Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amnuay Silpa School
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Notable secondary school. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amnuay Silpa School
- Amnuay Silpa School (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)
Article has spent several years tagged requesting references and as an orphan, no attempt has been made to improve the article. School lacks notability in numerous reliable sources and it is time to go. Superman7515 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - tough one, so I'll explain my reasoning. First, we have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which suggests secondary school like this are generally kept as notable. Second, there is coverage out there including this from 1958, this about some partnership arrangement and this (which is about the same "story" as the second but from a different paper). Those are what I could find with a quick search but I'm sure there must be more, given the school has been around since 1926. There's probably enough for me, but I'm more than happy to talk about it. Stalwart111 13:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not tough at all per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - the school is proven to exist as a mainstream high school providing secondary education until school-leaving age, and that here in Thailand is the Mathayom class (17 - 18 years old). The Thai government wouldn't take kindly to just any school using Silpa in its name - Silpa Bhirasri is a very important figure in Thai education. I taught at the public Silpakorn University for a while - would the nominator like to propose that article for deletion too, just because it is scant on sources? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That wouldn't be a bad idea either considering there are no sources on the page and in order to establish notability an individual must have widespread reliable secondary sources, however, that is not what the discussion is about. As notabiity is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG), naming the school after someone of possible notabilty is not enough to establish notability for the school itself. Also, as standard operating procedure is that no article is inherently notable (WP:ORGSIG), the article as it stands fails WP:N. Even WP:NHS states that high schools must meet WP:N and WP:ORG which states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." While there is incidental coverage on the school, it does not appear to meet the standard of significant coverage.Superman7515 (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused. Did you conduct any of the searches/actions required by WP:BEFORE? Articles should not be nominated for deletion just because they currently have no sources (though that seems to be what you are suggesting here and with regard to Silpakorn University). They should be nominated for deletion if, having done your own search, no sources could be found. I found some with a very, very quick search. What did your search turn up? Stalwart111 22:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is confused: Mentioning Silpa and the university was clearly not intended as a rationale to keep the article within our policies, guidelines, and their exceptions and precedents. It was stated to provide background only and to demonstrate that the nominator is unaware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If this was a minor, back-street cram school it would be different and almost certainly deleted - and with my strong support. It isn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is confused: Mentioning Silpa and the university was clearly not intended as a rationale to keep the article within our policies, guidelines, and their exceptions and precedents. It was stated to provide background only and to demonstrate that the nominator is unaware of
- I'm a bit confused. Did you conduct any of the searches/actions required by
- Keep/reply to above - The general consensus is at WP:ORG: instead of merging, deleting, or userfying as we may do to other articles while this happens, schools offering secondary and higher education are kept because of point 1. Ansh666 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, without regard to WP:GNG in its own right. Among its alumni are six prime ministers. A cursory Google search turns up recent coverage from the Bangkok Post, The Nation', Prachachat Turakij and Krungthep Thurakij, among others. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a secondary school, for reasons endlessly reiterated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2013 (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.