Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queensland School for Travelling Show Children


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Queensland School for Travelling Show Children

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unremarkable primary (elementary) school. Delete, or merge to Queensland per accepted procedure. Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The school is clearly notable. This school is of a type that is perhaps unique in the world even though it caters to only a few children. Its existence shows that provision of education to all even in the most arduous circumstances is possible. Silent Billy (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Provisional Keep. Very strapped for time now but the article looks like it has potential and am willing to give it some time later today. I've just done a simple Google Scholar search using the full (long) title and returned 33 hits. Without going any further, that indicates a prima facie case for me of the notability of this institution. If others feel differently I'd be interested to know why. RashersTierney (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC) RashersTierney (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! It beats my  feeble efforts of researching. Have you  added them  to  the article? Then perhaps we can call  for an early  close as 'keep'. --Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep To suggest this school is "unremarkable" seems a little odd since its notability rests in its innovative approach to serving an unusual cohort. Reliable sources appear readily available. An easy keep. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Criticism of the nomination, and 'I like it', and 'I think that...' lend little towards advancing  the improvement  or deletion  of articles that  a re subject  to  AfD. Facts are what  are needed.--Kudpung (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'Facts' are the demonstrated academic interest in this particular educational institution - 'I Like It' is not a factor. RashersTierney (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable school as evident by sufficient independent sources. Have added as other sources: Danaher, Geoff and Moriarty, Beverley and Danaher, Patrick Alan (2006) Challenging heterotopic space: a study of the Queensland school for travelling show children. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 3 (1). pp. 40-51. ISSN 1832-2050 and Olding, Rachel (2010) Show and tell: travelling school in a class of its own, The Sydney Morning Herald, April 14. Seems to have been nominated for deletion only 8 mins after creation and 3 minutes after an edit by the creator. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
 * 11 minutes, and 48 hours later still  had no  convincing sources. Remember that  this is not  a CSD or a PROD where articles 'disappear' without  the chance of defending  themselves. I  do  not  pretend to  be right  all  the time.  and not  I, but  the community  will  decide. I'm  perfectly  happy  for the article to  be retained  if  it  1. meets criteria for notability, and 2. is correctly  sourced; or merged if it  is not -  as I  stated in  the rationale which  is based clearly  on  an accepted procedure for primary  schools, irrespective of their shape, size, or location. --Kudpung (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment Even now it is less than 30 hours since the article was first posted. When AfD tag was put on there were external refs. Silent Billy (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the very opposite of a unremarkable primary school. It is a quite remarkable primary school and the article is now sourced. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources now. I don't normally support separate primary school articles but this one makes a case for WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am just wondering why there isn't a push to whack AfDs on most of the British Prep Schools which have articles here. There are after all K-8 primary schools and most have no proper referencing let alone any coverage on TV, radio, non-advertorial newspaper articles and academic journals. I suppose it's because they are private schools catering to the carriage trade and not publicly funded and catering to the caravan trade like QSTSC. Silent Billy (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Silent Billy. most of those schools just don't meet notability. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Off topic - WP:OTHERSTUFF --Kudpung (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Below is a selection of some of the sources available about this school from around the country, spanning over 10 years. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. Orderinchaos 04:59, 22 October 2010 (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.