Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engadine Public 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   delete. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Engadine Public School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

K-6 school. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Was tagged for a merge one year ago, but no action was taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can see no claims of notability and can find nothing of substance online. It is already on the list of schools on the Engadine article, which should be sufficent. Sionk (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No third party sources to proof notability. Night of the Big Wind  talk  02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The creator of this article, in his edit summary upon creating it, wrote: "This is all true, I know this as I am a former student. I attended Engadine Public School from 2000-2006. I don't know what to put as a reference".--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Engadine, New South Wales per WP:OUTCOMES. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nominator's own suggestion, and merge any useful content to  Engadine, New South Wales per usual  practice. Non   notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you view that all schools are notable, but your comment "his school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article" obviously belongs to another deletion discussion. This nomination has nothing to do with deletionism. Your idea that "all schools are notable" clearly does not have community support on Wikipedia, so you need to demonstrate that this school is notable. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that view is nothing but a view, first of all, and it's out of step with our practices. Second, they've pasted this all over the place willy-nilly, which at the very least is ironic given their unproven and accusatory claim that "there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination." Pot, kettle calling. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete--nothing worth noting here, and nothing is properly verified. Such schools are not inherently notable (despite the "Outcomes" referenced above), and this one certainly doesn't pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - a dead link makes me worry that this can't be verified. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This link works for me. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.