Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Schools Association Sports Champions

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 delete. Sr 13 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Schools Association Sports Champions

As Aquinascruft. Article is unencylopeadic, not placed into a reasonable context, and fails to demonstrate notability of the subject matter - in this case what is the results from a series of inter-school sporting events between private schools. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (question rather?) - like the oval - it may not stand alone - but perhaps it could be squeezed into a merge with something else? Formatting suggests the creator didnt know about columns. It would not take much for an experienced editor to (a) reformat (b) provide context (c) review its worth. removed comment. Satu Suro 02:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed deletion of Private School Sporting pages seems to be on the cards at the moment. The reason why this detail was hived off the main article was because of the size. yes, the formatting could be improved but there is no reason why it should be deleted, especially considering there is no where else on the www this information appears in this format. "Obviously nominator did not go to a private school" = interesting point! User:Steve Stefan 31 May 2007
Delete. This stuff should be somewhere, but not in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia. Thewinchester is spot on. What does "Obviously nominator did not go to a private school" have to do with anything? --Bduke 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - internal WA project humour crept in, now removed Satu Suro 03:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That private school remark was a low blow, a low blow indeed Satu :). And as for Steve Stefan - while a nice try to make that statement something more than it actually was, not assuming good faith and implying the nominator had a conflict of interest through a perceived bias was not a wise thing to do, not withstanding the specific comment by SatuSuro has no real bearing on the AfD's outcome. I would have to suggest that the worth/value of the content is the key question here, which goes to the core parts of the Aquinascruft essay. The content would not be here if it wasn't for the passion of the original content creators brought on by the school's history and rivalries that are carefully shaped and fostered within the school environment. They are essentially using Wikipedia as another forum for them to see who's the best in their respective sporting competitions, which doesn't in spirit meet the criteria of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It would be almost impossible IMHO for any editor to make significant enough improvements to bring this article into line with WP:MOS and other policies and procedures, let alone provide enough context and information to make the information valuable. This conversation is reminding me of the whole spoilers debate, which may actually still be in progress, and previous AfD's and other discussions relating to the amount of information included about each episode. The same principals apply with this article, as it would be near imposable for any editor to compile enough information for each of the listed events and annual competitions to provide significant context for it. Maybe i'm just sick of Aquinascruft-like articles over the last month, and it's got to the stage where i'd frankly wish they'd all just vanish into a massive AfD-like hole. It's not going to happen, and by deleting articles like this we can at least help direct the passions of these editors to better wiki improvement pursuits. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, difficulty (or impossibility) in sourcing this information outside the organisation's own records (see Steve Stefan's comments - thinking maybe the information should be on a website for the PSA, either fan-driven or from the organisation themselves?), and indeed what relevance the information has to a reader of an encyclopaedia. Has anyone checked to ensure the copyright status of this information, btw? Satu's idea is a reasonable compromise in which case I'd vote Merge as a second preference, but as a former private school student myself (insert appropriate wink) who is familiar with the whole interschool carnival thing, I don't think anything my most worthy peers did relevant unless they went on to make state or national level in their sport (which two or three in fact did). Orderinchaos 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it fails both WP:V primary sources only, WP:N non notable sporting competion between high school students. It does comply with WP:NOT indiscriminate collection requirements and would make a very nice feature for any walled garden. Gnan garra 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. They are school competitions of no importance to anyone other than current and past students. If there was evidence of reporting on the events in the major Perth newspapers or coverage by radio and television outlets I may think differently. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the information of participants in this AfD, User:Steve Stefan has been attempting to circumvent the AfD process by copying content from this article into Public Schools Association. This is a copy-paste move, which violates the GFDL License which requires Attribution to the original contributor. These changes have been reverted, the user warned, and the article is on watch to ensure this no longer continues. Thewinchester ^(talk) 06:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that really matter if it's copied across - that sort of information is more appropriate there anyway. I think we take policy far too seriously - and I'm sure the person who wrote the information originally would give their blessing to it being moved. JRG 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the Public Schools Association is definitely notable there is no need to have a page listing the champion school (not professional sporting club, not state/country team, but school) in every event for the past 100+ years. If such a thing is really needed, put a link to the list on an external site within the the main PSA's article Guycalledryan 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet more snobcruft. Get rid of it. Lankiveil 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey - I agree the article is not notable, but that sort of comment is not really acceptable. Going to a private school or writing articles on them does not make someone a snob. Please bear in mind WP:CIVIL. JRG 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are not indicated and I doubt that there is third party sources for much of it. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information is likely to be a copyvio of the PSA website or something like that; but having the whole list on Wikipedia is not really warranted - maybe a couple of sentences as to the sports competed in under the PSA would do in the main article, but every sport and every competition is unnecessary. If not delete, then definitely merge to the parent article. JRG 05:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full reliance on primary sources indicates this is not a notable topic. It would be refreshing to see some form of commentary on what all these tables of results mean: there is a huge gap between WP:OR and summarising which school can show a tradition of excelling. That is the type of material which belongs in an encyclopedia, with tables like the ones in this article rolled-up somewhere as a resource.Ga rr ie 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails even the "usefulness" test. Maybe the school should set up its own wiki for this type of thing. John Vandenberg 08:05, 4 June 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.