Talk:Brunswick South Primary School

This article was nominated for deletion on May 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 31, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Australia: Melbourne / Education Low‑importance

	Australia portal Brunswick South Primary School is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Schools Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notablility

The guideline for notability is multiple non-trivial mentions from reliable sources. All I see are trivial mentions. Where are the articles / references that say this school is worth noting? - Tiswas^(t) 08:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that any of the issues or sources cited in the article are trivial - I read the WP guidelines and I don't see anything in them that could be used to say anything in those sources is trivial. In Australia, obesity and sustainability are two non-trivial issues. The sources note that the school is highly engaged with those issues - out of the hundreds of schools that maybe could have been noted by the sources, BSPS is one of the few that were mentioned, and an image of the school was used in the article. The sources are reliable sources - The Age is the journal of record in Melbourne, one of the highest quality broadsheets in the city. It may not be the New York Times, but in Melbourne terms, its non-trivial. In Australia, democracy is important, its the foundation of the system of government. Voting is compulsory. Places that are used as polliing stations are thus an important part of the fabric of Australian society, they are a non-trivial matter. In Australia, an important part of the fabric of society is civil society, the activity of forming associations to further the interests of groups within society. Parents Victoria is a non-trivial part of the Victorian community that is affected by the delivery of public education. BSPS has links with notable organisations such as Ceres Environment Park, concerning the non-trivial issue of sustainability and education about it. Not all schools have such relationships, therefore schools which have such relationships are notable, and non-trivial. In Australia, education is an important part of the society, its culture and the foundation of citizenship. It is a non-trivial matter. In Australia, art is an important part of the culture, and particularly so in Melbourne. Programs that link the production of art with education and government organisations such as a major metropolitan zoo are notable, they are non-trivial. Notably, the majority of education providers in Australia are public schools, and therefore information pertaining to them is important and non-trivial. Cultural heritage is significant component of the way a society places value on itself. Buildings that have formal heritage recognition have been deemed notable by highly organised processes of assessment, for such assessments have all kinds of non-trivial implications in terms of planning constraints to which buildings may be put, the way additions and renovations may be carried out and the like. A heritage listing is an indicator par-excellence that a place is non-trivial according to reliable sources. The BSPS buildings are heritage listed in the state-approved planning scheme. All of the information so far provided by the reliable sources cited in the article concerns non-trivial matters. I haven't seen any references to any artciles on WP that say 'this subject is worth noting because', nor have I read anything in the WP guidelines that says such references must explicitly state such things. Perhaps you'd be good enough to justify the assertions you are making? Eyedubya 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand me a little. The subjects of the links / references may not be trivial, but the mention of BSPS in relation to these is. Notablity is not conferred by associaion. None of the references establish any degree of notablity whatsoever.

Notability is conferred by mentions where the school is the topic, and not merely an illustration - In any of these articles, the content would not suffer if the mention were removed. - Tiswas^(t) 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I'm nominating the article for deletion, in order to ascertain whether the references that you have provided are sufficient, and to achieve a concensus on the matter. - Tiswas^(t) 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Princess Tiswas, it may be your opinion that the content would not suffer if the mentions of any specific schools were removed, but you are misguided about the effects of that content on either the intended readers of the article or the subjects you are suggesting could be so easily removed. The view that 'notability is conferred' implies the existence of an abstracted, disembodied 'god-eye' subjectivity standing outside life passing transcendent judgements and conferring notability, regardless of the 'illustrations' used in relation to any 'topic'. But this division is flawed. Consider the following: if the cited references contained no mentions of any specific schools at all, merely a topic that made references to the generic 'schools', then the references would have no verifiable content - there would be nothing specific concerning the claims made in them, and they would hold no interest as news or reporting of any kind. Their content would be useless both to audiences and subjects, and as such it would effectively have no content, it would be rendered meaningless. The 'topic' would die along with the 'illustrations'. Its a clever distinction, but in the end, it doesn't hold up, except in undergrad philosphy classes. In any event, the notability issue is a guideline, the cardinal rule in WP policy is verifiability, and this illustrates nicely why the hierarchy is the way it is. Verifiability is impossible to deny - either there are secondary sources or there aren't.

Philisophistry aside, the gist of my point is that the relevance of the articles would not altered by changing the name (or removing, were there numerous schools mentioned) of the school. The fact that it is BSPS that is mentioned is not material, in any of the citations, to the subjects. I am aware that notabililty is a guideline, which is why I am happy to seek consensus - Were it policy, a passing administrator might well have taken more unilateral action - Tiswas^(t) 13:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'not material' ... I see, we're in court and its time to speak legalese. Well, m'lud, the defendant wishes to point out that while her name appears in reports on all of these alleged crimes, the fact that it is her name and not that of any other female is not material to the case and therefore the case should be dropped for lack of verifiable evidence pertaining to the involvement of my client in these alleged crimes, and we seek leave to apprehend the first unsuspecting female from the gallery to stand in my clients place in the dock. ... Eyedubya 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that referring to something being material to another was in any way legal. Certainly, I would hate to be accused of, let alone guilty of, wikilawyering. The rest of your comment strikes me as being glib an uncivil, although I apologise if my inference misrepresents you.- Tiswas^(t) 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your inference suggests the possibility of lightening up and seeing the funny side from time to time - try Humour or Satire. My remarks were merely intended as light-hearted paraphrasing to illustrate the implications of what you have (mis)understood by my 'philisophistry'.Eyedubya 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intent is next to impossible to infer from the written word (hence the need to assume good faith). The analogy that you made is little more than a straw man. Either way, the article talk page is the wrong place to discuss this, as we have erred away from the original topic, my perceive sense of humour, or lack thereof, notwithstanding. - Tiswas^(t) 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A straw person in your POV perhaps, though I also note that 'trivial' and 'glib' are also POV, since they involve subjective judgement. For example, 'gossip' has long been regarded as 'trivial', but feminist critique has clearly shown this to be a masculinist POV. Eyedubya 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above was written before your note appeared stating that you have referred this article for deletion. I note you have allowed me a mere 12 minutes to respond. Originally, you placed a 'prod' on the article, which allowed 5 days. Perhaps you could explain the sudden urgency of your action?Eyedubya 13:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The afd nomination is not a matter of urgency, but of seeking consensus - as you mention above (which I shall address in a moment), the notion of notablity is contentious, and the AfD provides a forum to address this. - Tiswas^(t) 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I'm not seeking to rush through any decision, or force any quick responses - AfDs can hang around for quite some time, inasmuch as no decisions are taken without consensus - Tiswas^(t) 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School closure by Kennett

I have tried unsuccessfully to find a reliable source for the school being on Kennett's closure list. Was it official; did it make it into the proposal make it to the Victoria Government Gazette? Does anyone know which year this occurred in? John Vandenberg 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of gathering material on this matter, which has so far been anecdotal, but involved people demonstrating on the steps of State parliament. Your patience is appreciated. In the meantime, I have found a book about the school's centenary and abstracted some of the history. Eyedubya 12:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another resources

Interview with George Tack, jazz musician and wood scientist John Vandenberg 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage buildings

The article mentions it has heritage listed buildings. That implies that it has been the subject of independent reports by heritage assessors - historians, architects, or someone in authority. It would be well worth creating a Heritage buildings section to discuss the different buildings which are notable and of heritage significance. THAT would be notable.

Mention that an individual school is used as a polling place is usually a directory-style, trivial reference - it is a reference to the election process, not to the schools involved, and could be used to demonstrate "public facitilities such as town halls and schools are commonly used as polling locations". Ga rr ie 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the issue of urban heritage lacks coverage on WP. It would need more than a single page, actually, it'd end up as a whole collection of pages and a few lists as well ... a very large number of buildings have heritage listing, and for a variety of reasons (eg. technical, cultural, aesthetic and social), as do a lesser number of precincts and places. Its a very important topic. Any building, precinct or place subject to a heritage listing is notable. What makes such buildings/precincts/places 'notable' in heritage terms can be just as contested as these kinds of notability debates that plague WP, so get ready for more of the same!

Public facilities such as town halls and schools, and the uses to which they are put are inherently notable. This is because, being public facillities, they are notable in that a) some decision of a public authority was required to expend funds on them, and b) such decision would have to have been recorded in a reliable public document of some kind. Thus, somewhere in the public record, they will have been noted. Such expenditure of public funds according to publicly accountable processes is hardly trivial. The idea that such actions/outcomes of such actions is in any way not notable is based on a curious and rather ideological POV. Eyedubya 09:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there is already a List of heritage listed buildings in Melbourne on WP.Eyedubya 12:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H R Bastow

Can a reference be provided for the claim that HR Bastow was a 'prominent member of the Plymouth Brethren? Eyedubya (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brunswick South Primary School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]