Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 19 December 2012

Tenby International School, Penang

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

Relisting per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 15 which felt that no policy based reasons for keeping had been adduced and also that sources provided in the DRV should be discussed. As the DRV closer this is a procedural listing and I am neutral Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough for Wikipedia. This school teaches kids till age 16. I've added a couple of independent sources which clearly confirm the school is newsworthy. Though this school is a private one, I think extra consideration should be given to the fact there may be additional coverage in Malaysian, under the school's Malaysian name, for example. Sionk (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that "secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough" is a circular argument (citation, please; see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). The references now added are churned press releases, or only give inherited notability, or both. That there may be Malaysian references, even though none are provided, fails to satisfy WP:MUST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As neither a guideline nor a policy, WP:MUST is not something that is capable of being satisfied. I think you are looking for WP:NRVE. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - While NRVE applies, MUST says "Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable". That condition is not satisfied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Changed my 'vote' to 'Keep' based on the additional coverage found by another editor. Comfortably meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been arguing that schools need to show they are notable, and this one is notable. It should probably be merged into a broader Tenby Schools article because I found many sources discussing them and the school can probably be best discussed in the context of the other schools also owned by Tenby. I added 5 references to support notability in the further reading section. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've !voted "keep", but your argument is "merge". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject, the one school, is notable enough to warrant an article on its own, which is the question here at AfD. From an editorial standpoint, it probably should be merged into a bigger article, and then spun back out later if that article gets too long. But not deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps non-English, non-Western script sources can make clear that the school is notable, but with the present sources it is not clear. (I assume that sooner or later somebody will be able to read and judge those "foreign" sources.) The Banner _talk 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) foreign = my personal POV[reply]
What about these sources does not meet the GNG? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. As an alternative to deletion, would you be agreeable to merging the article into an article about Tenby Schools? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun with rewriting the article. When an article is challenged over its notability I do not want to presume its notability, I want proof of it. So, after your rewrite, I will check if I can alter my vote. The Banner _talk 21:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't need to be in the article to be considered so your refusal to assess them basically makes your contributions to this discussion irrelevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but when the notability is challenged, it is necessary to prove it. And of the six sources you have mentioned, none complies with WP:RS. The Banner _talk 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you claiming that the New Straits Times and The Star don't comply with WP:RS? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the articles make them fail. The Banner _talk 11:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources cited above don't show notability for the subject. This source is in the Advertorial section as a paid advertisement, which is not a reliable source. The others [7][8][9][10] are routine coverage by a local paper; noting that "registration is open at a school" and "a teacher won an award who happens to be associated with the school" does not contribute to the notability of a subject; I think WP:NGO's advice would be prudent here: "Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead." Barring a possible language barrier, I'm not finding any reliable sources that show notability for the subject, and it appears to fail WP:ORG. - Sudo Ghost 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can hardly dismiss news coverage about the school because it is local in scope. The school is local to itself, after all :) This article seems to be non-trivial, about the opening of the school in 2006; this one (2010) is an in-depth account of the construction of their new campus. They're national news sources, from what I can see. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I have always found this local argument hard to understand. Sources are sources? No? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument for "if an article only has local sources" is that local newspapers are more likely to have routine coverage just because it's in the area, not because it's notable or particularly important, only that "it's in the same area as you". While I'm not suggesting that local newspapers are not independent, it's the same general concept: the more removed from a subject the source is, the more notable the subject is likely to be. If only routine local sources can be found, that doesn't really show notability for the subject. - Sudo Ghost 02:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting its a subset of NOTNEWS? ROUTINE directs to N(events) so that's not necessarily applicable to a school. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're national news sources, so the 'local' argument seems to be a red herring. Sionk (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that although The Star is a national paper, it is the primary "regional" newspaper that covers such topics per region. As far as English-language newspapers go, that one seems to be the only one that covers local topics in the capacity that local newspapers would, so it's not intended as a red herring in any capacity. But yes, I do think that "school registration is now open" is pretty routine coverage. - Sudo Ghost 03:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have always said that all secondary schools are notable. I continue to support that line. If others consider my opinion is invalid because I have not quoted a policy at them, they misunderstand the spirit and purpose of both Wikipedia and of AfD discussions and should probably transfer their efforts to dogmapedia, where I'm sure they'd be much happier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the consensus at the relevant guideline is that schools are in fact not inherently notable, it is not against the spirit or purpose of Wikipedia to suggest that community consensus should have some part to play in an AfD discussion. If it is notable, point out why, and that would help greatly. It merely being a school is not a sufficient reason, per Wikipedia consensus on the matter, and WP:ITEXISTS does not become valid merely because you "have always said it". It's not that "you have not quoted a policy", it's that the relevant notability guideline for schools specifically points out that your rationale is not a valid one. - Sudo Ghost 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion stands. Don't bother telling me it's invalid (or indeed telling me anything, since you clearly don't agree with me and I clearly don't agree with you). I'll leave that up to the closer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but please don't try to tell other people that "if you give weight to guidelines, policies, or any other consensus instead of my opinion, which ignores all of the above, then you belong on dogmapedia instead of Wikipedia". Nobody is considering your opinion invalid because you didn't "quote a policy", that is a red herring and misses the point entirely. - Sudo Ghost 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Our invariable practice for the last 4 years has been to keep articles on all secondary schools with a real existence, on the assumption that they will be eventually shown notable. (actually, I think the reason why the consensus has been so strong is that many people--including myself--think the all secondary schools by their very nature are sufficiently important in their community that they should have an article, and that the GNG argument, however true, is not needed.)Consensus is what we do at WP, and the guidelines are the guidelines we follow--a guideline we universally ignore in practice is an effect a rejected or obsolete guideline, and common practice as expressed by hundreds of discussions over multiple years is as much a guideline as if it had been written down as such. (the only essential difference is that as a practical matter one or two people strongly opposing have been able to successfully prevent changes in guidelines, but that doesn't happen at afd unless nobody is paying attention. There also seems to be a feeling that 2/3 vote is necessary to make policy and perhaps guidelines also, or decide an rfc; only the predominance of the policy based arguments is necessary to keep or delete at afd. ) The relevant WP policy here is WP:V, which is satisfied by the sources available. Whether the GNG is applicable here is entirely up to us-- since we can by consensus make exceptions to any guideline, and since this particular guideline says on its face that it does not always apply, we should feel perfect easy about making whatever exceptions we please. I note that the practice on secondary schools has a correlate practice that we do not normally make articles on secondary schools--the guideline is a compromise--equally exclusionist as inclusionist. There are some people here who would be perfectly ready to make and defend articles on any primary school where they can find two local sources, which might be 10 or 20% of them. As for the local sources argument, other reason for discounting local sources in some cases is that they are not selective: especially if the town is small enough, a local newspaper will make some sort of an article for any local book author or local band, or --if they are really desperate for content--any author who comes to give a book talk at the library or band who performs in the town hall. But this does not always apply--it does not apply to schools, because they normally do not make articles on schools unless there is something worth saying about them, and therefore I'd accept them here. My main rule in cases like this is simple: do not erode what little degree of compromise we have at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main rule in cases of this is: the school must prove that it is notable as soon as the notability preseumption is challenged. So, no more guesswork or POV, just sources to prove the notability. The Banner _talk 20:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidance documents are intended to describe the community's current apparent consensus on what sort of articles can appropriately exist. In the situation of secondary schools (as in many other matters) they fail to do so satisfactorily. Consensus seems to be to keep such articles. It would be best for the documentation to be changed: there is no requirement for the community, or for individuals, to change their opinions to fit the documentation. The notability guidelines are to guide us, not to constrain us. As it happens I think the references (now) cited actually fulfil the notability guidelines (New Straits Times, AsiaOne) but in my view that is not crucial to why the article should be kept—it is not sensible to haggle over each school. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the article should be kept? You cited consensus that they are generally kept, but if you don't think they should be kept you could argue it should be deleted (WP:CCC). What is making you decide for keep over delete? --Odie5533 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it meets the notability guidelines. Generally, it is not sensible to haggle over each school. (And I think far too much reliable, referenced information is lost through quibbling over what does, or does not, constitute a notable topic. Division of information into articles is to an extent arbitrary). Thincat (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems notable enough. Secondary schools should be presumed notable, as is custom, unless there is some real, very serious, reason to think they are not. Please review WP:OUTCOMES. They are practically snow-keeps. In almost every instance when a secondary school has been brought to AfD, sourcing has been found. I cannot recall a case when there was ever a successful AfD on a secondary school. I'm not saying it has never happened, I simply cannot recall the occasion. It has been this way for years, and this is why we have this consensus. I am a solid deletionist, but even I know when something is a waste of time for everybody. If you add up all the time it took for everyone to respond to this AfD, a whole article could have been written. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, Common Outcomes is not a valid argument for keeping the article. It reflects only the outcomes, not any policy or guideline. The Banner _talk 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The applicable policy is WP:BURO, which says, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." The existing community consensus, per all deletion discussions for the last few years, is that articles on verifiable high schools should be kept. The fact that the proper documentation of this consensus has been prevented by a small group of editors, including at least one who should know better, doesn't stop that being the consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I think that there is less "consensus" than you realise. But it is a fact that the proponents of maintaining school articles are rather noisy and therefore capable of roar down any opponents! The Banner _talk 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Odd. In my opinion it's the deletionists who are the noisier and more inclined to shout down opponents (usually with thinly, or non-, veiled suggestions that the latter's opinions are less valid than theirs and therefore theirs should carry more weight, despite being thinner on the ground). The simple fact is, their views have less support and they don't like it. The deletionists have managed to get this debate relisted (I'm not quite sure how), but despite their best efforts to make a WP:POINT they're still in the minority. Can we please close the debate for a second and final time and end this periodic pantomime. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the sources identified in this AfD are sufficient to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if we didn't have the consensus of automatically keeping articles on secondary schools, there's enough sources to establish notability, albeit from local sources. Still, they're from newspapers, and that's good enough for me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Secondary schools are generally considered to be notable if its existence is verified through reliable sources. This is the common consensus. TBr and ley 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 *'''Strong keep''' - the sources identified in this AfD are sufficient to meet [[WP:ORG]]. [[User:TerriersFan|TerriersFan]] ([[User talk:TerriersFan|talk]]) 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - even if we didn't have the consensus of automatically keeping articles on secondary schools, there's enough sources to establish notability, albeit from local sources. Still, they're from newspapers, and that's good enough for me. [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 11:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' per [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]]. Secondary schools are generally considered to be [[WP:N|notable]] if its existence is [[WP:V|verified]] through [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. This is the common [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. <font face="Impact">[[User:TBrandley#top|<span style="color:red">TBr</span>]][[User talk:TBrandley#top|<span style="color:green">and</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TBrandley|<span style="color:red">ley</span>]]</font> 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)