Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunas Bangsa 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tunas Bangsa School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was deprodded with rationale that "secondary schools are generally notable". While secondary schools are usually notable, this one has an incredible dearth of sourcing. Searches turned virtually nothing on the search engines, except for a couple of trivial mentions on scholar.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, please note that per this February 2017 RFC, an argument based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is what the above is, is no longer valid. That discussion resolved that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Therefore, sourcing to show that they are notable needs to be provided.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you fulfil your obligations set out at the RfC? Namely "a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media" AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's actually not what it says. It says four things, one of which goes to your point: "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD." This is quite different than your statement. And yes, I did, recognizing that there might be print sources I prodded the article, in hopes that the creator or another editor might add such sources, since I don't live in Indonesia. But the fact that the school has been around for almost 20 years, in a country like Indonesia, which has a vibrant media, and there was virtually nothing to be found on it, made me think that this might very well not be that notable an institution. When it was deprodded using the schooloutcomes rationale, with no additional sourcing (and still none, over two weeks after being tagged), I brought it to the community for discussion. But thanks for your outstanding example of AGF.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (per DEL8 and FAILN) because the available coverage falls far short of the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources required by the notability guideline for schools. Rebb  ing  16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep As mentioned above, and in the de-PROD, secondary schools are generally notable. A lack of English-language sources isn't too surprising for a school in Indonesia, and we shouldn't let that bias us. I don't have the foreign language knowledge necessary to find specific sources, but secondary schools generally have sources in some language. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it is worth, the local region's newspaper id:Tribun Pontianak appears to have news coverage of this school.. That's typically why people have always defaulted to saying secondary schools are notable.  In our early days that typically meant articles on U.S. high schools, which are very easy to source.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as offered source above will be enough including additional attempts at others would help, the one delete vote's policy basis is in fact not a serious violation, of say copyvio or advertising, therefore not an immediate "case closed", therefore still open to further examination and, considering news have been found, answers the question. SwisterTwister   talk  21:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources provided above are enough to meet GNG without relying on SCHOOLOUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - several of the keep !votes above claim, "the sources provided above are enough to meet GNG" - not sure how 7 trivial mentions meet the criteria of GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:30, 26 May 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.