Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannali East Public School (3rd nomination)


 * 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 Merge to Jannali, New South Wales. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:16Z 

Jannali East Public School

 * — (View AfD)

School with no assertion of notability and insufficient independent reliable sources. (I'm uncertain whether a private member statement by a legislator qualifies, but I'm willing to accept it -- it's still only one source, though.) Does not meet WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. The school survived a second AfD over a month ago, partly because it was over 50 years old (a criterion which has since been removed from WP:SCHOOLS), and partly because its nominator was determined to be a vandal -- circumstances I think warrant another discussion. Its first VfD was a year and a half before that. Article has been tagged for cleanup since the previous discussion, but no editing has been done. Proposed a merge and redirect first per WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLS3, and WP:LOCAL, but it was declined, so am bringing it here. Shimeru 01:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete No asserted notability of any kind. Fails any set of school criteria. Only 115 total and 62 unique Google hits, including mirrors, and most of the sites that aren't mirrors are directory listings. -- Kicking222 01:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added comment To be fair, the age criterion has not been completely removed from WP:SCHOOLS. However, a school must be distinctive due to its age, and 50 years is in no way distinctive. -- Kicking222 01:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 02:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it seems to be non-notable. Jyothisingh 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup Doesn't deserve deletion, does have proof that it exists. GCFreak2 06:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlsanand (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per above. Unremarkable school. MER-C 07:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no assertion of notability. Ter e nce Ong 09:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, or merge somewhere. WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3 state that schools that don't meet its criteria should be merged somewhere (which is fine with me), not deleted anyway, so the rationale for deletion isn't entirely valid.  JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, the merge was declined, so the rationale is indeed entirely valid. Shimeru 20:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable article about a significant institution. Nathanian 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it significant? What claim of significance is made? -- Kicking222 20:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- JROBBO 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - yet again, this is being used as a substitute for Requests for expansion and there is no valid rationale for deletion. There have already been two AfDs on this article, one very recently, and I'm tired of articles being renominated just because it's to a particular user's fancy to delete a certain type of article this week, or because they can't be bothered doing some research and improving the article themselves, or because they disagree with the previous outcomes, so they just keep nominating the article until it goes their way. That's not the way to do things on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other tags to cover those sorts of situations, so why aren't they being used? As I said in the last AfD, there are some significant articles on a newspaper database that I found about the school, such as it being caught up in an education funding dispute in the early 2000s under Bob Carr's Government, but no one seems to take any notice of that - everyone uses the Google search and that's it. There are plenty of print articles - why doesn't anyone look for them? It's because people can't be bothered doing any work - it takes far longer to write an article than to delete it, but the deletionists get impatient and say that if we can't get a good enough article in three or so weeks, then it should go - too bad for anyone who's done any significant work on the article. And to be honest, although I would have liked to improve the article, I haven't had time, so I'm annoyed that yet again, rather than anyone doing some work on the article, it just gets nominated for deletion because no one understands that people need time to improve articles. And while the nominator claims that he tried a merge tag, in truth he suggested that we merge the article to the local school district, and if he had read my edit summary when I got rid of that suggestion, he would know that I got rid of the merge tag as Australia does NOT have school districts, and so it's impossible to merge the article to such a thing. I have a compromise though - I'm prepared to merge this to the local suburb article (Jannali, New South Wales) (which is a sensible and realistic merge proposal, as opposed to the last one). Let's stop this silly and ridiculous debate, and I'll put in the references needed to make the section of the Jannali East article on the school a good one. Alright? JROBBO 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As Shimeru stated in the nom, many of the keep !votes in the AfD seven weeks ago were solely based on the nominator being an spa. Without those !votes, there was much more of a consensus. -- Kicking222 22:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag says "school district or locality," but I can see how that might be missed. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in favor of a merge/redirect (or expansion from reliable sources, if you have the time now to do that).  I don't particularly care whether we do or don't have an article on the school -- only that, if we do, it's one that shows why the school is notable, with reference to multiple independent sources, like we'd expect of practically any other article.  This one was first written in May 2005 -- that's a bit more than three weeks to wait for sourcing.  But a merge is a good compromise until a sourced article can be written, and that approach seems to be building consensus. Shimeru 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - ok, considering I have a few sources on the school from newspapers and the like, though not enough at present to support an independent article, let's merge this to Jannali, New South Wales and keep everyone happy. JROBBO 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - DXRAW 22:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not make any assertion of notability.  Robert A.West (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Smerge per recommendation below. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The likelihood of this becoming a significant article is pretty small, considering the school has 175 students. The article in its present state makes no assertion of notability, and frankly, I can't see how it ever will. The fact that it is a school does not make it instantly notable. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  23:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If a school article is not strong in the beginning, chances are good it will never improve. This article does nothing to expalin why this school should be worthy of note. Denni  talk 00:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Repeat nomming here is getting rediculous.. Are we going to keep nominating articles until they get enough deletion votes now?  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 09:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When an article is kept in part because people hoped that it might improve, that presupposes that the article can be renominated if it does not improve. When an article is kept in part because of defects in the nomination, that should be no barrier to a proper nomination.  In theory, the closing admin should ignore WP:ILIKEIT keep votes, but sometimes they don't, and those decisions should not be binding. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as this meets WP:SCHOOLS as proposed and is verifiable through reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion has been provided.  Silensor 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete - still doesnt meet the proposed WP:SCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLS3 criterias in its current form. Also, the criterion over whether it should be kept on how old the school is or not should be debated at its related school project pages. It's had enough time to improve and to find sources since its last 2 AFDs, and as it stands at the moment, it looks very shaky. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Request to closing moderator - if User:Shimeru is not going to withdraw the nomination as he says he will, can this please be userfied to me so I can merge what's notable into the Jannali article? JROBBO 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realize you'd merged it. Consider this withdrawn; I'll redirect the page as soon as the discussion is closed. Shimeru 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't done it yet - but I don't want the page deleted and the sources of information to be not available, so as to prevent me from merging it properly. JROBBO 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect under the GFDL. bbx 14:29, 29 December 2006 (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.