Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram


 * 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 12:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing on the page except for an infobox. Zero sources or any indication of substance. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a high school. If it exists, it's notable. I added a sentence to say what it was in addition to the infobox. Also added a source proving its existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for an illustration of the consensus here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the hundreds of nominations from school-articles that proove that there is noi such thing of a consensus. The Banner talk 07:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of nominations, yes. Virtually no deletions following discussion. That's the indication that a consensus exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. The fact the school exist deos not mean it is Notable. Their is noting to read about the subject, only info box and one references which does not falls under reliable source.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus disagrees with you. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Historical Ben has been blocked as a sock, and to me it looks like the history of AfD comments on this account was intended to create legitimacy before starting disruptive AfDs in other areas. Not striking the !vote since I've been involved in the discussion here, but thought it worth bringing up. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have struck the comment as this is a CU confirmed sock. -- GB fan 10:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - beyond the mere fact of its existence, the available sources tell us nothing that you be used to write an article. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is utterly irrelevant, since stubs are completely acceptable on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just added an additional independent source and information noting the school for being used as a staging location by Save the Children for an enrollment day for government schools to the article. This is within the general precedent of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES of having confirmation in an independent source. If this was am American secondary school, we would be fine with inclusion. I don't see why for a Pakistani school, we shouldn't be. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely reject your premise. Has NOTHING to do with this being a Pakistani school. When the page was nominated it was nothing more than an infobox. Even now it is severely lacking. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 02:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Zackmann, I wasn't questioning the reasons behind your nomination, just noting that we tend to keep US high schools even if they are in horrible shape as Necrothesp has pointed out. The article is stub now that needs expanding. It will probably be harder to do because it is in Pakistan and there is probably less English-language press on high schools, but it should be possible to do. Sorry if anything was read the wrong way! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as we should not be nominating secondary schools for deletion to begin with, it's a notable school and there's no sensible basis of actually deleting considering said notability. " "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" or "it's not acceptable simply because it exists" is not applicable to schools. SwisterTwister   talk  03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete article shows now notability at all. Every article is judged on its own merits and is not free from scrutiny even when it is a secondary school. The Banner talk 07:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that the condition of the article as described in the nomination is no longer true. Therefore, given that was the entire basis of the nomination (no notability issues were mentioned), there is no real basis any longer for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Participants in an AfD discussion aren't bound by the nominator's rationale though, are they? Perhaps it would be worth asking for their view on the present state of the article, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The rationale speaks of Zero sources or any indication of substance. I read that last part as "no indication of notability" The Banner talk 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This was how the article looked when it was nominated . It literally was just an info box. I've added multiple independent sources that give it coverage. Given the relatively low bar that we have for secondary schools, I think it should be included based on the rough consensus that secondary schools are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even an infobox is content. It is usually trivial to convert it in to prose, and shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Anyway, its been fixed, and now comes under the usual schools consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, it does not represent community consensus. Accordingly, the normal kind of sources establishing notability would be needed.  Sandstein   09:52, 22 October 2016 (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.