Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Fails WP:V, which means it even fails the old SCHOOLOUTCOMES test. *cough cough* ansh 666 01:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Because it is private, for-profit business so it has to pass WP:NORG which it fails. Störm  (talk)  16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You just copied and pasted your comments without doing proper research. They are business ventures and can't be kept based on the fact that they are high schools. Störm   (talk)  15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what you've done, you've spammed the AFD list with schools with exactly the same comment for each one. If you are interested in improving quality, you can research the school, you can also post this school to relevant geographical, cultural and education Wikiprojects. You can also leave a message on their talk page. Have you done any of these things?Egaoblai (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * keep article has a few minor grammar errors, a few of which I have corrected. Otherwise no evidence of a problem. Disallowing non-government schools would be geographically systematic and ideological bias. Egaoblai (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Provide a single source independent of the subject before repeating your comment. Störm   (talk)  15:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete there is a lack of adequate references to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of references show verifiability not notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete--Why not? Winged Blades Godric  04:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)  This !vote was struck after Ritchie's relisting. Winged Blades Godric 14:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as your premise for deletion over the profiteering nature of the school/business is flawed because an educational institutions isn't subjected to deletion over its nature, regardless private or non-private. As for the lack of references, adding additional sources will just do well. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Failing our core policy WP:V. Störm   (talk)  19:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. sufficiently significant chain. For those who don;t like school articles, keeping this has the added advantage of providing a place to merge or redirect to. Of course being private is irrelevant., and "why not" is not much of a deletion arguments--to be fair, it wouldn't be much of a keep argument either.  DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of independent sources. I have searched for sources using the term "Laureate Group of Schools", which is what the group's website uses, but haven't found anything reliable. The consensus that secondary schools are kept is breaking down (see Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/The Quaid School‎), but even if we continue to take that as a guide, the consensus was never to keep articles without independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this AfD as "no consensus", but as new information has come to light that this article may be a hoax (see User talk:Ritchie333), I am re-opening and relisting it.
 * Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:V and WP:RS. Even fails to mention in the article in what country they are working... The Banner talk 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To briefly emphasise the points I made in the discussion Ritchie mentions, the subject's website states that the school or group of schools is "affiliated with Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education & Cambridge University of London". Cambridge University of London does not exist, of course, and checking the Punjab Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education website led me to this list of affiliated schools, which doesn't list any schools with the name Laureate. I conclude from this that the school/group is either a hoax or is not officially recognised. As I argued above, it should in any case be deleted due to a lack of coverage in independent sources, but I believe that this makes the case for deletion even stronger. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Fails WP:V. Try finding any address in the contact list. Don't confuse the company with Laureate Education of Baltimore, with holdings all over the world, but none, apparently, in Multan. I'm not sure if they teach English at any of these schools either. It's a mystery to me why they would include a letter of congratulations from a Prime Minister whose election was overturned retroactively by the Supreme Court. And to all y'all who voted to keep, I see now that investigation of the particulars is not necessary to a discussion. Rhadow (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree it fails WP:V. I was able to find a few buildings from their contact list (see the discussion on Ritchie's talk), however the lack even one reliable source on it makes it unsuitable for an encylopaedia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment--I have selectively informed all the keep !voters of the re-opening of this discussion. Winged Blades Godric 14:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete--CLarry has hit the nail on the head.Even iff we keep schools, just because we are fond of schools, we don't need be their sole credible companion in such gargantuan promotion coupled with a farrago of distortions & outright lies.Period. Winged Blades Godric 14:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment When the allegation of HOAX is made, are you saying that the school does not exist, or that there are questionable things on its website? because that's a big difference. According to their website they claim to have students winning honors from BISE MULTAN http://laureategroupofschools.com/?page_id=54 I did a search for a 2011 winner but got nothing except a page that won't open for me: https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/314874 The records awards only seem to go back to 2013, So I don't know if the school is defunct. A search on the BISEMULTAN website seems to have no record of it, so either they are defunct or they have left BISE MULTAN.
 * Next I did a search for a student mentioned on the awards page and got these results that appear to confirm the existence of the school: "Laraib Jameel (Roll No. 6,914) of Laureates Girls High School, Multan, secured the third position with 1,009 marks." (https://www.dawn.com/news/481621) and while "...Laraib Jameel of Multan Roll No 6914 grabbed third position respectively..the position holders were students of ... Laureates Girls High School Shah Rukn-i-Alam Colony Multan respectively." (http://fp.brecorder.com/2009/08/20090802944295/) So it does seem as though the school existed in 2009 at least. Egaoblai (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember that the subject is supposedly a group of schools rather than a single school, . It may be that some of the schools listed on the website exist (or did exist), but I'm not convinced that they all do (see the comments about addresses above and also the very clearly photoshopped images here), and some of the details on the website and in the Wikipedia article (such as about affiliations) are demonstrably false. So, there are various aspects to the hoax possibility. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * --I can't speak for others but as I said, it seems that there exists at least one school (this was verified on Ritchie's t/p too to physically exist!) with near-nil media coverage.But, much of the entire website fits my last line of my !vote.Where do you currently stand? Winged Blades Godric 16:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a firm supporter of schools on this wiki, but in this case, we don't appear to have WP:V (the most important rule on the website for this "collection" of schools, even if one has been proved to exist. So leaning towards Delete for now. (although this doesn't endorse future AFD or CSDs if more sources can be found for individual schools)Egaoblai (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- if a chain of schools has been graduating kids for 25 years, how come the addresses fail to bring up the site of a school or more than a mention of a single graduate in a newspaper? This entry in Google maps doesn't convince me 30.19717°N, 71.51548°W Color me a skeptic. Rhadow (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm glad to see that the nominator accepts that we use a special guideline for public schools at least--for that was in fact the conclusion of the RfC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES that there was no consensus to change that practice. But it dosn't make sense to just say government-operatedschools, for in many countries private non-profit schools(Eton, Harvard, etc. have the same status). So I suppose what was meant in the nomination was private profit-making schools, operated as a business. But this makes very little more sense, for in some countries like India and the US, these are important segments of the educational system and can have similar standings (that some of us may not particularly approve of them in general is another matter, for we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of that sort of political preferences).  :the argument for deletion must therefore be that this is not a school at all. It of course is not an individual school, but a group of schools, but the argument for keeping such groups is even stronger, for we use them as redirect targets for primary schools and the like, school districts for example, but sometimes also cchains of proprietary schools.    As for being real, the evidence   presented above confirms the existence of the group.  It's not unusual for institutions in India  and Pakistan and in South Asia generallyto have erratic web presence-- especially 25 years ago.   DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreeing here with in regards to the bias against private schools. This is a very western-centric notion that private and or independent schools are a vulgar breed of schools. We shouldn't be using this in deletion discussions.Egaoblai (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What evidence are you referring to specifically, ? I agree that the nomination rationale doesn't make much sense, but I've still not seen an independent source confirming the existence of the group, and the group's own website contains demonstrable falsehoods, so I don't see how this passes WP:VERIFY. Also, you have already made one keep comment above, and you're not allowed two. ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * internet penetration is not bad, but it is erratic. A very small number of Indian and Pakistani and neighboringcountries newspapers are accessible on Google, and for even 10 years ago, even in the US/Western Europe, the availability of material on the internet remains variable, and remains a problem here for all older material. It's going to remain a problem indefinitely, because the need for preservation was not really recognized.  DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're arguing that we should keep the article despite the fact that no independent proof of its existence can be found, because not many Indian newspapers are available on the internet, when the subject is in Pakistan? I'm starting to wonder whether you even look at school articles before voting keep these days. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks, I fixed my omission.  DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first part isn't much relevant.Also, it's in Pakistan.And I would take the claim of 25years ago with a grain of salt.And, internet penetration is definitely not so bad, that it does not feature in the list of affiliated schools on board-website.Also, to avoid potential putting up of more strawmans, this AFD isn't currently focused on the rationale that this ought to be deleted because it's a private school.And, as much as that wasn't any good argument (Public schools are quite popular in SE Asia:)), pseudo-hoaxes about schools with zero verifibiality about the group must be kept because schools are always kept is not one either! Winged Blades Godric 17:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment - at first, I thought it was part of Laureate International Universities but I couldn't find anything that links them directly. I'm not quite sure why the Pakistani group chose "Laureate" for their name. Perhaps they are an accredited group of schools that utilize their own curriculum but I think it warrants further investigation to be on the safe side. Atsme 📞📧 19:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Atsme -- The name could be a coincidence, or a ripoff. Try these two: Okan University in Turkey. Okan International University in Florida. Rhadow (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per, unless substantial independent reliable sourcing is found to demonstrate the existence (at the very least) of an entity named "Laureate Group of Schools and Colleges". A group of private schools is not a school but a corporation or organisation; this one easily fails WP:CORP. The three references in the article are all to a website which may, or equally may not, actually be the website of a group of schools – anyone can create a website. Weak evidence of the existence of a "Laureate Girls' High School" has been cited above, but that is not the topic of this article. , what sources persuade you that this group exists? , I made the same mistake – I came here to propose a merge with Laureate International Universities and a possible move of that to Laureate Education, but found the topic was quite another. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete In as much I agree with DGG's argument, there is fundamental issue of verifiability around this "school". 's comment below the second relist is particularly insightful. That said, private high schools are more for business than education entities is generally true. So without independent sources, no reason for this article to exist. We should shouldn't keep CORP because they attached "school" to their brand –Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm on the same page as Ammarpad. If it was a public school, or government funded educational institution - different story - but they are a private organization and as such, they fail organization. Atsme 📞📧 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Normally, I wouldn't see how public/private is at all relevant, but in this case it does invite further scrutiny due to the article's peacock wording/promotional nature. &mdash; cnzx  00:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * and, surely WP:VERIFY applies equally regardless of whether the group of schools is public or private? Promotionalism can be fixed, but a lack of independent sources is the real problem here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, Larry - thanks for pointing that out. I cited WP:ORG because the first paragraph in the first titled section, Decisions based on verifiable evidence, addresses that concern without having to mention all related PAGs individually. Verifiability of legitimate public-government funded schools is different from the in-depth, multiple RS verifiability needed for private institutions/organizations that may not be accredited institutions of learning/higher ed. I suck at brevity - perhaps I should have mentioned the key points in that guideline. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment - for what it's worth, I emailed a professor at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan for verification of this group of schools, and the response was "haven’t heard about these as a group or chain of schools and colleges. The name “Laureate” has been used separately by a few though." <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case this should be speedily closed as delete of hoax. The article creator (whose talkpages reflects his problematic Wikilife) has ceased editing since early 2017. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:45, 21 December 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.