Deletion of Busan Foreign School

Comment: due to the fact that it is the long-standing |consensus of the project that secondary schools are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of their being secondary schools, in accordance with the |first of the Five Pillars that states Wikipedia is in part a gazetteer. From that RfC close: {{tq|Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them.}} Searching already brings up some results, and no evidence that a look at local print media has been done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:5P)

Comment: as failing . I found a few mentions in news sources, but nothing substantial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: nbsp; See the RFC, which states, "...is an accurate statement of the results".&nbsp; http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/31/us-navy-families-make-new-home-in-busan-korea.html satisfies WP:V#Notability.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

Comment: fails ,  and . Claiming that the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability RFC inconclusive is nothing more than a poor attempt to circumvent the facts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG||WP:NOTPROMO)

Comment: Frankly speaking, if High school's notability is to be strictly assessed with  and  thousands of secondary schools will have been/will be deleted. But this longstanding community consensus and  cannot be overridden simply to school that 1-claims to have international students, 2-mentioned in the press not once, and 3-have webpage. When outright non notable, super stub https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lobatse_Senior_Secondary_School&oldid=810168102 like this are depended with  you know this school doesn't even deserve nomination at first place  ''&thinsp;&mdash;''&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ORG||WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES||WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

Comment: per Bushranger, and trout to {{u|Black Kite}} for his commentary in the relist: comments such as that should always be avoided in a relist because the risk prejudicing the discussion. Wikipedia opperates on consensus, and the fact that school AfDs are still a mess 9 months after the RfC shows what one of the closers has admitted on-wiki is true: the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APrimefac&type=revision&diff=776219660&oldid=776218062 close to the actual question asked was ''no consensus''. Everything else was simply commentary, and  (which I helped to write after the RfC) is simply an essay on equal standing with . It is not an actual policy or guideline and shouldn't be treated as such.{{pb}}The best indicator of actual consensus is what we do, and we do routinely keep secondary schools. Singling schools out as the one area where our practice on inclusion somehow has to match the exact text of the notability guideline is ridiculous: we literally do it nowhere else: for corporations and organizations we jump through hoops to find ways to explain how coverage doesn't meet the the GNG (and rightly so), and in other areas such as military history or clerical biographies we routinely go by informal essays such as  and . These practices can be argued against, but so can the GNG: it does not guarantee inclusion either.{{pb}}Since there is ''no consensus'' on schools currently, it is up to the participants at the individual AfDs to decide how to treat them, and appealing to the fact that we're a gazetteer and that the notability guideline also includes  is fine, but thats all SCHOOLOUTCOMES documents anyway. I see no reason to discount the people who don't feel like being overly verbose as I do, when their meaning here is clear, and the justification for doing so is an essay of equal weight to OUTCOMES
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OUTCOMESBASED||WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES||WP:SOLDIER||WP:CLERGY||WP:NPOSSIBLE)