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 no consensus. Sigh. A year after WP:SCHOOLRFC and we still don't agree on what it meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.E Foundation Secondary School[edit]

M.E Foundation Secondary 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)

Nothing in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. it is still our practice to almost always keep articles on secondary schools. The latest schools AfC said in its conclusions that there was to consensus to change this practice. It's not that the schools are necessarily notable by the GNG, but that WP is best served by our always considering them as if they were notable. Over the last few days, I revisited my first 2000 AfD (2006-8). At the time, I often !voted delete for schools and other local institutions. The results, however, were essentially random. I looked at other school AfDs, and again the results seem random. It depended to some extent on what sources were easy to find on the web at the time, but much more upon who happened to participate in the discussion. I need to analyze them further, but it is my impression that about 60% of the larger and longer established schools were kept, and about 40% of the smaller and newer ones, with a special bias against outside the US/UK/Canada.

If one really worked at it, for any school established a few years, it was possible to find athletic or other championships, and for any fairly large school, notable alumni; if a US town had a high school, most of the people from its district to the state legislature went there.

Articles were nominated at such a rate that there were often 4 or 5 in a single day; since it takes 1 minute to list an AFD if one ignores WP:BEFORE, and about 5 if one does a cursory Google search, and it would take a many hours to do a thorough online searc--and an impossibly long time to do one in print. This gave a great bias towards deletion--and continues to give a bias towards deletion in most fields if one takes a very strict interpretation of the terms in the GNG. The bias was countered then, and now, by each WPedian taking a strict interpretation for articles they did not want in WP, and a lax one for ones they did.

We would have done as well to keep all the school articles and spare ourselves the time and effort of debating them--particularly as there were people who cared very much on each side, and each debate could be very extensive. So we reached a practical compromise, never enshrined in a formal guideline: we would keep all the high schools and merge all the primary schools. It has proven to work very well. The best way of disrupting AFD so we do not have the time to deal with moreimportant issues like promotional articles would be to abandon it. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Karachi where there's an entry for it and hundreds of other schools, some of which are Foundation schools. No sourcing or news articles to indicate this school is independently notable. No article in the Urdu Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per DGG. User:DGG, would you please post that eloquent statement into an essay? --Doncram (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to bring up WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and how high schools are automatically notable, then please heed #2: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Right now the article has ZERO sources, ZERO independent ones. And the top part before the discussion on whether SCHOOLOUTCOMES is valid cites that schools should satisfy "Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." first, most of basically means it needs to meet WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. If the school is still worth writing an article about, then DRAFT the article and fill in those GNG sources. You only need two good GNG's, then it can be reinstated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per AngusWOOF. I am normally very sympathetic to DGG's position (and I typically hold the exact some one as him on school issues and in regards to the RfC, which closed as no consensus.) I've done a search, and I can find no sources to verify any information beyond what appears to be Wikipedia mirrors. I think we have enough to say that it exists, but nothing in the article at this time can be verified. Redirecting serves the purposes of preserving the history, and aids people if they are searching for something. If someone can finding sourcing to verify, it can quickly be recreated without losing text. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be considered a good-faith attempt at WP:BEFORE along with my attempt. Has anyone found other GNG sources? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here's a listing from the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation verifying the school's existence (see "4.4 Private sector (co-education)") and its location. While agreeing it's important all topics be verified, I continue to agree with DGG that AfD has even more pressing matters. At minimum I really hope nominators will take BEFORE seriously. It took me perhaps three minutes to get this hit (and I do not read Urdu). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it's listed, that only keeps it on the List of schools in Karachi, not anything further detailed to meet GNG. Being on that list means it's a passing mention. Existence is not equal to notability, or per WP:WITHIN, only a few sentences can be written up about the school at this time, so merge or redirect would be appropriate until the article can be truly developed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we handle secondary schools. As you note: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that statement accurately captures current practice, Innisfree987, which is not so set in stone. Historically it's true, yes, but some secondary school articles have been deleted more recently: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, for example. Other have been kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice: WP:NSCHOOL which says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For profit educational organizations and institutions are considered Commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)" WP:ORGCRIT: "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." KMC listing: significant coverage: No (only in a listing of schools), Independent: Yes (government posting of private school), Reliable: Yes (government website), Secondary: Yes (government website), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count towards ORGCRIT) "A single-sentence mention in an article about another company" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per DGG. While possibly imperfect, I believe schools such as this should remain due to the difficulty in verifying their print sources. And we do have a source that this one exists. -- Dane ^talk 04:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only shows existence, not notability. It's in a list, so redirect to the list. If someone has the research to find non-print sources for the school, they can develop it in the draft article. If they have the sources presentable to here, post it, and we'll look again. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect seems like a reasonable option here. That the school exists is verified, but that's about it, so there isn't really the source material to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we can only barely verify its existence, we simply do not have the sources to support a verifiable and neutral article. Sandstein 07:30, 7 April 2018 (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.