Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Grammar

Sydney Grammar was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect the article to Sydney Grammar School.

If Wikipedia needs an article about this school (which I doubt), this is definitely not it. -- Ferkelparade &pi; 09:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. "I hate my school" POV rant about a non-notable school. jni 09:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotion of a non-notable site. Redirect to Sydney Grammar School. utcursch 08:35, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree with the above users on the subject of its suitability, but the author evidently did not realise that there is already an article on the subject of this school. (Actually, the school does seem fairly important in relation to education in Australia, and in relation to Sydney University. Just do a search for "Sydney Grammar School" and find out for yourself). utcursch 10:18, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The school actually probably is worthy of an article, but this is worse than nothing. Shane King 12:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sydney Grammar School. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Redirect to Sydney University. Evidence for notability of the school not presented. You could substitute the name of any high school in the article and it would still be fairly accurate apart from physical location and the specific name and pronunciation given to the "populAr" clique. Accurate from the POV of a significant cadre of students, that is. utcursch's remarks apply to the building, not the school and IMHO make a case for a redirect to Sydney University but not for a separate article. (I would support to an article on the building that included an image and explained why its architecture is interesting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) P. S. All together now, in four-part harmony please, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the burning of the school..." Yes, I know, U. S.-centric. I'll bet there's an Australian equivalent, though. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * We used to sing that at school here, sometimes... well, the original version, anyway. Anyway... delete and redirect to Sydney Grammar School? As is pointed out above, there's already an article on the place... Shimgray 16:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll have to try again and see whether I can reproduce what I did, but when I searched for "Sydney Grammar School" before, I found Sydney University but not Sydney Grammar School. Yes, I know. Sounds impossible. But it's what happened.utcursch needn't have been so coy about not providing an actual link... Changing my vote accordingly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect. Why we'd waste our time discussing this when the solution is so obvious, I don't know. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Neither would redirect's target. --Improv 21:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sydney Grammar School (a proper article). As an aside, school does appear to be notable, evidently some do not bother to research the articles they are voting on. zoney &#09827; talk 22:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Research is the job of the people writing the articles. Whether the claims of a school to note are valid or not is entirely moot when the article doesn't even demonstrate such a claim, which the original article didn't. Chris 21:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think not. Research is the responsibility of anyone who wants to do anything to an article - add to it, trim it, create it or delete it.  This is an encyclopedia after all.   The Steve  07:15, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the problem is that once we've deleted the article that information is gone and can't be researched. So once an article is listed on VFD and 4 or 5 people vote to delete it, there's no sense in doing research any more, because your efforts will be wasted.  The other issue is that this standard just isn't applied evenly enough to expect people to follow it.  In theory we could delete everything that doesn't have at least one reference or external link in it.  But that would cause the deletion of maybe 50% of our articles. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 22:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * External references should be backup for articles which need it. A strong article without references should not be deleted (we don't really need references on Cambridge University - its history speaks for itself, and does so on its article), but a weak article could do with references to back it up.  A one-liner with no reference detracts from the value of WP - if nothing more can be said, the subject isn't notable.  If it is, such an article doesn't do it justice. Chris 01:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. We should have references in every article, even Cambridge University.  In fact, I believe this is one of the criteria for featured article status. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 02:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why are you still here? Shut up and get started on finding those references on the 50% already. :o) Chris 03:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.