Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladesville 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. As it is, it's not notable enough to be kept. VoL†ro/\/Force 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gladesville Public School

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article asserts no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. Twenty Years 11:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Twenty Years 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep not much at all in the article. However some web searching shows it's been around since 1878 or 1879, has a pamphlett (Gladesville Public School celebrating 125 years) a book ( Gladesville Public School centenary 1879-1979) and a few news articles about it. Certainly enough to satisfy verifyability from reliable sources and write a good encyclopediac article. Peripitus (Talk) 12:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt classify the pamphlett as a RS. The book is written by a source from within the school (see here), so that is not a RS. The news articles i found on the college; 1 no relevance - talks about the schools chior performing - which is non-notable, 2 nothing again - the school is getting a new fence, its been used for past electoral events (once again NN), and this - where the headmaster of the school attended the Gladesville RSL Slubs 75th anniversary, carries no notability for the school. Twenty Years 14:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you here. Schools, councils and suburbs are often the only publishers of significant information about themselves, which does not always make the source unreliable, but only reading the document can show if it's a reliable source. The book may be by a local historian then publishing paid for by the school or may be a fluff piece. The school has been around since the 1890s so websearching for news articles doesn't cut the mustard - EBSCOHOST only shows back to 2000 I think. At the end the question to be answered here is "can we write an NPOV reliable, sourced encyc article" and I think the answer about this school is yes - Peripitus (Talk) 00:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can find some news though, Northern District Times Wednesday 1 Sep 2004, p. 18 - Gladesville Public School, one of the state's oldest primary schools, notches up 125 years next Wednesday with a celebration of the past, present and future. + others , Are recorded in the Ryde hunters hill library as part of the district oral history record, had a "peace garden" launched Northern District Times 16 Nov. 1994, p.5 by the state minister.... and all this in about 10 minutes of looking. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete nothing shows that anything about this school would be worthy of an encyclopedic article instead of a yellow page entry. --Victor falk 17:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Both the book and pamphlet are published by the school. It is worth a mention in our article on Gladesville but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   —Noroton 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as here, there is usually not information about a primary school to write an article. Is perhaps the age notable though--is it perhaps one of the oldest schools in a wide region or is the building historically important?DGG (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The building...no.. from what I can find the building is not heritage listed or particularly significant. Noted as "one of the state's oldest" primary schools but I can't tell how significant this is. On reflection it probably fails the notability requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 04:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, allow for merging any useful content into the article for Gladesville, New South Wales (such as that identified by Peripitus). See Berwick, Victoria and Hamersley, Western Australia for examples of where this has been done elsewhere. Orderinchaos 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to a school district page. Nothing in notability says schools must be deleted.  There is currently a Wikipedia Schools Project, this should be allowed to be cleaned up per the project.CelticGreen 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep having lived in the area I know this is one of the oldest schools on the northern side of Sydney. I know there are sources in the local libraries which would confirm my suspicions but I simply don't have time at present to get hold of them and reference the article. The school is definitely notable and there is no way this information should be deleted - it should be merged at best to Gladesville, New South Wales as per WP:LOCAL which Twenty Years conveniently fails to recognise. We need to assume good faith more and do some research before deciding every school is not notable. I ask the closing nominator to please end this debate with a merge, not a delete so that more effort can be put into this article in the future. JRG 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Attention closing moderator: please userfy to me if the result is delete. I wish to merge into the suburb article, because the school is definitely notable there if it isn't in its own article. JRG 03:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to district article. Not notable.  Saying the project can clean it up as a reason to keep is not reasonable.  They probably have a twenty year backlog of work already.  Vegaswikian 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This school is not notable in my opinion. Cleaning it up would probably result in a better treatment of a non notable subject. --Stormbay 20:57, 19 October 2007 (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.