Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hill 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Red Hill School

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Primary schools usually do not get articles, and this article shows why: The only independent sources are totally unsubstantial: The 1960 article from The Canberra Times is less than 100 words long' the Riotact article is from a community newspaper and is about a parking fee dispute..  DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are hundreds of references here (check filter options place:ACT and category:article) which will support an in-depth article covering the history of the school, back to its construction, and issues faced by the school over time. I think therefore romps it in on WP:NEXIST.  (There are about 2,000 references there (check place:ACT only), but many of these are very routine.) (Australia related AfDs which have any hint of a historical period, must include TROVE in their WP:BEFORE). Aoziwe (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There is ample newspaper articles available (I've added some to the article) to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete One of the "references" in the article is literally to another Wikipedia article. Outside of that there's multiple primary references and a bunch of extremely trivial news article referenced to a single local outlet, The Canberra Times. So unless I missed it there's nothing here that would justify keeping the article. That said, I'm going with weak delete because of the things mentioned by Aoziwe in their "vote." Which if true makes it likely someone can scrap enough together to make this notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - the archive linked by Aoziwe includes a lot of trivial coverage, but there's enough substantial coverage in there as well to justify an article. Separately, while I don't specifically remember reviewing this article, apparently I did, and despite not previously being aware of the Trove website Aoziwe linked here, I evidently came across enough coverage when doing a BEFORE to justify to myself approving the article despite the then-current revision's deficiencies. signed,Rosguill talk 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I looked into this some more after my initial vote and I think it's worth keeping now, but with the caveat that clearly bad references should be cleaned up from the article. AfD isn't cleanup though. So I'm not going to give the current state of the article that much weight since there seems to be enough sources at this point to improve things with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, although some of the numerous references available may be deemed trivial/routine there are enough to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2022 (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.