Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Edward's College, East Gosford


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Edward's College, East Gosford
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page was nominated for deletion in June and was kept. Since then, the article has still made no attempt at notability. I am nominating because I believe it is no more notable than the other 3 schools in East Gosford. The East Gosford, New South Wales page makes mention of the schools well. 2good2btrue 11:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) — 2good2btrue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions.   -- Bduke 12:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Bduke 12:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The other three schools should have articles as well, as most high schools do. In any case, it's too early to renominate. This is a bad case of "I don't like the outcome-itis". RegRCN 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article does not currently pass WP:V and WP:N - but it was established in the previous AFD that the school does have independent sources on it and could be notable enough for its own article. I agree with the above that it was to early to re-nominate this for deletion. However, I would agree to merge and re-direct to East Gosford, New South Wales for now until a good article can be written on the school. Camaron1 | Chris 13:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it was not established in the last nomination that St Eddies was notable. One user put the links to the first five pages on google - each was more ridiculous then the next and if I try to make an article out of it, the article would be in worse shape then it is now. Also, see Articles for deletion/St Patrick's Primary School East Gosford for another school that was deleted, that RegRCN says should have an article. 2good2btrue 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I worded that carefully as could be, as it is clear no consensus was ever really reached on the issue. Looking at the state of the current article - I doubt any attempt to fix it would make it worse. I agree with consistency between school articles - though ultimately every schools notability should be considered individually. Camaron1 | Chris 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article needs work but it just survived AfD with a "keep" result and nothing in the nomination indicates why it is less notable now than it was less than 2 months ago. -- DS1953 talk 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article currently is unsourced. However there is material available. Google News Archives shows that it won its state basketball title in four years in 2006 so it is certainly notable for something. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I must take offense at the second AfD for this article and firmly disagree with the supposition that comparative notability (or lack thereof) as a reason to delete an existing article. I will be more than happy to help create article for the other three schools in East Gosford. That said, the school does have claims of notability available and details and sources should be added to expand the article. Alansohn 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The should be some attempt at consistency, and we should consider the other articles. A single AfD keep does not prevent a reconsideration in two months. There were no good reasons for keep being given then, and there were now. We probably should have some rules about how frequently an article can be nominated, but i dont consider this abusive or absurd. If it's kept again, however, i think that should settle the matter for at least another year. Of the material in the article, i notice that almost all of it is unsourced opinion. DGG (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We delete articles on subjects that are not notable; we don't delete notable pages on the grounds of lack of sources - those we tag for improvement. There are plenty of sources to meet WP:N as as been shown here and in the previous AfD and I'm about to add some. Though there is no timescale for a second AfD, under 2 months to revisit a 'keep' decision is way too short - it is not acceptable to keep bringing articles back until you get the result you want. FWIW IMHO at least 6 months should have elapsed. TerriersFan 00:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have now rewritten the article. There is still more to be said but that's for another day .. TerriersFan 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge WP:SOFIXIT Afd should not be used to prod someone else to improve the article. And although the article needs work, deleting it does not necessarily make WP better. If the previous AfD was a no consensus default to keep, the renom might be reasonable. But since there was a consensus to keep, the renom is questionable at best. This ref from the previous Afd suggests St. Dominic's College, Penrith, and Edmund Rice College, Wollongong might be merged with St Edward's College, Gosford. Dhaluza 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment it isn't long since last time it was kept. If you don't like it - improve it or ignore it. Improving it might be done by getting rid of everything that isn't from a clearly cited reference, or doesn't seem encyclopedic. If the article gets small enough then it would be readily improved by merging it to East Gosford, New South Wales. But relisting it at AfD when not long ago it was decided to keep it isn't what AfD is for.Garrie 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Found some reliable sources on a quick google search. Twenty Years 14:56, 17 August 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.