Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surveyors Creek Public 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   redirect to Glenmore Park, New South Wales. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Surveyors Creek Public School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Primary school. Years kindergarten-6. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up multiple, notable, substantial, non-passing, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no argument for deletion here. The phrase "...they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article" says nothing about deletion, and only implies a case for merger.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N states (emphasis added): "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives."--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If when the cock crows, the sun generally rises; this does not mean that the sun rises because the cock crows. If when articles fail notability, they generally get deleted; this does not mean that the article was deleted because the topic failed notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with this one, no evidence of any particular notability. The school is already listed in the article for Glenmore Park, New South Wales, which should be sufficient. Sionk (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no argument for deletion here, WP:SK remains applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep All primary schools with WP:V verifiable sources will be prominent.  I have only looked at the article page, and see that the topic has reliable, WP:V verifiable sources.  I don't know that this school is or is not notable, but it is not a question that needs to be answered.  We want to keep the edit history, and the issue of being both prominent and non-notable and where to redirect can be dealt with on the article talk page.  Note that WP:N is just a guideline, so if no suitable redirects can be agreed to on the talk page, it is acceptable to keep this article as a standalone.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Primary schools are not deemed notable and worthy of a stand-alone article on the basis that there are verifiable sources as to their existence. As WP:N puts it, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists".
 * Rather, "notability" is the test used to decide whether a school can have its own article. As WP:N states, the  "Article .. must be notable".
 * Furthermore, the guideline tells us "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives."
 * WP:N is a guideline, and as such is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:N is a generally accepted guideline that editors should attempt to follow, and WP:N exists in the context of the content policies from which it derives. As per WP:N, wp:Notability is not by itself a reason to delete an article, without there being objectionable material as per content policies to support hiding the edit history from public view:
 * Notability does not directly affect the content of articles...
 * The primary purpose of these [notability] standards is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies.
 * ...these requirements are based on major content policies... Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:N states (emphasis added): "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives."  If you follow our ongoing AfDs, you will see that every day many articles are deleted for failing to meet our notability guidelines.  That is all that is needed. There is not -- as you suggest -- a requirement that we keep articles that are non-notable per our standards, but do not have "objectionable material".  Quite the opposite, as the quote that begins this post indicates.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than reference WP:WHAT_OTHER_PEOPLE_DO, your argument that notability is by itself a reason for deletion would be stronger if you cited WP:Deletion policy. But doing so brings us directly to the next section that is titled WP:Deletion policy, which says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing".  This statement is our policy.  Because we have WP:V verifiable material and a topic that we want to include in the encyclopedia somewhere somehow, and in the worst case we want to keep the redirect and the edit history, there is no case for deletion here.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it deeply interesting the argument that we can delete the work of volunteer editors even when there is nothing objectionable about the material. Unscintillating (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Convert to redirect to Glenmore Park, New South Wales. There's no evidence of this meeting WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have never seen an AfD decision to merge protected at the article by the admin closing the AfD.  This is one of the reasons that bringing a topic to AfD without an argument for deletion is a diversion of editorial resources.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. I do not see anything particularly notable about this school --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  15:37, 19 February 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.