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. After multiple relistings for absence of consensus, the last relisting resulted in an overall narrow consensus in favor of keeping the article. From an editing standpoint, substantial improvement is still needed. bd2412 T 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Busan Foreign School[edit]

Busan Foreign School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is not notable (fails NCORP and GNG) and likely will not become notable in the near future.

This article moved into draft space by SwisterTwister after I PROD'd it. Legacypac decided to submit the stale draft rather than let it be G13'd so I sent the draft to MfD. PMC has since moved the draft back to the main namespace so that the article faces and up or down AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination as a result of a clusterfuck. I don't have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not.
On Apr 9, Chris troutman applied a PROD tag to this article. On Apr 10, SwisterTwister moved the article (an established, 8-year-old article) to draftspace without discussion, with zero explanation in his edit summary or elsewhere (without even removing the PROD tag, which was done by another editor). The article sat in draftspace without improvement from SwisterTwister or anyone else for six months until it was discovered as a stale draft on Oct 19 by Legacypac. Legacypac submitted the draft for approval through AfC, and it was declined shortly after by Chris Troutman. Chris then nominated the article for MfD, where only he and Legacypac participated in the discussion. Rather than relist the MfD today, I returned the article to mainspace today for it to be discussed at AfD, like it should have been back in April when SwisterTwister apparently wished to contest the PROD in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand, Trampton. Are you suggesting that all articles about verified subjects should be kept, regardless of notability? That's what your comment seems to suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first article discusses war preparation [1] and does not show why this school is remarkable. The second source is passing mention with puffery and promotional language [2]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. That puts a different slant on things. Not sure what I think now. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because many of the comments reference SCHOOLOUTCOMES which as the RFC pointed out, is circular reasoning. I would suggest that more policy-based comments would be useful in this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should the sheer number of school-AfDs not be a reminder of the LACK of consensus?" - considering it's possible that it could be a reminder that there are editors who are nominating these articles because they refuse to accept the consensus and intend to keep deleting until they manage to "reject the consensus and establish their own", no, that's not necessaily the case. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it not be a case where the defending editors try to turn a blind eye to the fact that their consensus is not there any more? And that that is, in my opinion, the reason why they turn to WP:OUTCOMES and its circular reasoning and not to a content based judgement. The Banner talk 06:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go back to what was stated at the RfC, "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES...is an accurate statement of the results".  Since AfD is not a !vote count, only one editor at an AfD needs to provide further input into what would otherwise be circular logic.  For example, in my !vote here I've documented a source that satisfies WP:V#Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super votes based on a no consensus RfC where the commentary was taken as the actual close are bad for the AfD process: I'm actually fine with consistent no consensus closes here, as I think it reflects where the community actually is on the topic. Relists where admins encourage users not to make arguments where approximately 50% of the community holds those views are also bad for the process, and I have and will continue to criticize any administrator or other user who makes them: Black Kite was wrong to interfere with the community process here in this way. A no consensus close of the RfC means that the status quo before the RfC holds. The status quo before the RfC was that we typically didn't delete secondary schools (and people didn't make a point of nominating them), and we simply redirected all pre-secondary schools. We did delete some secondary schools then, and having secondary schools deleted after the RfC is also not inconsistent with the status quo
    The close of the RfC has falsely be interpreted as a consensus against all secondary schools being viewed as notable: that was not what it resolved as. It resolved as no consensus on the question. The fact that to delete a school you typically have to get an admin willing to ignore the opinions of 50% or more of the participants of the AfD shows how poorly constructed the commentary was, and that was likely the result of having a committee of closers that wanted to give answers rather than a simple no consensus close (I'll ping @Primefac, Tazerdadog, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221: as a courtesy here. I very much respect the work they did, and they had a hard job, but I think that the fact that 9 months later nothing has been resolved shows that their closing commentary does not reflect community consensus, even if it was well intentioned.) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically this whole school thing is smelling more and more of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaign to me. That's not to say everyone who !votes delete, or who participated in that RfC towards the declared closure (or even the closure itself) are acting in bad faith; they're not. But the core of this somewhere is obviously "Schools shouldn't have Wikipedia articles". (I've seen this with corporation articles too; there seems to be an automatic presumption that they're spam and should be deleted, and I've seen the literal statement with some sportspeople that if they don't meet the specific sport requirement GNG doesn't matter.). Basically something is rotten in the state of AfD, and I have to wonder whatever happened to 'the sum total of human knowledge'. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look through my contribution history, The Bushranger, you will see I have supported keeping school articles where sufficient sources exist. My position is not "Schools shouldn't have Wikipedia articles". By contrast, there have been AfDs where some editors argue for keep even in the complete absence of independent sources! To turn your characterisation around, their position seems to be "Schools should have Wikipedia articles", regardless of whether we have the sources to write those articles (and sometimes, regardless of whether we know they exist). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I'm certainly not accusing you, or anyone in particular, it's just a growing tide of feeling more than "It's Those Guys". However anybody suggesting we ignore WP:V absolutely needs to be hit with a kaiju-sized trout. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting off-topic of an AfD, but basically my position is that secondary schools should have wikipedia articles. The only other possible position is that no schools should have wikipedia articles. Intermediate positions are going to show various types of bias, which is incredibly unfair to children in situations where their school would never meet the normal notability standards. We'd just have a small handful of very old and very rich schools, primarily from North America and the UK pages on wikipedia - nothing else would be notable. I don't think corporations are the same thing, because I don't think there is the same kind of urgency for children to believe that a local company employing 500 people is as important to the world in general as their school. JMWt (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument, although it does rather assume that people connected with schools want there to be articles about them. In the present case, it seems that the school staff do not want there to be an article (see Iainmacfarlane's comments above. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, to me that's why we might need to have the discussion in particular cases. But that said, I'm not sure that school staff request is in-and-of-itself a decent reason for delete. It might well be that a school should have a wikipedia page, but that's practically impossible at the moment because we don't have any way to add reliable information about it. Clearly if the page is just vandalism, or being used to spread rumour, that's a problem - but again, I don't know that this invalidates the point. Perhaps this page should be deleted at the present time for those reasons and await someone who can write something that has something better to say. I'm not sure that simply !voting keep/delete really covers that scenario - perhaps arguing for deletion because the content is thin and crap not because the subject is not notable. JMWt (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IGNORINGATD applies to schools covered in school districts.  You can't argue a policy-based deletion for notability when the topic is already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, Ammarpad. You're arguing that we can't delete this article because there is an article on Lobatse Senior Secondary School. I'm sure we could find worse articles to justify keeping Lobatse Senior Secondary School, but that's not how deletion works - otherwise we would always have to start with the very worst article we could find. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cordless Larry:. There are something you should understand. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a supplement of policy and Community wide consensus while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is mere essay. There is big, big difference. Second; you ignored my main argument for keep and delved into second paragraph, which is just supplement. Read my main argument and fault it. I have given 3 points why it should be kept in addition to comments like that of Ritchie333 which show there are many sources (especially non English) which can be used to expand the article. In my own personal view; all High schools should be subjected to the same scrutiny like any organization, but the Community have strongly objected to that, and Wikipedia exists because the community exists. So any community-wide consensus is sacrosanct whether we like it or not  — Ammarpad (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it a bit hard to follow your argument (which isn't split into paragraphs, by the way), but if you are referring to your arguments that the school has international students and a website, then I don't see how those facts contribute to establishing notability. I accept that press coverage would, but I haven't seen enough to convince me. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schooloutcomes is an example of circular reasoning when it is used as a keep-argument. In cases like that, people say that an article should be kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier a same type of article was kept because earlier... etc. The Banner talk 15:17, 20 November 2017 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More