Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.A.V Public School, Mahuda


 * 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) Sam Sailor Talk! 15:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

D.A.V Public School, Mahuda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failure of WP:GNG. Nothing about of the subject can be found in news. Made up by a user who is closely associated with the subject and probably is a student of the school. The thing is not that, in the alumni section, the names mentioned mentioned as completely out of self interest. There are many sentences in article, that are inclined towards the subject with maintaining NOPV. Example,Parents are exhorted to offer suggestions to the institution for all round development of the school,Principal interacts with students both inside and outside the classrooms to diagnose problems and also to encourage and motivate students etc.There is only one reference and that too is a blog and is not a verifiable one. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep quite obviously, per long standing precedent as documented in OUTCOMES and evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. This article can easily be cleaned up which should have been the primary concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, no, nom does not have WP:BURDEN. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it's not their responsibility to clean up the article? Of course it is if their principal objection is it being poorly written. Poorly written ≠ not notable and AfD is only for subjects that may be non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep it, why don't you improve it by adding reliable info and sources (conform WP:RS) to it? It is not the nominators duty to fix what the original author did not do, making a reliable article. The Banner talk 21:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone show me evidence in reliable sources that (1) This school exists and (2) This is a secondary school? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Its website makes that perfectly apparent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The school's website is not a reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * please see WP:OUTCOMES. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , There is a related discussion going on here about schools and verifiability Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is fine, but WP:V is policy and needs to be satisfied. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , then I'd dutifully and most respectfully recommend that  you get  up  date with the very  RfC you  linked to. You  may  wish  to  be cognisant  of the fact  that  it was the latest in about  20  such  perennial discussions over the years, and they all ended the same way. Besides which, the way schools are handled is a Founder's initiative and dates back  almost  to  the beginning  of Wikipedia, so  it  is practically  fruitless to  attempt to  change policies and guidelines through  the backdoor of AfC. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not an RfC, it's just an informal discussion about verifiability. I respect SCHOOLOUTCOMES and I'm not asking for any change in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I'm simply saying that there should be one reliable independent source (not self published) to prove that the school exists. This is exactly what is stated in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. My issue is that editors are actually neglecting this important part and simply !voting keep. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, so is what is being said here is that WP:GNG and the need for WP:RS doesn't count when it comes to school articles? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what they suggest. No sources needed, and when you can't find them, you were not looking hard enough (really, one of the keep-CABAL once stated the). And it is a brilliant circular reasoning to keep a school because schools were kept in the past because schools were kept in the past because schools were kept in the past etcetera. And SCHOOLOUTCOMES is just a summary, not a policy although they use it as such. The Banner talk 18:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Indian government's Central Board of Secondary Education says it exists and is a secondary school, therefore meets WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mind giving evidence of that? The Banner talk 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I started with the cite in the article, then followed it to the point that it was clear that CBSE was the Indian government. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This site? This definitely doesn't seem like the website of the Indian government. I will eat my hat if it turns out to be a government site. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to believe my lying eyes . VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn my lying eyes . VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Details for hat eaters at . VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I was referring to this site. The website www.icbse.com is definitely not the website of the CBSE India. I'm glad I don't have to eat my hat ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue who actually owns a particular web site, but it is clear that CBSE is the government of India, and that CBSE says this secondary school exists. Is this a keeper or not? VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Source for verification, thanks to . Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I would prefer to keep it at the moment as it is an accredited secondary school. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note for future use: cbseaff.nic.in seems to be the genuine site to check for school affiliation in India. www.icbse.com has a similar name but is NOT the genuine site and should not be used for verification. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2016 (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.