Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aljezur International School


 * 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. Per established consensus regarding the appropriateness of Wikipedia articles on secondary educational establishments provided their existence can be reliably proven. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  01:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Aljezur International School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, almost all content added by users with WP:COI CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. By long-standing precedent and consensus, all secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you see that? Because that seems quite silly to me. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost every single AfD. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Whether it seems silly to you or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES shows what is happening, not why, but that is what I asked for, thank you. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The entry has used an existing Wikipedia template for schools. In proposing to delete this entry you are setting a precedent for the deletion of all entries for Schools. -- Aljezur (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am settign a precedent for deleteing non notable schools (which to be fair is most schools). CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you're not setting a precedent. You're arguing against an existing consensus. You're entitled to your views, but it's perfectly clear that consensus is against you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep; this seems a perfectly respectable stub. No reason to think that sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG - what is needed is a search in Portuguese. We keep high schools for very good reasons; not only do they influence the lives of thousands of people but they also play a significant part in their communities. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such stubs. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but I would like to see those sources found (and added) before I agree that this article should not be deleted (or merged).CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Notability (high schools). Verifiable secondary school articles are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is what is happening, not why, so is not a valid argument. Notability (high schools) is an essay (a poor one in my opnion) that simply repeats things about notability, "Tousands of high schools for which no independent reliable sources have been published. These schools are often very small, very new, or not considered true schools (for example, being homeschools or being businesses that offer sports, arts, or tutoring classes)." which seems to apply to this article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't being used as an argument as such. It's being used to prove that a clear precedent and consensus exists on the notability of secondary schools. And that's how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Notability (high schools). Verifiable secondary school articles are typically retained in the encyclopedia. OUTCOMES may be technically  an essay but  it  imparts no  opinions, it  merely  accurately  documents current  practices as clearly  established by  long  standing  precedents of thousands of closures. AfD is not  the place for individual  editors to  attempt back-door  changes to policies, guidelines, or accepted practices just  because they personally find them  silly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.