Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arawang 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 redirect to List_of_schools_in_the_Australian_Capital_Territory#Public_schools. There is a clear consensus to not keep. Opinions differ on merge vs. redirect, and the correct target for said merger or redirection. I'm going to go with Deor's suggestion; if anybody feels strongly that some other target would be better, fixing it seems like it would be within normal editorial discretion. And I'm going to leave the history intact, so if anybody wants to mine existing material for a merge, that's available too. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arawang Primary School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced article that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Weston Creek, the community where the school is located. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East -- are you sure you didn't mean redirect? I can scarcely imagine content less worthy, on the whole, of a merge. Epeefleche (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Look at the user name who contributed the initial content. If 2003 is a birth date, then we are talking about content written by an 11 year old, probably a student of the school, which seems consistent with the language and nature of the content we are seeing. If this is the encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit, then maybe we should be trying to nurture this editor not delete their work and discourage them. Primary school articles tend to be borderline notable at best but still there are quite a lot of them out there; I suspect many are written as a classroom project. Does it really do any great harm to keep this article and make one new (probably young) editor feel a bit more welcome and more likely to contribute in the future? I've added some content, some citations and generally tidied up the content while trying to preserve the information that the original editor thought important. Kerry (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's worth bearing in mind that the readership of primary school articles is probably likely to include primary school children, so that's probably an argument for keeping content that might be of interest to children, even if it does not interet us as adults. Kerry (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we;'re going to keep these, it would not be because the readership of the articles is likely to be primary school students (I think the readership is likely to be people in the immediate locality regardless of age, who look for all local institutions); it should be because these articles have a purpose in providing suitable articles for primary school students to write in WP. Experience has shown that upper level students in such school can effectively write for WP, if they choose appropriate subjects. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are now reliable sources to a majority of the information in this article. And plus, the creator was probably someone younger than 13, so they would not have much information on citing sources or Wikipedia in general. It should be kept. Perhaps if it was written or given attention much earlier the article would have met the quality of standard Wikipedia wants to have in its articles. Burklemore1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weston Creek. Normal procedure for a primary school lacking notability. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Self-published material and a school report that every single similar such school has constitute nearly all (bar one) of the refs in this article. I'm still waiting for the keep !voters to explain what they think is notable about this school that has been covered in independent RSs, and how the school meets wp's notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Weston Creek per Doctorhawkes. Pretty standard. IgnorantArmies 03:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in the Australian Capital Territory#Public schools (where the school already appears in the table of primary schools) in accordance with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (An alternative would be to redirect to Waramanga, Australian Capital Territory, where the school is also mentioned; either would, I think, be preferable to Weston Creek as a redirect target.) Deor (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.