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

Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School
• Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

Brunswick South Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Opinion 1: Delete

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)

section 1

• • Comment 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)
    • Comment 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)
      • Comment 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)
        • Comment The book (see below) is published by the school and therefore fails to meet WP:V. Twenty Years 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • 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)
• Comment (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)
  • 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)
    • Comment 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)
      • 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)
        • Comment 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)
          • Comment It is not a primary source, therefore your request is meaningless.Eyedubya 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (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)
  • Comment 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)
    • Comment 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)
      • 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)
        • Comment I presume Clarke said little about the school, until it can be proven he said something, he effectively said nothing. Twenty Years 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment Which proves nothing at all in relation to this matter, one way or the other. As a history, the book draws on a range of sources to make its points. Some will be contextual, some will be primary material such as the school's correspondence and council minutes. But since it is not, in itself, this kind of material, it is not a primary source. It is published by the school, but it is not authored by the school. Your application of the WP categories is inappropriate in this instance. Eyedubya 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment. TwentyYears has misunderstood what a primary source is. Can I suggest that he reads the Wikipedia article entitled Primary source so that he understands precisely what a primary source is. Primary sources are original contemporary documents. The book in question is a secondary source which is no doubt based on many primary sources. The fact that the book was probably written by someone at the school means that it is potentially a biased source but it is still perfectly acceptable to use as the basis for an article in combination with other sources. Dahliarose 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Comment Just for the record, the author was not at the school at the time of writing, he was an academic at a tertiary institution in Melbourne. He is a former student of the school, however. Eyedubya 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion 2: Merge

• 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)
  • Comment 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)
    • Comment 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)
      • Comment 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)
        • Comment 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)
          • 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)
• Comment (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)
  • 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)
    • Comment I have found no newspaper articles about it. Or anything that meets WP:V and WP:RS, hence why im puhing for its deletion. Twenty Years 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Have you looked beyond Google for your articles? I suggest you try the Brunswick Library. They have an archive of such material that predates the relatively recent use of the web by the media.Eyedubya 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Now that its been established that the book is a primary source, do you have any inderpendant, third-party source for the article? Twenty Years 02:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment That's a non-sequitur: the preceding line of commentary does nothing to establish the status of the numerous references cited in the article. The difficulty of categorising one of the references used in the article (the history written by Mr Eckersall) as a 'primary source' has been established and it is nonsensical to continue to assert a simplistic version of this. Eyedubya 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion 3: Keep

• 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment 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)
    • Comment 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)
      • Comment 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)
        • Comment 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)
          • 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)
• Comment (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)
  • Comment You'd lose all your money on that bet, so be careful what you wish for. I trust the rest of your assertions are founded on a greater probability of being proven correct. The issue of the sources is a distraction. It has been established that the book is about the school, and is by an independent historian, and draws on a range of primary and secondary material. It is not a 'vanity publication', which is the main concern of the relevant WP guideline.Eyedubya 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • (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)
      • Thanks, mate, some of us is less competent with the wikification than others. Much appreciated. Eyedubya 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion 4: Delete

• Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Education in Australia has been notified of this discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

section 2

• Delete A decent article but it is essentially just another average suburban primary school. Loopla 10:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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.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. Twenty 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 without your prompt. Eyedubya 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I do not canvass votes. I just asked this person to explain ther delete vote, just like i asked people to explain their Keep votes. Twenty Years 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment I look forward to a personal enquiry from you to explain my keep 'vote' then!Eyedubya 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment Sorry I should have elaborated. I just can't see anything in this article that makes the school particularly notable, it could be describing hundreds of other Australian public schools. It doesn't seem to have received any awards of note, its enrolment is only 160 which doesn't say great things about it, the article doesn't talk about any notable events apart from it almost closing (which these days is quite common), its use as a polling place for elections isn't notable (every public school in my area is the same). It just seems to be your average suburban public school. I don't think its demographic makes it unique. Im in Sydney and I could name dozens of suburbs (and their public primary schools) that are "ethnially diverse" or predominantly "non-english speaking", its the way Australia is today. If there had been a significant or interesting event in its history or something I would probably think differently. Loopla 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
              • • • Comment There are sereval kinds of 'average' - the three most common are: the mode (the most commonly occuring kind of school (number of students, ethnic mix, range of programs, age of school buildings, distance from CBD, facilities, etc), the mean (the total quantity of any feature associated with Australian schools divided by the number of schools) and the median (the school which is half way between the extremes for any chosen feature or set of features related to Australian schools). With this in mind we can respond to User Loopla's claims of 'averageness': a lack of 'awards of note' (which awards are more notable is not defined, nor is a threshold quantified); 'notable events' (User Loopla argues that resisting the Kennett school closures of the 1990s is 'quite common' - clearly difficult to sustain given the actuality of such a specific historic event); Its use as a polling place - while many schools are used as polling places, the article does not assert that this is its main claim to 'notability', and since in User Loopla's experience 'every' public school is a polling place, this trait is no longer about 'averageness', but more akin to saying 'school's are buildings'; Lastly, it is asserted that the demographics of the school are 'average' on the basis that it is similar to 'dozens' of suburbs in Sydney. Given that Sydney has well-over 850 suburbs, then 12 suburbs is a tiny minority of places with a particular demographic, and certainly far from 'average'. And this is without getting onto the actual demographics of the school in question and its particular catchment. Eyedubya 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. If the suburb is increased substantially it will have to be resurrected there anyway. cheers,

On rethink is too long to merge. Casliber (talk · 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 local area's article. Twenty Years 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • • 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)
        • 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)

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)

As far as reffing, this is not a high priority - it is not as if it is highly controversial and likely to be challenged. Setting up AfDs for these situations is a highly confrontational and unpleasant way of conducting article improvement. you yourself said you were only nominating as your calls to merge schools were ignored. One of the most valuable things about WP is how people research and add material to it which does not exist online yet. I have researched alot of erudite subjects in my time and there is alot not available online. You are not assuming good faith with other editors here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) But the sources are needed to establish notability, without them, its just another standard primary school. Thats known as original research and you know that as much as I do. Ive assumed good faith at all times here, that is simple fact. Please just cite a source to establish notability. Thanks. Twenty Years 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. --victor falk 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Brunswick East, Victoria. I will also add that this structure will probably create a no consensus decision. If so, this article should be allowed for renomination with a traditional nomination survey without the traditional wait before a renomination. Vegaswikian 04:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • Might also be worth noting that some users arguing for deletion also have more than one say.Eyedubya 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • Comment The above assertions have repeatedly been made without any supporting argument. Eyedubya 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment That is the argument, they fail notability criteria, hence the article should be deleted. That is the point of the AfD. Twenty Years 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment That's the point - arguing by assertion is no argument at all. Eyedubya 00:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)

Ummm...read WP:SIZE? Since we're quoting policy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, you make a good point about the size of any merged article. If my suggestion of merge was to go ahead, the article would require major surgery to keep it balanced. This may be possible, but it should be consired if a merge is the result. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Of course it's too big to be merged. Putting this content in the suburb article would render the suburb article completely useless by making it all about the school. Rebecca 23:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It could just be handled like it is in other suburb articles such as Hamersley, Western Australia (FA), with a one-line mention, that wouldnt make it too big to be merged. Twenty Years 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The notability of the school is clearly established in the present article. The school buildings are of architectural importance as recognised by the Australian Heritage Association. The school has a long history (over 100 years) and there is a published school history which will provide ample material for expansion of the article. The article needs a lot of tidying up and the references need to be fully incorporated into the article, but there is no logical reason why the article should be deleted. Dahliarose 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Who are the Australian Heritage Association - Google shows no trace - and where is the evidence that it has recognised the architectural significance of these buildings? As stated earlier, the school is not listed on the Victorian Heritage Register an is merely mentioned in the urban plan for the local area of being of historical significance. This is not a big deal and is quite common, it does not signify a building of anything more than merely local significance. My local golf club has been around for over 100 years but also is of purely local significance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please read the article in question and follow the links and you will find what you seek. To save you a couple of mouseclicks, here is the citation referred to by user: Dahliarose: http://www.aussieheritage.com.au/listings/vic/Brunswick%20East/BrunswickSouthPrimarySchool/15005 Eyedubya 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The legal status of the building can be seen here, which merely states that it is not on any formal world heritage list and that no formal nomination has been made with the department. This seems slightly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Twenty Years 05:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore It is worth noting that the Heritage Overlay planning control that applies to this school is not just a 'local' regulation. Approvals for Heritage Overlays are made at the State level, not local government level, and the form of control is prescribed at State level. Eyedubya 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment AussieHeritage is not an official listing, even so the property is listed as "Indicative Place" which translates as "Data provided to or obtained by the Heritage Division has been entered into the database. However, a formal nomination has not been made and the Council has not received the data for assessment.The data in the place does not necessarily represent the views of the Council or the Minister." That is, it is not on the National Heriatge List. Despite planning responsibilities being the domain of the state in Melbourne, being part of a heritage overlay still does not signify the property as being of anything more than merely local interest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment This discussion is getting out of hand. Being part of a heritage overlay means that certain planning controls apply, no more no less. It has nothing to do with geographical reach per se. However, the standards by which heritage is assessed are not locally-based, they are derived from a variety of well-established bodies of technical, scientific, aesthetic and cultural expertise that aren't 'locally' based. Heritage Assessments are generally made by professionals working across an interstate and international sphere. Such assessments are not made by local residents based on parochial affections. Thus, an assessment of Heritage Significance of any kind is not as such a 'local' issue, but one made by professionals whose modus operandi is premised on a sense of what is 'notable' in a broader state, national or international sense. Funds for heritage studies are limited and thus, one shouldn't imagine that there is such a thing as a complete and objective survey of every single place and building in Australia and that all items have been fully assessed, ranked and slotted into some set of values that fixes their worth for all time as 'only of local significance' or 'of world heritage significance'. Heritage is an evolving matter in the same way that culture evolves and changes. Wikipedia editors would do well to consider the imperfect state of human knowledge and the reflexive nature of the endeavour of writing encyopedic articles, in terms of their effect on the state of knowledge itself.Eyedubya 11:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The assessment basically states that the school is only of local significance, it just demonstrates that Brunswick had rapid growth in the 1880's, this could be more tha adequately handled in the suburb article. Twenty Years 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The assessment states that the school's significance lies in a number of areas, viz: "the School is historically significant in demonstrating the pattern of growth in Brunswick (for example Brunswick`s rapid growth in the 1880s), the changes in school standards and teaching practices and the influence of local people in achieving the standard of local education they sought". This is not quite the same as saying that the school is 'only' of local significance. The citation also discusses the significance of the school in terms of a way of building in constrained inner-urban sites, making it interesting as a kind of building typology of much more than 'local' significance. Eyedubya 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Excellent article, with one of the better and more interesting histories of any school article I've read. On top of it being heritage listed, it was one of the focal points of the high-profile anti-school closure campaigns of the 1990s, which should make it an instant keep on that point alone. Rebecca 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We simply do not keep articles because people like them. It is not registered on the Victorian state heritage register (see comments by Mattingbn). I do not believe it was a focal point, it was just one in a number, do you a source to back up your claim? I found none. Alot of the keep votes fail to identify any guideline that the article passes. In its current state, it fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Twenty Years 02:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per comments by Rebecca. Reading the article one learns quite a lot about the history of education for similar schools which you could not get from a more general article about the History of Education in Victoria or whatever more general topic- the subject matter would be come boring and lost in generalisations. There are plenty more non-notable subjects to delete. I realise this vote is partly "I like it" but some notability has been asserted (heritage listing) and wikipedia in my view would be worse for not having this article than having it. --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No notability has been asserted, its been established that the book about the school is a primary source, the heritage listing is flimsy at best, the building is not on any Victorian state register (see comments by Mattinbgn above). Twenty Years 02:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment in response - the book is not a primary source as has been pointed out above and I have also pointed out to Twenty Years on his talk page. Furthermore, like others I actually really really resent the nominator chipping in with excessive comments on opinions - if I have said "some notability has been asserted", I don't need (and nor does anybody else need) him suggesting for the umpteenth time "no notability has been asserted" - that is his point of view - welcome to express it once - not repeatedly--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You may wish to read Hesperians comments on the reliability of the book. The book is published by the school which may make it open to bias, and ultmately unreliable information. Reliability can only be assured by the provision of inderpendent reliable sources. Twenty Years 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
        • You undertook not to continue to make comments! My comments do not relate to bias but rather to your repeated and uninformed assertions that the book was a primary source - which it isn't. Everything has a bias, a bias does not make it unreliable, it means it needs to be interpreted with care. It does not make something un-notable to have a bias.--Golden Wattle ^talk 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Simple: Edit summary. Any researcher worth their salt would look suspisciously at the book. It is written by a former student (who is an academic, i wont avoid that) and is self-published, that does raise some questions, which Hesperian clearly pointed out. Twenty Years 05:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment' The use of idioms derived from Roman employment practices is perhaps indicative of the problems faced here. Rule number one in research: never impute subjectivity. Information about this potentially 'suspect' source has been provided at length that the situation is more nuanced than that of a 'vanity publication'. To be a vanity publication, the author himself would have to have self-published it. Some academics do, but this is not one of those. Eyedubya 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

section 3

• Keep. Article has sources that do enough to establish notability for mine. If not, should be merged into our Brunswick South article. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you mention any of these sources that establish notability? is it the book which is a primary source, the "heritage listing" which isnt on the state register or ....? Twenty Years 02:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years do you want to give it a rest? To quote - it is a school and the majority of the article is not conrtoversial and hence not likely to be challenged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Once you exceed 50 contributions to the same AfD, it's probably time to allow others the breathing space to share their opinions. Alansohn 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a fair explanation, Alansohn. I just dont quite understand why people want to keep an article with no sources that will never even be able to get B-Class, let alone GA or FA. Twenty Years 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point me to your source for WP:WILLNEVERBEAFEATUREDARTICLE as a justification to delete an article? I agree that it's a great objective for every article, but there are probably a few other articles in the same family. My personal record is 32 contributions in one AfD, and even that was grossly excessive in retrospect. Alansohn 02:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My justification for nominating the article (see my nom) was that there is no third-party reliable source (see all my comments above) which establishes the notability of the topic at hand. What i was saying was that an article with no sources, will not meet FA, and it was not a reason for deleting it.

I have taken your sound advice and will no longer comment on this AfD. Thank you for your wise comments, might be worth saying it to the user who also commented a good 40 times :). Cheers. Twenty Years 03:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Any researcher worth his or her salt would treat a source published by its subject with suspicion, because there is no assurance of a balanced coverage. In this case, events and persons that reflect dreadfully upon the school may well have been omitted from the book, while events and persons that make the school look good may have been emphasised. I'm not saying that's the case, but it is the responsibility of a serious researcher to consider that possibility, and to bear it in mind when drawing conclusions. The fact that this article is based entirely upon such a source makes the article inherently untrustworthy, for how can we be sure that we haven't been sucked in by a well-written puff piece? Reliability can only be ensured by the provision of independent sources. That's the whole point of the notability policy:

  "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

  If it is not possible to verify this article against such sources, then the article should be deleted, per the notability policy, as it is preferable to have no information on this subject than to have unreliable, untrustworthy information. Hesperian 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Changed to Keep. My comment on the reliability of the current source stands, but it is now pretty clear that reliable sources do in fact exist, if only for the architecture. Hesperian 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment There are a variety of sources that have been used so far to write this article. There has been a debate about one of them - a history of the school published on its centenary. Contrary to the assertion/assumption that 'self-published' material must necessarily be a hagiography, the book in question does deal with a number of matters that don't make the school 'look good'. Some of these have been summarised in the article itself. At the same time, there is also material that is of a more positive nature. I would strongly argue that the article demonstrates a concern for 'balance' on this score, and is not an unadulterated piece of promotional propaganda - and it has to be acknowledged by the naysayers that it is this aspect of 'self-published' sources that is addressed by the WP policy. However, it has to be admitted that not all self-published work is lacking in balance or accuracy, and only a complete cynic would say that it is necessarily the case that such work must inevitably be so biased. On the matter of primary sources, I have commented elsewhere on what is or is not a primary source, and there are any number of editors who seem intent on playing the Red Queen card here - a word means whatever they want it to mean. Well, I'm sorry, but the generally accepted definition of a primary source is not a self-published manuscript written by someone else.Eyedubya 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and trim out the bits people think are unreliable. The school is on the Register of the National Estate(Place#18518) as "Historic" with an extensive writeup. According to the bibliography on the website there are about 1/2 dozen works that discuss the building/school/architecture. That alone is enough to support a verifyable article even if most of it's about the buildings and their history. per various comments above it appears to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As per my comment above, it is not listed on the Register of the National Estate. Its status is "Indicative" which means nothing more than its details have been provided to the Heritage Council. No assessment of the the values of the property has been made and no decision has been made to enter it in the Register. Of course, it is still a good and reliable source of information, but it doesn't necessarily assert notability. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mattinbgn. Perhaps you missed the primary point in what I said (the boldface bit). It is very clear from the link that independant and multiple sources HAVE written about the school so it meets the fundamental notability guidline. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I said nothing about the other sources, I merely clarified a point about its listing on the Register of the National Estate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Brunswick East, Victoria under the heading 'Education'. Isn't notable enough and not sourced that well. Auroranorth (sign) 10:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The artice Brunswick East, Victoria seems to handle the primary school quite well. It handles it much the same as Hamersley, Western Australia the featured article. If the suburb article handles it adequately, shouldnt it be deleted given the lack of sources. Twenty Years 04:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep then get the scissors out to cleanup. No grounds have been demonstrated to question the Community's judgement last time out and the school has the multiple sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment All this action on the AFD page and you can still only find three sources, none of which mention the school in more than an incidental way? Where is notability asserted? --Yeti Hunter 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there are more sources than that, but they still give only incidental coverage to the school (with the exception of the self-published source).--Yeti Hunter 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I vote to close this AfD discussion as lack of consensus. Assize 11:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - that's not up to you. JRG 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - per TerriersFan. There are multiple references on the school, more than a lot of other articles, and I'm happy with the notability being established. JRG 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete elementary school with no claim of notabilty This is a Secret ^account 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)