Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol Aspiration 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 keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Mongol Aspiration School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a secondary school consisting mostly of course listing information. I am unable to find any independent sources with which to establish WP:ORGDEPTH notability. - MrX 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE: a false redirect and false closure to this page by an IP have been reported at WP:ANI. Jus  da  fax   07:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails GNG (pretty straightforward). Exemplo347 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There seem to be sources the the article, are they not RS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the claim is that they are RS in Mongolian, but given the multiple hijinks this nomination has suffered, including !vote deletions, template deletions, false redirects and even a false closure, who knows? Jus  da  fax   14:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understood it RS do not have to be in English, so if they are RS then the article is sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Seems to be sourced, until someone can show these are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Draftify From what I can tell, one of the links would qualify as independent, significant coverage. Both Shuud.mn and Khanuul.mn appear to be legit news sites, but the article on the latter is a brief "some students graduated today" one.  The article on the former appears larger and although Google Translate renders it in unreadable fashion (Headline:"Children are not orgood National School went to Cambridge University, push yourself to shoot"), I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that it is significantly about the school in question.  To bring it to regular standards, it would need more sources and removal of most course and club information.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The shuud.mn article seems to be discussing three different schools, and probably contributes relatively little to notability. The khanuul.mn article is routine coverage. The mminfo.mn article does not go into any real detail about the school, its curriculum, or its history. Apparently, this school exists on one floor of a public school. The school is only about five years old and it's unclear how many students it has. - MrX 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely, it's not a school, it's a group that uses classrooms in schools. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The lack of their own building does not mean this isn't a school. If there are sources showing this is a diploma awarding organization, seperate from the organizations whose buildings they use, it's a school and is notable. John from Idegon (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep We have here a halfway decent new article about an accredited secondary school with four properly formatted references and a fifth possible reference. The article is written by a new Mongolian speaking editor who is understandably upset that their article may be deleted, and has expressed their hurt feelings in edit summaries. We need more Mongolian speaking editors not fewer. This is a classic example of biting the newbies. This is precisely the type of article we should be encouraging not discouraging. This is the English encyclopedia of the entire world,  not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world,  and it is a major error to use the shortcomings of Google Translate as a reason to conclude that other sources are not available. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as our longtime consensus of accepting all secondary schools, regardless of any improvable concerns, and this itself has no serious bounds for the article itself. SwisterTwister   talk  04:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiability still applies and that threshold has been met in this case. Other concerns can be resolved through the normal editing process and actual human communication with the new editor. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (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 non-Anglophone schools. 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. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 4 January 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.