Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Schools Foundation

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 Closed to allow nominator to renominate each article separately. The nominator has withdrawn this joint proposal. Bduke (Discussion) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Schools Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization which operates a number of for-profit schools. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the organization or its schools in reliable sources, except for brief announcements and reprinted press releases. The articles rely almost entirely on the organization's website for references. I also note that a major contributor, Ordovas, may have a conflict of interest, as John Ordovas is the organization's director. Pburka (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following member schools:

Pburka (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of "British Schools Foundation" - wikipedia yields very relatively few results (only about 22.3K). Optimally, this would be kept and the member schools merged, but coverage is more reliant on self-published sources and, as stated above, passing media mentions. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this organisation, but the schools go up to Secondary level (in one case will do so in the future) and Secondary Schools are normally kept. I suggest that the schools be discussed separately. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true; however, the vast majority of secondary schools don't have articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where do you get that idea from? Just looking at Secondary Schools in one city - Sheffield, UK, where I went to school - seems to show that all Secondary Schools in the city have articles. Sure there are places in the world that still need work, but they will get it some time. My points still stands that the Schools should be discussed separately. My !vote is keep for the Schools and I have no opinion on at this time on the organisation. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize. It's not a vast majority. But in places like New York City, there are many secondary schools that have articles, and many that don't. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is no policy or consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable. School inclusionists usually argue that secondary schools are important institutions in their communities, and are therefore likely to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These private schools, I think, are not likely to be important institutions in their communities since, in my experience, international schools target expatriates. These are transients who are not part of the community. I don't think the nominations should be separate. If the schools are notable, then it seems that the parent organization (typically a school district, but in this case a business) must be notable, too. I believe that there is no demonstrable notability for either the schools or the parent organization, and that these articles amount to little more than WP:PROMOTION. Pburka (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have very many articles on international schools. See List of international schools and the sub-lists linked there for some countries, along with the large category tree Category:International schools. When you say "typically a school district", you are looking through US lenses. They do not exist in most countries. If the articles are promotional, they should be improved, not deleted. If the schools were listed separately, it is more than likely that they will not be deleted. As they are included here, they will be overlooked. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination and list the articles separately. If you agree to that, I can close the AfD as I am an admin, but I can not act otherwise as I have contributed to the discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That other stuff exists is a poor argument to keep. Your original argument was based on WP:OUTCOMES; can you give examples of articles on international schools which lack secondary sources and which have survived AfD? Pburka (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I listed then to counter your argument that international schools were not likely to be important in their communities and thus have sources. It is very common for articles on secondary schools with no sources to come to AfD. Editors then find sources. That is why they are almost always kept as there are almost always sources to be found. That is why I want you to list the schools separately so they will be noticed by editors with more time than I and more access to sources in the relevant countries. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the clarification. I've taken a look at the list, and each one I looked at is essentially unreferenced, but your point is still valid. I withdraw this bulk nomination and will renominate the articles individually. Pburka (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2014 (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.