Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta English 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 delete. Secondary schools are generally assumed notable; however, we have to consider other issues - as pointed out by the Delete voters, this article is almost completely promotional, and only sourced to the school's own sources and so there is no verifiability. TNT applies - there is an article to be written here, just not this one. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Delta English School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of third-party notability. Google search finds the usual vanity coverage, but no third-party coverage. Note that author stated, in removing the PROD, that they were initiating an extensive PR effort to find sources. Wikipedia isn't driven by PR. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks coverage by independent RSes. Nothing found in search or in the article suggests this school is exceptionally notable. Gab4gab (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I, Wanda Raskin, am the MarCom Administrator for Delta English School. I have only made edits to Delta English School's article on Wikipedia because I am employed by this institution. Based upon request by Delta English School's parent community, I decided to create a Wikipedia article for the institution as none exist at the moment. I noticed that the article has been orphaned and tagged for deletion. I would really appreciate the steps I can undertake to revert this decision as a lot of time and effort has gone thus far into creating this article.Wandaraskin (talk) 27 January 2017 (UTC) I have added categories and some references to Delta English School's article (similar to what other Sharjah schools have done on their Wikipedia articles). I have read and is completely familiar with Wikipedia article posting guidelines. We do not intend to market Delta English School through its Wikipedia article but rather inform the UAE community who desire to learn more about the school. Content will be closely screened for biased/promotional information and edited to reflect a neutral opinion. More references will be added to support Notability. Wandaraskin (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The promotional/paid editing is a concern and shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. However, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES would suggest we should keep as the school provides senior high school education. AusLondonder (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This school is K-grade 10,not to grade 12. It's not a senior high school. Gab4gab (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to be. The school-leaving age in many countries is 16 and we have always kept such schools. They still qualify as secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I find articles on UAE high schools that are K-12. It remains to be seen what we always do. Gab4gab (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep We generally keep high school articles and I see no reason to be different here. If there is local news coverage, that would support the references. The article at the moment reads like a school prospectus more than an encyclopaedia article though. Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete preferably fast per G11 and WP:TNT. This is clearly intended as a promotional piece. OUTCOMES does not suggest that we have keep blatant advertising, and it would be an affront to the good will and commitment of our volunteers to rewrite it for the school however strong our dedication to the Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will comment briefly on the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. It is peculiar in that it doesn't actually state that high schools are notable and elementary schools are not notable, but only that past deletion discussions have usually found that.  If we want to make it binding, we could raise it to the standing of a notability guideline, in the same way that naval admirals are notable and naval commanders are not notable unless they have received their nation's highest award for valor.  I suggest that, if the author doesn't want to have all of their effort thrown away by deletion, they request that the article be moved to draft space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason to suppose this school doesn't meet WP:GNG with sufficient research. Develop not delete is how to build an encyclopedia. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious advertisement, and the entire nature of the article is so thoroughly an advertisement that it should be deleted. Development of an encyclopedia needs to be done by volunteers writing articles, supplemented to some extent by those declared paid editors who can write proper articles. This development is harmed, not helped, if the c volunteers spend their time reworking the paid work of other people. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is irrelevant, as are any notability standards in the case of an article like this. WP:NOT is basic policy, and over-rides all notability guidelines--the relevant part here being NOT PROMOTION.  (FWIW, it isn't the case  y that usually high schools are considered notablerather, that for the last 7 years., essentially no article on a high school with real existence has been deleted at AfD except for other reasons than notability--that's more consistent than most of our written guidelines.) DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional. Yes, schools of a certain category are presumed notable: but per DGG, this is overridden by NOT PROMOTION. Had this been nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, I would have disposed of it myself without hesitation. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Educational related, transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - although the article is well-written, no independent, authoritative references are given. So nothing demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The article on Delta English School, as stated before, is STRICTLY NOT intended to be promotional in nature. Content is written with neutrality and explains Delta English School in its entirety. I do not see the 'promotional and prospectus' angles which are lucidly floated by some Wikipedia editors - all processes and services described in this article ARE TRUE AND CURRENTLY EXIST ON-CAMPUS. If a process/service exist and is written neutrally, it completely aligns with Wikipedia's writing tone and style. Why should this article be penalized (or deleted) for accurately listing all processes and services which the institution faithfully renders to help improve the life of students in the United Arab Emirates? There are countless Wikipedia articles on UAE-based K-12 institutions with most of them lacking credible sources and containing clear advertisement-style content. Since those institution articles are not under consideration for deletion, why is Wikipedia treating this article harshly and differently? The article is open to editing by the community and describes information that is requested by the general UAE population. To comply with Wikipedia guidelines, we will NEVER attempt to reference paid press releases to enforce article notability (as was previously misunderstood by Robert McClenon), but the article will require some time to have independent references created and published for citation. The article undergoes constant editing for clarity and non-bias and hence should be retained.Wandaraskin (talk) 01:36, 5 February 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.