Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge International School of Tunis


 * 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 delete. The discussion about whether the last RfC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES changed something is moot since even the previous consensus did not allow for keeping a school when no independent sources proved its existence. Consensus here is that not even the existence can be proven, rendering the discussion, whether SCHOOLOUTCOMES is to applied differently now, moot.  So Why  09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cambridge International School of Tunis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any reliable sources about this at all. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus about what? Secondary schools are required to meet GNG or ORG (Notability_(organizations_and_companies)). This doesn't. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus that generally all secondary schools that are proven to exist are notable. Something that has been established at AfD for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no independent reliable sources that I have seen that prove that it exists. All I can find is a couple forum posts, some job advertisements, and their website itself (i.e. it probably exists). What is the point of a wikipedia page about an organization when we have no sources to report about it and have practically nothing to say about it? Almost all of the details currently on the page are not WP:VERIFIABLE, as they have been sourced entirely from the school's own web page or are not sourced at all and no reliable secondary sources exist about the subject. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Says that you shouldn't use it as an argument in deletion discussions. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody is using it as a counter-argument. Consensus was established long before anyone noted it in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The RfC did not say that secondary schools were not notable and any claim that it did has proved highly controversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Necrothesp Schooloutcomes is not an argument to keep, that was the result of the RfC, your statement above "Something that has been established at AfD for many years" is essentially using schooloutcomes as an argument. Notability must be proven through WP:GNG or WP:ORG (It states this clearly at Notability_(organizations_and_companies)). In short, unless this school has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization (it hasn't), it has no business on wikipedia. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say SCHOOLOUTCOMES was an argument to keep. As I believe I just said. I never even mentioned it. That was you! SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises an existing consensus. And the RfC, despite the desperate, tedious and refuted claims of the deletionist brigade, did not change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't an argument to keep, but the consensus that it summaries is? Interesting. In any case, we have no reliable independent sources verifying that it exists, so anything regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES (or the totally not-at-all-related consensus that it summarizes) is moot. Have you any other arguments to keep the article? Perhaps a reliable independent source or two? —  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. Some people were just using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an argument in itself. It isn't because it's just a summary. But the consensus clearly is a reason to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG, with less than two full pages of results on Google, and no significant coverage amongst those results. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Right now the only argument for keeping is SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which was changed in the last year to make sure it wasn't used in AfD discussions a reason to keep.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  08:08, 19 July 2017 (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.