Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Aquinians Hockey Club

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 merge and redirect to Aquinas College, Perth. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquinians series[edit]

This afd concerns a mind-numbing assortment of trivial articles about a school in Western Australia. Please note this discussion is not about the school articles; rather it concerns the spin-offs.

Violates WP:NOT in too many ways to mention; suggest the author buys some webspace for this. Delete all --Peta 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to have been through afd before - but I think this needs to be revisited. --Peta 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this needs a revisit. The parent article is currently being peer reviewed here and many of the comments left by reviewers have suggested merging this info back into that article. I'm struggling to find anything encyclopaedic or notable in any of these sub-articles, so I say merge and delete all. —Moondyne 08:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Aquinas College, Perth. Hesperian 11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that they should be kept - i have asked for certain ones to be AfD and reduced the number of daughter articles. If you refer to User:Gnangarra/Aquinas - this is where i got the idea of he daughter articles from. Now...if you were to say AfD the House System page (which has been listed AfD but doesnt appear above) then you would have to AfD the page on Scotch College, Perth which lists its school's houses. The boarding page is especially significant as boarding was the foundation of the school. If you are to delete the pages - then fucking merge them back into the article - all the info on there is bloody valuable. Thanks Smbarnzy 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I think that each individual page should be considered on an individual basis, not as a whole. This would increase the chances of articles being deleted. But, do as you please. Thanks Smbarnzy 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment all these daughter articles don't contain much non-trivial information. --Peta 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as already pointed out, trivia and a prime example of WP:NOT. If the is anything salvagable merge that back to the school article. Nuttah68 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Aquinas College, Perth. Edison 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - none of this is notable enough to exist as a stand-alone article. Perhaps Harvard and Oxford can support such "daughter articles," but not every high school in the world.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't the sport one be without a comma because otherwise it's inconsistent with all the other ones? DanielT5 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic and indiscriminate. There is too much unencyclopaedic detail, which I suspect even the school would not put on its own website. Best place for this is a book on the school, and we could point a wiki link at it. Alternatively Merge back to Aquinas College, Perth and severely prune. Ohconfucius 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments of Huon at first AFD (linked above by Peta). All subjects fail WP:N. No merge, because Wikipedia articles should be built on secondary sources. The information in these articles is verified, and likely verifiable, only through primary sources. Pan Dan 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - this page is largely built on primary sources, but it is all verified by secondary sources, so if it came down to a delete or merge, then it should be merged. Smbarnzy 05:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. What's the difference between "built on" and "verified by"? Also, what secondary (i.e. external) sources verify the information in the articles? The sources cited all look like primary (internal) sources. Pan Dan 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there is no dif. Heritage council of WA, Australian boarding staff assocation, city of south perth, sth pth municipal heritage inventory framework, Trinity College, City of South Perth council meetings, Mt Henry peninsula foreshore mgmt plan 02, the West Australian newpaper, and the PSA (Public Schools Association) are non primary sources listed in the article. they verify alot of the information in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 12:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • The Heritage Council and ABSA pages are trivial, refer not to any of the topics of these articles but to Aquinas College generally, and don't verify any of the information in these articles. I can't access the South Perth gov't page, so I can't tell what information it verifies, but it's only one ref in one article and I'm not sure what encyclopedic information city council meeting transcripts could convey anyway. I don't see the other sources you refer to listed in the articles. Pan Dan 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article I'm working on at the moment depends quite heavily on council minutes, which are available via State Records or if recent enough via the council themselves. WP:OR says we can't draw *conclusions* from primary facts (gazettals etc) beyond stating the fact itself, but the official published council minutes and unpublished minute books often do go heavily into the whys and wherefores, casting light on why a decision was made and what factors were highest in their consideration, so provide a reliable source by which to derive these assertions. May not be relevant to this article but a point nonetheless. Orderinchaos78 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Merge: merge key facts, but there is no need to keep any of the trivial lists/details as stated above. Danski14 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some articles I have just had a skim over all the articles related to this disscussion and am at present indisposed to help, but I can make the suggestion that the boarding and house sustem articles be merged. It is defintly a problem that needs resolving, but once the Aquinas college main article is reviewed the reviewers will almost definitaly request more description and precise info which is where these articles can be merged (excuse my spelling errors, I am in a hurry) Yungur 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article, per above reasoning. And prune the dead wood. WMMartin 16:35, 16 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Aquinians_Hockey_Club&oldid=1138180306"