This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 May 10. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Seeing that this discussion has been open for some time I have taken some time to soak up the arguments here. Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and thus articles about them should meet Wikipedia's standards for sources and the GNG. The editors below citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES may not have carefully reviewed this article, which is exclusively sourced to first-party documents and highly dubious third party references like this apartment rental guide. Additionally, users citing prior precedent are not convincing: the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES reads as a clear break with that precedent. In light of all this, there do not appear to be any substantial arguments to keep that rebut the nomination or the arguments to delete that followed.
The crux of this is that the article as it stands clearly fails WP sourcing standards and the GNG -- I would suggest no prejudice against re-creating the article with superior sourcing that passes that bar. A Traintalk 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)