Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colegio Amaranto

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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Amaranto

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

Private school entirely referenced from primary sources. Seems to qualify for deletion under school outcomes. Preliminary pre-deletion steps were performed with poor results. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are such verifiable sources as this, this and this and this. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Note that, from the guidelines "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." - K-12 schools count as senior high schools, and the institution clearly exists, so... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moral delete, procedural keep: to be honest, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is complete bollocks but it is cited as if it's a policy but with the special aurora surrounding education in terms of notability I'm afraid it should be kept. As the Dalai Lama once said: "learn all the rules so you know how to break them properly." DrStrauss talk 22:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DrStrauss, I'm just checking that you're aware of the update to the wording of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which notes the outcome of this RfC? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Y'all have my apologies for quoting SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I mean..

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.

vs.

Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.

Heh, it's obvious this "guide" is not intended for human interpretation. My vote is to go by GNG, but not the hill I'm willing to die on. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are worse hills to die on that going down in defense of GNG, but I think the historic consensus between deletionists and inclusionists — automatic kicking out elementary schools and keeping secondary schools — has worked well and saved thousands of editor-hours researching and debating borderline case AfDs. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The cited RfC didn't do anything of the sort. Like all discussions on the subject, it more or less ended in stalemate. Whether we quote OUTCOMES or not, it does not change the precedent of a process that has been firmly established through literally thousands of AfD closures over many years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a secondary school of confirmed existence, in accord with the longstanding consensus at AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 13 August 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.