Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine Light Academy


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Divine Light Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 15:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, also unsourced too. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There's zero references in the article and the only ones I could find are about some students from there winning medals. Which isn't enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Plus, the article is a tad on the advertish side, but with the none existent sources there isn't really anything that can be deleted and (or) added to make it not be that way. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It is high time we deleted from Wikipedia every article sourced only to the subject's own website. If we did that maybe we would go back to a manageable 4.5 million articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, we can't flood school related–AFDs per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 23:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole attitude we have around schools is wrongheaded and myopic. It is built on the idea that the level of size and stability that existed with high schools in certain suburban areas in the US from the 1960s-1990s leads to us being able to on a global level consider high schools notable. The fact it started with an intact fiat, instead of strinving to make every high school that ever existed notable was bad enough, but it never took into account how many short lived private schools have existed in the US, how many truly dinky rural schools have existed, how it ignored hundreds of smaller rural and small urban area schools wiped out in consoldiations from the 1930s-1990s, how it did not account for instability with the rise of charter schools, how it did not ever decide if it applied only to standard full subject schools, or to various concentration centers and alternate high schools, which are often smaller, and come and go quite often. Even more so it never dealt with the fact the American model does not apply elsewhere, and we start getting a truly dizzying number of school articles a huge number of which are under sourced. Beyond this I strongly supect many school articles in some ways reflect the reality on the ground when the school article was created, many sport lists of sports, clubs/extra curricular activities, and a few even detailed lists of classes taught, but I have a strong suspicion that these do not up date as often as they change, and I have yet to see one that treats such matters in a historic way. Even many college articles only list what NCAA sports are offered, they rarely tell use when they started. Some of the enrollment and student demographics data we have in school articles is fairly out of date, and it is very rare when we take the historical perspective on such numbers and compare them over time. Actually in the US, possibly half of articles on schools we do not even have an establishment year listed. Sometimes we are also less than clear if the article is on a building or an institution. My wife's elementary school (Greenfield Union School) is a very clear case of the article being about the building. That has an aside that mentions "as of 2011" what the use of the school was. That building at one point included high school level students, for probably 80 years was just an elementary, and has been pre-K to 8 since at least 2009.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insights regarding this issue. I would focus on the Philippine side of this issue for now since we have a lot these (lol). It is quite possible that these school-related articles are actually made by people who went to, or works for (or maybe both!), the school which they had created an article for. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * that is one thing I suspect for the case of Gen. T. de Leon National High School, which prompted me to remove some highly inappropriate material. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have seen edits on high school articles in the US that amount to "x person is drunk". I suspect with the US at least some of the articles have been created by current students.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2021 (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.