User talk:Sephiroth BCR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beecroft Primary School (2nd nomination): Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:55, 13 October 2008

Beecroft Primary School

Fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS "For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability. An exception is made for schools having a specific, notable distinction or status" Michellecrisp (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted at all. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason this survived deletion the first time around was that there had been a proposal, at that time, to find that all schools that were "more than 50 years old" should be considered inherently notable. I'm thankful that such a silly proposal never made its way into becoming a rule, since there is nothing particularly special about a school having been in existence prior to 1958. Granted, this is a school that can trace its origins back to 1897; however, it appears to be the elementary school for Beecroft, a suburb of Sydney, Australia, serving the students up to sixth grade in its district. The reason that I say "delete" is that this is no different than most Wikipedia articles about elementary schools. Sometimes these are class projects as part of a lesson about research, and they stay up for about a week until the lesson is over. More often, such articles are a substitute for a school newspaper-- congratulations to Mrs. Marshall's fourth grade class on their high test scores, our football team has done well this year, our students strive to do their very best, etc. -- or for a webpage (in this case, the webpage is at [1]). Wikipedia is not the news, and it especially is not school news. I'm of the opinion that every school is special, in the same sense that every mom or dad is special; but only those that demonstrate some notability outside of the local area should have their own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Beecroft,_New_South_Wales#Schools, the locality where the school is already listed. --Jh12 (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, where reliably sourced content can be expanded until a separate article is justified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools, per normal practice. No need to delete a useful redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above, unless further content is added concerning notable alumni, state/national achievements etc. WWGB (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, I'm not sure if redirect is even necessary, as don't think people will search Beecroft Primary School. All it deserves is a one line mention in Beecroft, New South Wales. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, unless there are multiple Beecroft Primary Schools in Australia, I don't see the need to delete the page when people looking for Beecroft Primary School can simply be redirected to content that already exists on Wikipedia. Although the amount of traffic might be low, at least one person went as far as creating a separate article on the school. Merging any relevant content (e.g. Beecroft Primary School was established in 1897 and provides Kindergarten to Year 6 education to children from the Beecroft and Cheltenham area of North Western Sydney.) and converting to a redirect seems like the most practical solution. --Jh12 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, At least one person (and likely more) looked for the article and then created one. If there is a redirect to where the content lays, then we are doing a service, preserving GFDL author history, and avoiding another article being mistakenly created because someone thinks none exists. Redirects are also cheap. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is another matter of personal opinion, but as a side note I wanted to point out that I thought the nominator's removal of sourced information in one case: (see diff) was maybe going a little extreme on the concept of Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight. Maybe I'm mis-reading, but to me an incident appearing in the NSW Supreme Court seems like it would merit a mention (at least a line or two); and Wikipedia:Recentism is more of an essay, not a guideline. --Jh12 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]