Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kincoppal-Rose Bay, School of the Sacred Heart, Sydney


 * 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kincoppal-Rose Bay, School of the Sacred Heart, Sydney


Completing AfD attempt by User:KRBadmin. Nominator's reason given in the edit summary was: "Request for deletion of page as page duplicates content from www.krb.nsw.edu.au" This page has been a bit of a battleground recently, with repeated attempts to insert negative comments on school leadership. A mediation cabal case was started, but doesn't appear to have gone anywhere as yet. Whether or not it's a copyvio (which seems odd, as in previous edits it's been commented in edit summary that students are working on the page), it's definitely unsourced and reads like advertising. Abstain, procedural nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite if necessary I can't see which specific page its a copvio of and it seems like a fairly notable school (nearly 1k pupils). Computerjoe 's talk 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It certainly seems to have notable alumni. While Gai Waterhouse perhaps needs to be confirmed, the wife of a member of the British Royal family seems to have education at this school mentioned on her WP article. --Bduke 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never really understood the logic of the alum argument. Either schools are notable, sui generis, or they are not, in which case the accidental production of a few notable folks is not germane. Personally, I think schools are not notable, (hence Delete) but we've had these arguments before ad inf. and in the end everyone has agreed to disagree. But the question surely should redound to whether schools, in and of themselves, merit encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. Seems notable and verifiable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite - notable alumni is not enough for notability on its own merits, but it should add to it. Even without it, though, the school is very well known in Sydney and the buildings (a former convent) are very historic too. JROBBO 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, another nn private school, as far as I see. If we do keep, then extensively rewrite.  Lankiveil 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC).
 * keep DXRAW 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep. The fact that this school began in 1882 is enough right there to make it historically notable. The fact that it was established by a Catholic Saint - helloooo, yes, a Saint - makes it instantly notable for Catholic history purposes. The fact that the building is architecturally significant (it was created by the famous radical architect John Horbury Hunt) also makes it notable. Claims about the text being copied from elsewhere have yet to be proven, and mere content disputes aren't supposed to be in AfDs anyway, right? Let's speedy-close this ASAP. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - the schools debate is long over. This school is as notable as any of the Association of Heads of Independent Girls' Schools - many of which have articles.--Golden Wattle  talk 23:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please this is a historical school with many notable graduates Yuckfoo 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.