Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beecroft Primary School


 * 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 keep. Unlike the schools above, this school does appear to meet the proposed guidelines, and there appears to be at least a rough keep consensus if the simple votes are disregarded. --Core des at 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Beecroft Primary School
Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain This is tough. I want to vote delete, but under the proposed(as in not official ploicy yet) WP:SCHOOL guidelines, this would qualify to be kept by being more than 50 years old. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I missed that fact about it being more than 50 years old. TheRanger 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (via ec) Nooooooo! I went there! Don't delete it! Actually, I can't think of a good enough reason to keep it, although there's always a chance some part of it was actually heritage listed or something. Weak delete until I become famous enough to be listed as a famous former student ;) (Edit: Checking out the proposed guideline, I'll shift my vote to neutral. Also, it needs to be considered that there are actually more Ghits for "beecroft primary school" referring to a school in Leeds, UK.) Confusing Manifestation 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep meets notability WP:SCHOOL Valoem   talk  03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep over 50 years old, but other than that, there is nothing else particularly notable about the school.--150.203.177.218 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete WP:SCHOOL is not a policy yet. I, for one, believe that the 50-year-old proposed criterium should apply only to high schools/universities. Otherwise we may end up with articles about 50-year-old kindergartens.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss the criteria. It's the place to apply the criteria.  Your rationale doesn't even mention the subject of this article.  To apply WP:SCHOOL, look for multiple non-trivial published works about the school.  If you find them, the primary criterion is satisfied.  If you don't find them, then apply the secondary criteria.  Uncle G 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Policy is only proposed at this point, and meets proposed policy guidelines anyhow. Pursey 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SCHOOL. A 51 year old primary school is not any more notable than a 49 year old one. Catchpole 06:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Only claim to notabiliity is having existed 109 years. There should be some press clippings about all the great things the school has done and some of the contributions made to society by its alumni, some academic awards and sports championships, some recognition for its excellence in the press and by whatever body evaluates schools in the area. Otherwise merge it into an article about the town or school district.Edison 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keeping it because it is more than 100 years old is a bit ridiculous, age only gets important when you are something like "the oldest in the state" or so. Apart from that, there seems to be nothing notable about this school (if students have to wear a uniform or not is not really the kind of information I'm especially looking for...) Fram 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You said the same thing at Articles for deletion/Beaumont Hills Public School and Articles for deletion/Altona Green Primary School. You have not said on any of them though what makes them notable. TJ Spyke 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with the town article per WP:SCHOOLS. &mdash; RJH (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Schools/Arguments (same reasons, i know)--Vsion 01:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is better known as Beecroft Public School see . There are some sources available for this. Allan Seale who was a well-known gardening presenter on the ABC apparently went to this school.Capitalistroadster 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Age and history confer notability. Article would greatly benefit from expansion. Alansohn 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- pointless nomination. Everyone at schoolwatch agrees all schools are notable, and Schoolwatch can turn out enough people to influence any AFD. --ForbiddenWord 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you may have opened a can of worms with your comment here, and I don't think that it will benefit schoolwatch... Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch. Fram 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month.  As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this Schoolwatch inherently promote canvass? I believe that such page is prone to disrupt Wikipedia's natural consensus building process.-- Hús  ö  nd  16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Schoolwatch exists to disrupt process. All its purpose is, is to provide a single page that comprehensively lists AFDs so editors can go out and stop them from being deleted. --ForbiddenWord 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, no that is not exactly true either. I personally use it to help improve articles that need improvement.  I hope you do realize that anyone can view that page, and that it is watched by several "deletionists" as well.  In the end, this is a discussion and not a vote.  Silensor 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The comments by ForBiddenWord are directly opposed to wikipedia policy which states "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." TheRanger 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll not comment on the actual reason Schoolwatch exists, but the way Forbiddenword presents it, is actually the perfect way to disrupt process. See Spam, the section about canvassing. If one of the reasons Schoolwatch exists is to "turn out enough people to influence any AfD", then it should be abolished for being a POV votestacking mechanism. If this is not the purpose, then it should be made clear to Forbiddenword that his impression of it (and possibly of his perceived consensus as well) is quite wrong.Fram 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There were, a long while ago, concerted efforts to votestack in the very manner that ForbiddenWord describes. They were disruptive, and caused much division and rancour with no actual improvement to the encyclopaedia.  Any editor attempting to restart that should be aware that there are a lot of editors around here who went through it the first time around, and are highly unlikely to favourably regard any attempts to bring back the rancour and factionalism. Uncle G 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalistroadster, the subject actually does meet WP:SCHOOLS contrary to the nomination. Silensor 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor. This does meet WP:SCHOOLS.  --Myles Long 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only thing here resembling an assertion of notability is that uniforms are required. Non-notable, unverifiable school stub. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth, meets relevant guidelines. Bahn Mi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which relevant guidelines? Remember, WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed guideline which, according to the talk page, will have a hard time getting a consensus, and will thus probably never become a real guideline Fram 07:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: depending on the country and your definition of enduring, publican institution, this may include every library, kindergarten, postal office, police station, toll booth (wrong word probably, I mean a manned border crossing station between countries), ... Is that really your proposal? If so, why?Fram 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a proposal, and a toll booth is not a discrete institution - although libraries, kindergartens and police stations are. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia aims to document the sum total of all knowledge. --Centauri 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Within certain limits, perhaps the main one being that there has to be enough independent, non-trivial, verifiable coverage, which is seriously lacking for many of these institutions. We currently have guidelines excluding lots of knowledge from this encyclopedia, and there is no reason (except consensus or lack thereof, but not some basic policy) that schools or kindergartens should get an automatic free pass. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or many other things, even though directories, game guides, ... contain knowledge. It is up to us to decide what information is important enough to be included, and while our standards are quite different from paper encyclopedias, they are not non-existant. Your idea of what should be included is equally valid as anyone elses, but I hope that it won't get consensus. Anyway, nothing in this article is verified (as per WP:V), and I wonder if apart from the basic existence, much can be verified (the uniform? doubtful...) Fram 05:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per silensor.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please established in 1897 it looks verifiable and notable to me too Yuckfoo 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, all schools. bbx 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets what I believe should be a WP:SCHOOL guideline of over 100 years old.  Vegaswikian 23:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rebecca 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted.TheRanger 14:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Silensor, this school does meet the proposed guidelines, the nominator is incorrect. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 22 October 2006
 * 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.