Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelangi Kasih 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. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pelangi Kasih School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

School of questionable notability. I have not read WP:SCHOOL recently so someone should check that. AFAIK a primary/secondary school is not inherently notable, and I see nothing special about this school. Also the article is written as an advert: "we offer" etc. Chutznik (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Secondary schools are considered notable by editor consensus. However, the current article is largely a copyvio of the school's website. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and comment: Firstly, i stubbed the article back to one or two sentences for the reasons expressed above. Ie, copy right and also it was an advert. While noting the claim above to to "editor consensus", personally, I don't think that all secondary schools are automatically notable at all. There is no notability established here for this article. Hence I'm nominating deletion. --Merbabu (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. All secondary schools are notable. This one claims notability by offering Cambridge’s International General Certificate of Secondary Education and Checkpoint. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: How are all secondary schools possibly notable? --Merbabu (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is not a Philippine-Related discussion. This is indonesian. There are no School-like name in the Philippines. - Gabby 21:22, 26 January 2010 (PST)
 * Delete - the Indonesian project if it were a project that could accommodate the thousands of secondary schools it has - as notable - then the WikiProject Indonesia as we know it would not be able to cope. The project might accommodate articles that are well referenced and not copyvios, but to keep on the basis of it exists is not a common sense process. SatuSuro 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  13:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please see Articles for deletion/Common outcomes - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - high schools are notable both for the prominent role that they play in their communities and for the substantial influence they exercise. In this case sources exist to meet WP:V. Indonesian schools have a poor Internet presence and time must be given to enable local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias - 2 or 3 days is wholly inadequate. The "if we keep this then we will get thousands of other schools" argument doesn't wash; we never get large numbers of pages created on the back of an AfD and, even, if we did, WP is not paper. TerriersFan (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per TerriersFan with exception to the not paper argument. ;)  JBsupreme (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - good stuff on policy - to be given to enable local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias - maybe the keep proposers could find some then? The lack of good local sources or reliable 3rd party sources is why the delete vote has been given, I still would maintain to vote on a broad wikipedia policy of keep secondary school stubs, is in this case and many others pointless on the basis of being unable to satisfy both WP:V and WP:RS due to the nature of Indonesian schools and consequentially their lack of notability. SatuSuro 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Indeed. It’s one thing for people to say in an AFD that “consensus” is secondary schools are notable and that we have to avoid systematic bias, and it’s another for us on the ground in the Indonesia project to implement it. While it’s a noble idea to say that English wikipedia should treat all Indonesian high schools the same as those in North American or Australian, it would be good to see people putting their money where their mouth is – so to speak. Are the "keep" proposers here willing to remove unverified articles on schools? It would save the limited time of the handful of Indonesia project editors who are extremely reluctant to see any school in a country of 230 million become notable. Thanks in advance for your help. --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep All high schools are notable. Verifiability is met: the school's existence is confirmed by http://www.pelangikasih.or.id/. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. To my knowledge there is not a shred of consensus that all high schools are notable. The reason we keep essentially all verifiable high school articles is that (a) most, if you dig enough and in enough sources, have received significant coverage in reliable sources, facially meeting GNG (though many people disagree about whether the sources&mdash;typically local newspapers&mdash;are those that are capable of establishing notability); and (b) it's not worth the effort to determine whether a particular high school does or doesn't have that quantum of coverage. Bongo  matic  10:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All high schools are notable could be better restated as All high schools are considered inherently notable for the reasons stated by TerriersFan; none that are verifiable have been deleted for the past year or two. While no guidelines say that high schools are inherently notable, consensus at every AfD for the past several years has indicated that they are. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

''TABEL / TABLE : 1 GAMBARAN UMUM KEADAAN SMA MENURUT STATUS SEKOLAH OVERVIEW OF GENERAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GSSS) BY STATUS OF SCHOOL TAHUN / YEAR : 2007/2008 SMA07/08
 * Comment Really? Cannot wait for the 8999 other stubs to be started - great on policy - not very clever otherwise - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Indonesia - the issue is it is very easy to establish a school exists - a totally different ball park is whether there are reliable WP:RS apart from a schools web site - do we really want 8,000 + self referential stubs that verify a school exists - and not a single third party genuine reference for each one apart from a wikipedia mirror site perhaps? - has anyone even checked to see how WP:ID actually deals with high schools? SatuSuro 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - source: - http://www.depdiknas.go.id/statistik/0708/sma_0708/index_sma_0708.html
 * No. V a r i a b e l	Negeri/Public	Swasta/Private	J u m l a h V a r i a b l e s	Jml./No Jml./No .T o t a l
 * 1. Sekolah / Schools	4.493	43,88	5.746	56,12	10.239''

Anyone who thinks that every one of those schools is notable has to think outside of the AFD process and ask are they really doing something good for wikipedia? by ascertaining that copyvio stubs sit with the overall idea that wikipedis WP:NOT can be violated by quoting WP:SCHOOL policy. If so go ahead and keep - but dont say you are not creating a precedent for rubbish stubs in a project that has editors not exactly thrilled by your aping policy against statistically impossible odds - how can 10,000 schools in one country be notable? How can any one project actually cope with that? SatuSuro 08:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Disclosure: I asked to comment here about why we always keep verifiable high schools. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * and so I came, to say what i have said before:


 * The rationale for keeping all high schools is that in practice we can find sufficient material to show about 95% of them notable by our usual guidelines, and it is not worth having elaborate and time-wasting debates like this to exclude the other 5%. Any established school will have some notable alumni; will have some athletic victories; will usually have won some academic competitions and placed either high or low in some academic standings;  the decision to found a school  will normally be discussed in news sources or in sources about the founding group or agency; the construction of the school will have been a major project, and also have resulted in public information; the appointment of the successive heads will have been newsworthy;  the school will have been a place where some noteworthy things have happened. Any of these is enough for notability, and it is extremely rare that some of this cannot be found.    When Wikipedia was started it was sometimes difficult to find such material with the limited research facilities most people here were able and willing  to use,  for it required research in local print libraries--and very few Wikipedians have proven willing to use libraries at all, or anything not freely and obviously available on the internet. But now with the growth of Gbooks and g news such material is in fact widely and freely available on the internet, and anyone who looks carefully will find it. The information is perhaps more readily available in some countries, like the US, than in others, but the basic principle remains, that the material will always be available.  when ai first came here, I did not understand this, but I soon realised that the attempts to distinguish just which schools were below the bar for the thousands of them was a useless enterprise, when almost none of them really failed it. Any attempt to discriminate would make more errors than it corrected.   Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what is important--we are not equipped to do this. All we can do is include information that might be of value to someone about those things which can reasonably be considered to be of some importance.  why should a large nation not have thousands of notable schools? Notable is much less than famous. We are not an abridged encyclopedia.


 * In terms of accumulating rubbish, it actually works the other way round. By including basic information we encourage the addition of more. By including basic information about towns and villages and schools and other institutions and things and people we encourage people to improve them. Many more people will, in practice, be able and willing improve an existing Wikipedia article, than are able to properly start one. The continued existence of Wikipedia depends on the continued recruitment of new  editors, and this will be primarily from students. Very few active editors remain for more than three =years--they very reasonably develop other interests--writing for Wikipedia is rarely a career.  If we do not replace those who leave, we will die; if we merely replace them, we will be static. There is very little here that will not be greatly improved by wider participation--this focus of=n wide participation is the basic idea behind open editing,   what made  Wikipedia worth starting and makes it worth continuing.      Working on local topics is the ideal way of getting started, and what we have always recommended to beginners. Wikipedia is not harmed by the inclusion of borderline topics: it is harmed by the inclusion of spam and prejudice and error. The way of preventing these is to have more people working here.  and the way of working here effectively is to add good material. It is more valuable doing this than quibbling at Afd. In the time it has taken to have this discussion, we could each of us have started or improved at least one article for  each of us. I will now return to doing that, and so should all of us.    DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Ironically cannot agree with DGG more - what an amazing waste of effort and time over an Indonesian non notable school with a website - 'keeping' every caught copyvio stub from the Indonesian project is not going to help - either way, so DGG is right in parts but shows literally no undertanding of what happens in the Indonesian project, we get this all the time, if we had the desperation to keep this stuff all the time - it is the most counter-productive use of time imaginable SatuSuro 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the explanations above of why it is better for Wikipedia, in the long-term, to consider high schools to be notable. The encyclopedia does not exist for the benefit of the editors who take part in a particular project, and nobody is demanding that they immediately improve any articles within the scope of that project. There would be no counter-productive use of anyone's time if such articles were left alone and not nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So from the argument If I understand right - we are left with inadequate unreferenced stubs about probably non notable high schools - cluttering various parts of wikipedia - which are by a policy kept - something has gone very wrong somewhere SatuSuro 00:06, 3 February 2010 (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.