Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Sydney Girls High School

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Joyous (talk) 19:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

North Sydney Girls High School

As far as I can see, it's completely non-notable... just an upper-class school. As far as I have seen, Google has no mention of anyone notable coming from here either. [maestro] 14:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I go to this school, and so did Nicole Kidman. There is a picture of her in our famous peoples' wall. As for 'completely non-notable', I would like to add that for a number of years we have come first in HSC results in the state for girl's schools and second in overall, just behind James Ruse. 20 July 2005. (unsigned comment by 220.237.108.74)
Please see the Wikipedia:Schools page for the current policy regarding school articles. Thank you. --Alan Au 07:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Schools and note that it is only a proposed policy, not a policy. --Idont Havaname 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough, but I still recommend checking the page. No vote. --Alan Au 04:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable girls school founded in 1914 and top girls school in NSW for 10 years since 1995 finishing second to the James Ruse Agricultural College in HSC results. Capitalistroadster 08:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It seems Nicole Kidman did study there but dropped out to become an actress. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because her mum didnt hug her enough.. if you've read the daily papers recently. JamesBurns 10:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ External link and one sentence of information does not an encyclopedia article make. If the article is expanded, I will change my vote. --Scimitar ^parley 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it was expanded. --Scimitar ^parley 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is lots of schoolcruft out there that should be deleted, this doesn't appear to be it. Dunc|☺ 14:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it's expanded jamesgibbon 14:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no useful content CDC (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no useful content, and no reason to belive would be notable even if expanded. DES 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable. Kappa 16:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete--vote retracted, see below~~ unless useful content is actually added to the article prior to expiration of VfD period. In present form, does not quite meet the speedy deletion criterion of "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link... or rephrasing of the title" but comes very, very close. (As I write this, "present form" is "North Sydney Girls High School is a selective girls' high school in Crows Nest, Sydney" plus a link to the school's website. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Article now has useful content and is no longer borderline-speediable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone bothers to expand it explaining why it's notable. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And someone did. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. — RJH 18:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to with North Sydney Girls' High School. Verifiable and NPOV school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The schools official name according to the schools website hasnt got an apostrophe. I dont like it, its a sad commentary on the debased state of our society, but there it is. O tempora, O mores. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, Dpbsmith is correct. There seems to be a mix of usage. Contact page shows apostrophe but <title>, entry page, and Dept. of Education shows without. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I queried the school about this. There is no apostrophe. I put their explanation (which I personally find unconvincing but what the heck) in the article.
Keep - has 2 alumni with articles in WP, which is good enough for me. --Idont Havaname 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real place --malathion ^talk 20:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
Keep Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is like the 200th school we have kept so why do we keep doing this still Yuckfoo 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus on the general issue of non-notable secondary schools. Please do not imply that there is. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, since there is no consensus to delete them, there is no point voting on every single one. Kappa 23:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just yesterday, there was a majority to delete a school article. Progress towards consensus may be slow, but it is not completely absent. There is no reason to pretend that we cannot continue to have the debate over time. After all, isn't that how WP works? School articles are only nominated occasionally, though there has been a bit of a spate just recently.-Splash 00:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1. What school was deleted yesterday? 2. I don't consider an average of a school article VfD nomination per day as "occasional". 3. It is not only not useful to nominate verifiable, expandable schools for deletion, it is also harmful by unnecessarily biting a great number of newbies. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        1.No, I could have put that more clearly: it wasn't deleted, but I thought there was a majority for deletion here. In fact I miscounted, it was 15d, 15k since Lucky6.9 sort-of voted twice by accident. That is still no consensus to keep, however, unlike some school VfDs. 2. Is it really that much? It might be that I just skip over them. But even so, that's less than 1% of the VfD load today. 3. I do not agree that nominating a page for deletion is necessarily biting the author, whether they are new or not. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it" is right there on the screen as I type. Speedying it might be biting, but I would never condone that for schools. It is useful to continue the debate precisely because there is no consensus; no harm will be done if you expect the consensus to go your way. 3.1. Articles can be written on many things that are verifiable and expandable e.g. an article about the contents of my bedroom; but those attributes alone do not make their topic encyclopedic. Particularly not in the blanket no-consideration case that is made for keeping schools. I personally consider each article I vote on on its own merits and I thus voted to keep this one. Finally, there is no point getting annoyed about this process, as some participants do, since it is evident that schools will carry on getting nominated. -Splash 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I think there would be less consensus to deleting if some effort was being made to improve the non encyclopedic articles that are out there. Since that may not be happening, then editors who don't wish to have more low quality articles see a need to add them to a VfD. A side effect of this is to actually get articles that are nominated here improved. Those improvements are why you see so many keeps. If the articles were not improved you would likely see a consensus for delete. Vegaswikian 05:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, there does seem to be a systematic and ongoing effort by school-inclusionists to brings school articles up to some reasonable standard. I'm not sure about this history of this specific school, but in general it is probably a good idea to list schools on Schoolwatch for a while before nominating them for deletion, and I believe I'll add this to Wikipedia:Schools if it is not there already. Articles do not automatically and magically "grow" and improve all by themselves, but they do grow if there is a support network of interested editors for a topic category. I think doing the work on this articles is more or less the obligation of those who want Wikipedia to include these articles. Two years ago I don't think this was happening, but now it looks as if it is. I'm also tempted to say that when a school substub is not showing signs of improvement the appropriate routine might be to delete it but make it a requested article. That is, treat low-quality school substubs as article requests. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        While it has only been three days since listing, I would have expected that if your comments were supported by actions then more work would have been done on the articles listed at Collaboration of the week. I just checked and it appears that only two editors have done anything on these articles. Vegaswikian 17:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I'm not really in touch with the school-inclusionists. Perhaps one of them will opine as to where problem school articles are best listed. I think they are still monitoring Schoolwatch, which was set up for the purpose of rescuing school articles from deletion. I'm not sure whether they watching COTW. GRider himself is, I believe, still prohibited from editing deletion-related pages so he can't respond here, but perhaps others will. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not know a COTW for schools even existed and, indeed, it appears to have been just invented this week. I think it's a good idea. In the past I have looked through Category:School stubs for articles which I have some ability to expand when I have the interest and time (and not preoccupied with a VfD deadlined school). DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with its alumni, this school actually is notable. -Splash 00:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamaliel 01:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good-looking article about a school that deserves one. JYolkowski // talk 01:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- nothing wrong with this article. - Longhair | Talk 03:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable school, in terms of not only its alumni and academic success and prestige. Ambi 04:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking keep. How notable is this school? So notable, there were not one, but two articles written about it in parallel. —RaD Man (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a fucking keep the same as a speedy keep but with more groaning noises? JamesBurns 06:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (but not as strong Radman1) - now a very good article -- Ianblair23 04:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--AYArktos 08:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schoolcruft Proto t c 11:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please don't list schools. Grace Note 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that the article has been expanded Salsb 00:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all enduring institutions. This is an historic institution with many notable alumni. This is obviously either a joke or a bad faith nomination. --Gene_poole 07:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The result is clear. Punkmorten 10:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough for an entry.Gateman1997 07:11, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.