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 Beecroft, New South Wales#Schools. I have not merged as the content is unreferenced, but anyone wanting to perform a merge can do so. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beecroft Primary School[edit]

Beecroft Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:SCHOOLS "For elementary and middle schools, reliable secondary sources are usually too limited for notability. An exception is made for schools having a specific, notable distinction or status" Michellecrisp (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted at all. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, unless there are multiple Beecroft Primary Schools in Australia, I don't see the need to delete the page when people looking for Beecroft Primary School can simply be redirected to content that already exists on Wikipedia. Although the amount of traffic might be low, at least one person went as far as creating a separate article on the school. Merging any relevant content (e.g. Beecroft Primary School was established in 1897 and provides Kindergarten to Year 6 education to children from the Beecroft and Cheltenham area of North Western Sydney.) and converting to a redirect seems like the most practical solution. --Jh12 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, At least one person (and likely more) looked for the article and then created one. If there is a redirect to where the content lays, then we are doing a service, preserving GFDL author history, and avoiding another article being mistakenly created because someone thinks none exists. Redirects are also cheap. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider WP:NOT#NEWS , that news event in itself doesn't make the school notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, which is why I do not support a Keep. I do think, however, that this is the kind of information that should remain in a limited fashion, even if it were on the article of a school that was otherwise notable. --Jh12 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the whole incident is long forgotten, it was only reported 3 times in a Google news search Generally in NSW, defamation cases are held in the Supreme court by judges listed to hear defamation cases. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done. It's probably a minor difference of editing views; I have a tendency to get nervous when well-sourced information is completely removed. --Jh12 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (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.