Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Berachampa Deulia Uchcha Vidyalaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. Has had no sources, and has been tagged as such since January 2012. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if the claims were true, it would certainly be notable since it is a secondary school with a pretty large population. That being said, I can't find any non-Wikipedia mirrors that show it exists, which is odd for a school of the size, even in that region. I've been able to find sources for 100 student schools in the tribal areas of Pakistan before, so the lack of sources here worries me. If someone can find sources, please ping me and I'll change my !vote to keep, but otherwise, we have a huge WP:V problem here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gov site: it exists. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per systemic bias concerns raised in the RfC. A secondary school of this size is inevitably notable and there would likely be sources to meet WP:GNG if someone had the language skills and physical proximity to locate them. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: A secondary school that is at the very least verified to exist. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The school may exist, but there are no reliable sources to support this (or any) article content.  Sandstein   17:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources. That it exists is not sufficient to make it encyclopedic. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of available sources to base content on. The school might have been demonstrated to exist, but that's about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing NSCHOOLS and GNG. I am mindful of the systemic bias concerns outlined by the schools RFC, but, ultimately, we are an encyclopedia, not a social justice project. No sources, no article. Even if reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage do exist somewhere, it appears unlikely anyone will be able to locate or translate them, meaning that, for the purposes that matter—neutrality, reliability, thoroughness—they're worth nothing. Rebb  ing  17:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG makes it clear that sources do not have to be available online or written in English. The systemic bias concerns here should weigh heavily. The sources provided demonstrate that GNG would likely be met if someone had the resources to find them. The best argument for deletion here is no original research, but the article can be scrubbed of that, and still meet our notability criteria. Just from a basic glance of the sources provided, this is at least as notable as a 200 person high school in the rural United States that gets kept because the school football team is the biggest news in the town. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that offline, foreign-language sources count for notability. However, notability cannot be met by hypothetical sources: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability," WP:NRVE (emphasis added); the sources listed below are mere passing mentions that do nothing to demonstrate notability. GNG is not written in terms of sources proponents imagine exist because imaginary sources can't be used to write articles. The schools RFC reaffirmed that this holds even for secondary schools: "Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them." I made an honest effort to locate usable sources but found nothing; if you believe there is foreign reporting that provides significant coverage, it's on you to show it. That such has not put forward during this discussion suggests that it doesn't exist. Rebb  ing  13:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added more coverage. The school has been covered by several newspapers. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as articles on high schools are usually kept provided the schools are verifiable. I'm surprised that the previous commenters couldn't find sources to verify the existence of this school. Page 2, item 110 of this PDF from the website of the Council of Higher Secondary Education of the Indian state of West Bengal lists the school.  And this website of the West Bengal Council of Secondary Education classifies the school as a boys' school (which corroborates a claim in the article).  This school is also listed in the mid-day meal program sponsored by the Government of India.  Lastly, a student of this school is also mentioned in an article on Two Circles (not a very high-quality source, but good enough for verifiability).  Having said all this, all unsourced material ought to be removed, and the article should definitely be cleaned up. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * An article (page, image) on the school in Anandabazar Patrika, a Bengali daily with more than a million circulation. Though the article is in Bengali, parts of it can be translated (disable Adblock for both websites).  I'll ask someone at the Bangla Wikipedia for a proper translation. — Stringy Acid (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another Bengali article in Zee News' Madhyamik discussing the performance of students from this school and various other schools in their board examinations. This is a large school in a highly populated area, and I'm pretty sure more such articles can be found. (The school's name translates to "বেড়াচাঁপা দেউলিয়া উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়" in Bangla.) — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, As the sources given by, its a secondary school and its verifiable. Thus it is easily pass GNG. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and per this which clarifies that it is a notable higher secondary school. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is an example of the WP:GEOBIAS present on this project. There is no way a secondary school of this nature in North America would be nominated for deletion. Good sources have now been found through the hard work of (which clearly should have been done by the nom per WP:BEFORE). AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. there seem to be enough surces for verifiability, and that's al that's really need to justify a high school article.  If we are going to delete the truly marginal articles on high schools, there are many worse than this--and if the verifiability is weak, I'll support the deletion. But the consensus that all verifiable HS are notable still holds--and needs to hold, or we will be spending half our afd energy on these articles, when we need to be devoting our efforts to the commercial promotionalism  and the paraphrases of web sites that constitute many articles on non-commerical organizations.   DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 11 April 2017 (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.