Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombo 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. Longstanding consensus on this Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Colombo International School

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is a copy and paste job which had produced an article on a school which reads as an advertisement. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk |Sign 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Secondary schools are usually assumed to be notable. The solution to the shortcomings mentioned in the nomination is to improve the article rather than to delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: appears to be a simple WP:COPYVIO (e.g. lede can be found in this abstract), copied and pasted without formatting into Wikipedia. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" immediately apparent in find-searches. 'Usual assumptions' tend to turn out to be ill-founded as often as not. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Secondary schools always justify an article in Wikipedia. Partial copyvio and promotional prose is very easy to revise; even easier is to remove the extensive vandalism from the foolishly inserted student jokes,   I have just done rewritten it. It would have been much more useful to actually read the article and see what was needed than to nominate it for deletion. (It's really a disgrace that such an extensive amount of vandalism was not removed previously--perhaps we need to watch the non-US schools as carefully as the US ones.)    DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * "Secondary schools always justify an article in Wikipedia." Lacking a notability guideline substantiating this claim, this amounts to nothing but WP:OTHERSTUFF, not a reasoned, substantiated argument for keeping.
 * As to "partial copyvio", this version demonstrates that the entire article was a clear copy-and-paste.
 * Your rewrite violates WP:BURDEN.
 * Lacking sources, articles are largely unmaintainable, as it is often difficult to distinguish vandalism, OR, etc from 'legitimate' material (to the extent that any unsourced material is legitimate).
 * I would therefore conclude that you have no policy/guideline basis for your opinion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All secondary schools are considered notable. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The relevant notability essay is WP:NHS. Read the talk page on the essay as well, and you can see that Jimbo Wales commented on this issue back in 2003, in favor of keeping such articles in most cases except mass production of high school articles. Articles about high schools and similar secondary schools have never been deleted through the AfD process, according to that talk page, though there have been many such efforts. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (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.