Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marmion Primary School (2nd nomination)

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. Prodego ^talk 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marmion Primary School[edit]

Previously put up for deletion per WP:COPY, but nobody has bothered putting any work into it. Appears to be a very ordinary school, notability not meaningfully asserted, no third party sources other than a Govt report. Ohconfucius 09:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is indeed notable, this is part of a project on improving the northern suburbs of Perth. Media and other significant source coverage does in fact exist (it was quite controversial when built due to its odd and inaccessible location at that time) - however due to its age it is hard to source and needs to be done at the Battye State Reference Library in Perth. As the last person to contribute to it I'm a bit surprised that I was not contacted, and also that the nominator has failed to recognise my effective rewrite of it incorporates as a source a section in a published local history book as a source, and does not in any way, shape or form violate WP:COPY, although is a bit stubbish. General consensus, however, runs against deleting articles on Wikipedia solely for their length. Orderinchaos 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per above and the fact that there is some encyclopedic content here, namely the lack of electricity and so forth. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per OIC. One of the most notable PS in the country. The first nomination should have been a good indication as to how this would pan out. Twenty Years 13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really know about Perth, but worldwide I don't know how notable it was for a school of under 100 students to not have car access and electricity connected in the 1950's. For sources to pass WP:RS they have to be realistically accessible and that tends to exclude local history society self-published books - but if you come up with two independed references substantially about this school then I'll go Keep instead.Ga rr ie 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrie. TJ Spyke 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Who am I to argue; If OIC thinks a school is notable, I think I must agree. The article makes credible claims of notability, but would benefit greatly from expansion, which I hope this AfD will spur. I hope OIC and others in Australia have access to sources that aren't available in North America to use to expand the article. Alansohn 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to do so after I come back from wikibreak... it's a case of being in the library with time to look it up. Re Garrie's comment, once I have found the sources, they're all viewable in Western Australia and in any interstate libraries which keep WA stuff - I'm aware for instance that both the NLA and SLNSW keep archives of the West Australian newspaper. Orderinchaos 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the school is notable for its unusal location and the controversy surrounding its creation. TerriersFan 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now added some awards and refs for those who twitch about such things :-) TerriersFan 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, we're half way to an article for one of the teachers and they were pretty much first losers for the reconciliation award (yeah, I'm harsh on coming anywhere less than first). Then there is a primary source. So there is one real reference: a local history society self published book. OIC, please find some references substantially about the school rather than being substantially about a reconciliation award, or one of the teachers from this school.Garrie 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding of the subject's notability doesn't relate to the teaching staff or even to the *present* school (which is fairly non notable and had it not had rather unusual and somewhat controversial beginnings, and featured so vitally in planning policy of the 1960s and beyond, it would be a clear delete). Note that according to WP:N, notability is not temporary, so its former situation counts towards it. A cursory read of my user talk page at the present would reveal I'm in no situation to improve the article any time before early December for reasons entirely unrelated to Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The schools history and awards combined, as the article now suggests with multiple sources, makes it notable. I do not see deletion as necessary. Camaron1 | Chris 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral* The 'awards' don't seem particularly notable (an 'encouragement' award? Is that a good thing or bad?) and the 'controversy' does not seem particularly notable either. It's certainly not obviously notable. That said, this article at least TRIES to assert some notability, and cites a couple of sources, while still engaging in some OR. Better than most of the school articles out there, I'm sad to say. Epthorn 19:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that it might be worthwhile mentioning that the 'encouragement award' was not an award to encourage the school; rather an award for encouraging racial harmony. TerriersFan 20:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Pleased to see Terriers Fan is adding to the article and showing it does have some claims to natability. Well done Victuallers 13:22, 12 November 2007 (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.