Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Star Secondary School (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. The consensus is that the photos do not establish the requisite level of verifiability required. If evidence of this school's existence does show up in the future, there is no prejudice held against this being recreated. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mount Star Secondary School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:VERIFY. This article has previously been nominated for deletion, but was kept with the rationale that "Secondary schools are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". However, that ignores the part of SCHOOLOUTCOMES that states "except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". No sources are cited in the article, nor were they supplied in the previous AfD, and I have been unable to find independent sources that could be used. Upholding the consensus reflected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES should therefore involve deleting this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing GNG. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, not a guideline; it must not be read to override our notability guideline and verifiability policy. Anyway, SCHOOLOUTCOMES only says what has commonly happened in past debates; it doesn't say that articles about schools ought to be kept. The introduction to OUTCOMES further stresses that notability and verifiability are the determining factors in debates, not past outcomes. Rebb  ing  18:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A photo of a sign isn't enough to verify anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (!vote Updated with stronger reasoning below) Fails WP:V. While I generally support WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this is only if the school is a verified accredited school. I have not found a single reliable source which indicates that the school exists and is accredited. Till such sources are found, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the closer even I disagreed with this whole SCHOOLOUTCOMES bollox however regardless of anyones opinions all schools were more or less kept, Anyway that aside there's not one source that confirms the school evens exists!, Should've been wiped the first time round. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional soft delete in which the only AFD-specific requirement for returning to the main encyclopedia is sufficient evidence of existence that the school would be kept under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and insertion of that evidence into the article prior to or immediately after it becomes part of the encyclopedia. With all due respect to, the sign would be enough for me to NOT recommend deletion if this were the first go-around (I was neutral in the first AFD) but enough time has passed that if there was more proof the school existed and editors cared enough to add it, it would be there.  Of course, all the usual non-AFD-specific requirements such as "no sockpuppetry" apply.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - while it does exist, it appears to be an elementary school, so it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in any case. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked this source which lists secondary schools in Nepal. I was unable to find the school here. This means it is either not a high school or it is not accredited. Even the bare minimum criteria in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not satisfied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note, you already commented with a delete above. ansh 666 19:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. Changed my first !vote to a comment now. Thank you for letting me know. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not an elementary school--the tenth grade in India is the highest secondary level that directly prepares for university. R+Tho SCHOOLOUTCOMES only refers to accredited schools we have also usually kept unaccredited ones as well. The question here is real existence. The evidence for this was the photos discussed at the previous AfD. From the course of the information there   the school exists. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question for (and anyone else who wants to chime in): If a US state were to allow anyone to open an unaccredited school and that state treat that school's students the same as it treats home-schooled students, would Wikipedia keep articles about every such school that happened to teach 12th graders?  Doubtful.
 * On the other hand, if such a school got as much news coverage as a typical 12th-grade school does (say, due to sports and other programs), the article for that particular school might be kept. There are entire categories of high schools in the United States, such as special-purpose disciplinary-alternative schools, whose members generally have almost zero independent press coverage from reliable, 3rd-party sources.  I don't recall ever seeing a Wikipedia article about such a school, but if I did and it were at AfD, I would probably recommend soft deletion until such time as it got at least some press coverage.  I recommended "soft deletion" for this school, but a similar high school were in the United States, where English-language records are more likely to be accessible, I would recommend outright deletion if there wasn't at least some record of the school's existence in a reliable, independent source such as a newspaper or government record.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:09, 4 August 2016 (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.