Deletion of Sumana Secondary School

Comment: per DGG: something else the RfC found was that the systemic bias arguments were strong for maintaining the existing practice. One of our core content policies is that Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and this same principle applies to coverage. There is still a clear consensus on keeping schools in North America and Europe based on the regional sources that inevitably exist per , which constitutes part of the notability guideline just as much as the GNG does. I personally would actually support a policy of redirecting most schools towards municipalities or school districts, but this will never happen for those schools in the West. So long as this is the case, the principles behind NPOV require us to hold schools in other parts of the world to the same standards we hold schools in the West to re:notability. That means extending them the generosity of NPOSSIBLE if they show they are likely to have independent sourcing. I think that has been demonstrated here, and thus it should be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOSSIBLE)

Comment: I want to be very clear on this. A recent RfC tested whether there was consensus to presume notability and therefore retain secondary school articles merely based on existence. The result was "no consensus". I have passed this by one of the closers of the RfC, and they confirmed that my reading of the close is correct (that closer was {{U|Primefac}}, for reference). Arguments based ''solely'' on the fact that there is consensus that verifiable secondary schools are presumed notable ''will be discarded'', even if they constitute an overwhelming majority, per ocal consensus. We had a very large-scale RfC that tested this very question and concluded there wasn't consensus for that view, even if there also wasn't consensus against
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: Of Swister Twister's proffered  cites, only the middle one appears to mention the school by the name given here. Of the refs currently supplied by the article '''none''' mention the school at all, at least not at the landing page the supplied url goes to. While there may be a presumption that secondary schools are notable, the article's current sources are inadequate and I'd have thought it part of Swister Twister's responsibilities as AfC reviewer to supply the  cites that needed to be there before the article was accepted, perhaps providing alternate names/transliterations for the school as it is known in Sri Lanka
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: The long-standing consensus at Wikipedia is that secondary schools which are verifiable are notable. The RFC did not change this. I agree that it is a circular argument to say "Common outcomes say these are kept so this must be kept." Instead I note that years ago I saw rural US high schools up for deletion because the nominator could not find adequate references online. However, many regions of the US have no newspapers included in online compilations, while big-city newspapers are more likely to be available online. There is systematic bias even in the US. There is much more bias in the availability of news media for third-world schools. Experience shows that if non-online news archives are consulted, adequate references can be found to satisfy  for "real" high schools, as opposed to a home school or a short-lived religious school taught to a few children in a church basement for a few years. High schools are major public investments which have regional or state-wide influence, generally over a long span of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)