Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makkah Model School System - MMS Feroze wattwan (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 moved to Draft:Makkah Model School System - MMS Feroze Wattwan. This is a difficult close, because there are respected editors on both sides of the question. However, as it stands, the editors who point out that the article is both lacking in verification and unverifiable from basic searches are correct. Urdu sources may or may not exist, but at present we have insufficient context to even carry out a search for such sources. Although there is not a consensus to delete this article, I am therefore boldly moving it to draft space, until such time as at least some verification from a reliable source - in any language - can be provided. bd2412 T 20:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Makkah Model School System - MMS Feroze wattwan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no coverage in WP:RS and because it is for-profit private school so it has to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Störm  (talk)  17:00, 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 ) 18:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm   (talk)  15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a lack of adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Failing our core policy WP:V. Störm   (talk)  19:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And there is the classic story claiming a longstanding consensus and precedent while both are clearly sunk by the RFC that Necrothesp prefers to deny... The Banner talk 19:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. now that i have removed the absurd promotionalism ; it still needs to have the information moved or copied from the infobox to the actual article. We normally do keep schools like this; there is sufficient information for verifiability, and we assume sources for notabilty would be able to be found if we had sufficient access to the likely sources.  DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be pleased to consider anything you've found that shows the school exists. I can't find anything. JMWt (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. At present, the article does not cite independent sources and I have not been able to find any that could be used to base content on. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't find any in English language. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the look of article doesn't determine it's notability. High schools are presumably notable by community consensus. Also for WP:BIAS this article is in Pakistan where Urdu is official language. So just searching with Latin letters in Googles and concluding not notable is not fair. We must also search for sources in Urdu and local print newspaper tend to cover such schools events more than National, and these papers are majority in Urdu and local languages. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , past consensus was that articles were kept except where zero independent sources could be found. Just asserting that Urdu sources exist isn't enough. Can you provide any? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please show anything in any language. I want to !vote keep. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Urdu, . But that's not reason for me to conclude that there are no sources. It's educational establishment. And concerning consensus, few days ago, you (Cordless) told me the "community is divided on this" and I agreed. So now you should'nt use consensus like it was "delete any that come to AfD" –Ammarpad (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The community was never divided on whether we delete articles about subjects that cannot be verified, although it seems that some editors are now so committed to keeping articles on secondary schools that they are willing to see them kept even when no evidence can be provided that they exist. This is a clear violation of Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I inspect File:Makkah Model School Feroze Wattwan' Front Side.jpg closely, I am starting to think that this might be a hoax. What's going on with that flag in the photo? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cordless, see this. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see some evidence that the subject actually exists, which is a pretty basic requirement for having an encyclopedia article about it! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't bias to insist that there is verifiable evidence about a page subject. None of us speak or read the local language, so it is entirely possible that sources do exist in local sources. But given that nobody has offered or found any, the only choices are either (a) imagining that the subject can't be a hoax and that therefore sources exist or (b) that we've no idea and must therefore delete until such point as someone offers sources (in any language) that can be verified. I say (b) is the only way forward.  I'm perfectly happy to change my mind when someone can show acceptable sources in any language. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to at least remove the poorly photoshopped picture. It looks like original photos are this and this, but the picture in the article is obviously manipulated and does not accurately represent the school. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:V and WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You rely only on English search, that's why. Search with their local and national language. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but how can we know what it says in non-English sources, given that nobody has offered any? What if, for example, there are no relevant foreign language sources?  You seem to be asserting that we should accept that those sources must exist even though there is currently little offered evidence that the school even exists. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 14 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.