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. I'm going to go with the option that makes everyone unhappy and close this as no consensus. It has been shown by the !keep arguments that the school likely exists and is most likely not a hoax, but no strong argument has been made as to why this topic (TES) is notable. Neither have the !delete arguments made a strong case to overturn longtime practice of keeping secondary schools, particularly public ones. The debate continues... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TES Public School[edit]

TES Public 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:NSCHOOL. Please avoid using circular reasoning instead come-up with sources so it can pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. is still our practice, confirmed by the most recent RfC, 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.

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 gives a great bias towards deletion, especially if multiple articles are nominated in a single day, as here.

We do better 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 can be very extensive. So the practical compromise, is to 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.

For a more detailed argument, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.E Foundation Secondary School. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of circular reasoning. Störm (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nawabshah#Schools, colleges, institutes, NGOs and universities the related school district, which lists the school. No sources have been presented outside of the primary sourced wix website. No news articles. No mention of TES in the Nawabshah page or a TES school in Urdu Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:52, 22 March 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." No sources presented. Only the WIX website which is: significant coverage: Yes (website details the school), Independent: No (School's website), Reliable: Yes, sort of (self-published), Secondary: No (own website), Pass: 0 (Fail, can't count toward ORGCRIT) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:5P1. Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and notability is not needed if we are attempting to fulfill that aspect of our mission. The RfC did not say we should set aside practice. It said that there was no consensus on the question of notability. That was the question asked. That result has been confirmed by the closers. Everything else was their observations as to what they thought no consensus meant. They obviously got it wrong as if it had been put to an RfC, it would have achieved no consensus itself. That isn't how we form policy and guidelines. We form it through practice and discussion, not edicts from a panel that were never actually discussed. Even if we go by the RfC, WP:NPOSSIBLE has been met, as all secondary schools are almost assured to have coverage. If we follow the RfC, those nominating these schools for deletion need to show they have done a search and taken into consideration local papers and press, much of which would not be in English and may be offline. There is no evidence that has been done here, so there is no grounds to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyBallioni, setting aside notability concerns for the moment, my main concern with this article as it stands is verifiability. At present, all we have is a Wix.com website for the school. I have looked for independent sources confirming the school's existence, but haven't found any. There may well be some available offline or in other languages, but as things stand we can't even be sure that this school exists based on the sources we have - a similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination) (although admittedly in that case, there was significant evidence that the article might be a hoax). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is enough to verify it isn’t a hoax, along with a brief Google search which also shows that. The concern is whether verifiable information exists, which it most certainly does. I’ve supported deletion or redirection of schools based on failure to meet V. That’s not the case here. The previous AfD also held the same. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but can't anybody set up a Wix site? I'm not suggesting that this particular school is a hoax, but I am worried that we are opening ourselves up to being used to promote hoaxes if we do not insist on reliable, third-party sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but we have no reason to believe that 1) this school is a hoax or 2) that such sourcing doesn’t exist. Primary sourcing is allowed for purposes of verification, which is what we have here. My concern is and always has been that we are opening ourselves up to systemic bias by still all but never deleting Western schools while deleting every school from South Asia. There’s enough here to know it isn’t a hoax and we can reasonably be sure sourcing exists. Keeping it so that someone with access to better sourcing can improve it later is within our mission. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It seems to me that saying we have no reason to believe the school is a hoax is a very low bar and turns WP:BURDEN on its head. I would be more reassured if the school's website had an official .edu.pk address - it's the fact that it's hosted by Wix that has me worried about the potential for us being taken in by hoaxes if we accept that as verification. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that is what we do with schools, and also what the RfC commentary recommended if we actually view it as relevant. Those wanting to delete need to show that they've considered the existence of offline sourcing. That obviously hasn't been done here, so even under the RfC, the result is keep. If we go with a no consensus close to the RfC meaning that the status quo prevailed, then we also keep as demonstrated per the past AfD. There is obvious evidence this exists, WP:NPOSSIBLE and the RfC tell us that we need to consider the likelihood that it meets the GNG with sourcing (very high as demonstrated by years of AfDs and the past AfD), and we also are left with the fact that this article literally does no harm to the encyclopedia and is WP:IMPERFECT, which is fine. We know it can be improved, and retaining it so that it can be is what policy says should happen. There are no reasons to do otherwise in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "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". Isn't this one of those exceptions? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is it listed on a Pakistani District Court website, confirming it exists by an independent judicial source: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good find. I am at least now reassured that we don't have another Laureate Group of Schools case on our hands. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. We are in agreement that all schools must be verifiable, and thank you for raising that point. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nawabshah#Schools,_colleges,_institutes,_NGOs_and_universities. You simply cannot have a decent standalone article with the sort of "sources" that exist for this school. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I personally don't see a need to upset the apple cart on our standing school notability compromise, but if one did, I would be in agreement with DGG's description of why AfD is not a great place to press the point. Meanwhile, verified secondary school, so, keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a verified secondary school. From personal standpoint, I treat public education establishments the same way as for public infrastructure: airports; train stations; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with DGG and TonyBallioni on this. We tend to keep these even if they are imperfect. -- Dane ^talk 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Articles about schools must prove notability, not just that they exist. The Banner talk 12:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that's proven itself as a good way to increase the work at AfD with no particular benefit to the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is proving notability of "no particular benefit to the encyclopedia"? The Banner talk 01:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going neutral on this. Don't think that WP:GNG should be absolutely irrelevant for any article's notability. There should be atleast 3,4 reliable or secondary sources for establishing notability. Having said that, the latest RFC is lenient on schools so..... I'm double-minded on this one.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If basically all we can do is verify its existence, we simply do not have the sources to support a verifiable and neutral article. Sandstein 07:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per wikipedia policy on secondary schools. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't such a thing unfortunately, Deathlibrarian. We have notability guidelines (see WP:NSCHOOLS), but not policies. See also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes Cordless Larry I meant it complies with guidelines (rather than guidelines) to keep the article (as its a confirmed secondary school).Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 8 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.