Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.E Foundation Secondary School (2nd nomination)

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. Same ol' same ol'. Community has not reached consensus as to what constitutes notability regarding secondary educational institutions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.E Foundation Secondary School[edit]

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

Yes, it exists. But it fails WP:GNG and seems to be copyvio from Edugrid. No independent, reliable sources found that can prove notability. (Just proving existence is not enough any more due to the RfC about Schooloutcomes) The Banner talk 15:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD just closed a week ago, after two relists, with no consensus on an RfC that's more than a year old. I don't see the rationale for renominating immediately. Seems worth seeking more clarity on the RfC elsewhere rather than clogging up AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails SCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment removed copy-violating section about the breakdown of school years. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of schools in Karachi where it is listed among the other 100-200 schools most of which do NOT have an article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT. Outside of the school's own website, only mentions are directory-like listings, which is what the List supplies. The one source posted is the List of Schools in Karachi as provided by Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. [1] No news articles to write up anything beyond a sentence or two. Per WP:WITHIN it can be described in the list article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no authoritative references are provided which discuss the subject in a manner to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. Previous AfD only closed a week ago. You can't keep on re-nominating until you get the result you want. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF please. I have not been involved in that discussion, and, to be honest, I did not even see it. But I do see a non-notable school. The Banner talk 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still. Too soon for another nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is also my view; regardless of intention, in the interests of keeping AfD functional, something really needs to have changed to justify a second bite at the apple so soon. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you didn't see it then you didn't even make the most basic of checks before nominating. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The special pleading for institutions that educate as somehow inherently notable with no adequate sourcing needs to end.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a deletion discussion for this was closed as "no consensus" just last week. If anyone disagrees that the closure was performed correctly then that is a case for deletion review. Otherwise the close should be respected. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's 50/50 in my eyes - The AFD shouldn't of really been done but on the other no one checks the talkpage and as such renominating is an easy mistake to make and I will go as far as to add the previous AFD was closed as No Consensus not Keep or Delete so in that respect there isn't really any GAMING here so as whole the AFD is more or less fine and should continue. As I said it's 50/50 but it's been open for 3 days so seems rather pointless closing now. –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No one checks the talkpage"? Really? Everyone should check the talk page before starting a deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Would you check the talkpage of every article before you nominate it ?, We'll agree to disagree on that. –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's spelled out in the WP:BEFORE instructions--in fact it's item B4 (...get it? sorry, I'll show myself out). I realize people ignore parts of BEFORE a lot--and then they get called to task for it. If folks want to remove it from the AfD instructions (not my recommendation, for reasons this AfD exemplify), that's a discussion to have on the AFD talk page or Village Pump or vel sim. But for now it is explicitly part of the nominating process... Innisfree987 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is, just as SCHOOLOUTCOMES, one of the more misused pages to prevent deletion. But what is the status of that page? It looks nothing more than an information page without official status. The Banner talk 21:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the status of the page: like I already said, you're more than welcome to go make an effort to change the instructions if you think it's not important for nominators to look at the talk page. I personally would oppose such a change, because I think when followed, it helps us avoid unjustified renominations of recently closed AfDs, which I regard as disruptive unless there is a clear change in circumstance (e.g. new sources; newly established policy; etc.) since the close. I have not heard anyone indicate that there is that here. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is part of the instructions to follow when nominating an article for deletion. In every other area of Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith attempt to follow the consensus-agreed procedures, so why is it that some editors feel that that is not necessary for deletion nominations, with some even boasting that they ignore consensus? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for not-noticing the prior AfD, I did my research to find notability. If not, I would not have nominated it. But as I stated above, the page is often misused in school-nominations. And it is often used to accuse nominators of bad faith. By the way, I have noticed that you discretely avoided an answer on the status of the page... The Banner talk 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, my whole statement was about the status of WP:BEFORE, i.e. something that has been agreed by consensus to be part of the procedure for nominating articles for deletion. And, actually, it is not a page, but part of a page. Why do you consider this part of the page to be any less important than the other parts that you followed? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I wouldn't dream of nominating an article for deletion without checking the talk page first, and am shocked that anyone could possibly think that doing so is a good idea. I most certainly do not agree to disagree. My position is supported by many years of consensus; your position is disruptive to the building of this encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the classic case of attacking the nominator due to lack of arguments based on policies and guidelines. The Banner talk 18:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make such obviously unfounded allegations. Nothing that I said there even remotely resembles "attacking the nominator". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AngusWOOF, as there isn't enough material here for an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last AfC continued to say that there was no consensus to change the policy of keeping all secondary school articles where verification was possible. See my long comment in the previous AfD for the explanation. The current practice of trying to nominate them for deletion is harmful enough (by taking effort that is needed to work on the actually detrimental articles) when it's done once. Doing it repeated is an attempt to wear out the opponents. It highlights the reason for the continuing practice of keeping them, and is beginning to give the impression of a crusade. Let's save our crusades for where we need them, like attempts at promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed that people who were distracted from improving school articles due to AfD-nominations, were ever seriously trying to improve the school articles that were nominated. The Banner talk 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep DGG put it very eloquently in the last nomination for this school "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." tl;dr it takes far less time and effort to nominate something for deletion than to actually do the work of improving articles

I don't think anyone's ever put it so eloquently and I think it's way past time we need a moratorium on nominating verified schools for deletion. In a few recent cases,for example Phor_Tay_High_School myself and others spent a lot of time doing detailed research into showing the schools notability to save it from deletion. Unfortunately not schools will have editors willing to do that, nor in fact will it be possible for all schools to be saved due to an absence of English language sources or local editors who can work on the page, or people who have the time (what is it a few days if you want to save an editor's hard work from being sent down the memory hole?) What we are seeing in these school nominations is a clear example of Wp:Systemic_bias and WP:Bigotry (Why exactly do we have editors with no background in education or relation to the area, specifically targeting schools in Pakistan?) it's about time it was stopped. This school exists, and nothing has changed since the last nomination which failed to delete it. Stop this madness. Egaoblai (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed that people who were distracted from improving school articles due to AfD-nominations, were ever seriously trying to improve the school articles that were nominated. But I do see people hammering on WP:BEFORE while that page has no real authority. The Banner talk 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are still peddling the untruth that WP:BEFORE has no real authority. It is a section of the consensus-agreed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and as such has just as much authority of any other section of that page, such as that an AfD template should be placed on the relevant page and that the discussion should be listed in the daily log. If those requirements are not fulfilled then the article is speedily kept, so why should a failure to perform the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives be treated any differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing has changed since the last AfD. A verified school and of sufficient public interest to keep it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But no sources to back up its notability what is required since the RfC The Banner talk 00:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt since Wiki would not be significantly improved by deleting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, you mention above removing a copyvio section, but the entire text of the article matches this source. Do we know who copied who here? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the table of school years. The bulk of that paragraph was written in 2010 over multiple edits so not sure if Edugrid copied Wikipedia or vice versa. I've rewritten the paragraph so as to remove the extraordinary claim of being the largest English-medium school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:24, 22 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.