Talk:Redeemer Lutheran College

Untitled
Archived deletion debate for this article, consensus was to keep:

Since we're still removing entries on high schools --Rlandmann 04:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) ,jb,
 * Keep. It's a perfectly good article. It's well-written. It's wikified. It's not an ad for the place. And what is with this sudden attempt to reverse precedent and put all high schools on VFD? Putting this here is pushing it too far. Ambivalenthysteria 08:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Properly written, a high school is important enough for wikipedia. -- Solitude 12:11, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; though I will agree that the article is well-structured, it's the school itself that doesn't impress me. RLC is only 24 years old (see its homepage at http://www.rlc.qld.edu.au/ ) and a Google search returns just 381 hits.  Are we or are we not trying to catalog all of the world's secondary schools, no matter how notable, in this Wikipedia?  (And if we are, am I expected to add my former high school?)  --Ardonik 17:15, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, hopefully most colleges will get an article before too long Williamb 09:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Be aware, however, that in Australia "college" generally means what would be called a "high school" in the US. The US term "college" in the US is (again, generally) a "university" in Australia. To clarify - this particular article is about a small high school in the semi-rural outskirts of Brisbane. --Rlandmann 21:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: According to Wile E. Heresiarch, the notability rule is in force for all schools. In which case the argument that it's a school is not sufficient for either a delete or keep.  By this standard, I feel that this particular school's parochial interests and desires to hit a subspecialist group allow it some distinction from its kin. Geogre 02:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I used to be pretty adamantly against keeping such articles, but then I realized how with categories, these admittedly trivial articles can be properly grouped with the communities in which they are notable and help flesh out information.  In other words, I now think there's a place for these.  Postdlf 02:53, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It sounds a bit like self-promo but there is information that is useful as well. I think school pages are extremely useful. Where else can you find info about schools as easily as on Wikipedia without going to the schools site? --Sekizaru 21:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

For the deletion debate for Robin kleinschmidt see Talk:Robin kleinschmidt. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 21:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article serves very little purpose. It is providing information that could easily be found on RLC's website.

Regarding controversies
Can all editors please note that we're here to be neutral and verifiable regarding the two controversies. I'll admit that my addition of the Darville claims needs a source, and I'm currently chasing one up. Regarding Warren Schneider, though, I will police any unwarranted additions thoroughly. If particular claims can be sourced, then source them as you add them. Just because he's been convicted of a serious crime doesn't mean that we can relax that policy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The school has been involved (peripherally) in two controversial incidents during its existence to date. →Use of "peripherally" is patently incorrect (as well as stylistically unappealing). Child sex abuse happened at this school. That is not peripheral. Mike3685 (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Colours
An anonymous IP's been writing that the uniform is now "varying shades of yellow and green". Put simply, there's no proof of this that I can find (and this includes talking to people connected to the school). I'm not a betting man, but I'd lay odds this is your standard nonce-vandalism. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

-Bet a million your brother is Christopher Tornatore. He's a member of wikipedia and twice as nerdy o.0
 * Not in the slightest. I don't know the bloke you're talking about. Now, if you can't remain civil and refrain from personal attacks against other members, you might want to consider cooling off. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo
This is getting silly. There's no indication anywhere that a new logo was even suggested, let alone designed today. If a new logo appears, it'll need sourcing - same as everything else here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

-then you'll have to wait till tommorow when the newsletter comes out. Until then!
 * I can wait as long as it takes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm told that the RLC Foundation has a new logo (or perhaps a logo, since nobody seems sure if there used to be one). None of my sources agree on what it looks like, or whether it can be described in the words used here. That said, sticking it in unsourced is never a good idea and one has to question the usefulness of a vague description of the logo of a body connected to the school in an article on the school itself. A few words about the Foundation wouldn't go amiss here, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction
"Most staff members are practising Lutherans" is not correct but most are practising Christians (teacher). I am making the relevant correction.
 * If you'd like to make that correction, you're welcome to (certainly at the time I wrote it, the majority were in fact Lutherans, but the demographics of schools change rapidly). However, this same IP has in fact made an edit attempting to say that the school colours are "various shades of green", which is neither relevant, accurate, nor a correction. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BigHaz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/138.217.181.239 indicates that I made only one edit to the article (changed the word Lutherans to Christians) and one addition to the discussion page declaring the edi. Therefore on what grounds do you villify me? I believe you have made a mistake.
 * My apologies, you're quite right. The comment was made during a sustained process of reverting vandalism to this article, and unfortunately I got two anonymous users (you and a vandal) confused. Again, I'm sorry about that and it won't happen again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)