ARS Public School

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RUN OF THE MILL school. Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous deletion nomination was open for two weeks before being closed as "no consensus" and nothing has changed since then. If the nominator is unhappy with the result then a deletion review would be more appropriate IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 17:11, 7 November 2021 is when it closed. Not one regular member of the Article Rescue Squadron voted in it, although two did discuss things in the AFD and also edited the article to make improvements. No valid reason to start this up again two days after the last AFD. Dream Focus 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons discussed in the first and second nominations. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 17:11, 7 November 2021 is when it closed. For all the reasons cited above and at the last two nominations for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per discussion, and when an article goes on the rack twice and survives I would think that no further attempt should be made (should be a guideline or policy). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe in short succession, but multiple years apart no because that’s long enough for consensus to radically change. In very long term cases I’d recommend not factoring in the old AfDs at all since standards were radically different back in like 2007 for example. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. And school-articles have to prove their notability since the 2017-RFC. No guessing or canvassing, just proof. The Banner talk 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per myself twelve days ago, per myself four years ago. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per myself the last time I voted since nothing has changed about it's clear lack of notability since then. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE references to show that its notable now. If so, I'll change my "vote" to keep, but I doubt they can. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who wrote the WP:THREE did explain that people kept misunderstanding his personal essay. Some people would post a dozen sources, and he said no one would look at that many, just post the three best ones and he'd look at that. You don't need Three references to prove notability, two is enough for that as the notability guideline page clearly states. Many are saying Wikipedia:Speedy keep because its a bad nomination. You can't just nominate something again right away because you didn't get the results you wanted. Dream Focus 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your point is since there isn't even two good references. Also, I didn't re-nominate the article, I probably wouldn't have, and I could care less about what the outcome was last time. So I don't know what your point with any of that is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Now kept twice. Continual nomination is against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The same with ignoring a consensus reached in an RFC. The Banner talk 13:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no consensus and it's not relevant to these discussions in any case. There was most certainly no consensus to delete all school articles because some editors don't like them. Neither was there a consensus to allow school articles to be nominated for deletion again and again until they get deleted (in fact, there was a specific clause advising against such behaviour). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, yes, the inevitable “they’re just haters” argument. Dronebogus (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closure of this February 2017 RFC provided the following RfC nutshell results regarding the above section:

Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.
Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

- - - (edit conflict × 3) This school isn't notable simply because it exists. It's notable because its existence has been proved in secondary sources, which also provide some information about the school. I don't see how this isn't in accordance with the result of the RfC. Will the encyclopedia be improved by deleting this article? No. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that you are still in denial over this, Necrothesp. The Banner talk 16:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No denial. Just the facts, which some choose to ignore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good to hear that you admit to ignore that RFC. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" a nomination two days after the previous one closed is excessive, in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two nominations this year is already flooding? It sounds more that you two are gaming the system. The Banner talk 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Someone not getting the results they want nominating it again less than two days later, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 18:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It wouldn't have been closed as no consensus if people on the keep side did the required research to find usable references and made actual arguments. Instead of just going off about nonsense like the AfD four years ago, that all schools are inherently notable, and people who nominate schools are trying to destroy Wikipedia or whatever, rinse repeat, etc. etc. So that's totally on you guys for the generic, low effort "votes." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the 2017 RfC was no consensus, defaulting to status quo.

Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

The status quo was that schools are notable if their existence is proved by a reliable, independent, secondary source. Which is the case here. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 18:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the quote you cited refutes the RFC results being valid. The original statement posed in an RFC can be rejected but the broader discussion can still lead to a consensus to implement other things besides what was originally posed. Just like with ANI cases where the original proposal for sanctions is rejected but alternatives aren't. Neither is an "original statement or bust" type of thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Sure implementing other things besides what was originally posed can happen. But the crux of the argument was what was initially posed. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Anything else is just using semantics to disruptively game the system. Like I said before, this would have resulted in keep if a valid argument for keeping it was made instead of people making generic, low effort votes that go against the RfC. That's it. Period. End of story. Outside of that it's stupid to complain about the article being re-nominated when none of you were willing to put the work into it the first time around so it wouldn't have to be. Really, all articles that end in no consensus due to low effort, generic voting should be speedy re-nominated. No matter which side is doing it. Otherwise, we are allowing the process to be derailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That very first sentence is ambiguous anyway. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This will remain a perennial AfD candidate if people keep talking about procedure or voting "per previous discussion" rather than discuss the available sourcing. The previous AfDs are of remarkably little value and of no help here: first one was dominated by the RfC with very little discussion of the source material (supervote-kept nonetheless), the second predictably had lots of "keep per previous discussion", with some openly admitting they hadn't read any sources. The article currently references: 1, the school itself, not independent; 2, a database, no prose; 3, a profile/database entry in a web outlet that was deemed non-notable a couple years ago; 4, a listing of several schools with high number of applicants, ARS itself not being the main topic; 5, likewise; 6, passing mention. How do these sources establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in the previous AfD, the school is discussed in various newspaper articles but unfortunately they aren't in English. We have to consider offline sources too, as point three ("References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.") states, and it is evident the school has significant coverage in newspapers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could tell the only English reference that was mentioned in the previous AfD just affirmed that they have a basketball team. Outside of that since we can't read the news articles that are posted on their website there's no way to tell if they are "significant coverage" or not. But going by the article titles a lot of it looks extremely run of the mill. Like 6 of the articles are about school functions and they are likely local news papers. Also a few, like "Our Troopers Class" are primary. My guess is that others are also. None of that does anything for notability. Actually the more I look at the articles the more I'm convinced they are primarily from a school newspaper or paid to print pieces. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage. In fact, the 2017 RFC linked above specifically mentions local media coverage as helping to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. Purely local coverage does not a notable article make though. There also needs to be one reference from a regional or national outlet and as far as I'm aware there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that to be true, and such a requirement doesn't appear to be present in GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's in WP:NORG. Which are the notability guidelines to follow depending on what type of school this is. There's really no way to know if we don't have any references though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no one can produce concrete examples and demonstrate that an actual encyclopedic article can be written with them (meaning no trivial mentions or application statistics), this is all speculation and WP:V is not met. It's also remarkable that in 11 years no one ever bothered writing a non-English Wikipedia article of this school; this one only exists in the first place due to the work of a single-edit, single-purpose account (presumably promotional). Avilich (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does "A.R.S." mean? Might help find more sources. Also could help to search "A.R.S." vs. "ARS" .. the former according to sources. -- GreenC 19:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their run by A.R.S. Memorial Educational Society for Human Welfare. So probably that's where the name come from. I can't find jack about them though. Except that they also run a college. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it means Article Rescue Squadron? [sarcasm] Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination

And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for Molon labe-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? Even Andrew and Lightburst have cooled it a little after their tbans, and DF has participated in several AfDs (including this one) without stirring up drama. Why can’t you do the same? Not every AfD needs to be a battleground. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this closes as no consensus because of their obstructing nonsense again you should just renominate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be taking them to ANI again first so they don’t immediately do it again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this article had been made now, under identical circumstances, would it have survived a simple PROD? Would it even have passed draft review? I doubt it. We need to stop grandfathering in ancient, low-quality articles based on dated or low-effort consensus, or “no consensus” closes handwaved as “de facto keep” closes. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is considering the previous no consensus result as a "de facto keep", but my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is if you're unhappy with the result of a recently closed discussion you go to WP:DRV, you don't renominate it and hope for a different result. NemesisAT (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus isn't really an actual result is it? That's why AfDs that are no consensus can be renominated after a certain amount of time passes. I don't think there is set amount of time that has to pass before renominating something either. In the meantime there's no way a no consensus close can be fairly adjudicated at a DRV. Since it literally means there isn't a clear outcome that the closer might have miss-read or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the “keep” votes just seem to be relying heavily on procedural arguments rather than providing evidence the thing is actually notable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With most of them I’m assuming good faith, but with 13 I’m guessing it’s because they don’t actually care about providing a non-technical argument because they seem to be of the opinion that articles must by default be “rescued” by any means possible, even when they’re likely-promotional articles about unremarkable schools made by single purpose accounts over a decade ago. Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the whole discussion on Jimmy Whales' talk page I'm pretty convinced that their bar for what should be included in Wikipedia is so low that it's nonexistent. At that point they will vote to keep anything. So they can't really make rational, guideline based arguments for keeping articles when they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just doesn't pass the notability test, with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the "per previous" !votes should be discounted. Any keep without two GNG sources should be discounted. Until/unless someone posts two GNG sources, it's a delete. Levivich 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete -A boringly routine secondary school. While there do seem to be too many bobs at the apple here, that is countered completely by the quality of the overwhelming majority of the “keep” votes. Qwirkle (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]