Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Joseph's School, Oamaru


 * 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. The sources that have been presented and found their way into the article have had enough impact on the discussion to say that there is consensus to keep the article Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

St Joseph's School, Oamaru

 * – ( View AfD View log )

School up to year 8. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, to delete and/or redirect. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. I have started a section on 'education' on the Oamaru page and will transfer some of the content to there.  Schwede 66  20:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are these above !votes based upon a search for sources, or just sourcing as it existed in the article at the time the above users posted? Are these !votes policy based, or based upon personal opinion? Clarification regarding this matter would be helpful. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect (blank, and merge any useful  content)  per nominator's own suggestion. Non   notable schools are generally  not  deleted; instead,  as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to  the article about  the school district (USA) or to  the article about  the locality (rest  of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the  on  the redirect  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =(LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, no, it doesn't mean GNG, no matter how often you copy this on school-related AfDs. And what important content is there in the article that's worth saving? "In case it ever gets verified"? Might as well bring in monkeys with typewriters. If you, however, manage to dig up a bunch of microfilms with exciting references, I might change my mind. In the meantime, your assumption that "there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination" shows a blatant lack of good faith and deserves a spanking (St. Joseph's style). Oh, "that all schools are notable" obviously our guidelines and practices--even the link provided above by Kudpung puts the lie to it. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This school appears to have a long and respectable history as a quick search soon throws up a detailed source from 1891 &mdash; over 100 years ago. It is therefore notable per the WP:GNG and should not be deleted per our editing policy.  Warden (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per above. If this school dates back to 1891, then it's one of the older schools in the region. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please show how it meets any of our guidelines for notability. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but redirect if you must. No reliable sources, nothing worth noting, and no valid arguments for keep presented anywhere here, except for a. unacceptable assumptions about the nominator and b. "it's old." Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the above !vote based upon source searching, in which reliable sources just aren't available about this topic, or is it personal opinion about this topic in general? There's a lot of "no's" in the above !vote, (no reliable sources, nothing worth noting, no valid arguments for keep, etc.), but they all appear to have been countered by editors that have contributed to this discussion and the article itself. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep is about the school, and  is about the ST. JOSEPH'S SCHOOLS' CONCERT.  Ample more results to dig through, but I think that satisfies the GNG just fine.   D r e a m Focus  03:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - An historically significant school, with news coverage dating back to 1891. This article would benefit from further improvements, such as the addition of more reliable sources. The Wikipedia editing policy WP:PRESERVE outweighs removal of this entire article from Wikipedia in this case. Here are three sources that I have added to the article, and others are available:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're kidding. I'll summarize your findings, in order: 1. On 25 November 1891 students received diplomas and awards; on 23 December 1892 there was song and dance at the end of a school term; on 31 May 1893 a school choir sang. Now explain to me how any of this constitutes discussion or coverage of the school--let alone significant discussion. Your zeal is admirable, but there are puppies in the real world more worth saving than this school. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article about puppies has zero inline citations so there's room for improvement there. Meanwhile, the mainpage has Brad Pitt as the featured article, the news section has a hot air balloon crash in NZ and DYK tells us that the Who sang a song about body odour.  Me, I'd rather read about the history of this school.  Why do do you want to prevent me?  What is your policy-based argument? Warden (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Colonel, if your idea of exciting and still encyclopedic reading is this, "The teacher who manages the middle syndicate is Miss Melanie Sloan. She suffers from early onset rheumatoid arthritis," then... well, I have no "then." Drmies (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want excitement then you can read our featured articles. Yesterday's Brad Pitt told us how he had a job dressed as a giant chicken.  Today's tells of a disturbed person who stuck a broomstick up his backside.  These articles would fit nicely into sensational magazines like Hello or True Crime.  Whether you care to read any of this stuff is a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputadem.  But note that, if any of these articles were "deleted", you would still be able to read them as the full text would still be there and available to users with permission.  So what's your point?  You're trying to dictate what others can or can't read and this is contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article about puppies has zero inline citations so there's room for improvement there. Meanwhile, the mainpage has Brad Pitt as the featured article, the news section has a hot air balloon crash in NZ and DYK tells us that the Who sang a song about body odour.  Me, I'd rather read about the history of this school.  Why do do you want to prevent me?  What is your policy-based argument? Warden (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Colonel, if your idea of exciting and still encyclopedic reading is this, "The teacher who manages the middle syndicate is Miss Melanie Sloan. She suffers from early onset rheumatoid arthritis," then... well, I have no "then." Drmies (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want excitement then you can read our featured articles. Yesterday's Brad Pitt told us how he had a job dressed as a giant chicken.  Today's tells of a disturbed person who stuck a broomstick up his backside.  These articles would fit nicely into sensational magazines like Hello or True Crime.  Whether you care to read any of this stuff is a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputadem.  But note that, if any of these articles were "deleted", you would still be able to read them as the full text would still be there and available to users with permission.  So what's your point?  You're trying to dictate what others can or can't read and this is contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is already sufficiently well sourced. It is a very old school with a long history. Not all the historical sources are easily accessible online. Dahliarose (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A venerable school easilly noteable enough to pass GNG. The good independent sources found by Dream and NorthAmerica1000 have been integrated into the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets GNG. Mattlore (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom but not opposed to a redir. Insufficient refs to meet WP:GNG and primary schools generally do not have article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 15 January 2012 (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.