Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockleys North Primary School

Add links
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 redirect to Lockleys, South Australia. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lockleys North Primary School

[edit]
Lockleys North Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School through grade 7 (5-12 year olds). Zero refs. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on Lockleys North Primary School produced ~21,000 hits. Is that not-notable in your opinion? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A cleanup with correct references has been added. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. What makes any primary school notable? There any many that need to be deleted which is not the approach that should be taken. Also this is notable given that several other primary schools were eliminated in the 1990s because of costs and this primary school was still kept by the SA Government. Even your redirection to Lockleys, South Australia is poor. The article only has one reference and the primary school has three. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources that you added do you view as independent of the subject of the article?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references added to the article are for verifiability purposes. If you remember there were none. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that it exists, in my opinion. The question we are facing however is whether it is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article. Non-independent refs do not indicate notability, per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references from the South Australian Government DEPS are independant. What makes a primary school considered notable??? Is Rose_Park_Primary_School notable? How about Mitcham Primary School? Again my rap about your request for deletion is that rather than clean up the article and improve it you're ready to wave the sword. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as sure as you are that the school is independent of the Department of Education, for purposes of satisfying our notability provisions. If it were, and notability were based on what you have supplied, every single primary school under the Department would qualify as notable. As to some of your other points, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GOOGLEHITS.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Department of Education website is the not same as the primary schools website and therefore it is independent from one another which in this case makes it a secondary source covering WP:N. And I contend that every primary school in South Australia is worthy of having an entry in Wikipedia, but whether the quality of the entry is acceptable is another question. While you have marked this school for deletion why haven't you gone and marked all the other primary schools in South Australia for deletion? Thanks for your references. You should also check WP:INN. Also Google is used in many instances in Wikipedia to determine a resolution. e.g. In the debate about the naming of Kiev vs Kyiv Google was an underlining reason why Kiev remained as the entry. See Talk:Kiev/naming. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds (thousands?) of articles on primary schools, kindergartens, grammar schools, and other schools junior to the high school level have had their stand-alone article either deleted or redirected at AfD. A number are being considered right now at AfD: see here. The problem with your raw google hit count is that -- as distinct from a discussion as to "which term is used more" -- an AfD discussion focuses on multiple, substantial, non-trivial, instances of independent RS coverage; not google counts. BTW -- the AfD discussion is also not over the state of the article, but the existence of appropriate coverage. Even if the coverage is not reflected in the article, if it were to exist that would suffice. Also, there does not seem to be consensus support on wp for your notion that all primary schools (or all in your area of interest) are inherently notable. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is going to be a RFC brought up in the WP:SCHOOL as far as what is notable. Hence it is quite debatable as to what is notable and what is not. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional independent references have been added to the article. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please see WP:GNG. Especially its focus on "significant coverage" which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I see no evidence that there's overwhelming amounts of sourcing, enough to ignore precedent. The type of sourcing that isn't local, routine, or fleeting (incidentally, that type of sourcing is needed for any article). It gets Google hits? That doesn't mean significant coverage. The "well, there are other schools argument" is also inherently weak Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it doesn't surprise me that there is an inherent desire to delete rather than trying to WP:SAVE. I would be in shock if an attempt was made. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What the... I didn't even vote delete... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mine was a general statement and your position has been noted... Brudder Andrusha (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Schools are centres of their communities, and are often the most permanent and notable sites within their communities. This school is of sufficient age that it is a clear keep as far as I'm concerned. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, can you point to the policy or guideline that says age should be used as a determiner of notability? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Emphasis added. The education point is obvious (but I suspect that you'll ask): every kid in the school community attends the school. In regards to history, the school has been around for long enough that it has contributed to the history of its community. I'm sure that the Brudder Andrusha can write content to account for this.
Have you found a consensus generated policy or guideline that says that schools are "inherently non-notable" (your words), yet?
If you haven't, then I'd ask you to stop badgering keep votes. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been affirmed hundreds of times by dozens of different editors and closing admins that schools like this are non-notable, as another editor noted and you seem to have ignored. Furthermore, being a local school does in no way amount to a significant or demonstrable impact in education or history, either here or at the Wisconsin school that also needs to be deleted. And if I am badgering keep votes (which I'm not), you are not only, but misinterpreting and ignoring policy and previous consensus. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your quote doesn't answer my question...it doesn't equate being old with having a significant impact on history. When it says significant impact, it isn't referring to a small local area Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like you've got a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATitis or maybe it's WP:IDONTLIKETHAT syndrome? You can say that I'm "misinterpreting" and "ignoring" policy, but I can say that you still haven't found the policy that says that schools are "inherently non-notable" and that, therefore, this is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE on your part.
Schools are, by definition, the centres of their community, therefore significant. That's the end of the argument. You can continue to badger me if you like. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan. Just so I'm clear -- is it your view that, under existing wp policy, all schools are notable, and therefore all school articles should be kept? (And on that basis, you would !vote keep at every school AfD at which you !vote?)--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen me vote in that way? No. So that is not my view. So stop trying to characterise me as being indiscriminate. Cheers.
My view is that schools of a sufficient age, of a sufficient enrolment, or who have attained sufficient status (i.e., schools that do something significantly different from other schools) are of significance to their community and therefore fulfill that sentence I have quoted above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was simply trying to understand you. I did not characterize you -- I asked a question, as I wasn't clear after reading your prior post. Thanks for the clarification. If I might trouble you a bit further, to understand the bounds of your explanation -- what in your view constitutes an age at which a school should be kept? (I note that this school was established in 1960). Or the enrollment level that would lead to a keep? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I consider 50 years to be old enough in the Australian context (i.e., it before Whitlam, during/before most of the immigration waves). Being that this doesn't relate to this AfD, shall we take this to my/your talkpage? I'll respond once I'm back from a work appointment. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- so this 51-year-old institution squeaked by your test. I thought my query applies in part to this AfD, but as you wish. My initial goal is to understand where you are coming from. That understanding no doubt assists the closer as well in assessing/weighing !votes. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe 50, 75 or any number of years = automatic notability is a non-starter. First of all because age isn't really linked to notability in policy, as I said above. Second, in practice with schools, 50 years means that a lot of cookie-cutter Baby Boomer suburban American schools would be deemed notable (and 75 means a lot of cookie-cutter WPA ones). Thirdly, any year picked is arbitrary. Why don't you follow NRVE and find reliable, in-depth non-local sources instead of making up some automatic notability rule? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" is understood, even if it's ridiculous and runs counter to guideline, consensus and practice. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not consensus or practice. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, which reads "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD". Sounds like consensus and practice to me. As for guideline, as Epeefleche notes on his page, there really isn't one either way Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go through that sentence and look and highlight in your mind the words: "MOST", and "DON'T". Thanks for bringing that up. Otherwise, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere except continuing to demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of how to conduct yourself at AfD. I have attempted to work these issues through with you, and failed, so I'll look to other avenues to try to bring about improvement with how you interact here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. By "complete misunderstanding", you mean "not completely agreeing with you". Neither of us have much policy, but I've got the weight of hundreds of prior consensus backing me up. Some "complete misunderstanding" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it doesn't meet WP:ORG. There are more independent secondary sources in the the article compared to where the redirect is. The independent sources include political parties, church organizations and sports clubs. Proving that the school is attractive community and notable place. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to respond to every comment you disagree with here - it's bordering on hectoring other editors, and is actually damaging your cause. I don't see how mentions of the school in a local MP's press release and on community group websites constitute either the reliable sources or in-depth coverage needed to establish notability - quite the opposite in fact. You're welcome to disagree. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's taking this rather personally... I don't think you need to call it hectoring. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how that reference amounts to significant coverage. Looks to me like all it does is list the school's name. That really isn't enough to satisfy NRVE. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a key achievement for the school, per WP:ORG, and lends itself to the notability of the school. Whether the, source is a listing or an academic article doesn't make a difference top anyone but bring obtuse.
Particularly when you're just not going to agree on completely ideological grounds anyway, I'm going to ask you, again, to STOP your badgering and asking people to hold your hand and walk you through the minutiae of various notability guidelines and AfD approaches (like WP:BEGIN, which I am fully aware you refuse to align with) whenever anyone brings up anything that conflicts with your view that, for example, all Primary Schools are "inherently non-notable" (which you still haven't found policy or guideline for btw). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also am not convinced that this satisfies GNG -- the achievement is not at such a level as to convince me of it. Suggestion: let's try to keep focus on sources/articles/conventions, and steer clear of personal characterizations. This thread is already long enough without that.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't there is going to be anything, even updated information on the entry with any kind of references to convince a posse that was rounded up which has clear plans to delete. The school gets $2 million to build and its considered trivial and not notable enough. Getting close to the point of giving up on WP let alone opening my wallet on the next trivial donation drive. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lockleys, South Australia. Fails to meet the threshold of WP:ORG. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect as suggested. I really do not see sufficient notability here, though there is a little more than in most primary school articles,and the article was done competently. I recognize the nom. was in fact not asking for deletion, but a redirect, but I think he was on balance right to take this here when it was challenged, because we are the only actually appropriate forum. We are in practice treating this as Articles for Discussion, and this is a better place for discussion than the article talk page, where more strictly it should handled. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that the bar for what is and is not notable in regards to primary schools is arbitrarily high in the minds of some editors. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dan--I think it is accurate that, to the extent that this AfD is indicative, your view of what notability means, with regard to primary schools, may vary from the consensus view. I note that only 1 of the 8 editors here other than you think this should remain as a stand-alone article. I know you feel strongly that your view is the correct one. But perhaps you can acknowledge at the same time what the consensus view is -- and how it differs from yours -- as to when a primary school is sufficiently notable that an article should be kept. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't that many votes here that you can claim that my view differs all that much from the consensus view. While there are undoubtedly some who have voted legitimately, others of the above redirect votes seem to be drive-by's who have noticed the phrase "primary school" and voted accordingly in that they talk about what is commonly done without discussing (or even acknowledging) the sources that have been provided. Others came before the latest edit establishing that the school is one of 20 schools Australia-wide to win a particular grant. Then there's a predictable vote from someone who has the extreme misconception that all primary schools are "inherently non-notable". I'm pretty sure that there is no claim for notability so legitimate that would "save" a primary school article in the eyes of these individuals. Were I interested in WP:POINT, it'd be an interesting experiment to recast an article like North Sydney Girls High School (one of Australia's leading and most notable schools) as a primary school to see if it would survive AfD... I'd think it'd be doomed.
This isn't a clear win for your side, and, after all, AfD is not a straight out vote. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lockleys_North_Primary_School&oldid=1089095009"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy