Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ARS Public School
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

No relevant coverage found. And per Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, schools are not presumed to be notable because they exist. They have to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:N The Banner  talk 18:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am having trouble understanding what has changed since the last AfD. The RFC on school outcomes concluded in February 2017 and the first AfD on this article concluded in October of 2017. I read through the previous AfD and I stuck on User:DGG's rational. My question concerns this AfD. Is this AfD in hopes of finding a new WP:CONLIMITED?
 * Pinging participants from AfD1 from 3 years ago. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (because I was pinged, otherwise I am retired from Wikipedia's characteristic drama-for-the-sake-of-drama). The fact is that nothing has changed since the 1st AfD four years ago almost to the day. History will firmly demonstrate the nominator's years-long predilection for listing schools at Afd - often around the year end / new year period. That said, the much vaunted RfC by AfD proposers was indeed inconclusive. This very low-traffic school article is hardly one that is likely to attract much attention on en.Wiki. This relisting to overturn 's previous closeure is therefore a clear attempt to see if a new batch of ¡voters would have a different opinion: WP:CONLIMITED, and it's not even a case of WP:CCC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant how you ignore the content but start a rant against the nominator to deflect that. The Banner  talk 07:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 23:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per myself four years ago. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Looking over the past AfD 99% of the keep votes amounted to bickering over if the RfC was valid or not without any actual analysis of the sources that were available at the time. One person did say they re-wrote the article, but admitted themselves that it still wasn't notable, but probably would be with the addition of offline sources. Which it appears never materialized. Looking over it now there is nothing in the article or that I could find elsewhere that make it notable. Since the references in the article are all extremely trivial and (or) primary. I couldn't find anything else that wasn't either. I'm more then happy to change my vote to keep if someone can find WP:THREE in-depth, secondary sources though. Good luck with that ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't participated much in school AfDs recently, but my impression from observing them casually is that since four years ago, the consensus has swung further towards insisting on the need for them to meet the notability criteria as any other article would. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kept at the last AfD, which took place after the controversial RfC. Like Lightburst and Kudpung, I am struggling to see what has changed since then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons discussed in the first nomination. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This page on the school's website appears to show multiple newspaper reports concerning the school. I don't understand the language that they are written in and I don't know whether the original sources are reliable. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject isn't notable but that doesn't matter because Wikipedia is a fan project and we choose sides rather than make objective decisions. I'm not casting a !vote per WP:CANVASS. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Chris Troutman I have been involved in several other AfDs where participants from a previous AfD are pinged - especially if it was relatively recent. I have pinged all of the participants - everyone but the closer. I think canvassing involves calling in others to ivote a certain way. Lightburst (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You should have pinged the closer too because in my humble opinion he made an error while closing by not taking the named RFC in account and discount most of the keep-votes. The Banner  talk 19:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pings don't work if you don't sign your comment, . FYI, . Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I got the ping, and I haven't looked into the issue in-depth, but just to remind people that consensus can change so starting a second AfD I previously found a "keep" consensus for is not in and of itself disruptive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see now that Kudpung already pinged you before Lightburst tried. Anyway, I agree on your assessment of the validity of a second AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see now that Kudpung already pinged you before Lightburst tried. Anyway, I agree on your assessment of the validity of a second AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, albeit weakly. I'm seeing some significant coverage of the school in the sources in the article, but only from one organization (The Telegraph). Per a 2017 RfC, schools aren't presumed notable just because they exist. Therefore, per WP:N, they need to either meet the WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline (such as WP:ORG). That 2017 RfC's closing summary also states 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. I don't really see discussion on that for now, and it's likely that many local publications are going to be non-English. An editor in the previous AfD identified this source as significant coverage; I'm not quite sure of that, though it affirms that the school does (or did) have basketball as a sport. Some of the tone issues can be resolved by means other than deletion, and I have attempted to do so in my edit. However, in the absence of anybody claiming to have done a thorough search of print and/or local media regarding this school, though at least one editor found a page on the school's website that contains screenshots of print articles that the school claims are about it. While I can't read the language those local news articles are written in, some of the articles at minimum contain a photograph that includes an English-language sign containing the name of the school, so it doesn't look like the articles are totally frivolous. I lean towards presuming notability given that it's received some coverage from at least one national or large regional outlet and it appears to have received significant coverage from multiple local outlets. If anybody can read those articles, it would be helpful in determining the extent of WP:SIGCOV, but I can't think of doing anything but keeping it given what's been presented. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We must note that consensus can change. No participants in this discussion seem to have addressed the concerns of the nominator (edit conflict so I didn't see Mike's participation before posting this) and have just pointed to the last AfD. I cannot find any sources giving notability so am leaning towards delete but haven't done enough research into this to be sure. I would also ask the closer to seriously consider why participants in the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) (including one who was recently banned from AfD) are taking such an interest in this. As much as I want to assume good faith, I think this may be due to the article and wikiproject sharing the same initials. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL school lacks coverage of events that would meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you examined the sources available here and found that they are all WP:MILL? If so, would you be willing to describe what they each say? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Mikehawk10. This !vote is a result of checking the sources in the article. Which specific events (and supporting independent sources) do you believe establish notability for the school? I am happy to reconsider, of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . My point is more that the RfC on schools said that [b]ecause 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. We appear to have found some local print media at that source, though as I've stated above I can't actually read it. I'm wondering if you're able to analyze the local print media listed there, or if your WP:MILL rationale is based solely on the English-language sources otherwise presented above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Like you, I can't read it. The titles suggest it is largely routine events but I am happy to reconsider if someone is able to provide specific quotes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment For the record, a parallel discussion here. If interested, you need to expand the "Extended discussion" as someone has now decided to put this behind a curtain. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And what is the relevance of that? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your silence is golden. Let the voters and closer decide. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not be bullied into giving an answer on an irrelevant question at an irrelevant place. Please stop it. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. The reverts and cover up there are telling.  Streisand effect.  Happy editing.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to have ample print coverage as shared by Verbcatcher. NemesisAT (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . Which quote from the print coverage makes you confident that it is not WP:ROUTINE? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not able to read these sources, given this I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume that that they are SIGCOV. It wouldn't be right IMO to delete an article when we know there are sources available, purely because we are unable to access or read said sources. NemesisAT (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are just gambling that it are proper sources? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is evidently regular coverage in newspapers. I wouldn't call that "gambling" and newspapers are likely to be "proper sources". NemesisAT (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have sources, could you please add them? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you've linked to Notability (events) which doesn't appear to be an appropriate guideline here. NemesisAT (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An article needs to prove its notability using sources. I don't think it is sufficient to base this on a web page which may establish notability if we don't know what it actually says. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.