Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High


 * 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

MAPS International High

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete or Userfy until notability is proven. Appears to fail Notability (organizations and companies). Atlantima (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2013 (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 Maldives schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. 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. TerriersFan (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But there must be sources!: "The best and most reliable way of convincing both doubters and the closing administrator is to actually provide the requested sources rather than simply declaring you're sure they must be out there somewhere."
 * And "avoiding systemic bias" doesn't mean "make WP more diverse by discarding other policies and guidelines". --Atlantima (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What it does mean is that we don't try to delete likely notable subjects before determined efforts have been made to find sources. Have you searched in Maldivian? Even in Maldivian likely it will need local searches of newspaper archives etc. TerriersFan (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. I don't know that language. However, the burden of proof for notability is on the side who claims notability.--Atlantima (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for my usual reasons. Verified secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Verified does not equal notable. --Atlantima (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I say it did? Please read both parts of what I wrote before you comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per longstanding precedent that schools at high school level and higher are considered notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of such a precedent. I was going by WP:ORG, which does not mention this, but says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." It seems there is a talk page discussion on exactly this topic. Additionally, "Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type." (And please don't say it's "only an essay".--Atlantima (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The precedent is summarised at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The talk page discussion is like very many before it over the years; they never get sufficient consensus to produce a new guideline. However, for such parts of the world where institutions have a poor Internet presence in English sourcing usually has to await local searches eg libraries since experience shows that with such local research high schools can meet WP:ORG. Anyway the usual principle applies - we don't delete subjects that are probably notable, we tag them for sources and encourage expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "this essay is not a policy or guideline"... "This page summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD." So it is a summary of past occurrences. Therefore, pointing to that page as a reason for keeping this article is like saying "The records say that in the past, Sports Team X usually beat Sports Team Y, so there is no need for them to play against each other anymore."--Atlantima (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "they never get sufficient consensus to produce a new guideline." I accept this as true. The current guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:ORG say that nothing is inherently notable. Therefore if a new guideline has not been produced, we must go by those and not assume notability.--Atlantima (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We assume notability because despite endless attempts by certain editors to claim no inherent notability for these articles, the overwhelming consensus is that secondary schools are inherently notable. By the same token, debates where we know the outcome are inherently pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to a discussion where this consensus was reached? It seems odd that the guidelines don't reflect the alleged consensus. It also seems odd that high schools and colleges are exempted from proving notability and nothing else is. Why? And don't say "because we assume there are sources to establish it": "Q. But the article is only X days/weeks/months old, references aren't there yet but they will be. A. This idea is completely backwards to how Wikipedia actually works. The references must come first, then the Wikipedia article."--Atlantima (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also de facto notability for numbered highways, named bridges, airports, railway stations, designated settlements, super-regional malls, species of fauna and flora, peers of the realm amongst others. If you don't accept this then try an AfD or two on some of the numerous unsourced examples of such articles? TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Please address this specific article.--Atlantima (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the context before replying. This rebutted your statement "It also seems odd that high schools and colleges are exempted from proving notability and nothing else is.". TerriersFan (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so there are lots of de facto exceptions. Perhaps I was wrong on that count, but I don't think they should be exempt either. "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". I have linked to MANY MANY MANY places where this view is expressly spelled out by project pages. The only link supporting your position is User:Necrothesp/Secondary schools which is one editor's usersubpage and does not adequately address the concerns I have raised. (plus, it basically just says "All secondary schools are always notable because I say lots of people think they are important") --Atlantima (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that the more essays, policies, and guidelines I check, the more I find against the idea that schools are automatically notable.--Atlantima (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, let's just see what happens here shall we? Then you can join the small list of editors who've claimed that consensus hasn't been reached when it clearly has. Frankly, I'm tired of having this discussion every week or two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any consensus. Like I said earlier, I'd like to see the discussion that established it. It's not clear at all to me. And if the discussion comes up so often, then doesn't that show that the consensus is changing?
 * And you still aren't addressing the actual subject of the AfD.
 * I, too, will see what happens. I wouldn't be surprised if the closing admin chooses to side with arguments that are backed up by many guidelines/essays/policies, and disregards the side that ignores them, points to a seemingly nonexistent consensus, and avoids showing notability. --Atlantima (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not start an RfC regarding the inherent notability of schools to bring a discussion to the table and see if consensus has changed. You'll get more coverage and possibly more discussion than by trying to change an established way of doing things at an average AfD Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "see if consensus has changed"? Changed from WHAT???? I have asked REPEATEDLY for links to the consensus you refer to but you have given me nothing. Every discussion I have checked shows rampant disagreement on this. It is not enough to simply keep claiming consensus: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). --Atlantima (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, well an RfC would establish a consensus then. That could then be referred to in the future should such discussion come up again. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew and Necro. – SJ +  02:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Better solution: Merge into MAPS College, since the College is larger, older, and more notable - and encompasses the High School. I've added College info, but haven't renamed the article.  –  SJ  +  18:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per general convention at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, a verified secondary school.  TB randley  20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Verified does not equal notable and previous outcomes do not bind future ones.--Atlantima (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am done here. Every guideline I link is ignored. Every time I ask to be shown the consensus I get nothing. The keep votes present no evidence of this school's notability. I expect that closing admin will disregard any comments from users who do not address this specific article's notability.--Atlantima (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The battle regarding public schools was fought a long time ago, and the inclusionists won.  But this is not a public school, it's a brand new school operated by a private company.  This is a very different thing than saying every public high school, real institutions with real buildings and histories, deserves an article.  To have a blanket inclusion for these means that every strip mall charter school gets its own unsourced promotional Wikipedia article.  The closer should disregard any keep votes which ignore this distinction and merely are the equivalent of "school, keep". Gamaliel (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; seems to lack substantial coverage by independent sources, so it fails the GNG. If somebody presumes that some types of school are notable, fine - but this school seems to fail that presumption. If any editor really believes there are sources out there somewhere, bring those sources. bobrayner (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Previous consensus is that regardless of public/private/martian/college etc. any high school that is verifiably existing in the real world is notable for an article. gwickwire  talk editing 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please link to the discussion where the consensus was formed, or address this particular article's topic. --Atlantima (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The consensus was formed & sustained over the last 5 years, during which period many high school articles were brought to AfD, and 99% of the kept, if there  was definite evidence for actual existence was deleted, except in a few special case, such a s an article being hopelessly promotional or copyvio. In practice one or two stubborn people can prevent a notability guideline from being technically called a guideline, but they can't overturn the consistent use of a standard at AfD.  However There have been a few recent exceptions for some very small charter schools, and I think that in some special cases we might want to use combination articles for what are essentially branches of a commercial chain. But with respect to public/private,  in many countries, most significant secondary schools are private. that distinction isn't applicable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Keep it because previous articles were kept (with the same reasoning) even though nobody actually got a consensus for such a rule? That is obviously circular reasoning. If this is kept on the basis of previous AfDs, other people who want to !vote "keep" at future AfDs but can't find any sources, evidence, or consensus to support their stance will cite this one... we have a perfectly good guideline - supported by the entire community, not just a few previous AfDs of other articles - and this article fails that guideline. bobrayner (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2013 (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.