Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City


 * 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. The community participating in this discussion was unable to establish whether precedent outweighed WP:NHSCHOOL. (Note: this close does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable; instead, it finds that the editors participating in the discussion were unable - and others will most likely be unable - to establish whether it was notable or not.) &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are contradictions on the page itself, claiming to serve grades 1-12, while being named a Senior Secondary School, which would imply 11-12. I suggest merging into Hindaun or a new list of the local schools if needed per Notability (high_schools). The school does not pass WP:NGO per WP:NHSCHOOL, so while it does seem to exist, an article on it does not seem appropriate. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Admins, please keep this open until a consensus has been reached at Village pump (proposals) Jerodlycett (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just want to add, it was deleted under a different name already. Articles for deletion/Shri Abhay Vidhya Mandir, Hindaun city Jerodlycett (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It does not appear to be notable and it's completely uncited. A merge would be fine but there would have to be some sources first (source added below). Phantom Tech  (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This source Samsara 22:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Sources exist to prove it exists and is a secondary school. That is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sufficient to talk about it, not to have an entire article on it, per WP:NHSCHOOL. I can't even seem to confirm that it's actually a secondary school, let alone a senior secondary school though. I still feel the best solution is a merger. Can you explain why you feel a keep would be better than a merger? Jerodlycett (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Local government seems to think it is: Samsara 03:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, wikilink the "longstanding precedent and consensus" policy/guideline/essay, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I think we need to break the precedent, and that precedent isn't enough to keep but rather just to tie-break, I do know that it's found at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, based on that I ended up on the "schools" section of WP:ORG, an ordinary guideline linked from the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. Wisely not mentioning "precedent", because this could upset folks like me, who are not exactly fans of the concept. Yes, I know where the enwiki servers are ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep if sourced I think having articles on secondary schools is fine since hopefully students will look at their articles one day and think "hey maybe I can edit this and make it better" and become Wikipedians. that being said, it still needs to have sources, if it can't be referenced I think we can delete it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted (per Afd) article... Neutralitytalk 04:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose speedy. Previous AfD consensus was based on non-verifiability. There are sources documenting the existence of the school. Please take care to use the "find sources" links at top before opining on AfDs. Thank you. Samsara 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding precedent at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you feel a keep is better than a merger? Jerodlycett (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both speedily and regularly and/or merge into Hindaun. If there are multiple reliable sources for anything other than this school's mere existence, I cannot find them. Mere passing mentions in directories or news articles is not sufficient to keep this. The administrator or closer who adjudges this discussion must weigh the arguments to keep this particular article, not just act on what usually happens here and those arguments must be enough in quality to either satisfy the WP:NHSCHOOL guideline or to set it aside as a local exception under IAR. Arguments from "precedent" or prior consensuses here at AfD in prior cases are meaningless whereas WP:NHSCHOOL, as a guideline, is the "established consensus" of the community per WP:CONLIMITED. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. There are two independent sources that show the school exists. Samsara 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your precedent argument totally ignores what is said in the "Citing this page in AfD" section of the very page that you're citing, which boils down to saying that the idea that prior outcomes — a/k/a precedent — may be "useful" but the notability guidelines prevail:"This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else.  All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view. ... Avoid over-reliance on citing these 'common outcomes' when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." (Emphasis expanded from original.) As for your sources, the two sources you've linked above are not reliable and even if they were, we'd need more than something than directories — which amount to passing references — which merely indicate existence. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying that a government document is a not a reliable source for the existence of an institution reporting to it is a pretty tall tale. Samsara 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:ORG, zero reliable references counting findthebest.in as unsourced spam collection, multiple issues, almost orphaned (one good link from Hindaun suggests that this is no hoax), OSM and Google Maps are apparently unaware of a school at the given coordinates. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Maps is useless for this area - it doesn't even have street names for most streets. Why on Earth then would you expect it to have an accurate record of the identity of individual buildings? Samsara 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I  admit the evidence here is marginal . but it is enough to verify as a secondary school, and that is all that is needed.  I'm not willing to overrule a consistent rule thathasservedus well for many years in this one borderline case.  DGG' ( talk ) 19:46, 30 March 2015 (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.