Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Grammar School

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 of the debate was speedy kept NSLE _(T+C) 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brisbane Grammar School

This page is subject to high levels of bias towards this establishment. Wikipedia's goal is to give only the facts to readers, not an article creator's view of the facts. This line if of particular disturbance however: "the school's success is due to a well-rounded curriculum, skilled teaching staff, strong work ethic and a school-wide academic focus". No lines such as this should be featured in Wikipedia articles, as not only do they offend patrons of this online service, but they have no basis or evidence to support them. The reason this article should be deleted instead of changed, however, is because much of the information is misleading and/or deceptive. For example, the information that "BGS has consistently outranked all other Queensland high schools" is false. How is this statement justified, and upon what is it based? Also, "In most sports that BGS competes in, it ranks well compared to other schools". Where is the evidence? I have checked records of the school and found that in many sports it does not rank well, rather faltering quite near the bottom of the GPS competition's ladder. In conclusion, much, if not all of the Brisbane Grammar School article is plagued by bias and clearly deceptive information. This article cannot be redeemed, and must be deleted. Paaerduag 11:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The article on the whole seems appropriate. If there are incorrect or over stated claims, they should be corrected.--agr 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and clean up, as per the schools policy Jcuk 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable and appropriate, perhaps cleanup B.ellis 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Remove incorrect statements, not whole articles! If you think this has a high level of bias, who haven't seen some of the other articles that get created. JPD (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. User contributions are this afd and user page edits - the whole thing smacks of a bad faith nomination. Please stop wasting time, there are far more productive things we could be doing. Natgoo 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • More likely someone has just gotten a little fuzzy on the distinction between AfD and cleanup. Let's assume good faith. rodii
    • As this AFD was the first edit from Paaerduag, he might not have been aware that articles can be cleaned up without being deleted. -- JJay 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. rodii 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Jcuk ComputerJoe 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - are you seriously suggesting that you want one of Brisbane's Greater Public Schools deleted entirely because of few lines of bias!! Mate, simply remove the lines in question, place a notice at the top of the article and leave a message on the talk page just like you would with any other biased article. Do not put it up for deletion, especially if it is a high school. This school far and away meets the requirements of WP:SCH so therefore this article should be KEPT!!! Thankyou -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the standard reasons above. -- JJay 23:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep because consensus is strong keep per WP:SCH, and nomination is for cleanup, not for deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 00:49Z
• I am fully aware of the ability to clean up an article, but this article needs to be deleted. I have the sneaking suspicion that the comments above have been posted by patrons or teachers at the school. Stop now, because Wikipedia does not tolerate such disgusting deceptive behaviour. 'Jcuk' made an alarming statement: "clean up, as per the schools policy". This only confirms my belief. What you are doing is absolutely disgusting. This is Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not conform to some school policy, it conforms to the Wikipedia policy. Now, unless you actually have something to say, all of you Brisbane Grammar School users keep your patriotic hoopla to yourselves. --138.130.222.209 00:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What Jcuk meant by "per the schools policy" (note lack of apostrophe) is not "per the policy of the Brisbane School" but rather "per the Wikipedia policy regarding school articles". Also, those of us that are here often and the administrator who will make the final decision can easily tell who is a meat/sock puppet. Please be civil; I don't appreciate your accusing us of "disgusting deceptive behaviour" on behalf of the school. I never even heard of it before this AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 00:54Z
• Look, I am Paaerduag, and the above comment is mine. I am sick of you accusing me of things, because i didn't know at first what to do, and timestamp didn't work. keep your critical analyses to yourself, because i am Paaerduag, and I am admitting it.
• I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as an accusation of bad-faith puppetry - it was pretty obvious you were most likely the same user. I just meant that you should be careful in accusing the rest of us as meat/sock puppets. I'm willing to reconsider my position if you provide some real arguments for deleting the article (not just that the article is not NPOV). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 01:00Z
• Keep It wouldn't have taken as long to amend the article as it did to write the nomination - which was certain to fail. CalJW 02:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per everyone else here pfctdayelise 03:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --King of All the Franks 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep What a joke! Why not discuss this on the talk page? Not delete the article. I sense this nomination was inspired by a personal dislike of the school. Smerk 13:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article as it stands is shows no bias above what is to be expected given Human Nature. I suspect, given the Tall Poppy Syndrome that surrounds the School, that Paaerduag is simply trying to harm the School (and satisfy himself) by putting this page up for deletion. While the page could be expanded (which is happeneing slowly), it should not be deleted.Theheadhunter 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• If you even dare to mention that I am leveling ENVY towards whatever this school is (I actually live in Canada), I resent you. I simply point out faults in the article, and that is all I have done. For you, 'Theheadhunter', to think I am guilty of a personal dislike for the establishment in question, you would be severely mistaken, and I think that YOU should keep your comments outside of this page because it is YOU that has emotional attachments to this school. Oh, and incase someone else is going to criticize me of lying about my identity, I assure you ALL that I am Paaerduag.

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.