Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Assistance Resource Teacher

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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Assistance Resource Teacher[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I could not significant coverage in gnews, gbooks and Australian search engine Trove. Most of the sources are primary like minister's announcements and government sources. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First off, it is inherently dangerous to try and re-establish notability for recent-but-pre-internet phenomena. It's easier to find good, online, academic resources about events in the 1780s than for 1980s. I agree that most of the sources for the article are primary, but not all. A 2009 journal article [1] discusses the scheme, as does a recent thesis [2] (though the latter is not a quality source). I think on balance, the article provides solid, verifiable info and enriches the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard a thesis as a reliable source. Can you find WP:THREE quality sources? LibStar (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot. However, that does not (in and of itself) require deletion of the article. I am not in this field and do not have access beyond publicly-posted works. If this were a new article, I might !vote to draftify, but it's a long-standing one about a subject rooted in a period about which secondary sources are thin on the ground. I just don't think deleting it improves the encyclopaedia since there are sources, both those already cited and the journal article I mention above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Special Assistance Program (Australian education), or what can be salvaged. Second option would be to keep. Most of the article is unsourced, and there is almost certainly significant coverage in newspaper reports, but I expect most of them to not be scanned/publicly available due to copyright issues and it would be virtually impossible to integrate them unless an editor happens to live in Victoria and investigate it themselves. This is a particular issue for 60s-90s buildings and programs in Australia, as most of these newspaper reports enter public domain after 70 years [3]. As it reads right now, I also think there is a modest possibility of copyvio of offline sources, and I think it would be better to just merge the cited and/or verifiable material into what seems like the parent article of the topic. This is not withholding the possibility that in future this could change, but I think the topic would be have more encyclopedic value if merged into the parent article considering this is a program which only ran in Victoria, and the parent article is only 1076 words at time of writing so there is definitely room for the merge. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am not opposed to a keep in principle, as there is presumed coverage according to WP:GNG with the high likelihood of offline sources existing, I just think a merge would make the content more useful. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2023 (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.