Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gundu English Secondary School, Suryavinayak, Bhaktapur


 * 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 as there is sufficient consensus stating that like several other cases, secondary schools are themselves in fact acceptable and notable; comments suggesting deletion were not followed by other comments or these users reconfirming their delete votes, thus another week has not suggested any other outcome (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  23:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Gundu English Secondary School, Suryavinayak, Bhaktapur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient information, Unreferenced, Stub. Hell walker guy (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per DEL8 and FAILN as very clearly falling short of NSCHOOLS, the established notability guideline for schools. Rebb  ing  14:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to give an opportunity for people wanting this kept to provide sources which are definitely about the subject.
 * Comment: An entry probably for this school appears as line 29 on p5 of this Nepal government document. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GN and WP:NSCHOOLS The Banner talk 09:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Verified per AllyD's comment above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, there is the long awaited argument to keeps schools because we keeps schools because we keep schools because we keep schools.
 * And that consensus is also rather doubtful, seeing the number of schools brought to AfD. The Banner talk 14:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And tell me, pray, how many have been deleted at AfD... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, no arguments based on the content. The Banner talk 17:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Essentially no article on a secondary school has been deleted for notability in the last 5 years, except where real existence has been doubted. That the practical standard for notability of schools. The guidelines are what we do consistently.   DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced; accordingly, existence not established. WP:V, end of story.  Sandstein   17:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Hut 8.5  21:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Notability (high schools). This is the reason for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.  It's a secondary school, as such, there's absolutely no reason to doubt that WP:NEXIST applies. Fieari (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SCHOOLOUTCOMES, an essay, makes no pretense at replacing the guidelines: it explicitly references them. More importantly, the introduction to the essay reminds us that "notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources" and cautions us to "[a]void weak or illogical arguments, such as 'Notability is only an optional guideline' or 'We always keep these articles,'" WP:OUTCOMES § Citing this page in AfD, which appears to be your argument. Also, NEXIST clearly applies here: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." No one, including you, has pointed to any independent sources giving the subject non-trivial coverage. (The line in the government document is the furthest thing from that.) Rebb  ing  02:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have my foundation backwards. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is sortof a summary of the result of the essay Notability (high schools), which explains WHY "Keep" is always the outcome for secondary schools.  I, and many many many other wikipedians, fully agree with the essay Notability (high schools).  In summary of Notability (high schools), reliable sources are bound to exist for pretty much all secondary schools.  It is a waste of bloody time to hunt them down for every AfD of a secondary school that comes our way.  I'll add that this is especially the case because secondary schools are the PERFECT "Gateway Drug" for new Wikipedia editors... why should I deny a local of this school the opportunity to do the research themselves?  I'm not going to do it for them.  By longstanding consensus, we can be afforded the laxity to assume the sources exist.  Hence, my citing WP:NEXIST.  I will not budge from this position, and I believe that LONGSTANDING Wikipedia consensus backs me up here. Fieari (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! The deletionists here hate the consensus and try to claim there isn't one and that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is being used as a policy instead of what it actually is: a summary of consensus. Utter rubbish! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see some panic here. No, Necrothesp, it is not a summary of consensus. It is a summery of the effects of loud shouting that you should keep schools without content-based arguments. But loud shouting has nothing to do with consensus and SCHOOLOUTCOMES has also nothing to do with consensus. It must be embarrassing to know that you have no content-based arguments while pleading for keep... The Banner talk</i> 13:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Panic? You're having a laugh, right? Maybe there's been a sudden rash of secondary school deletions? Oh no, there hasn't. Still almost none deleted at AfD. Ever. And going by the comments so far, this one won't be either. But I do love your essential pared-down argument that a consensus isn't a consensus because you don't agree with it and are convinced you're right. Most amusing. The anti-Brexit campaigners could take some handy hints from you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - it exists, it's a secondsry school - no more is required.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks sources to verify article content or that the school even exists. I have to say that I'm surprised to see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES being cited as a reason to keep, when it clearly states that sources have been required for such an outcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated above, this government document lists it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot download the PDF that's included here but I'm assuming it's a poxy little mention like the rest of these schools, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is great and all that however it doesn't establish the schools notability here, Anywho the PDF will at some point become dead and unarchived and then yet again it's going to be an unsourced article essentially - There's no sources on the school other than that so better off deleted . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per who has kindly provided another source to verify the schools existence, If the first source above could've somehow been archived then I'd of happily !voted keep the first time however as I said above it can't be archived, Anyway thanks Steve!, Easy keep now. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not going back & fourth !voting so I'll make my !vote easier - If anyone below provides a source (other than the PDF) then Keep per my above keep comment, If not then Delete per my delete comment .... I don't want to re-!vote delete and then someone again finds something so to save the back & fourth !voting I'm doing it this way. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. We do need to satisfy WP:V, and there is enough to satisfy it. If we start arguing about the relative extent of coverage for high schools, there will be not just be the unfortunate result of adding a few dozen articles to afd,, but also the other half of the compromise will come into play, and there will be support for every one of the hundreds of thousands of primary schools for which one can make a case. The purpose of WP is to make an encyclopedia , not argue incessantly over how to make it. I've been consistently opposing the inclusion of articles on local institutions of most sorts as part of the compromise, but it would probably be possible to find sources not just for primary school but for fire stations and branch libraries. They're in essence part of the compromise also.  DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep First, I agree with DGG. He has pointed out that it is best to keep agreements such as - proof of existence satisfies the criteria for "keep". This is important because if we start hemming and hawing, the floodgates of having AfD discussions on local libraries, fire houses, and the like, could be opened. This is besides these locations finding a home in an article on Wikipedia simply because they exist. Both of these scenarios would put more stress on a system that is having difficulty keeping up as it is.


 * Second, the government document PDF shows this schools exists - satisfying the criteria for keep. Third I have two more sources: The World Heritage Encyclopedia at Project Gutenberg . Scrolling down reveals the information on the image emphasized.   The next is Google Maps . After I plugged in the complete title (I think using the above AfD template) the map shows the location of the school. Also, the school and location are in the URL of this map. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am adding all three posted refs to the article.Steve Quinn (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per longstanding consensus on secondary schools which are shown to exist. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced high school. Pam  D  06:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources by : I think it is beneficial if we look a bit closely at these sources:
 * 1) Google maps is not reliable (user generated content) so I don't think we should use it for verification purpose.
 * 2) This World Heritage Encyclopaedia seems to be a copy from Wikipedia? The content matches our Wikipedia article word to word. I looked up more and I found this. Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press, also known as Project Gutenberg Consortia Center. Unlike the Gutenberg Project itself, Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing allows submission of texts never published before, including self-published ebooks. Also owns the "gutenberg.us" domain. Launched in 2012,[42][45] by 2015 became notorious for close connection[46] with one "World Public Library Association". This latter, allegedly an "aggregator of eBooks", among other, publishes a sham encyclopedia called "World Heritage Encyclopedia" made of mangled Wikipedia articles. This is not Project Gutenberg. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize any of this. I am glad you pointed this out. I just matched two of our articles Metamaterial and Belgium with the World Heritage Encyclopedia, . They are virtually the same. The variation of a few words is because they probably have a slightly older version. And I didn't know Google Maps is user generated. Well, back to the drawing board. I apologize for inadvertently misleading everyone. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed this discussion in the normal sweep I do for "World Heritage" mirrors. Yes, these are simple mirrors of Wikipedia content and obviously not suitable as a source for anything. They work very hard to obfuscate the nature of their material, so don't feel bad - I probably remove 10-15 links to these sites each week (there are about 40 domains from this same group). I've removed the link from the article. Kuru   (talk)  14:30, 25 September 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.