Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tharwa Primary 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. (non-admin closure) Derild  49  21  ☼  00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Tharwa Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines for schools. See Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes Shirt58 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally an elementary school would not be considered notable, but this one's great age and the controversy surrounding its closure make it notable. I added more sources to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per MelanieN. I'll look for some further references.   I've made it clear that this school was the oldest operating school site in the ACT.  This is an important claim to notability (at least in the ACT).  Gillyweed (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As Carrite and other !voters pointed out, the current policy is to generally delete or redirect primary schools. (Full disclosure: I think the policy is wrong. My point of view is that Primary Schools are just as important as Secondary Schools and Universities.  North Strathfield Public School, for example, has produced more High Court Justices than all but a handful of Australian Universities.) Nb: This is not a withdrawal of the AfD nomination - consensus about notability must still be proven - but a very big thank you for the improvement of the article. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the current policy (or rather practice) is not "to generally delete or redirect primary schools" - it's to delete or redirect them unless they can demonstrate notability. The "common outcomes" page you linked says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD". The burden is on the school to demonstrate notability, but if it does, it is kept. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The school really only gets coverage because it was so insignificant it had to be closed. Having said that the article is fine and the sourcing is good enough. So while the case notability is very very marginal, the state of the article leads me to think keep. We're heading down the wrong track if we're keeping articles on things fictional super metals without any sourcing whatsoever but punting decently sourced articles like this.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add that there are probably many more sources out there than are searchable on the interweb. The Canberra Times doesn't archive anything online. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 22 September 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.