Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School Twente


 * 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. Nakon 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

International School Twente

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Further sources showing the verificability of the article has been given and listed. The article should no long fail WP:GNG and should thus no longer be a subject for deletion. Any questions are welcome. (User talk:Powerofvoice) 15:31, 17 April 2016 (WET)
 * None of those references appear to provide significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - most are just mentions of the school in listings. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional independent and reliable reliable are provided now - including articles from local newspapers and the record of the speech given by the Queen's commissioner on the governmental website. More sources will be added soon. (User talk:Powerofvoice) 18:44, 17 April 2016 (WET)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete searches for "International School Twente" and "Internationale School Twente" (Dutch spelling) don't reveal enough independent reliable sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I am mistaken since I am new here, but if you perform the search, you would find links to governmental websites(like of the city Enschede) and quiet a few media press. It is true that it is a very new school with less media coverage than some others, but I do not think it would fail WP:GNG - the host school of the secondary department has a Wikipedia page in Dutch but there are not much information covered on Google about that either, but it does exist. Also searches in Dutch may not reveal much information because this is an international school for the English-speaking community nearby. You could search for the school on the Cambridge school finder and you will find it there. The school is supposedly receiving more coverage in the summer. Please do not mistaken me with trying to market the school, I am one of its students and the school needs a lot of improvements, but I think it is significant enough to simply be on Wikipedia as it is somewhat quite known by many other international schools across the Netherlands. --Powerofvoice (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Inclusion in listings such as the Cambridge site doesn't count as significant coverage in my mind, as they are routine mentions rather than in-depth coverage. The fact that nl:Het Stedelijk Lyceum Enschede exists doesn't really change things here, as each Wikipedia operates to different policies and standards. What is considered notable there might not be here. If more media coverage is going to be forthcoming in the summer, then perhaps it is worth waiting to create an article after that coverage exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure I don't really have to point out again, consensus says that all secondary schools are considered notable as long as their existence and status can be verified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, most past AfDs on secondary schools have been closed as keep, but that doesn't mean that consensus can't change or that we are bound forever more to keep all secondary school articles even if they fail to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To illustrate this, I quote the closing statement at Deletion review/Log/2016 March 30: "All of the various outcomes essays are just compendiums of how we've done things in the past, which doesn't necessarily mean that's how we should do things in the future". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me the consensus to change the way we do things and I'll agree with you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus emerges through discussion on pages such as this (genuine discussion informed by policy, rather than mimetic pointing to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note those who support the retention of secondary school articles have been saying all along that we should keep these articles because longstanding consensus at AfD says we should! Yet here you are saying that consensus is created at AfD! Yes, that's exactly what we've been saying! The consensus has clearly not changed no matter how often the handful of opposers of the consensus say it has or should. No matter how often you ridicule SCHOOLOUTCOMES it illustrates consensus. No more, no less. I just can't help feeling that you won't accept a consensus unless it's a consensus you agree with! That isn't how consensus works. I certainly don't agree with every consensus on Wikipedia, but I accept it because it is consensus. Time for you to do the same, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that it doesn't allow for people to disagree with consensus, and therefore leaves little space for consensus to change. If, every time someone suggests deleting a secondary school article, you jump in to say that we can't do that because consensus is to always keep, then how could that consensus ever change? I'm not saying consensus has changed. I just think that editors should be free to disagree with it without it being suggested that they are somehow being disruptive. I think we agree that consensus is created across AfDs, but the point of disagreement is that I think policy-based reasons for deletion should be given, rather than editors simply pointing at SCHOOLOUTCOMES and refusing to engage in discussions about the need for sources to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with disagreeing with the consensus. The problem is with those who claim there isn't a consensus when there clearly is and that pointing out the consensus isn't a valid argument, which it also clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the long-standing (unchanged despite recent efforts) consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES AusLondonder (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is just a summary, not an argument despite recent efforts to claim something else. (And that removal was not overturned.) The Banner talk 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, editors sought to overturn SCHOOLOUTCOMES and failed. The school that was deleted had practically no sources, unlike this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AusLondonder (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 May 2016‎ (UTC)
 * This article certainly has more sources, but the rationale that resulted in Articles for deletion/Good Shepherd English School being closed as delete was that the article failed to meet WP:GNG. Look at the sources cited in the current article, and you will see that many are not independent of the school, hence why I think this also fails GNG (after having searched for potential additional sources). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources given are related sources, so not sourced conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 17:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the school is not even a separate school but is just a department of a bigger school The Banner talk 18:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The school's wi-fi allegedly (but did not) make a kid sick. Beware! --Milowent • has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  20:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with many others that as a secondary school, it is notable enough to be kept per longstanding consesus. Although changes should be made to the page to improve the quality(e.g. adding sources to unreferenced materials). I believe deletion is not necessary in this case. 192.87.100.27 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC) — 192.87.100.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Could you suggest some sources, ? I have struggled to find many. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The school has received significant coverage hereWebCite and hereWebCite from RTV Oost. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Three relists? Really?  Just close it as no consensus already.— S Marshall  T/C 21:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Even a "no consensus" close will provide aid to those arguing against the "every school is precious" folks.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  14:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is what you want to prevent at all costs. Milowent. That is load and clear... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's a secondary school, it apparently has some coverage, I see no reason to delete it. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is a section of a secondary school. Not an independent school. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourcing is not great but I think secondary schools that seem non-temporary have a right to have articles on them. Blythwood (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is not a separate school.. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:22, 23 May 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.