully formed or were deleted, we'd not get very far. I know the subject isn't interesting for most people, because the school didn't educate a president or a film star, but that's no reason to delete it - it will be interesting to a few ten thousand or so. We have plenty of articles on other obscure subjets which are probably interesting to no more people than this one (I've written a few of them myself). I don't see what harm the article does. It is factual, verifiable, neutral, informative... I don't see a reason to delete it. --Camembert 16:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting an article because the original poster didn't put enough interesting information in is a violation of longstanding and widely accepted policy. Quote follows. -- Tim Starling 04:41, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
      Don't list stubs for articles that have potential, but list stubs that are nonsensical. Also, redirect or list stubs that likely will never become more than a simple definition. See fix a stub.
  • Delete. Very well put by Dpbsmith. Postdlf 4:46 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. I like Dpbsmith's recommended rule of thumb for schools and other local institutions. Rossami 16:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dpbsmith's argument is not well put. We don't require all articles to be complete and polished before posting. Rmhermen 17:07, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look at Upper Canada College. That's a secondary school. Why keep that? Because it's a school of aristocrats??? Really, this is dumb --Phil Larin 02:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we should probably delete that too. It's just that no one's gotten around to VfDing it yet. =P PMC 04:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. anthony (see warning)
  • Delete. Secondary schools are not inherently notable. Articles about them usually do not inform, and this particular case is no exception. Though not official policy, see Wikipedia:What's in, what's out which lists secondary schools as not inherently worth including based on precedent. Information about such schools is difficult to cross check, since there are few third-party references outside the local area served by the school, and indexing is a problem because some school names are so widely used ("Lincoln" or "Washington" high schools in the U.S., for example, are legion). UninvitedCompany 18:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Tim Starling's reasoning. Fredrik 00:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)