673:. I have a set of school articles on my watchlist that survived AfD. They are like flypaper for vandalism, promotionalism and unsourced additions. I would be a bit more sympathetic to "keep" arguments if those making them spent more time trying to ensure that kept school articles are maintained properly, but often they just come up with a source or two in the AfD and never actually edit the article concerned (sorry if this is a mischaracterisation based on an incomplete sample, but it has been my experience). Keeping school articles for which there are very few sources wastes editors' time further down the line, and I feel that this should be taken into account more than it is.
428:. Among other things, the closers of the recent RfC noted that "because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." I see no reference to any such search having been done here. In fact, there may well be substantial coverage of this school in regional media: a gNews search yields at least 450 potential sources. --
904:. It is a secondary high school. It exists, there is not doubt. The high-school related RFC didn't say what some wish it said. By long-standing practice, we keep these. Certainly debate about this one is longer than its article. Which is one good reason for keeping these automatically, and should be basis for topic banning those who would nominate more of these. what a waste. --
614:
Shouldn't the next generation of
Wikipedians be encouraged to make good, productive edits or use the sandbox? Adding a list of historic vice-principals to a non-notable high school is not exactly a great contribution. It's also entirely conjecture that making edits to a page about your high school is
953:
about anything should be topic banned from everything to save time. (Ironically, their user page is full of fine sounding words about culture, which apparently doesn't extend to allowing anyone who makes an edit you don't like to continue making edits.)
631:
By a similar argument we might say that vandalism is a good thing since so many of us started editing
Knowledge (XXG) when we spotted some and wanted to correct it, so it helps to create editors. I wouldn't regard that as a sensible argument either.
174:
406:
Eh, I don't lose any sleep when an AFD of mine doesn't pass, which they don't always (spammers made me a deletionist, and I don't always get it right). I think it'll help here that the article is such a complete load of junk.
237:
300:
for anything besides verification of existence, and a school review website. There is no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. The subject unequivocally doesn't meet the bar of the GNG. But it's a school, so...
372:
makes all educational institutions inherently notable often shoot down such nominations. However, and many users (including myself until last week), are unaware that an RfC a few months back overturned this consensus
56:
concluded the opposite: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." The "keep" opinions must therefore be discounted because they offer no other argument for keeping the article.
735:
Ha. Not really germane to the AfD discussion (sorry) but if I were King of
Knowledge (XXG), I'd delete anything which plainly no-one cares enough about to keep in good order. Spammers made me a deletionist...
341:
296:. Hold onto your hat. As to the merits of the nomination, I find it completely convincing. There are two unique sources for this article, one of which is the school's own website, which is not a
949:
Do you? Personally, I find it hard to respect an opinion that I should be topic banned for finding a page full of junk with no apparent sources and AFDing it. Perhaps anyone who disagrees with
52:. The "keep" opinions are based on nothing else than asserting that a community consensus exists to keep all secondary schools regardless of what sources are available about them. In fact, the
517:
That's no more than saying "We should keep this school because we always keep schools", which is still a circular argument (and one which it is of no value to spam on every discussion there).
792:
of GFH Capital Ltd. If it was a regular company article, we would hold it to a higher standard, and I don't see why it should get a free pass just because the company is providing education.
168:
127:
485:
It is precisely the case that it has been overridden by the RFC. "We should keep this school because we always keep schools" is not a valid argument, and that's all precedent is.
231:
596:
There is a longstanding precedent to keep secondary school articles. Knowledge (XXG) should support educational institions because they create the next generation of
Wikipedians.
500:
321:
100:
95:
104:
446:
The majority of these results seem to be from
Gulfnews.com. When just checked a small selection of them, and none actually mentioned this school, which is odd.
134:
87:
813:. I found lots of first-party sources, blogs, social media, forums, directory listings, and the like. Nothing, however, which could be considered a
499:
Discussed many times since. Very few secondary school articles have been deleted. So no, it hasn't been overridden. Please see current discussions in
274:(It's also a mass of promotional junk with a bit of vandalism, but there doesn't seem to be much point in clearing that up unless it passes AFD).
189:
156:
252:
937:
That seems pretty clear to me, but I do respect your opinion, so I'd be interested in your thoughts as to what you think it says. --
219:
17:
788:
due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is a private school catering to expats, described as an
271:"Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Sources are entirely self-written or "it exists".
887:. While there may be a precedent for keeping unsourced school articles, there is no such consensus and it's contrary to policy.
994:
963:
944:
920:
896:
861:
832:
801:
768:
745:
730:
712:
682:
664:
641:
626:
605:
578:
526:
512:
494:
476:
455:
437:
416:
397:
353:
333:
312:
283:
150:
69:
915:
213:
841:
146:
1017:
91:
40:
349:
329:
557:
369:
209:
196:
789:
83:
75:
615:
a "gateway drug" to useful
Knowledge (XXG) editing. Has anyone ever offered any evidence to support that notion?
268:
Appears to be an ordinary primary and secondary school, slightly unusual only in that it caters to expats - per
259:
797:
726:
678:
451:
467:
as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus, which has not been overridden by the RfC. --
368:
says, you are being very brave nominating a school for deletion, considering the brigade of users who claim
269:
646:
Also, in my experience, school articles are subjected to more vandalism than they are constructive edits.
345:
325:
162:
379:). The nomination is convincing in its interpretation of GNG and indeed at flagging up the clear spam.
1013:
976:
Yes. Silencing your opposition is the best way of dealing with their legitimate views.</sarcasm: -->
36:
884:
560:, the second, because Knowledge (XXG) conventions are less important than Knowledge (XXG) guidelines.
225:
508:
472:
987:
959:
793:
761:
741:
722:
705:
689:
674:
657:
637:
571:
522:
490:
447:
433:
412:
390:
279:
245:
182:
941:
829:
910:
854:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1012:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
892:
601:
880:
872:
504:
468:
814:
297:
979:
970:
955:
753:
737:
718:
697:
670:
649:
633:
563:
533:
518:
486:
429:
408:
382:
293:
275:
60:
876:
810:
938:
826:
935:
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
950:
905:
851:
616:
365:
302:
121:
888:
597:
553:
Both premises of the argument are flawed: the first, because of the RfC that
931:
Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist
823:
Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist
750:
The
Unilateral Supreme Overlord of Knowledge (XXG)... yes, I fancy that.
1006:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
844:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
538:
it really is! Why is this school notable? Here's the logic:
292:. You are daring and bold to nominate a school for deletion,
342:
list of United Arab
Emirates-related deletion discussions
818:
375:
117:
113:
109:
53:
244:
181:
501:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Deletion sorting/Schools
850:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
258:
195:
503:if you think this issue is now cut and dried. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1020:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
340:Note: This debate has been included in the
322:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
320:Note: This debate has been included in the
550:C) The Sheffield Private School is notable.
339:
319:
717:I could certainly provide some examples,
547:-----------------------------------------
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
541:P1) Schools are inherently notable.
819:RfC on secondary school notability
544:P2) We often keep school articles.
24:
694:co-author an essay with me ;)
669:Thanks for pointing this out,
1:
995:19:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
964:01:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
945:21:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
921:17:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
897:23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
862:17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
833:16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
802:07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
769:23:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
84:The Sheffield Private School
76:The Sheffield Private School
70:15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
746:23:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
731:18:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
713:13:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
683:13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
665:13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
642:10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
627:08:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
606:00:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
579:17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
527:13:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
513:13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
495:13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
477:11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
456:20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
438:20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
417:17:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
398:17:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
354:15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
334:15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
313:15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
284:13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
1037:
809:. No evidence this meets
1009:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
821:makes it clear that
864:
558:WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
370:WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
356:
346:Shawn in Montreal
336:
326:Shawn in Montreal
68:
1028:
1011:
992:
990:
985:
982:
975:<sarcasm: -->
974:
918:
913:
908:
859:
849:
847:
845:
766:
764:
759:
756:
710:
708:
703:
700:
693:
662:
660:
655:
652:
624:
620:
576:
574:
569:
566:
537:
395:
393:
388:
385:
378:
310:
306:
263:
262:
248:
200:
199:
185:
137:
125:
107:
67:
65:
58:
34:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1018:deletion review
1007:
988:
983:
980:
978:
968:
916:
911:
906:
865:
855:
840:
838:
762:
757:
754:
752:
706:
701:
698:
696:
687:
658:
653:
650:
648:
622:
618:
572:
567:
564:
562:
531:
391:
386:
383:
381:
374:
308:
304:
298:reliable source
205:
142:
133:
98:
82:
79:
61:
59:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1034:
1032:
1023:
1022:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
947:
924:
923:
899:
848:
837:
836:
835:
804:
794:Cordless Larry
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
733:
723:Cordless Larry
690:Cordless Larry
675:Cordless Larry
644:
629:
609:
608:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
551:
548:
545:
542:
539:
480:
479:
461:
460:
459:
458:
448:Cordless Larry
441:
440:
422:
421:
420:
419:
401:
400:
358:
357:
337:
316:
315:
266:
265:
202:
139:
78:
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1033:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1004:
1003:
996:
993:
991:
986:
972:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
952:
948:
946:
943:
940:
936:
932:
928:
927:
926:
925:
922:
919:
914:
909:
903:
900:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
863:
860:
858:
853:
846:
843:
834:
831:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
783:
770:
767:
765:
760:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
734:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
711:
709:
704:
691:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
663:
661:
656:
645:
643:
639:
635:
630:
628:
625:
621:
613:
612:
611:
610:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
580:
577:
575:
570:
559:
556:
552:
549:
546:
543:
540:
535:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
462:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
396:
394:
389:
377:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
318:
317:
314:
311:
307:
299:
295:
291:
288:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
272:
270:
261:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
211:
208:
207:Find sources:
203:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
144:Find sources:
140:
136:
132:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
66:
64:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1008:
1005:
977:
934:
930:
901:
868:
856:
839:
822:
806:
790:"investment"
785:
751:
695:
647:
617:
593:
561:
554:
464:
425:
380:
361:
303:
289:
273:
267:
255:
249:
241:
234:
228:
222:
216:
206:
192:
186:
178:
171:
165:
159:
153:
143:
130:
62:
49:
47:
31:
28:
885:WP:NOTPROMO
232:free images
169:free images
555:overturned
505:Necrothesp
469:Necrothesp
63:Sandstein
1014:talk page
971:Pinkbeast
956:Pinkbeast
929:It says,
738:Pinkbeast
719:DrStrauss
671:DrStrauss
634:Pinkbeast
534:Pinkbeast
519:Pinkbeast
487:Pinkbeast
430:Arxiloxos
409:Pinkbeast
294:Pinkbeast
276:Pinkbeast
37:talk page
1016:or in a
939:RoySmith
842:Relisted
827:RoySmith
128:View log
39:or in a
984:Strauss
951:Doncram
933:, and,
758:Strauss
702:Strauss
654:Strauss
568:Strauss
426:Comment
387:Strauss
366:A Train
238:WP refs
226:scholar
175:WP refs
163:scholar
101:protect
96:history
942:(talk)
889:Pburka
881:WP:ORG
873:WP:GNG
869:Delete
830:(talk)
825:. --
807:Delete
786:Delete
598:desmay
362:Delete
290:Delete
210:Google
147:Google
105:delete
50:delete
815:WP:RS
623:Train
594:Keep.
364:: as
309:Train
253:JSTOR
214:books
190:JSTOR
151:books
135:Stats
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
989:talk
960:talk
902:Keep
893:talk
877:WP:V
871:per
852:ansh
811:WP:N
798:talk
763:talk
742:talk
727:talk
707:talk
679:talk
659:talk
638:talk
602:talk
573:talk
523:talk
509:talk
491:talk
473:talk
465:Keep
452:talk
434:talk
413:talk
392:talk
376:link
350:talk
330:talk
280:talk
246:FENS
220:news
183:FENS
157:news
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
912:ncr
857:666
817:.
260:TWL
197:TWL
126:– (
54:RfC
981:Dr
962:)
917:am
907:do
895:)
883:,
879:,
875:,
800:)
755:Dr
744:)
729:)
721:!
699:Dr
681:)
651:Dr
640:)
604:)
565:Dr
525:)
511:)
493:)
475:)
454:)
436:)
415:)
384:Dr
352:)
344:.
332:)
324:.
282:)
240:)
177:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
973::
969:@
958:(
891:(
796:(
740:(
725:(
692::
688:@
677:(
636:(
619:A
600:(
536::
532:@
521:(
507:(
489:(
471:(
450:(
432:(
411:(
373:(
348:(
328:(
305:A
278:(
264:)
256:·
250:·
242:·
235:·
229:·
223:·
217:·
212:(
204:(
201:)
193:·
187:·
179:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
149:(
141:(
138:)
131:·
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.