Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customs Public 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 no consensus. North America1000 12:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Customs Public School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS, except this which is a clear press release. An RfC on secondary school states "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Saqib (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Z  ]]  T A L K '''  12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Before reading WP:GNG, one should have a read of WP:N from the very beginning. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Now if we go through the subject specific guidelines in WP:OUTCOMES, reading thorough WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the school clearly falls in the category. It reads: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). And also, it has more than one RS:
 * i) https://nation.com.pk/10-Apr-2017/bilqees-sarwar-foundation-to-grant-100-scholarships.
 * ii) http://fp.brecorder.com/2016/04/2016040532506/
 * iii) http://conduct.biselahore.com/ShowInstitutions.aspx
 * iv) https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=open_access_etds
 * v)
 * vi)http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1940&context=honors_theses [[User:Ma'az| ''' M A A
 * WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy page. --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is clearly mentioned in the "box on the right" of WP:N. Please read WP:N completely.   M A A Z     T A L K   13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You appears to be completely misinterpreting the WP:N. I leave the discussion here and let the closing admin decide whether to keep or delete this page. --Saqib (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. However, I used exact words mentioned in WP:N, criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. I don't know how I'm misinterpreting. The box includes WP:OUTCOMES and was specially made for these issues. Anyways, I agree lets leave it up to admins.   M A A Z     T A L K   14:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all of the links in the Notability guide box are notability guidelines—the last 4 under the "See also" heading, including WP:OUTCOMES, are non-authoritative essays or information pages. The relevant subject-specific notability guideline for schools is actually WP:ORG, which states that A ... school ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Accordingly, it's my view that in this discussion we should focus more on finding reliable secondary sources and less on "WP:OUTCOMES says we usually keep so we should keep". On the other hand, with respect to secondary schools, this admittedly gets rather contentious, and there are other valid considerations that play in as well, such as WP:SYSTEMIC. For a somewhat extreme example that some editors disagreed with, see Articles for deletion/Korea Kent Foreign School. Regarding the section of Notability (geography) that you referenced, this article is about an individual school, not a school district, so I don't think the near-inherent notability applies. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC), last modified 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A case from Wiki history. procedurally closed this AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Model_High_School,_Pattoki.    M A A Z     T A L K   14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You giving me good chuckle. Cared to look at the reason of that AfD closure? --Saqib (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * He closed the AfD because too many schools and colleges were being nominated for deletion. Anyways, lets leave it up to admins now. We've given our opinions.   M A A Z     T A L K   15:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline, it's a summary of what most often happens at AfD. As it itself states, schools aren't inherently notable. – Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus and my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep My usual reasons for keeping secondary schools, which I first started formulating and started using in 2006. scope_creep (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Found another RS. ☺ And the Prologue section mentions a great deal about the school.
 *  M A A Z     T A L K   19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp & Scope creep. The article is well-sourced, its notability can't be ruled out based on assumption (lack of sources etc), that would be bias in my view.  samee  talk 16:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete longstanding precedent has given us a Wikipedia full of low quality articles with chances of improvement low, and chances fo vandalism high. The article lacks the type of indepth coverage that would show any other corporation to be notable, just because the corporation here specializes in teaching children does not mean we should alter the expectations on the level of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * More than 50% of Wikipedia articles are Stub articles. Does that mean, all those articles be deleted? (obviously not). Wikipedia allows for these articles to exist, because these articles have the potential to upgrade in future, considering RS are mentioned. And by the way, added another RS: (This is 5th or 6th RS mentioned now; this should be significant for notability). And lastly on the WP:OUTCOMES thing, even if you want to exclude it from the box in the right of WP:N, then in addition to reliable sources, Necrothesp and my initial argument revolved around the geography and historicity of the building, which is also mentioned in WP:NGEO. WP:NGEO is included in WP:N and explains: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.    M A A Z     T A L K   13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You really know which sources are WP:RS. For your information, Google map, Bilqees Sarwar are not WP:RS. This article lack significant independent coverage so I'll lean delete. Don't bring single-mention sources because they have nothing to do with notability. Three arguments above are usual reasoning which they do on every AfD, not policy-based. Störm   (talk)  18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do these sources mention google maps?  M A A Z     T A L K   21:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you even paying attention to the discussion? No where in discussion did I mention google maps to be RS. Read my first comment, in fact I'll post the sources again:
 * i) https://nation.com.pk/10-Apr-2017/bilqees-sarwar-foundation-to-grant-100-scholarships.
 * ii) http://fp.brecorder.com/2016/04/2016040532506/
 * iii) http://conduct.biselahore.com/ShowInstitutions.aspx
 * iv) https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=open_access_etds
 * v)
 * vi)http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1940&context=honors_theses
 * Why don't you stop cluttering this nomination by constantly and repeatedly citing the sources. You've made your point so let the closing ed decided whether to keep or delete this page. No one needs to be so overzealous. --Saqib (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. None of the sources provided amount to significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2018 (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.