Talk:Bury Grammar School (Girls)

The folly of re-merging the un-merged
Having just created this new page, I am understandably opposed to its being merged with the Bury Grammar School article. Both articles are in need of additional material, but each school is a notable institution in its own right. When the girls' school was included in the boys' school article, it was just that - an addition to an article about the boys' school. The girls' school deserves better than that! These were founded as two separate schools and have existed as two separate schools throughout their histories - even when they shared a building, they were two separate schools - see the quote in the girls' school article:'''"We arrived on 17 January, 1906, smiled pleasantly at our neighbours, firmly shut all of the interconnecting doors and got on with the job of providing our girls with a no nonsense high quality education..." ''' What each of these articles needs is more detail, more citation and more care - what neither of them needs is re-merging. These two, separate schools are as worthy any school on WP of an article apiece - nobody has suggested merging City of London School with City of London School for Girls or St Paul's School with St Paul's Girls' School, and rightly so; the boys' and girls' schools are separate institutions in each case, albeit they share a foundation and a board of governors. To subsume Bury Grammar School (Girls) back into Bury Grammar School would be a grave disservice to both, but especially to the girls' school. How can we justify ourselves before the world of encyclopaedians if we simply merge articles for the convenience of doing so rather than making the effort to improve the articles as they stand? How can we justify ourselves before a world (half) full of women seeking equality if all we can say to them is "your schools aren't worth articles of their own - we're just going to tack them onto articles about boys' schools?" When WP is seeking constantly to make itself a valued academic resource, cramming these articles together because nobody can be *rs*d improving them would be a disgrace, an abomination and an action counter to everything for which WP is supposed to stand.

I cannot imagine that anybody feels strongly enough to merge these articles - had they felt so strongly, they would, surely, have replied to my comment on the BGS talk page when I mooted the separation over two months ago. Since nobody has done so, I have "been bold" and removed the merger template. Misha An interested observer of this and that 03:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Derbyshire and the FrostSnow source
The source was found not to be a reliable source at a recent RSN discussion. Technically, since this information relates to a living person (Victoria Derbyshire), we should remove her name from this list. However, if this information is true, it should be easy enough to find a reliable source verifying the claim. SueDonem (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have found and cited a reliable source. SueDonem (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)