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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Busan International Foreign School

[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This article (and many like it) serve as promotional pieces for the schools as no independent critical coverage of the subject exists. Because WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can no longer be used as a rationale at AfD, this article has no quality to prevent deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The RfD has sadly been misunderstood. It wasn't about destroying the existing consensus, but merely about formalising it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Please explain. "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." seems pretty clear to me. The consensus is now that these schools need to pass other criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the purpose of the RfD. It was intended to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing. It was not intended to replace the consensus, since that has been arrived at over many years of AfDs. As I said, it's been misinterpreted (probably deliberately by a number of deletionists). And a number of secondary schools have been kept in AfDs since after the consensus has been cited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did re-read it. Cordless Larry asked "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" The admins that closed the RfC determined "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC... Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community... Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed." While I understand your inclusionism, you haven't expressed a valid argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm certainly not an inclusionist. Afraid to disappoint you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to comment here; I have not looked at the article in question but am only commenting on the RFC. The phrase per longstanding precedent and consensus is basically what SCHOOLOUTCOMES became over the years. The RFC (in essence) determined that said precedent and consensus was no longer the only reason a school article could be kept, and that the default (GNG) needed to be met. Obviously, there were some caveats to account for possible offline sources, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES has basically been relegated to an OTHERSTUFF argument. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article presently lacks, and I could not identify any, non-regional, reliable, secondary sources to establish the article's notability through the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The "schools" RFC, with more than a hundred participants, represents broader consensus than any number of AfD discussions dominated by a small group of school retentionists who repeat the same tired argument. Per the close and the closer's clarification here, the community's consensus is that articles about schools need significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to be kept. Such sources do not appear to exist for this school. Rebb ing 14:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.