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 "keep" opinions are based on nothing else than asserting that a community consensus exists to keep all secondary schools regardless of what sources are available about them. In fact, the RfC concluded the opposite: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." The "keep" opinions must therefore be discounted because they offer no other argument for keeping the article. Sandstein 15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheffield Private School[edit]

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

Appears to be an ordinary primary and secondary school, slightly unusual only in that it caters to expats - per [1] "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Sources are entirely self-written or "it exists".

(It's also a mass of promotional junk with a bit of vandalism, but there doesn't seem to be much point in clearing that up unless it passes AFD). Pinkbeast (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You are daring and bold to nominate a school for deletion, Pinkbeast. Hold onto your hat. As to the merits of the nomination, I find it completely convincing. There are two unique sources for this article, one of which is the school's own website, which is not a reliable source for anything besides verification of existence, and a school review website. There is no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. The subject unequivocally doesn't meet the bar of the GNG. But it's a school, so... A Train^talk 15:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as A Train says, you are being very brave nominating a school for deletion, considering the brigade of users who claim WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES makes all educational institutions inherently notable often shoot down such nominations. However, and many users (including myself until last week), are unaware that an RfC a few months back overturned this consensus (link). The nomination is convincing in its interpretation of GNG and indeed at flagging up the clear spam. DrStrauss talk 17:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't lose any sleep when an AFD of mine doesn't pass, which they don't always (spammers made me a deletionist, and I don't always get it right). I think it'll help here that the article is such a complete load of junk. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Among other things, the closers of the recent RfC noted that "because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." I see no reference to any such search having been done here. In fact, there may well be substantial coverage of this school in regional media: a gNews search yields at least 450 potential sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of these results seem to be from Gulfnews.com. When just checked a small selection of them, and none actually mentioned this school, which is odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus, which has not been overridden by the RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely the case that it has been overridden by the RFC. "We should keep this school because we always keep schools" is not a valid argument, and that's all precedent is. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed many times since. Very few secondary school articles have been deleted. So no, it hasn't been overridden. Please see current discussions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools if you think this issue is now cut and dried. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's no more than saying "We should keep this school because we always keep schools", which is still a circular argument (and one which it is of no value to spam on every discussion there). Pinkbeast (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: it really is! Why is this school notable? Here's the logic:

P1) Schools are inherently notable.

P2) We often keep school articles.

-----------------------------------------

C) The Sheffield Private School is notable.

Both premises of the argument are flawed: the first, because of the RfC that overturned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the second, because Wikipedia conventions are less important than Wikipedia guidelines. DrStrauss talk 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a longstanding precedent to keep secondary school articles. Wikipedia should support educational institions because they create the next generation of Wikipedians.desmay (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the next generation of Wikipedians be encouraged to make good, productive edits or use the sandbox? Adding a list of historic vice-principals to a non-notable high school is not exactly a great contribution. It's also entirely conjecture that making edits to a page about your high school is a "gateway drug" to useful Wikipedia editing. Has anyone ever offered any evidence to support that notion? A Train^talk 08:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By a similar argument we might say that vandalism is a good thing since so many of us started editing Wikipedia when we spotted some and wanted to correct it, so it helps to create editors. I wouldn't regard that as a sensible argument either. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in my experience, school articles are subjected to more vandalism than they are constructive edits. DrStrauss talk 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, DrStrauss. I have a set of school articles on my watchlist that survived AfD. They are like flypaper for vandalism, promotionalism and unsourced additions. I would be a bit more sympathetic to "keep" arguments if those making them spent more time trying to ensure that kept school articles are maintained properly, but often they just come up with a source or two in the AfD and never actually edit the article concerned (sorry if this is a mischaracterisation based on an incomplete sample, but it has been my experience). Keeping school articles for which there are very few sources wastes editors' time further down the line, and I feel that this should be taken into account more than it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: co-author an essay with me ;) DrStrauss talk 13:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly provide some examples, DrStrauss! Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Not really germane to the AfD discussion (sorry) but if I were King of Wikipedia, I'd delete anything which plainly no-one cares enough about to keep in good order. Spammers made me a deletionist... Pinkbeast (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Unilateral Supreme Overlord of Wikipedia... yes, I fancy that. DrStrauss talk 23:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. This is a private school catering to expats, described as an "investment" of GFH Capital Ltd. If it was a regular company article, we would hold it to a higher standard, and I don't see why it should get a free pass just because the company is providing education. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this meets WP:N. I found lots of first-party sources, blogs, social media, forums, directory listings, and the like. Nothing, however, which could be considered a WP:RS. RfC on secondary school notability makes it clear that Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:NOTPROMO. While there may be a precedent for keeping unsourced school articles, there is no such consensus and it's contrary to policy. Pburka (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a secondary high school. It exists, there is not doubt. The high-school related RFC didn't say what some wish it said. By long-standing practice, we keep these. Certainly debate about this one is longer than its article. Which is one good reason for keeping these automatically, and should be basis for topic banning those who would nominate more of these. what a waste. --do ncr am 17:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That seems pretty clear to me, but I do respect your opinion, so I'd be interested in your thoughts as to what you think it says. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you? Personally, I find it hard to respect an opinion that I should be topic banned for finding a page full of junk with no apparent sources and AFDing it. Perhaps anyone who disagrees with Doncram about anything should be topic banned from everything to save time. (Ironically, their user page is full of fine sounding words about culture, which apparently doesn't extend to allowing anyone who makes an edit you don't like to continue making edits.) Pinkbeast (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: <sarcasm>Yes. Silencing your opposition is the best way of dealing with their legitimate views.</sarcasm> DrStrauss talk 19:08, 17 October 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.