Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination)

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 Mosman, New South Wales. v/r - T P 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Harbour Public School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

K-6 school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mosman, New South Wales. In the AfD previous discussion the school was kept based on references, but clearly they had less stringent criteria for what constitutes significant coverage back in 2007. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to say keep because the school has had multiple coverage in the Mosman Daily and the Sydney Morning Herald, for example [1]. It was the school that set the precedent for Australia for 40kph school zones. Sionk (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why is this being relisted for deletion anyway? The previous debate resulted in a KEEP decision. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, our standards have changed in the past 4+ years, and convention today is that such articles (K-6 schools) not have stand-alone articles (absent unusual circumstances). This seems to be broadly agreed, though there are some different opinions at times as to whether closes should be delete or redirect or merge.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, obviously, the school meets WP:CORPDEPTH... Sionk (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Meagre article that should be expanded, updated and sourced. It does not look unsalvageble at first glance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability claims in the article. Needs to be expanded, yes, but not deleted. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability claims are enough to prevent a speedy deletion, but they are not enough to prevent an AfD deletion - unless they are substantiated by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =( Also in this case the school meets GNG as it has multiple non-trivial coverage in RS.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles is the local newspaper are not always considered to be reliable sources. But indeed, redirecting or merging can be a viable alternative for some cases. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Equally, that would make most secondary schools un-notable because the majority of their coverage will be in the local press. Let's give evary article a ..erm ..level playing field. Proactively setting out to delete all primary school articles is hardly a positive strategy! Sionk (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, which says "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Few elementary schools get such nonlocal coverage, so they fail the relevant notability guideline. Additionally, most of the local coverage falls into the "Trivial or incidental " types as enumerated in that guideline. Getting mentioned in the local paper is not that impressive, considering that every grocery store, gas station, and fast food restaurant also gets mentioned from time to time in the local newspaper for trivial, incidental and run of the mill things, or gets press releases reprinted about upcoming events. High schools frequently get regional or statewide coverage, since their sports, arts and academic programs are in competition at the regional and state level (in US terminology, but the principle is worldwide).Edison (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That last part seems altogether too arbitrary. It would result in Grong Grong PS (which, for some bizarre reason, traditionally has a good showing in state athletics carnivals in NSW; their athletes and team have placed regularly over the last decade or so) getting a page, despite the fact that it has 9 students. Schools are primarily about the academics; we should be finding academic reasons for notability (and if that's the case, Middle Harbour PS gets pretty good scores in standardised testing). You can see the results at [2], but I can't link directly to their entry. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Edison -- thanks for that thoughtful comment, which was impressive both in its reference to guidelines and in its thoughtful treatment of the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out to dinner, on a whim decided to google around. First news source I checked: [3]. Check the first link that comes up.

This has descended into a farce. By your own admission, you have submitted "150 or so" school AfD's, and I'm very concerned that you have not done the legwork required before submitting them. In fact, you go on to say that you don't have time to look around for what's been done before with school articles (seriously, what's the rush?).For one article, you didn't read the opening paragraph. You haven't done a cursory search for sources that could indicate notability, instead relying on others to do it for you. You are, in fact, shouting down everything that schools would generally rely on for notability, not that you found them yourself. No matter how many people tell you. Nor how many times. Your scattershot approach is even hitting high schools. And, (badly written) school regions!

Epeefleche, I'll ask you, plainly, have you complied with sections B, C or D from WP:BEGIN (or points #8 and #9 from WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations, whichever you prefer), yes or no? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I routinely conduct a wp:before search before nominating an article for AfD. As you have seen. Now -- might I request that you: a) stop quoting me incorrectly (as above, and elsewhere at AfDs just this week), b) stop asserting that I have or have not done things where you are incorrect (as above), and c) stop making ad hominem personal attacks (as above and elsewhere)? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While most primary schools are not notable, I am leaning keep because it meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG for reasons stated above. Edison (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable elementary school, per long-standing consensus. Here's the big notability hook for this school: "In 1995 the school became the first in Australia to have a 40kph speed zone on a multi-lane arterial road..." That would be trivia, not matter of substance. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect as appropriate) per Epeefleche, MelanieN, Edison and Carrite. LuciferWildCat, please be aware that I am not a deletionist, have advocated keeping (and have expanded and improved) dozens of articles up for deletion, but support established consensus that most primary schools are not notable by Wikipedia's standards (though they are notable to the little shavers in attendance this year). The "dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall" that you mention must be considered apocryphal unless you furnish solid evidence of their existence (and significant coverage of the specific school in question). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - two local newspaper sources and one regional newspaper source are cited in the article. This satisfies the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH unless, like some people, you think the safety of Australia's schoolchildren is trivial. This debate seems to be descending into a pincer operation by a group of admins who think all primary schools are non-notable regardless. Sionk (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable primary school. Claiming notability on the basis of a speed zone is farcical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with blanking and merging of appropriate content) to its locality or school authority, per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures and Category:Redirects from school articles (not up to date), they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). deletion is recommended only as a last resort; the 'delete' !voters may not be aware of this and the hundreds of 'redirect' closures for school AfDs.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the delete !voters have been involved in AfDs where you've left the same note, so I think it is fair to say that they may be aware of your view.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is so much better for people searching for information on something to just find nothing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't address which view is the better one. That's not my point in the least. I only addressed the suggestion that the delete !voters "may not be aware" of what was stated above. As a second point -- interestingly, the charge was not made as to the keep !voters.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: :A search through "Newsbank, Australian Newspaper has 322 results when the name is put in quotes. Sources exist to support WP:GNG inclusion.--LauraHale (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument, actually, has been identified as an argument to avoid at AfDs. See WP:GHITS.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So has everything else Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: K-6 school's coverage is generally either local, routine or fleeting; so notability isn't really established Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The school is well within the top 50 schools in the state as noted by a national newspaper and one of the key RS' for Australia (SMH), as I mentioned above. This is not "local, routine or fleeting". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're apparently mistaken. The source you provide does not list the school in the top 50 for the city, never mind the state. The other sources you've listed are about a speed zone and a government grant to fix the boy's toilets. Nothing here even comes close to establishing even a shade of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC) even a shade of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the source I commented on above:

On page 4-5:

Top 50 schools for Reading in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 49

On page 5-7:

Top 50 schools for Writing in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 32

On page 11-12:

Top 50 schools for spelling in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 39

On page 15-16:

Top 50 schools for Grammar and Punctuation in Year 5
...
Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 44

Or, you could use this source (which I decided against in the article because it wasn't especially informative besides giving the rank):

Middle Harbour Public School Mosman 55 30 49 32 39 44 65

So, have you had a problem opening the file or with Ctrl-F? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've conveniently omited the only list that counts here: the overall list, which this school does not make. And it rates only 55th place in the other source you list. Hardly indicative of notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the sub-rankings, and how well it's done on the literacy tests. Even so, let's put this into perspective: 55th, even, out of >2000. I know that you're salivating for AfD blood here, but that's what we call notable.

By the way, you could have fixed the wording rather than undoing me, but I suppose removing attempts to actually assert the notability of the article doesn't work for the deletionist mindset, yeah? WP:POINTy much? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it with the personal attacks buddy. You're way out of line.

The school is not notable because no one has ever written anything significant about it. It's that simple. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately removing referenced information asserting the notability of the school is disruptive and pointy. You're way out of line. I'm sure you don't need {{uw-delete1}} to tell you this.˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the appropriate suburb article. A garden variety primary school, saying that it's notable because of a handful of passing mentions over the years and the fact that it (may) be in the top 50 schools in the state is drawing a pretty long bow. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 22 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.