Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. There are two critical lines of thought in this discussion: 1. All secondary schools are notable, regardless of the level of coverage received in independent sources, as long as we can verify their existence. Due to this inherent notability, any degree-awarding secondary school should have its own article. 2. Secondary schools are held to the same standard as every other organization, and must include multiple reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in detail. Without this requisite sourcing, notability cannot be determined; therefore, no article should be created or retained.

There is validity to both of these arguments, inasmuch as the conclusions are supported by their premises. But, to determine the soundness of the arguments, they must be weighed against the community's consensus precedent. The key pieces of policy I'll quote here are from WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL, the most authoritative guidelines on schools that we have:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.[1] If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
— WP:ORGSIG (emphasis added)

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.
— WP:ORG § Primary criteria (emphasis added)

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)
— WP:NSCHOOL (emphasis added)

Two of these guidelines point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for further reference, so let's look at the relevant section:

Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
— WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES

The key take away here is that we as a community have not properly discussed this issue, and therefore we have not established a working policy via consensus. The policy and our current consensus precedent seem to contradict each other, at least when it comes to the amount of coverage required. We must also consider if WP:SYSTEMICBIAS has any effect here; once again, this topic has not been discussed properly at a community level to answer such a question.

In conclusion, both arguments have full validity - just not from the same perspectives. The argument for retention based on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is fully valid and even sound when compared to the current, de facto, consensus precedent (a precedent that the guidelines themselves point to). However, the argument for deletion, based on the requirement of establishing notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, is also fully valid and equally sound when compared to the established consensus set in the guidelines. Obviously, this is problem. And a determination must be made. However, for a determination to be made, the community must have a real discussion and establish a firm consensus. - Singular discussions, with limited community visibility (such as AFD), cannot achieve this goal. And as such, it is not within a single administrator's power to make this determination for the community. Therefore, no consensus can be determined at this time, defaulting to the retention of the article. Furthermore, it is recommended that a formal RFC be opened to make the requisite determination, and then rewrite the relevant policies/guidelines to reflect the consensus. (This close was done in consideration of, and accordance with, the following policies/guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, WP:PROMO, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ADMIN, WP:DELETE.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eden English School Btl

edit
Eden English School Btl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

[Note: The following reflects the name of the article at the time the AfD was relisted.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Eden English Boarding High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable Higher Secondary school in Nepal. Some links are are provided in see also segment but are not so strong for keeping this article here in wikipedia. NepaliKeto62Talk to me 04:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Striking the nomination.  While the account was blocked on 20 July 2016, and it is not clear to me if it would be proper to strike the nomination statement for an AfD closed on 13 July 2016, WP:BLOCKBANDIFF states that, "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question (exceptions)...", and this nomination statement was formally re-instated on 29 July 2016 by the DRV relisting.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed, but re-opened after review -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much aware of all wiki policies so I wont be the right person to comment. Thanks. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again). I think claimng this article to be a hoax (and Hobit) is an expression of very bad faith. There are two very different photos of quite clearly the same school: File:Eden E. Boarding High School, Butwal.JPG and File:Eden School Butwal.jpg. I think this conclusively proves its existence. Nepal is among the world's least developed countries and has a troubled political history and a low level of literacy. Thus some leeway should be given to the lack of existence of electronic media that would provide verifiable sources. Note that the ominator is now blocked and taking into account their editing history, one could possibly be moved to consider that the AfD nomination is some kind of school rivalry. This is the kind of AfD which could lead more experienced members of our community to demand qualifications and/or a specific user right for patrolling and/or tagging articles for various deletion processes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's a hoax. In fact, I'd say it's 98% likely not to be. But the building shown in the picture and the one at the address given look to me to be different using Google maps. It's enough that I'm worried it might be a hoax. And I don't think we really have a reliable source that it does exist. So per WP:V, we shouldn't have an article. As soon as we get verification it does in fact exist (and I'd be happy with you or some other known quantity going there and verifying it) I'd change to keep in a heartbeat. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was also concerned about the google maps image until I realized what is marked as the building is actually the parking lot or field in front of the building, at which point it appears to be a match. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sockpuppet ban is enough for me to decline from voting. Even if its is a nonnotable private inistitution I am uncomfortable with the idea a banned editor for bad faith can vote to remove possible encyclopedic material. Valoem talk contrib 01:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can make out, Valoem, these recent activities are from either a bunch of, (or the same) 12-year-olds using a school IP. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the CU tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay not a guideline and IMHO no school should be kept just because it exists, If it doesn't have any sources it doesn't deserve an article IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Davey2010. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed part of an 'essay' and is not a 'guideline' - correct, but only in so far tat that 'essay' is the only available (or nearest} Wikipedia page type for classifying it. It does however not express any opinions and draws its content from clearly identifiable facts (literally 1,000s of High school articles ket at AfD). It is a neutral documentation of the way the community has chosen to handle the notability of a few special kinds of topics. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, I've closed tons of school AFDs as Keep as well as !voted Keep on many however IMHO there's no actual benefit to keeping school articles that are poorly sourced and are unlikely to ever be sourced or improved, I personally believe keeping them is now a waste of time but I know you prefer keeping these and I respect that (I don't mean that in a shitty way - we all have preferences etc), Anyway thanks for replying, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have searched a lot and I cannot find even a single independent reliable source which describes that this school exists. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is valid if and only if WP:V is satisfied. I would gladly change to keep if someone can find such a source. I have clearly not been able to find one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The schools compromise is one of our best ways of handling AfDs--it's an even handed compromise between those who wished to keep articles on elementary schools as a matter of course, and those who did not want to keep even high schools unless there were exceptionally good sources. Neither party was altogether happy with it, but they were both happier than if the other side had won. That is what is meant by consensus--something we can al live with without having to fight it afresh every time. Whether it is a private school or a public school is quite irrelevant, and I wonder on what basis Valoem is asserting that it matters? All school articles tend to be associated with promotionalism -- if not from the management, from the students. How is the criterion of whether an article is likely to be improved a requirement for keeping a WP article? And, anyway, why does Davey2010 think the article is unlike to be improved or better sources?--school students frequently do work on articles about their school, so I would say they are among the articles most likely to be improved. As for the question of whether the school exists,the school website is presumptive evidence. Have any of the people who say they can find no other sources of knowledge of Nepali? And if so, have they searched local print sources? DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely neutral on this article, but want to comment on the statement above that Neither party was altogether happy with it [...] is what is meant by consensus. That's the definition of compromise, not consensus. Consensus is when most people are happy with the outcome. That's not to say that compromise can't be a useful way to move forward, but they're not quite the same thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most (not all but most) of the school articles that end up at AFD and subsequently kept aren't improved nor ever sourced - They're just left to rot. –Davey2010Talk 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, you don't appear to have read the entire discussion, nor to have understood the special nature of Nepal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While continuing to remain neutral on the article, I feel the need to also address the above comment. We have two drivers here, which are in conflict. On the one hand, we have a inviolable requirement that everything we publish is true, i.e. WP:V. On the other hand, we have an unfortunate, but overwhelming, tendency to favor topics which are easy to research online. That means we have (very strong) bias towards things which are recent, things which are written about in English, and things which happen in places with pervasive internet presence. We are caught up in a race to the bottom, to become the on-line blogopedia of Pokémon, porn stars, pop culture, and paid promotion. Fighting this bias is a critical part of what we need to do to remain relevant. So, yes, bend over backwards to fight bias on non-anglo-european topics. But, not at the cost of ignoring WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the post above shows is a lack of the basic understanding of the message we've worked to present at WP:V and WT:V, which is that Wikipedia is not a TruthTM forum.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC) As stated at WP:Inaccuracy, "Editors sometimes think that verifiable material should be accurate, but verifiable material may or may not be accurate."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: What makes you say I haven't read the entire discussion? If others have found reliable sources with which to write an article, then I have indeed overlooked something and would thank you for highlighting them. Sometimes I think it makes sense to grant some leeway for subjects when sourcing is weak but there's some indication there may be sources in a language I'm unable to search, or sources not readily available over the Internet. What we have here is not weak sourcing but a complete absence of reliable sources, and thus nothing on which to base an article. No prejudice to recreating it based on reliable sources should they surface in the future. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly struck my !vote above given verification. Certainly won't be switching to keep, though, as there's still nothing on which to base a real article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one was gnawing at me a bit. Looking again at what's available, I can't bring myself to passively accept what some people claim there is consensus for, but aren't willing to actually put it up for discussion via promotion of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to guideline status. There's almost nothing on which to base this article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources about it can be found. If we can't find reliable sources, it is impossible for us to write a verifiable article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is not notability. The problem here is that we need a source to prove that the school exists: One reliable independent source would be sufficient, per schooloutcomes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you are mistaken. SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not hold that schools get a free pass on notability. Instead, it says:

The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).

Examining NGEO and ORG—the guidelines that SCHOOLOUTCOMES says apply to schools—we find that to be kept at AFD, a school must have received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. (ORG stresses that "[a] single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.") Driving this point home further, ORGSIG—part of an established guideline—says:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists . . . .

Rebbing 22:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand Rebbing. My position is slightly different though. I recognize what DGG said about the schools and I'm willing to respect SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a compromise: not a perfect solution, but better than debating every single school. But schooloutcomes specifically requires that there should be reliable independent sources which can prove that (1) The school exists, (2) It is accredited and (3) It is a high school. Unless all 3 are satisfied, I am not supportive of keeping an article. I see the SCHOOLOUTCOMES as something similar to the SNGs on sports people. I believe the purpose of SNGs is to selectively keep articles about people who have a good chance of passing GNG someday. I see something similar with schooloutcomes as well (though lot less selective): As long as the school is verified, it may be covered one day. I can live with it for the time being. The problem here is that editors vote keep without looking at WP:V, essentially reducing the school to a Russell's teapot. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's the thing: You (and others) misread SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a compromise establishing that schools are kept as long as they can be verified to exist, but it says nothing of the sort. (Go read it again.) Instead, it reaffirms that NORG applies to schools, and NORG, in turn, requires significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources—the same as GNG. True, it says that most high schools that can be shown to exist are kept, but that's because they are found to meet NORG or some other notability guideline, not because they're accredited high schools proven to exist. Rebbing 23:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:VERIFY. Several editors above have pointed to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a reason to keep this article, but note that the consensus documented there is to keep articles on secondary schools that are verified by independent sources. To uphold that consensus requires deleting this unsourced article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify - I'm a believer in SCHOOLOUTOMES for reasons outlined by others and debated ad nauseum in these AfD discussions. However we just can't have unverified content allowed to exist on this encyclopedia at the risk of making us all look ridiculous. My firm belief is that this school exists, but there are no sources that I can find which meet the general standards of WP:VERIFY and the usual standards for schools in particular. We simply require evidence that the school exists, and photos taken by an interested party don't count. That's a low hurdle given that the information can indeed be in the local language that someone here can point to. The rest of the debate is phooey in my opinion. We can debate exactly what SCHOOLOUTCOMES says/means, we can debate whether it matters if it is a private school etc and so on, but that doesn't make any difference to the fact that this page is currently unverified and despite best efforts remains so. The delete option seems to me to be a bit severe, given what I've already said about the likelihood that the school exists, so I think we should userify and contact the editor who wrote the content with an explanation of what we need to see here. If the school exists, then there should be no problem with finding something which meets the currently accepted standard for SCHOOLOUTCOMES - and the other more general discussions about it as a guideline can be continued in a more appropriate venue. JMWt (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, difficult. Unfortunately if the editor himself is saying that there are no other sources, then we're pushed into the corner of delete, because the whole page is based on a COI. Which is obviously going to be hard for the editor to understand if he knows personally that the school exists! JMWt (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments  Regarding the effort to contact PABSON, PABSON states, that schools "registered with the District Education Office (DEO) are eligible to apply for Membership at the PABSON District Executive Office".  The applicable DEO website appears to be deorupandehi.gov.np/, and has an email and phone number, contact page. 

    In other notes, a Google search on ["Eden English School" butwal] shows a map, an address, and phone number in the right-hand column for the school.  Since most of the original text is no longer visible in the current article, I've found that this older revision is helpful in understanding the context. 

    We are here because of an improper DRV closing that uses the words "wrong result" while citing no policies, and addresses AfD volunteers for "not digging deep enough".  The DRV itself was a nomination that could have been speedy closed as WP:POINT...a closer does not have standing to request the overturn of his/her own closing.  Be that as it may, there were no issues that could not have protected the AfD volunteer community by allowing the normal six months to pass before another AfD for this article.  Nor was sockpuppetry of the AfD nomination mentioned in the DRV closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per precise reading of our policies and guidelines, and WP:IAR for the WP:IAR claims that we don't need to support or WP:AGF our multi-language content contributors from Nepal.  As mentioned by the DRV nomination, File:Eden E. Boarding High School, Butwal.JPG shows the name of the school both on the building and on one of the busses.  I count 297 people in that assembly.  There is another picture of morning assembly at schoolius.com, picture, that shows a square tower to the right of the assembly.  The basic Google search on ["Eden English School" butwal] provides a map, and I looked at that map at the 20 meter scale, and compared the satellite image with the square tower.  The details, such as the line of the roof peak, match, as does the treeline behind the school.  This satellite map provides the requirement in WP:V#Notability for a third-party source.  The guideline WP:N is satisfied, by the consensus that it does so at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.  WP:RS states that all reliable sourcing depends on context, and we know from intellius that this school provides secondary education.  Our article on Nepal identifies fourteen "recognized national languages", and there is no need for AfD to explain why searches on Nepali strings produce puzzling search results.  Rupandehi district borders on India, which may increase the language considerations.  It is past time to move away from AfD and turn the difficult issues of reading Nepali over to our Nepali content contributors.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Google users can add their own content to google maps. I don't think this really counts as an independent secondary source as someone could have added all of this information about a hoax school. What we really need is a newspaper article mentioning the school or a government document in any language. Not pointing to user submitted content. This should not be hard to supply if the school really exists. JMWt (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My statement carefully avoided any reliance on the assertion of existence based on a place marker in Google maps.  Please don't make false claims about my assertions.  Just the contrary has occurred here, as what I have shown can be used to conclude that the user content added to Google was done correctly.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are just wrong. Google content cannot be used in this way as an independent secondary source for primary verification. It is quite simple, the thing must be shown by secondary sources, which must be available for any existing school and which cannot be faked - such as newspaper articles and official government reports. It is obviously possible to build up fake credentials using information on facebook, google, twitter and self-taken photographs, hence they're not to be primarily used for verification. Once we have proof from an independent secondary source, then these of course add strength to the thing existing. JMWt (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you tried checking my reference to the policy WP:V#Notability, you'd see that the words used there are not "independent secondary source", then perhaps you'd see that it would be helpful and appropriate to limit your rebuttal to points I've made.  You can also see the words "third-party source" in my !vote post. 

In your response, you've not cited from policies, guidelines, and/or essays; and in the context of proving me "wrong" suggests that you are not clear on why you are saying that which you are saying. 

Another point you should perhaps consider, do you believe that Google takes satellite pictures?  I'm willing to consider that there is a vast military conspiracy to alter satellite images provided to Google to hide radar arrays on coastlines, but without sources to tell us that, at Wikipedia, we follow the sources.  Since we don't follow the sources blindly, I've written the essay WP:Inaccuracy, but I doubt you are going to find a consensus here that some advanced persistent threat at the direction of or on behalf of Eden English School is altering the satellite images being considered at this AfD.  Summary: the satellite images are reliable and third party.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - I've seen many people (myself included) argue along the lines of WP:BURDEN in this particular case, pointing to a lack of reliable sources with which to write an article, regardless of whether the subject is argued to be notable. However, we have an awful lot of people arguing to keep -- numerically sufficient to make it difficult to envision someone willing to close as delete, regardless of the content of the arguments. So my question is what comes next. The content of the article has been officially challenged as WP:V provides for, but if the article is closed as no consensus (or keep!), I imagine removing the content would be highly controversial. So what happens next? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we find a way to verify the damn school. there must be a way. JMWt (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BINGO - the page creator has found this from the Nepali Government Department of Education. That's good enough. Keep. JMWt (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JMWt: I'm sorry, but that's not anywhere near enough. SCHOOLOUTCOMES directs us to N, NORG, and NGEO, all of which require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The added source is reliable and independent, but its coverage isn't remotely significant. Also, it's only one source. Take a look at ORGDEPTH. Rebbing 05:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are arguing with the consensus position of SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which has been tested over and over again with the conclusion that there is no way or consensus to change it, and as such has little relevance to this specific AfD. The fact is that we have in English a government source showing that the school exists. Therefore it stands to reason that there must be a whole number of other relevant reliable secondary sources showing it exists which we haven't found yet because they are in a local language or are only available on paper. That's quite a different thing to many others ORGs and is one reason why schools are considered differently. Again, if you don't like it, then it is down to you to try to change the consensus not try to derail AfDs with the same rejected arguments. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. The creator should be congratulated for engaging with us when the thing must be extremely hard to understand given that we are casting doubt on the existence of something that he knows exists. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N has no requirement for coverage by reliable sources, it is a guideline to determine if a topic should have a standalone article.  The 2007 WP:N had a requirement that sufficient sources exist to write an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh. Not only does "reliable" appear 17 times in WP:N, but the nutshell includes "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention" and right there in the second sentence is "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence comes from the policy WP:V#Notability, and has a good consensus at this AfD that it is satisfied.  WP:N has only one requirement, that the topic be "worthy of notice".  WP:N is in some ways a minor guideline because we are only considering the difference between whether a topic should be standalone or merged.  It is WP:DEL8 where the difficult decisions for inclusion are made.  As for what you are saying about the nutshell, the nutshell calls for reliable "evidence", not reliable "coverage".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2016 (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.
  1. ^ But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eden_English_School_Btl&oldid=1145867324"