Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wollongong Conservatorium of Music

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Work on the article post the AfD being opened seems to have allowed it to qualify for the keep bordering on no-consensus that I perceive here. The references pointed out by the likes of SilverSeren add to weight of notability, however, the arguments of Kudpung and others cannot be ignored. Like I mentioned, I should qualify this as a keep bordering a no-consensus. There is no prejudice to an early AfD being opened if work on the article does not improve it beyond the doubts expressed here. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wollongong Conservatorium of Music[edit]

Wollongong Conservatorium of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. current sources are only its own website. no extensive coverage. [1]. Just deserves a one line mention in Wollongong. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge basic details to Wollongong article.- Fails as per nom. Further searches have not revealed WP:RS according to Wikipedia policy, or any entries other than directories or social networks. As it stands, It in in fact a WP:CSD#A7 for speedy deletion.--Kudpung (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will refrain from voting as I am biased by being involved with the Conservatorium (despite that, I will emphasise that the Con is a very important and vibrant part of the local community here), but I would dispute there being "no extensive coverage" of its activities. This is a non-trivial amount of coverage, of which I'm sure a lot could be added as references to the article, should someone find the time. — Jeremy 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:GOOGLEHITS. a lot of those hits are simply event listings which is not indepth coverage required to establish notability. " a very important and vibrant part of the local community here" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not affiliated with the universtity. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is affiliated with the University. — Jeremy 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
even if it is, there is insufficient evidence to meet WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to back this up? LibStar (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with LibStar: Cite your sources, Xxanthippe and Jeremy--Shirt58 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been cited by Jeremy above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
they are weak sources mainly event listings, and none have been incorporated into main article. currently it still only has primary sources. Xxanthippe !vote can be considered WP:ITSNOTABLE in the absence of evidence of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a number of refs and worked them in by creating a History section. While the coverage in the Illawarra Mercury newspaper doesn't count toward notability, as it is merely a local city newspaper, the significant coverage from The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is enough to convince me of the notability of the Conservatorium. SilverserenC 04:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the latest sources get it over the line. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't: The first of your references is a fleeing mention in the end notes of an article about the town and its tourist attractions. The long tourism article is not about the subject and : People interested in architecture should walk up the hill to Gleniffer Brae (now the Wollongong Conservatorium of Music), completed in 1939 for the Hoskins family. The chimneys (fascinating examples of the bricklayer's art) alone are worth the walk. cannot possibly be interpreted as significant coverage about a school, an academy, a conservatorium, or other institute of learning. I also had to put the entire newspaper article through a search routine programme to fine that fleeting mention. The second of your references is a very brief ABC online paragraph about money owed to the conservatorium and is also not significant coverage - however broadly construed.--Kudpung (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've struck my delete !vote in light of the above discussion, especially in light of Silverseren's referencing, but cannot find sufficient reason to change my !vote to keep. I assume it is part of or affiliated with UoW. I would argue that WP:UNIGUIDE would dictate that the notability turns on whether it is sufficiently autonomous from UoW to not be considered a faculty. If it is simply a faculty of UoW, then as per Kudpung's assessment of the references, it is not notable, and as per WP:ORG it should perhaps be mentioned in the UoW article. If it is "especially notable or significant" (emphasis mine) then it is "article-worthy". I focus on "significant". By a (somewhat controverted) general consensus, non-notable secondary schools are - for lack of a better term - "article-worthy". Arguing that that applies here would be a false analogy. Nevertheless, Wollongong Conservatorium of Music is a publicly-funded, degree-awarding tertiary institution: does that make it "significant"? I have no answer to that question.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Con is not a faculty. It is simply an affiliation and sharing of resources. Music courses at the Uni are taught at the Uni, and music courses at the Con are taught at the Con, although they may share facilities and hold joint functions from time to time.
However, as I have stated above, I will not comment on notability. — Jeremy 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cite your sources for this assertion, Jeremy.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still take a firm stance that inclusion should be backed up by our very clear policies regarding sources. If it is a recognised university in its own right, or a mainstream secondary school, there are clear guidelines for inclusion. But the conservatorium appears to be neither.--Kudpung (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot cite it as it comes from my own knowledge. Not all of us live our daily lives with an encyclopedia next to us every second of the day. I wasn't stating the above to be included in the article — it was more of an FYI. If you don't like it because it's not cited, well that's your problem. Ignore it. I utterly refuse to cite it, and if it means you won't take me seriously after this, so be it. — Jeremy 07:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Uni comments There is currently no source that states that the Conservatorium is a part of the University. I've seen nothing in the sources to imply that the Conservatorium is a facility of the University. The closest connection they have, according to the sources, is the University has considered buying the rest of the property so they can have creative arts classes there, though they would continue to allow the Conservatorium to lease the section it is in. This seems to imply to me that the University and the Conservatorium are not a part of one another, they just work together on occasion. And this is coming right from the sources in the article right now. SilverserenC 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) That is a very good point. From the references, there is little indication that it is affiliated with UoW.  :-( Unfortunately, and again from the references, it's also a very good reason why the article should be deleted. If it's a stand-alone institution, then there are only passing references to it in reliable sources. Yep, I want this article to be kept, but I can't see reasons enough for that. I'm still neutral --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, this isn't a poll anyway, and the quality and the leaning of the comments will be taken into consideration by the closing admin, and actual consensus could well outweigh what might appear in a tally of !votes. I've got nothing against this school either, but per WP:NOHARM I still see no reason why it should have an article,and why we should risk setting a precedent by bending the rules. --Kudpung (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wollongong_Conservatorium_of_Music&oldid=1069623416"