Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 10

This had 3 valid entries at the time of deletion and was only a goddamn prod in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Iudaeorum (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:18px Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Undelete as contested prod. Nothing wrong with the original deletion, since it was an expired prod. Next time, OP should contact the deleting administrator first before coming here. Reyk _YO! 03:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Korea Kent Foreign School|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Kent Foreign School|article=}}

This appears to be a clear keep or at the very least a no consensus. It seems to have been already pretty much established at another DRV for a very similar school that the much-cited RfC does not give carte-blanche to AfD closers to ignore keep opinions and delete secondary school pages when the discussion has clearly not reached a consensus to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:Comment. Necrothesp very kindly gave me a heads up before coming here so I thought I'd drop my two cents in.

:Generally speaking, I do my utmost to not discount any editors' !votes when assessing XFD discussions, but in this case, the keep arguments seems to run up against WP:SCHOOL and the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.

:I don't think anyone here will defend the sources in the article in question: they were terrible, ranging from [http://www.internationalschoolsreview.com/international-schools/korea-kent-foreign.htm a mostly-blank listing on a spam website] to [http://www.acerent.net/foreign_school/kent_foreign.php an apartment rental website]. One reference pointed to the school's official website, which is only proof that the school exists, and made no claim to notability. Both WP:SCHOOL and now WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES state unambiguously that a school should meet the GNG -- and there is simply no feasible argument that this school does based on the sources we have.

:If my decision is overturned, then that is because (despite all evidence in policy and guideline pages) secondary schools are exempt from the GNG. If that's what the community wants, great -- but we need to amend WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to actually say that, because at the moment they do not. A Train^talk 12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

::And that was what the RfC was actually about, despite claims by the deletionists that it was about the longstanding consensus that secondary schools are notable. Unfortunately there was no consensus to amend the guidelines themselves, but that doesn't undermine the existing consensus or the right of editors to cite such consensus without their opinions being discounted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:::I didn't participate in the RfC so I won't comment about what it was or wasn't about. I just know that I took it upon myself to close an obviously contentious AfD that had been overdue for resolution. In doing so, I consulted every relevant guideline and policy page, and they all told me unambiguously that the keep !voters were making arguments that did not fall within those rules. If an administrator is expected to make decisions based on unwritten arcana then we're in a very weird place. A Train^talk 15:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

::: Even before the RFC, the notability guidelines—e.g., NSCHOOL and ORGSIG—rejected the premise that schools were automatically notable. So, if, as you claim, the RFC changed nothing, it left in place the guidelines which require schools to have received significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Rebbing 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Therefore, it seems reasonable to keep the article due to this fact alone. Also, the school [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emanuel-pastreich/a-village-school-in-seoul_b_9491650.html does have a lengthy article written about it at Huffington Post.] And the Huffington Post article is very favorable. The school is also accredited and the picture of the school on their website would indicate it has a decent size student population. Knox490 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

::Just FYI: [https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-become-a-writer-for-the-Huffington-Post Anyone can write for Huffington Post]. Blog posts from HuffPo [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_129#The_Huffington_Post have long been considered unreliable unless written by an independently notable writer]. A Train^talk 16:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:::That discussion from RSN does not conclude with that statement, and it's from five years ago. Moreover, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/epastreich-894 the author] may well know what they're talking about, they've published a number of articles in the Huffington Post, and guess what, they have an article, Emanuel Pastreich, which isn't bad. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:: Your argument for overturning the close below—schools should be kept because we've usually kept schools—contradicts the "schools" RFC, which explicitly found that the community rejected that circular reasoning. Rebbing 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that I have restored the article pending this discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse I think what Necrothesp means to say is that inclusionists have been jumping onto discussions like these in order to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and they feel their hobby horse deserves to be exempt from the consensus of the larger community. Rather than accept that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid they intend to fight each of these deletions. A Train made the right decision in this AfD (in keeping with GNG and the related RfC) and it would seem that politically-powerful administrators now seek to bully their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse - Insofar that assessing consensus is about strength of policy/guideline-based arguments, it was clearly accurate. I hadn't made up my mind yet, but the keep arguments were almost entirely based on the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is explicit in its incorporation of the RfC outcome. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been a policy. A Train's explanation in the closing note was clear, well reasoned, and consistent with policy. I encourage editors to take particular note of A Train's lack of "prejudice against re-creating the article with superior sourcing." Rather than disputing the deletion, the encyclopedia would be better served by a well sourced article about this school, if one can be constructed. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep as there was no serious attempt at actually consulting or finding such independent sources which the users here are suggesting, therefore it's WP:Systematic bias and something we shouldn't take so lightly. To even absolutely eliminate the possibility of Drafting as we have before, speaks for itself the bias, and something that is inexcusable. While I will say there would need to be changes, again, that's something explicitly available for Draftspace. While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been a policy. To quote one relevant thing: "Even if one interprets the RfC as saying there is no consensus about what should be done with schools, it still leaves it as true that 99% of all high school AfDs have in fact been closed as Keep for many years , even before we wrote the disputed guideline" in which reversing everything is not explaining how we're any different now. Simply stating that Wikipedia is changing is not a defense as the same could be said for actually deleting advertising, not defending it, regardless of the large or detailed arguments some may give, since that itself is in fact not policy. Like with schools, there's never been a serious concern aside from apparently needing better sources which once again can be consulted in by speaking to local users, not some random English-speaking person. To disect the School Outcomes RfC, it absolutely never said it could never be used at all, simply that there were questions about it. Once when sign into policy that any school can be deleted onsight will be a different matter, but that itself was never concluded at all. To actually quote the School Outcomes, it has strongly been clear that such time-wasting AfDs are no use to anyone, including any opponents since that's not the optimal goal of Wikipedia: To delete schools, yet defending such blatantly abusive advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::"To disect the School Outcomes RfC, it absolutely never said it could never be used at all". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability Actually], that is precisely what it says: {{xt|Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.}} A Train^talk 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::There's no "must or will be discounted" there at all, so all we would have are suggestive notes, not confirmation; even then, because of it, we would still consider that vague (what is "may be" and are convincing exceptions entirely excluded?) Even then, the quote itself never says anything about barring all attempts at still making an argument. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn This request is indeed an example of bullying--by those who have their own private misreading of the RfC and wish to impose it on everyone. Fundamentally, the compromise under discussion was not that we accept all high schools as notable, but that we make an exchange, that we treat all high schools as notable (with some rare exceptions) and simultaneously that we consider all lower schools as not notable (again, with some rare exceptions). The point of it was not to change the notability requirements, but to deal with these particular subject areas in a different way, in order to avoid just this sort of discussion, whee every individual school will be challenged and argued exhaustively all the way to deletion review. Doing so is not a good use of AfD,and not a good use of deletion review. This can be shown by the results. The RfC said only the schooloutcomes did not have enough consensus to be quoted. It also said there was no consensus to change the practice of considering schools notable. I consider the RfC conclusion remarkably unhelpful, but if we are to go by it, it is open to argue that every school should be considered notable, and also open to argue that they should not be, there being no consensus either way. It would have to be left to the interpretation of the people at the individual afd and the closer. So what do we see here: the zealots are, first of all, listing for deletion not the least likely schools, but international schools in countries where there is known to be a difficulty in sourcing: in other words, they have selected those articles which are most likely to be justified but where there is a strong cultural bias about sources--they are trying to take advantage to known and admitted cultural bias to delete as much as they can regardless of merits, and regardless of the probability that print sources could be found in the appropriate languages. And then, when the decision in a particular case goes for them, they argue the closer had the right to choose, and when it goes against them, they argued that the closer did not have the right to choose. Personally, I do not have any great interest in high schools as a topic--I have always tended to be considerably deletionist about local topics, as was noticed as far back as my RfA ten years ago. What I do have a personal interest in -is consistent decisions, and in being able to concentrate discussions of cases that actually need them-- such as the often ambiguous question ofwhether something is too promotional to be fixed. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) adjusted wording DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:*Bullying? A few experienced administrators (et al.) repeatedly stonewall discussion of various schools, repeatedly dismiss policy/guideline-based arguments, join in all of these discussions where something is contested, and declare that all must abide by a past compromise that runs contrary to our notability guidelines -- and those challenging them are bullying? There may have, at one point, been consensus to keep all secondary schools that verifiably exist, but I see no evidence of that now. Consensus can change, and many aspects of notability have indeed evolved. In fact every time this has been put to the test in an RfC, guideline proposal, etc. (those that I've seen, anyway), the result has been that there is no consensus or that the community leans in the other direction. When there is no consensus, the same group declares that the purported status quo should continue rather than the discussion being evidence there's no consensus to operate according to this firm rule (based at least in part, ironically, on an argument that there are no firm rules). NOTBURO, sure, but IAR is for exceptions, not a systematic undermining of the policies and guidelines that have achieved broad consensus in order to implement a measure that does not have that kind of broad consensus -- and a kind of measure we are fully equipped to work with should that consensus actually exist (i.e. SNGs). {{tq|they are trying to take advantage to known and admitted cultural bias}} is also an offensive assumption of bad faith. I've not nominated any school, and have trouble thinking this is actually part of the nominators' motivations. I do want to be clear that despite these unfortunate word choices, I don't think you're acting in bad faith or trying to force something (or at least not intentionally). I've found many of your explanations for how the compromise came about to be reasonable. But I don't think it's tenable, and I don't think it has the kind of support any broad measure like this should have. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn per DGG. Also, does anyone _really_ think there aren't sources for this school? Or that deleting the article helps Wikipedia in some way? 99%+ of high schools in the US meet the requirements of WP:N. The same is likely true of other countries, but we have a hard time finding those sources (not in English, not on-line, etc.). These are good and reasonable arguments that can be summarized as "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" and should be respected as such. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Addendum: The HP article cited in the AfD (which I missed when reviewing that discussion) means that we have a potentially strong (very detailed at least) independent, reliable source (in the US press no less). That greatly weakens the delete !vote claims and makes the claims in the close problematic. Hobit (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn DGG said this better than I possibly could ever have. Most secondary school discussion where someone takes the time to look through foreign language sources (print and offline) comes up with some sort of sourcing that provides the basis for meeting WP:N. We have long established that North American secondary schools will almost always meet our inclusion requirements, and we have no reason to believe that secondary schools in other parts of the world wouldn't if we had access to the sources. This argument is in fact rooted in the RfC close and in our guidelines. Discounting those arguments here was wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn. I didn't have read beyond the closer invoking "the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". That RfC was closed wrongly and should never be invoked in any circumstances (the vote was 48-48 which would normally default to no consensus to change, beyond which the closers frankly admitted that they weren't able to understand and process some of the arguments; it was just a supervote, is all, which you do see sometimes.) There are some rules here which are silly or artifacts of old history or some dysfunctional process, and this is one of them; just ignore it and Bob's your uncle. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::Comment. So just to be clear, Herostratus: you want this Deletion Review to find that I improperly closed this AfD because I followed the current guidelines as written? A Train^talk 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:::Yes, that's correct. Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::::I feel like I'm in Catch-22. This is nuts. A Train^talk 19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::The RfC actually did close as no consensus to the question asked. The closers then gave commentary as to what the felt this meant. It has led to some confusion in my opinion. There actually isn't a guideline on schools. You have two essays: WP:OUTCOMESBASED and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is up to the participants in an individual AfD to decide whether or not each secondary school brought up for discussion should be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::"There actually isn't a guideline on schools." That is not true, sir. WP:NSCHOOL states: 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. The guideline then suggests consulting SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which currently recommends discounting SCHOOLOUTCOMES arguments in AfD discussions.

::::::It's comments like this that make me feel as though people voting to overturn have not actually put themselves in my shoes and are making purely tribal arguments. A Train^talk 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

{{od}} NSCHOOLS doesn't present a separate SNG from ORG or N (it is part of ORG, unlike NMUSIC or NSPORTS, which are not a part of BIO). Sorry for not making that clearer in my statement. N makes it clear that the existence of sources not their presence is what constitutes notability, which has been the historical argument behind OUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:Sorry, TonyBallioni, but I'm having trouble parsing this. Do you now agree that ORG/NSCHOOLs is the relevant guideline in this case? If so, how exactly was the closing administrator in this case supposed to interpret that guideline? Because both ORG and WP:N explicitly expect "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- something that the article in question clearly did not have and not one single person arguing to overturn has yet even attempted to argue so. A Train^talk 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::ORG and N are the relevant guidelines, but it is up to the participants in an AfD to decide whether or not something should be kept based on them. As Hobit has pointed out, no one seriously contests that schools in Asia are likely the same as schools in North America in terms of sourcing. The argument for keep here was and is essentially applying WP:NPOSSIBLE in light of WP:SYSTEMIC and Wikipedia's general consensus that North American and European secondary school have enough sourcing to be notable. This is in line with the second bullet of the RfC close which was {{tq|References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.}} TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:::"The argument for keep here was and is essentially applying WP:NPOSSIBLE in light of WP:SYSTEMIC and Wikipedia's general consensus that North American and European secondary school have enough sourcing to be notable." Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we all agree that this argument outweighs the explicit text of WP:N, WP:NSCHOOL, and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Can you please show me where in the AfD in question that argument was made? A Train^talk 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::::Not using my words, but DGG's and SwisterTwister's !votes were along the same vein. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SwisterTwister's argument is impossible for me to parse so I won't try to interpret it here. I think it is much more accurate to describe DGG's argument as essentially channelling "long-standing precendent", as was every other Keep !voter (except for the one who cited WP:NSCHOOL, an argument that was effectively rebutted during the AfD.

:::::But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that ST and DGG both made your argument, that still leaves the majority of Keep editors making arguments based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which (again) is explicitly rejected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself as it stands. So how exactly is an administrator who isn't a partisan in this particular fight, and is just following policy as written when closing this AfD supposed to arrive at your desired outcome? A Train^talk 21:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:::{{tq|ORG and N are the relevant guidelines, but it is up to the participants in an AfD to decide whether or not something should be kept based on them}} - WP:LOCALCON. ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.") ORG and N are guidelines that apply to schools. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not. When the subject at hand is notability of a school, based on N/ORG, the result shouldn't be "yeah but this handful of editors has decided not to do that". In one instance, you could call it IAR, but when it's applied systematically to every instance, that's just going against the established consensus (which, on Wikipedia, is reflected in policies guidelines). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse. Reasonable close; I find Rhododendrites's argument persuasive. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep. In the close, the closing admin did not address {{user|Alanscottwalker}}'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FKorea_Kent_Foreign_School&diff=779064061&oldid=778535154 source], [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emanuel-pastreich/a-village-school-in-seoul_b_9491650.html this lengthy article] written by Emanuel Pastreich from The Huffington Post about Korea Kent Foreign School. No one at the AfD addressed Alanscottwalker's source.

  The closing admin wrote in this DRV:

  Just FYI: [https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-become-a-writer-for-the-Huffington-Post Anyone can write for Huffington Post]. Blog posts from HuffPo [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_129#The_Huffington_Post have long been considered unreliable unless written by an independently notable writer].

  But this argument was not made in the AfD. It is incorrect for the closing admin to discount The Huffington Post article when no one at the AfD disputed the source.

  And as Drmies notes above:

  That discussion from RSN does not conclude with that statement, and it's from five years ago. Moreover, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/epastreich-894 the author] may well know what they're talking about, they've published a number of articles in the Huffington Post, and guess what, they have an article, Emanuel Pastreich, which isn't bad.

  This strongly indicates that this article passes Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

  There was a rough consensus in the discussion to keep based on The Huffington Post article and editors' arguments about the longstanding precedent in years of AfDs to retain verifiable secondary schools.

  Cunard (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::Sorry Cunard, but how could there be a rough consensus based on that one Huff Post article that you yourself say that "No one at the AfD addressed"? A Train^talk 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::When a source is put forward as counting toward WP:N and A) no one disputes it and B) it is a reasonable source on the face of it, then yes, I'd say that the discussion should to be interpreted as having accepted the source as counting. If you, as closer, think it should not count, then that's a reason to relist (requesting further discussion about the source) not to just assume that the source doesn't contribute toward WP:N. I realize you have arguments above about why you think it isn't a reliable source, but that's really an argument for the discussion, not one the closer should be making. And that's important, because it would give people an opportunity to dispute that argument (I do think your argument is flawed). Hobit (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::::The article had already been relisted twice. WP:RELIST says that third relists are an extraordinary measure to be avoided. The person who posted the link didn't even say that they were using it to make a Keep argument. A Train^talk 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::I realize that closing a discussion like this is difficult, and I do appreciate the fact you chose to do so knowing nearly any close could generate problems. That said, I am seeing a lot of problems here. There is what looks to be a reliable, in-depth source in the discussion. No one disputed it and I'd argue it is in fact a reliable, in-depth source. As a closer, you just can't ignore it. Next, WP:RELIST specifically gives permission to relist for a 3rd (or more) time if needed. "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation...". Finally, him saying "keep" or not isn't hugely important. In this case, I agree it would have clarified the thought. But heck, maybe he wasn't sure the single source was enough. The point is that there what appears to be a reliable in-depth source provided in that discussion. Your close indicated otherwise. Again, I appreciate the work (really), but I feel you made a number of mistakes here _irrelevant_ of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES discussion. No matter how this goes, I just hope you take those thoughts and issues on board. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn or Relist: The closer's comments about Huff Post show they should have participated in the discussion not closed it. The closer came to a conclusion, independent of the AfD about the Huff Post - so were not closing, and that conclusion appears to be extremely faulty: 1) Their own Quora source (which they apparently did independent research for) contradicts the closer's claim here, that "anyone can write for the Huff Post", as that source explicitly says the editors of the Huff Post choose who to publish; and 2) The closer then goes beyond the AfD to unaccountably take issue with the author of the Huff Post piece, Emanuel Pastreich, an academic in South Korea. A closer should not misrepresent sources as they have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::The Huffington Post link has nothing to do with assessing the consensus of the AfD. I did not do any research when closing the AfD: the role of the administrator is to assess the policy arguments and the consensus. The HuffPo article was posted late in the debate as an "FYI" and it was ignored by every editor in the debate -- it had no impact at the time.

::It's true that I don't consider HuffPo blogs to be a particularly reliable source, but my opinion on that is irrelevant when discussing if my closing decision was correct. A Train^talk 15:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::Thus, you have failed, because you imposed your view of the Huff Post on the close when the issue in discussion is notability, which always hinges on view of sources. Not only is AfD not a vote, you just cannot claim per policy that "information" about sources is "irrelevant." - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::::The role of an administrator closing an AfD debate is to determine whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus. I did not impose my view of Huff Post on the debate -- I noted that it was irrelevant to the debate, because no one cited it to make an argument. Not even you, the person who supplied the link, used it to deploy an argument. You just wrote "FYI". A Train^talk 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::The Huff Post source on the school is not in the AfD discussion because it is irrelevant and only incompetence by the closer could could imagine such a thing: a source on the school as a matter of policy and guideline is relevant. In your own close you hinged your argument on your claim that the school merely exists, and has no sources, so to claim that school sources brought forward in the AfD are irrelevant is impossible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, so is the role of the closer to robotically count votes or is the role of the closer to extrapolate arguments based on vague argumentation? It seems to me that for some folks in this debate (I'm still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2017_May_10&type=revision&diff=779906584&oldid=779905760 thunderstruck by this]) the only role of the closer is to ignore policy and arrive at their pre-determined conclusion. I'm going to step away from this discussion before I get jaded. A Train^talk 16:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::You're the one who decided to defend your close by editorially evaluating a content source and its author and misrepresent or mistake both in doing so -- in the future, don't do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::::Different question. Let's say that article found in the discussion was a NYT 4000 word piece that was just wonderful and perfect as a source. Would you still have closed this discussion in the same way? Hobit (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

{{od}}User:A Train, I have your answer! I wrote down my analysis, and it is here: User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's very long, and not recommended. Here's the nickel summary:

• FWIW WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is indeed accurate. Of 35 randomly sampled the result was 34-1 Keep (or maybe 34-0, 29-1, 29-0 depending on how you count).
• There are valid reasons to cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. They're at User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES#Does citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES make sense?. It's a matter of opinion, but reasonable opinion that one can disagree with but not just blow off, I would say.
• Examining the {{oldid2|767023947|RfC_on_secondary_school_notability|February 2017 RFC}}, I found that the closers made a mistake. They said "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOME... has been rejected by the community:", but that's not actually true; it wasn't (I'm pretty sure; I'm still working on analyzing this, and it will take some hours; but it appears so at this point).

Therefore your closing statement of "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" isn't valid. I don't fault you. It does say that. It's just that it was put in wrongly. It wasn't determined in the RfC, it was just some person's (or people's) opinion put there under the aegis of the RfC and I think that that's incontrovertibly demonstrable regardless of one's opinions of the merits. How or why this happened doesn't matter. People are imperfect. I'll work on rolling back this mistake, but I'll need to get some fighter cover first, so we'll see.

It is a conundrum because you were given a bum steer. It's not your fault. But even so, we need to do what's right without fear or favor, so with no disrespect to you or your service I stand by my vote to relist. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Overturn Per Cunard and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn. Blatant, textbook, WP:Supervote. The close does not reflect the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn. It would have been preferable for admin to relist given the newly provided source, and taking it upon themselves to (incorrectly) assess the source, which was otherwise not discussed, and close the discussion with a !supervote was wrong. In any case, there was clearly no serious effort to look into Korean sources (Google is admittedly not very good at this), many of whom exist and deal with the school in depth:
• [http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/05/113_87160.html The school drama club production is national news] in The Korea Times,
• [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2001/01/11/2001011161221.html the director of the school was charged with forging university admissions documents] as reported by The Chosun Ilbo in 2001,
• [http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/09/113_31360.html the school was suspended in 2000 for embezzlement of funds and acceptance of unqualified students, which resulted in a punitive warning which no other South Korean international school received again until 2008] as reported by The Korea Times.
• And assorted other mentions in South Korea sources [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/02/02/2009020261018.html], [http://isplus.live.joins.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=20938956&cloc=], [http://www.ddaily.co.kr/news/article.html?no=150086], [http://www.huffingtonpost.kr/emanuel-pastreich/story_b_7133144.html], [http://www.huffingtonpost.kr/emanuel-pastreich/story_b_9776002.html] (last two are by the same Huffington Post writer, but for the Korea Edition, whose editor presumeably is different from that of the main site and whose decision to include them for a Korean-speaking audience is evidence of notability). There's lots of material here to write a shorter, more balanced article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. The article about this school had no reliable third-party sources. No such articles must exist about any topic, per WP:V. The closing admin properly considered our basic sourcing policies determinative, especially now that it has been clarified, as explained in the closure, that they also apply to schools. If there are now better, third-party sources, the article can be recreated based on them.  Sandstein  10:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• I think you are confusing WP:V and WP:N. In any case, WP:N only requires the sources exist. Which they do. And at least one was known to at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• WP:N requires that sources exist. But WP:V requires that they are cited in the article, because only this makes the content verifiable to the person reading the article. At the time of the closure of the AfD, no reliable third-party sources were cited in the article, just a bunch of iffy-looking or dead websites. This made deletion effectively mandatory.  Sandstein  17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. The key phrase is "must be attributable" not "must be attributed". And now that sources exist you are saying the old version must be tossed away rather than used as a starting point because at the time of the AfD there were no reliable sources in the article? I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Endorse. Consensus is not a vote, and the closer followed accepted practice in discounting illogical votes (e.g., an unelaborated "Keep per NSCHOOL") and those that flatly rejected community consensus as reflected in the notability guidelines and the recent "schools" RFC. I find it interesting—and I think the closer was entitled to take into account—that not one of the "keep" voters thought the Huffington Post piece was worth mentioning in the discussion. (Disclosure: I voted "delete" below.) Rebbing 17:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• And not one of the delete !voters said anything about it either. So we've got what looks like a good source that no one disputed. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Relist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a circular argument recently rejected by the community to be a guideline, it was right to discount those. The source added late to that discussion provided a new argumentation venue that should have been mentioned as reason for relist.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep Consnesus was clear. AfD closers can't override consensus just because they don't like it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• @Smartyllama Explain this. You only say that there was a consensus to keep, something that does not look like it is there on the first glance, and when discounting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, well, then... it definitely does not go to the keep side.Burning Pillar (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)