Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Kent Foreign 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 delete. Seeing that this discussion has been open for some time I have taken some time to soak up the arguments here. Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and thus articles about them should meet Wikipedia's standards for sources and the GNG. The editors below citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES may not have carefully reviewed this article, which is exclusively sourced to first-party documents and highly dubious third party references like this apartment rental guide. Additionally, users citing prior precedent are not convincing: the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES reads as a clear break with that precedent. In light of all this, there do not appear to be any substantial arguments to keep that rebut the nomination or the arguments to delete that followed.

The crux of this is that the article as it stands clearly fails WP sourcing standards and the GNG -- I would suggest no prejudice against re-creating the article with superior sourcing that passes that bar.  A  Train talk 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Korea Kent Foreign 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 ) 16:41, 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)


 * 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)
 * Can you point to a guideline or policy for that "consensus?" Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reread the purpose of the RfD. It was intended to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing. It was not intended to replace the consensus, since that has been arrived at over many years of AfDs. As I said, it's been misinterpreted (probably deliberately by a number of deletionists). And a number of secondary schools have been kept in AfDs since after the consensus has been cited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're confused, or you've lost your objectivity. If you can't make a policy-based argument then there's nothing to discuss. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of the above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge: to Seoul's education section. Not notable on its own. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge. Per SL93. Winged Blades Godric 03:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per . The RfC, as all the previous, perennial ones, did not identify any clear consensus. The fact is undeniable that a precedent exists as evidenced by thousands of school articles, whether documented in a non-policy/non-guideline essay or not. One point the closer made was that the RfC should not be used to cause a stampede on school articles by the deletionists.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge (per DEL8 and FAILN) for lack of notability under NSCHOOLS. The "schools" RFC, with more than a hundred participants, represents broader consensus than any number of AfD discussions dominated by a small group of editors who repeat the same tired argument. Per the close, the community's consensus is that articles about schools need significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to be kept. Such coverage does not appear to exist for this school. Rebb  ing  13:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NSCHOOL Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NSCHOOL reads: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." There's no evidence that this private school passes WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a lonheld standing consensus of keeping such articles as long as they in fact exist and are important to society, which is in fact a notability criterion, sufficient to keep, barred from any supposed "I don't like it" arguments. SwisterTwister   talk  20:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Societal importance is not a notability criterion under any of our guidelines, and the recent "schools" RFC explicitly rejected the argument that existence is sufficient for notability: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Additionally, no one here is making an "I don't like it" argument; the problem is that there isn't enough independent, reliable coverage to write a useful article for this specific school. Ironically, your vote, couched in terms of social value and the notion that all school articles should be kept regardless of their individual merits, is clearly an "I like it." Rebb  ing  23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. as for all verifiable high schools. The RfC on secondary schools found there was not consensus to  change the presumption that they are to be considered notable; it also did say there was no consensus to quote SCHOOLOUTCMES as a guideline, which does cause a certain confusion. I do not think we have in the last 6 or 7 years deleted an article for a secondary school that met WP:V, unless there was some special special. I find it quite odd that the onesn ow being nominated for deletion are international schools, because these are among the ones that the strongest case could be made for.  As a reminder, the strongest reason for considering all these as notable is to avoid these discussions. We have a few hundred thousand actually harmful articles -- mainly promotional or fan-motivated, but we also have lots of unrecognized copyvio from the early years. that's what we need to work on, and every nomination like thisdetracts from the available time to do it.   DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what the strong case for keeping international schools is. These schools are usually private businesses which have an interest in promoting their school, and may use Wikipedia to do so. They're also less likely to have lasting social impact in the community, since they serve transient ex-pats, who usually don't form strong ties to the community. Finally, one would expect that sources for international schools would be easier to find than for local schools, since their students come from all over the world, and we'd expect greater diversity in media covering an international school. Pburka (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI: Huff Post by this guy Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 6 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) 21:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. That Wikipedia gives free advertising space to private businesses simply because the business operates a school astonishes me. Simply existing is not enough to demonstrate notability. No newspapers or books seem to have deemed the school notable enough to write about it, indicating that it is not, in fact, notable. Pburka (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I find it disappointing to see experienced editors are continuing to claim that there is consensus to keep secondary schools just because they exist -- which was explicitly rejected at the recent RfC. Cherry picking just the RfC's statement that "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" is absurd. That's not a keep argument; it's a behavioral argument. If someone is "flooding AfD", take them to ANI. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:07, 7 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.