Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Public School and College (Pakistan)

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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public School and College (Pakistan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Only passing mentions in newspapers[1] Only one mention on Gbooks[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Notability is established even by the sources listed in the link from Darkness Shines. Here's a specific mention in a reliable paper [3].. actually this search finds many RS for the institution [4]. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:53, January 13, 2012‎ (UTC)

Your first source says no more than the name. Your second search fares no better. WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material Were is the Significant coverage? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another 4200 results [5]. I don't think so. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, just 16 Learn how to do a search please. And again passing mentions only. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stay on the content instead of teaching me to search. Your search is incorrect missing out many sources. We'll have other editors to review anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, secondary schools that can be verified to exist are inherently notable per WP:NHS. I don't agree with it, but it's community consensus and it's not going to change through individual AfDs (that happen to be about less-covered regions, see WP:BIAS). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you just put burden of evidence on nominator. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. It verifiably exists; it might not have a body of coverage supporting general notability but it passes a specific notability guideline. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist. per WP:NHS you linked. I think there's a general notability here as well given the no of citations that mount up to 4200 results. Not to mention we've not yet looked into offline media. This is a speedy keep per that. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keepI can't believe that this article has even been nominated for deletion. Did the nominator not read the article or look at at the external links that were provided? It is not just a single school but a whole school system "of 117 schools with a student population of over 1,26,665 and a teacher strength of over 7,130". See: http://www.apsacssectt.edu.pk/visitors_locations.html. The article should probably be renamed as Army Public Schools and Colleges System Secretariat. Dahliarose (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A previous CSD tag by the same user at Muhammad Iqbal got that article deleted which now turns out to be not under the speedy deletion criteria. I have serious doubts about this nomination. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber-stamp keep Not only is the school notable, as pointed out by several other users above, but the user also needs to learn a lot more about deletion criteria (this comes from a look at the mess that's been created at the Muhammad Iqbal article recently; a 9 year old article that was incorrectly tagged under WP:CSD#G12 and ridiculously speedy deleted). Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As stated in the article, the organisation provides a significant contribution to the country's education. The fact that it is currently weak on references is not alone a criteria for deletion - many sources for subjects in developing countries are not available online. Also, this school system will almost certainly have produced some highly notable alumni. The page will be prioritised by the school and Pakistan projects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move. This school system meets our notability requirements. But there is a mis-match between the title and the name used in the first line, the infobox, and the EL. This should be moved to "Army Public Schools and Colleges System".--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on keep votes. Roscelese says keep due to WP:NHS, this is an essay. However this essay in a nutshell says, High schools/secondary schools are generally considered to be notable, but they must be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability This school does not. Kudpung says keep as produced some highly notable alumni Notability is not inherited. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are some statements made by individual !voters here that not all !voters agree with. I would focus on the fact that the article was misleadingly titled -- which I expect naturally misled you. Despite its title, the content of the article appears to be about the system, rather than about the lone school indicated. If you look at it from that perspective, perhaps you would find some merit to my above keep !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name you mention above "Army Public Schools and Colleges System" gets 0 hits on Gbooks and only four on Gnews. Is there another name it is known by? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might try 2 searches: in one, delete "System", and in the second, search the acronym. I added the first search, below.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Large, clearly notable school system. Obviously one that print sources could be found on in Pakistan itself if anyone looked. Articles should only be deleted if sources can't be found, not if they haven't yet been found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my understanding, actually. Are you suggesting that our policy is to retain articles where no sources have been found, on the basis that editors simply imagine that it is possible that they could be found? I think, actually, that our notability guidelines call for demonstration of the existence of such sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, I think our guidelines call for common sense, something that seems to be sadly lacking amongst many of the newer, endlessly-guideline-quoting editors of Wikipedia. I cannot conceive of a situation where sources could not be found for a system of 117 schools! -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, !voted move -- so we are not disputing the continued existence of a stand-alone article; rather, we are in agreement on that (though for different reasons). At the same time, I think it a slippery slope that lacks consensus to suggest that we say an article meets our notability requirements because an editor cannot conceive that sources do not exist -- where the editor has not presented them.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, common sense! Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We are (or should be) about building an encyclopaedia, not endlessly quoting sad little "rules" which aren't rules at each other. If editors concentrated on deleting the dross and left the reasonable subjects alone then Wikipedia would be a much better and less combative place. As it is, I am becoming convinced that many editors join Wikipedia purely to argue on AfDs and not to contribute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sad little rules are created by sad little editors, who seek to streamline the AfD process by reaching consensus on what is in fact dross -- and what is not. What is dross, and what is a reasonable subject, may not in the eyes of others be what it is in my eyes or your eyes. With all due respect, I think that that is the crux of the problem that you have identified.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it many times and I say it again here: notability is subjective, despite the efforts of some to claim it isn't, specific to each and every subject of each and every article, despite the efforts of some to claim that their favourite "rule" should be applied across the board, and decided by discussion, despite the efforts of some to claim that "rules" should be applied with no flexibility whatsoever (the fall-back of the "GNG is heaven-ordained and no exceptions can be made" brigade). Wikipedia has no rules; if we did then AfDs would be unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2012 (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.