Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:09, 31 October 2007

Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

Article asserts no notability. A google news search brings up 27 articles, all of which appear to be about the school having a butterfly farm, being a polling place (like most schools), how the fees are rising (like most schools), and the school getting a facelift. All of which i feel are non-notable. That said i feel the article fails notability. Twenty Years 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Kommentar The claims above are merely assertions and value judgements and fail to address all of the article's content. Eyedubya 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar To be more detailed, the article fails every policy under the sun: WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. It has nothing reliable written about it, by a neutral third-party. Twenty Years 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kommentar Who are you to say that a lecturer at a tertiary insitution isn't a reliable third party? Surely that is slanderous! Eyedubya 15:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kommentar The book (see below) is published by the school and therefore fails to meet WP:V. Twenty Years 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I've read the WP guidelines, and these are what my comments are based on. I suggest you do the same before you make any more unsubstantiated assertions. Eyedubya 15:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar (reduce indent) Can you cite the relevant WP Guidelines which the article meets to prove that it is notable. OR cite the guideline that says primary sources can be used to prove an article is notable. The second, you of course will not find. The first, you probably will not find either, because i havent. Twenty Years 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability relates to the way material is sourced, and the nature of the source material. The material cited by the book are verifiable, and scrupulously referenced. The WP guidelines are clear on this, and they are based on academic standards. If you haven't found the relevant wording in the WP guidelines, then I suggest you look harder or get someone who understands them to explain them to you. Vanity publishing is the issue you are worried about, and this is not a case of that. Eyedubya 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar Thats good you now know what WP:V is all about. It relates to the way material for the article is sources. Primary sources dont meet WP:V. Twenty Years 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Its not a primary source. A primary source would be a transcript of a conversation with the School Principal, or the minutes of a school council meeting. It is not that kind of thing. It is a historical account derived from interviews and a review of literature, and references 36 publications and documents, some of which are indeed primary sources, such as school correspondence and internal documentation. It is irrelevant who published it.Eyedubya 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kommentar So its a primary source based on a bunch of primary sources. You claim that there are some reliable sources cited in this book, can you name....say one of them? which might help to make the article appear somewhat notable? Twenty Years 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment It is not a primary source, therefore your request is meaningless.Eyedubya 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar (reduce indent) The book is a primary source, is it not published by the school? Cite one of the "36 sources" the book uses. Twenty Years 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar You are confused about what a primary source is. I have explained above what a primary source is. It has nothing to do with publication, it has to do with the nature of the source material. The book is by a Mr Eckersall and its subject is a school. It is not by the school about itself, nor is it merely a record of a staff member talking about the school. In any event, since you are so keen to see a reference to something 'reliable' that the book cites, then here is one: Clarke, CMH (1963) Sources of Australian History, London: Oxford University Press.Eyedubya 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar I am in no illusions as to what a primary source is. It is published by the school about itself, probably by a person paid by/associated with the school. This other source which you have stated says what about the school? (if anything). Twenty Years 16:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment Thinking that you have no illusions is part of the problem, for clearly you do. The author was not paid by the school. Many people write histories for the love of research, for no fee. Just like you do stuff on wikipedia, presumably for no monetray reward. If you are so interested in what Manning Clarke has to say about this school, I suggest you get a copy of his work and see for yourself. Eyedubya 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria This is a non-notable primary school. Other than former students (which is not a strong claim for notability in Primary schools), the two claims to notability are heritage and the fight to stay open. The fight against the Kennett closures is not sourced and was one of many fights that took place at that time. Inclusion in a heritage overlay on a planning scheme is common and does not indicate any heritage significance other than merely local. There are a number of shop fronts in the town where I live that are noted as being of historical significance in the Local Environment Plan (Shire Plan). None are listed on the NSW State Heritage Register and none are significant enough for articles. This school does not appear to be listed on the Victorian Heritage Register; if it is I would be prepared to reconsider inclusion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Again, more assertions not suppprted by reference to the evidence or any objective criteria. Some former students may indeed be notable - not all former students of any school are notable. These are. While there were many fights against Kennet's school closures, not all were successful - those that were are necessarily notable. Its those that failed which are not, regardless of one's political persuasion. After all, this school is a small school by Victorian standards, yet the logic of those closures was efficient use of public assets.Eyedubya 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar The user above has said that the article is non-notable, they are not here to debate the Kennet governments decisions. If they are wrong, which WP guidelines does the article actually meet. Please back up your claims. Twenty Years 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kommentar The user has claimed that the issue of the Kennet closures is irrelevant because many schools were affected. I have already responded to this claim above.Eyedubya 16:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kommentar Well, if its so notable, find a source for how it affected this school spectacularly more than other schools (which it didnt). Twenty Years 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment The point is, unlike most schools on Kennet's closure list, it survived. THAT is what makes it a notable. It just continued to exist, while most of the others ceased to exist and were sold off and re-developed as housing. Eyedubya 16:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar (reduce indent) So this is the make-it-or-break-it of the notability debate eh? So that is survived is soooo notable, that not a single person thought "hey! we should write this down, might be worth a newspaper article", no. No-one wrote about it because it was like many schools, obviously they all didnt survive, but alot did. This is just another run-of-the-mill schools. Twenty Years 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, clearly for you, this could indeed be a make-or-break issue. Its more than likely there are newspaper articles about it. Why don't you see if you can find some, since you are so keen on verifying this issue, rather than carping. Be part of the solution rather than the problem! Eyedubya 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Above and beyond respecting the results of the previous AfD, the article makes appropriate claims of notability and is the subject of a book published on the occasion of its centennial, ISBN 0731603257. Alansohn 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The book in question appears to be a self-published book (see here). This does not make it a reliable source. Twenty Years 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar The book in question is published by the school, but is authored by a third party who is not an employee of the school or an agent of it. The material in the book is sourced from reliable/verifiable sources and contains a properly cited list of references. The author is an academic at a tertiary institution in Melbourne. It is not an unreliable, unverifiable vanity publication, but a work of scholarly merit. Eyedubya 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kommentar Thats the issue, it is published by the school, which makes it a primary source, and hence it is not a reliable source. Twenty Years 15:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kommentar No, it is not a 'primary source', since it is not written by the school, or anyone working there or studying there. The issue is whether or not the source is 'reliable' and 'verifiable' - and it is both of these things, regardless of its publisher, because of the way it has been written and the sources it uses (other reliable sources that are verifiable, and that are, for what its worth, not published by the school).Eyedubya 15:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kommentar So its not a primary source, yet it is published by the school, that is slightly contradictary. Ill avoid that. If it uses some reliable sources, then why dont you get a copy of this book (it appears to be only available from the school because they published it) and quote those sources here, so that this article might have a chance of passing any wikipedia notability guidelines. Twenty Years 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Its only contradictory if you don't understand what a primary source is. I have a copy of the book. It references 36 publications and documents, some of which are themselves what would be regarded as primary sources, others not - typical of an academic work of history. I see no point in providing a list of these references for an article of this kind. The book is reliable, it is derived from verifiable sources. That is all that neesds to be said. Eyedubya 16:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar (reduce indent) Id be willing to bet that you dont even have the book. These 36 sources, if they are indeed reliable sources, please share them with us so we can end this discussion now. All we need is one source. Twenty Years 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - (Note: I fixed the bolding of the word keep in this users comment to stop it bolding the entire comment) Twenty Years 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, mate, some of us is less competent with the wikification than others. Much appreciated. Eyedubya 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Education in Australia has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen A decent article but it is essentially just another average suburban primary school. Loopla 10:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar This is another assertion based on a value judgement. It is not an 'average suburban primary school', since it it is not located in an 'average' suburb, demographically or geographically.Eyedubya 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I have contacted this user in order to get them to fully explain their reason for voting delete on this article. Twenty Years 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That sounds like 'vote-buying' to me. Surely if the user is that interested, they'll respond to my comments with your prompt. Eyedubya 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep oder Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. If the suburb is increased substantially it will have to be resurrected there anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Any particular reason for keeping the article. I think that it is deserving of a mention in the local area's article. Twenty Years 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Umm...keep means keep the information as is and merge, as opposed to delete which means remove and lose it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Why do you want the article kept? It fails WP:N and WP:ORG, it appears to also fail WP:N too. Twenty Years 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i see what you are saying: Merge the information in to the local suburb article? Twenty Years 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. --victor falk 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. The article is too long to merge with Brunswick East. It has already been through an AfD process. The article establishes notability, and the mere assertion to the contrary is insufficient justification for deletion or merging: unless an editor with expertise in heritage assessment can state why its heritage status makes it not notable enough for Wikipedia in an objective fashion, (rather than subjective judgements such as 'I feel' or value judgements about the significance of 'local'), it should stay. The argument about 'local' significance needs to be justified to have any relevance here - how 'local' does 'local' have to be to be not-notable? Its likely that while both shopfronts and schools may be listed in heritage overlays, schools are far less common than shops, schools are far more permanent than shops, schools serve their communities in different ways than shops do. Meanwhile, there are many, many items listed on the Victorian Heritage Register (or the National one for that matter) that are not the subject of Wikipedia articles. And regarding the lack of sources for the Kennet closures issue, all that's needed here is a tag to remind editors/readers that a source is required (and let's face it, if this standard were applied consistently, Wikipedia would be 1/10th the size it is ...if that).Eyedubya 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMight be worth noting that this user already said keep at the start of the discussion, that aside:
- Nothing is too long to merge. The article fails the notability criteria set down in WP:N and WP:ORG, the article may assert that it is notable, but indeed it lacks any reliable sources to back it up.
- Generally, buildings/places that are on the state register (in this case the Victorian Heritage Register) are notable, whilst old buildings that arent, generally arent (keep in mind that this is a generalisation). So effectively the building isnt notable.
  - This comment is out of kilter with the majority of WP content: Wikipedia is full of articles about buildings and places that are not listed on any kind of register, heritage or otherwise - there are many, many criteria for notability. Being on a heritage register is a measure of heritage significance, not necessarily notability - see above.Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the lack of any notability criteria that the article passes, (eg. WP:CORP) i think it is safe to say the school is not notable. Twenty Years 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might also be worth noting that some users arguing for deletion also have more than one say.Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly disagree. See above comments about the reliability of the history. WP standards are basically derived from academic standards, the author is an academic and the book fulfils those criteria. Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given the lack of any objective evidence that the school does not meet notability citeria (beyond the continued assertions of a very limited number of editors), I think it is safe to say that the article should stay, so that editors interested in improving the article can do so. Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentThe article fails to meet WP:N, WP:ORG or even WP:CORP. That is at the end of the day 3 notability criteria that it could meet, and it fails them all. Twenty Years 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The above assertions have repeatedly been made without any supporting argument. Eyedubya 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a whole bunch of primary schools categorized by country. Categorize. The article is too big to merge. scope_creep 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We know that primary schools are categorised by country. No article it too big to be merged. Why should the article be kept? It fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. It passes none of the notability criteria. Twenty Years 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 **'''Comment''' This is another assertion based on a value judgement. It is not an 'average suburban primary school', since it it is not located in an 'average' suburb, demographically or geographically.[[User:Eyedubya|Eyedubya]] 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 ***'''Comment''' I have contacted this user in order to get them to fully explain their reason for voting delete on this article. [[User:Twenty Years|Twenty]] [[User talk:Twenty Years|Years]] 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
+****'''Comment''' That sounds like 'vote-buying' to me. Surely if the user is that interested, they'll respond to my comments with your prompt. [[User:Eyedubya|Eyedubya]] 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' to [[Brunswick East, Victoria]]. If the suburb is increased substantially it will have to be resurrected there anyway. cheers,  [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' Any particular reason for keeping the article. I think that it is deserving of a mention in the [[WP:LOCAL|local area's]] article. [[User:Twenty Years|Twenty]] [[User talk:Twenty Years|Years]] 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)