Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyeonggi Suwon International 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 keep. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Gyeonggi Suwon International School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG - just a non-notable school. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The RfD has sadly been misunderstood. It wasn't about destroying the existing consensus, but merely about formalising it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades Godric 03:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, by all the reasoning of wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, besides any recent ill-advised amendment to what it states. -- do ncr  am  21:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So why make an argument (even if you believe in it) that the consensus has refused? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One way to put it is that there was a bad decision reached, perhaps a wp:LOCALCONSENSUS, a temporary result that should be disregarded. A consensus to "Keep" at a number of AFDs since the RFC proves its supposed consensus is flawed.  In general it is a stupid waste of time to have AFDs about secondary schools.  It is American- and British-centric and evil in various other ways to delete the articles.  You and I and most other longtime Wikipedia editors probably edited our own high school articles when we started.  The articles should be kept. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you know, being a ten-year editor does not give you the right to ignore consensus. That editors like you have been !voting against that decision does not make it flawed, only poorly-enforced. That you think deletion is "evil in various other ways" is illuminating. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * totally agree with Chris troutman. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You and I and most other longtime Wikipedia editors probably edited our own high school articles when we started ridiculous argument. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC) politically speaking, no one has attempted to actually search locally thus committing systematic bias something that has in fact been maintained as unacceptable for AfD. SwisterTwister  talk  05:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete given the recent RFC on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is no longer inherent notability of secondary schools. as it stands it fails WP:GNG. if someone finds significant third party coverage in Korean I will happily reconsider. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The RFC couldn't be more clear on the matter regarding WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: this sort of circular argument is to be avoided. Unless Korean reliable sources can be found, this fails GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (per DEL8) as the school doesn't appear to have received the significant, independent attention from reliable sources that is required by the recently-reaffirmed notability standard. See NSCHOOLS; 2017 RFC on Schools. Rebb  ing  16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as the Delete arguments are entirely on "I don't like it" which is not a policy argument; we still maintain that such articles can be acceptable and we always have so, and this is no different. We have never put "Schools must be deleted" in policy and the votes here have no basis for that, thus not relevant> These subjects are not one to maintain such coverage but, like with deleting YouTubers, ridiculous arguments as "But his sources suffice" are absolutely no different how we stick a "Needs better sourcing" argument here at all. Also,
 * have you attempted to search locally? The onus is on keep !voters to provide evidence of significant coverage. If you do I will reconsider my !vote. LibStar (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, as a high school. Redirect is the official policy for such articles, not outright deletion. I mistakenly thought this was a non notable middle school.And BTW, the cited RfC was not about OUTCOMES - anyone who suggests it was should read the proposal again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Updated: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NSCHOOL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a high school, not a middle school and we normally  keep them. The rather self-contradictory decision on SCHOOLOUTCOMES was that there was no consensus to consider it a guideline, but that there also  was no consensus to do anything other than what it said, which is to keep all high school with a real existence. Cris, you've made several of these nomination. I suggest you go back and read the closing statement in full. It does not say what you think it does. . (And in any case, we certainly do have the right to ignore any guideline there is consensus to ignore, and anyone may so argue. The basic policy is WP:IAR, which can override any guideline, and is. as it says it is, the fundamental rule here.  If there were a guideline to delete, as there isn't. it would be perfectly legitimate to deal with any special case by IAR. the entire Notability guideline page even more than most guidelines, says the rules are only the usual course, not the invariable course. To be fair, similarly, if there were an establish guideline to keep, we could still delete if there were consensus to make an exception.   , did you think it was a middle school? That's what the first line says, but   reading further show that it started that way, but has developed into a K-12 school.  Additionally, proper searching would probably find adequate sources, but I doubt they'd be in English. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, proper searching would probably find adequate sources. Sounds like WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. One would expect to find more coverage of an English-language international school in English-language sources if it were notable, but I'm open to revising my opinion if significant coverage in Korean-language sources is subsequently found. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'velooked at a goodnumber over the years. Sources have always existed only in their own country and in the country of the sponsor. This particular one is originally sponsored by a Japanese companyfor thechildren of its employees.  DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * again WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per long-standing precendent. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "2. Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." --David Tornheim (talk) 21:55, 6 May 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.