Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius Home Collegiate School (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was thank God the lunatic mentality of "keep all schools" didn't rear its head - delete! Johnleemk | Talk 14:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genius Home Collegiate School

This article remains completely unverified. At the last AFD (which was "no consensus") some felt there hadn't been enough opportunity for verification. Some votes were conditioned on verifiability. All agree verification is required. So, hopefully there will be consensus this time. I am hoping we can keep the discussion to the topic of verifiability, as that's something everybody agrees is required (no point in a rehash of the usual school debate). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius home collegiate school for the last discussion. I do apologize for another renomination, and will try not to renom in the near future, as they are something of a pain. Rob 02:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Just as I voted the last time, Not verifiable, NN. --Ragib 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Piedras grandes 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's probably not necessary, but I'll recap the history, and issues:
    • The article was created on September 3, 2005
    • The article was first AFD'd on January 3, 2006. This was also the first day is was tagged as "unverified", making some feel there was no proper attempt at verification. However, there's been ample time since then.
    • Only two sources exist to show the school exists: the school's own web site, which is a free web host; and a couple job adds like this, on a site which anybody can make an add themselves.
    • The school's own web site gives contradictory info on what grades they teach. It's not clear if they teach up to grade or eight, or wish to do so.
    • The creator of the article has a user name, that's remarkably similiar to own of the school's owners names, suggesting self promotion.
    • The creator of the article was asked two weeks ago to provide verification, and has not responded.
    • Finally, there is not even a claim this school is licensed, and could be a fly-by-night operation. There's no truly independent verificaiton of existence. --Rob 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertisement/not verifiable/not notable. Can't believe this survived the first vote. Kafziel 03:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mind you, wasn't that during the whole crazy "All schools are, by the fact that a group of us say so, totally, utterly, extremely, Pokemon-level notable, and if you disagree with us we'll murder you in your sleep" phase? Delete as externally unverifiable and potential hoax. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is not verified, is self promotion, and fails WP:SCH to boot.Gateman1997 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nomination.--ragesoss 04:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I was just going to nominate this myself... is not varafiable WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable article. SycthosTalk 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the existence of the school can be verified. WP:V trumps WP:N and WP:SCHOOL any day. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 09:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and previous reasoning. --Malthusian (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unverified vs. unverifiable. Possible hoax. Ifnord 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see how this can be considered unverifiable. The article states: "Genius Home Collegiate School is a website that claims to be for a school which opened in 2005 in the Mirpur-10 Senpara Parbota Area of Dhaka, Bangladesh.". If you go to the website linked, you can see for yourself that that is indeed exactly what it claims to be. Now, as to whether or not that claim is correct is open to question--however, the article does not make the claim that the website's claim is correct; it simply states that the website makes that claim. Kurt Weber 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article isn't about a school; it's about a website that claims to be for a school. There's a difference. Please get your facts straight. Kurt Weber 23:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In which case, wouldn't this then fall under the realm of the WP:WEB guidelines, which it would also appear to fail?. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Everything that exists is worthy of inclusion; everything for which verifiable information is present should have an article. It's clear that this website exists; it's also clear that verifiable information about the website is available (all you have to do is go to the website itself); therefore, it should have an article. Kurt Weber 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Would you then support putting all their claims about themselves back in, so long as it was still qualified with "They claim" (or to be more accurate, "someone claiming to be on the staff of this self-proclaimed school claims")? Because an article that does nothing but repeat the subject's claims about itself is called an 'advert'. --Malthusian (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I certainly would, and your last sentence is incorrect. It is only an advertisement if it is done with the purpose of promoting the subject--the key thing here being "purpose". Kurt Weber 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • No doubt they're accidentally promoting themselves. So we have an article, which once we've pared away the non-verifiable, simply repeats what's on a webpage -- meaning that the article is a webpage repeating another webpage. Congratulations, you've once again mistaken the map for the territory:
              • In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography - "On Exactitude in Science" by Jorge Luis Borges --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host_or_webspace_provider WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No one's claiming otherwise. Kurt Weber 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this falls under WP:WEB as they are claiming to be a school originally, someone modified it to the current wording. And even if it is falling under WP:WEB it still fails that as it's Alexa ranking is non-existant and it gets less then 5 Google hits. I could easily replicate their site and claim my bedroom is a school... but that doesn't mean that it is. Also I would take issue that "Everything that exists is worthy of inclusion". If that were the case my jockstrap would be worthy... which is obviously isn't in any credible encyclopedia.Gateman1997 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a school article, not a web site article. Let's keep in mind the original version. Now, a couple editors (including me) removed as much unverifiable information as was possible. This wasn't done to save the article, but to avoid wantonly/knowingly spreading misinformation. I'm frankly a little PO'd that my good-faith attempt to avoid lies being spread, has been twisted into attempts to keep this article. This was actually used to justify the last "no consensus (keep)" result. Editors should be able to remove unverified claims, without it causing bogus articles to be kept. Core policy of Wikipedia demands this article be deleted. --Rob 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually if we. were to be bold we could pretty much blank the article because none of it is verifiable.Gateman1997 02:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No-brainer. Kill it. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may or may not be some pupils in rural Bangladesh happily unaware of this AFD, but in any case, their school is unsatisfactorily googleable.--Ezeu 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this smells like a promotional page for something that may not exist. Home school or something less than described? Who knows. David D. (Talk) 07:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable outside their own website. Stifle 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The rule is to keep verifiable articles about educational institutions, and unfortunately this subject does not pass that bar. Would support the recreation of this article if a verifiable source can be located at a later time. Silensor 21:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete After listing for substantial time, fails WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools delete due to the near-impossibility of covering from a WP:NPOV - either it'll be an advert for an unaccredited school or a kick in the teeth for the place. It's not like we need to keep its seat warm or anythign, let's wait until it's been around for a while and see if it gets accredited. Or closes. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as last time --kingboyk 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. With due respect to all who have taken great pain to read the page or visited the school site and put their comments to keep or delete. I'll not put any request. However, I'd like to add that whatever was written in the school page was true - no less, no more. It's true that the school is not famous or very old. However, the school committee is trying to develop it as a low cost sustainable model for better education to the local cummunity. The school is not set to make big money. Besides academic activities, the school have successfully arranged several rounds of polio imunization and health check-ups for students and all the members of their families (all free of charge) and several fairs in its second year. This has been appreciated by all the people living in the community. In recognition to this, this school was placed in record by Prothom Alo, the most popular daily in Bangladesh, as one of the mentinable institutes of Mirpur, Dhaka (please see Prothom Alo [1], in Noksha, 25 July 2006). I'm really sorry if I have done a big upset to wikipedia. I'd rather suggest other renowned schools of Bangladesh to come forward and put information about their institutions. 09:07, 04 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Genius_Home_Collegiate_School_%282nd_nomination%29_a36e.html"