Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar


 * 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. No consensus for deletion Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  23:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was asked to expound my thoughts on this closure, so here you go.
 * On the face of it, a less thoughtful closer might see 7 keeps, 3 deletes, and close as "keep".
 * However, a number of keeps rely on a apparent sentiment that there exists community consensus that secondary schools are inherently notable (which is demonstrably inaccurate per RFC), thus the !votes by Necrothesp, JMWt, Carrite, Languages of India, AusLondoner, and Jack N. Stock (partly) and Bushranger on the basis of "it verifiably exists" bear very little weight.
 * However, Atsme's mention of WP:NOTDIRECTORY without specific reasoning or explanation is also not very helpful in evaluating the strenghts of arguments.
 * What we are left with as the most salient and valid points is TimTempletons's finding of at least some coverage, Bushrangers' and TimTempleton's warnings against our systemic Western bias, Pburka's assessment that the subject lacks evidence of "sigcov in independent reliable sources" (which is just another way to say WP:GNG) along with Cordless Larry's similar "no proven notability" argument, and multiple arguments that "paper sources" may exist and should be sought. However, closing an AfD as delete when there are twice as many !votes for keeping as deleting, regardless of the relative strengths of arguments (and discounting meatpuppets, trolls and SPAs of which there are none in this case) is practically unjustifiable.
 * Hopefully this sheds light on the "no consensus" close. I doubt that relisting the AfD again would have led to more resolution. Hopefully the "no consensus" result will lead to paper sources being found (or proven non-existant). Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article breaches WP:WHYN: "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." RexxS (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - plenty of secondary sources out there and I have added a couple to meet the nominator's concerns. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing more than a passing mention in each case, just a couple of sentences. That's a long way short of WP:WHYN: We require that all articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources. Almost all of the content is sourced to school's own website. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I searched the Central Board of Secondary Education database and did not find this school, so I removed the claim of CBSE affiliation from the article. However, I found the school listed on the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations site and added it as a reference. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See Notability (organizations and companies) : "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." That's the project-wide consensus. Just because it's a secondary school, that does not make it automatically notable. And even if it were notable, policy still requires that the article is based primarily on independent sources, not simply extracts from the school's own website. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't project-wide consensus for schools. Almost all secondary schools have always been kept at AfD. And please read WP:OR! It doesn't say what you clearly think it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a project-wide consensus by the very definition of a WP:Guideline: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Please read WP:STICKTOSOURCES, which is policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." And why don't you read WP:OR? – specifically: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability." It definitely does say exactly what I clearly think it does. No article that relies wholly or principally on the subject's own website as its source is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really not going to bother arguing the toss with someone who thinks using an organisation's website as a basis for the existence of an article is OR (a very widely misinterpreted policy, unfortunately, but it is clearly summed up at the top of WP:OR) or who is apparently unaware of the long-running AfD debate on the notability of schools. You have my opinion above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'm certainly not going to argue the toss with someone who is clearly unaware of the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or of the at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy); Summary: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." You need to get yourself up to date if you're going to contribute constructively to deletion discussions. I trust you'll be able to explain to the closer why your completely unsupported opinion should be given any weight at all in the face of the policies, guidelines and project-wide consensus I've shown you. --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The closing statement at Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School seems relevant here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is presented. Pburka (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - the school appears to exist and it interacts with the government, therefore there must be significant secondary sources that exist about it, even if they're not available on the internet. JMWt (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interactions with the government (permits, reports, etc.) would be primary, not secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think so. I've been bored by this argument before. A government inspectors report of a school is not a primary source unless the page is about that report (which is very unlikely to be notable). JMWt (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "It exists, therefore significant secondary sources must exist"? That's just WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and is a discredited line of argument. If significant secondary sources exist, the onus is on the person who adds the content to present them, per WP:V . And that's policy. --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not mentioned SCHOOLOUTCOMES. WP:NEXIST specifically states and I quote: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." (my emphasis)
 * I am suggesting that there is a strong possibility that sources exist which give notability, and I've given a particular example such as a government school inspectors report of a school that exists. As per note 2 of the WP:GNG, government reports are considered to be relevant sources of the topic they cover in terms of notability. As per WP:ANALYSIS, a secondary source does not need to be an independent or third-party source. There is also a big difference between determining that the topic is notable and determining that a fact is verifiable as per WP:V. We may indeed need to see other, better, sources for a claim that could conceivably be written in a government inspectors report about a school. But we can certainly infer from the fact there is very likely to be a government report that this school is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're bored. However a government inspector's report is unambiguously a primary source, as it's based on the inspector's observations. Would you also claim that an NTSB report on an air crash is a secondary source? Pburka (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to you, but a government inspector's report about a school is a secondary source for the school, although it is a primary source for the inspector's opinion, and a similar distinction can be made for an NTSB report on an air crash (as a non-American I had to look up "NTSB" in an encyclopedia). Sources are not primary or secondary in themselves, but that distiction only comes into play when you consider what they are being used for, as any historian will tell you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a NTSB report gives strong indication that an air crash is notable. There are plenty of examples of other categories of things that are considered to be notable because a large amount of official paperwork must exist if the thing exists even if nobody can point directly at that paperwork on the internet.  There may be occasions when an isolated school has no interaction with government and therefore no wider notability outside of the tiny group of students that attend it. But that can't be the situation for the vast majority of secondary schools that exist and certainly is not the situation for this school. JMWt (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But the argument to delete here is not based on whether or not the school must be notable because it exists. It is based on the policy requirement that the content be principally based on secondary sources. If such sources exist, as you claim, then the content needs to be based on them, and they need to be cited. That certainly is not the case for this article. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, according to WP:NEXIST the sources do not need to be on the internet at all and the AfD needs to consider the possibility that they exist even if none of us actually have access to them. Saying that they need to be found and cited puts a particular unfair onus on keep. The fact is that your position would require you to change WP:NEXIST to remove the requirement to consider the possibility of relevant offline sources, note 2 of the WP:GNG that says gov reports are relevant to assess notability and WP:ANALYSIS which states that the sources do not need to be third party. It is hard to see a stronger policy based rationale for keep - unless you have a good reason for believing this school has not generated the usual government paperwork, your argument is not supported by policy and is toast. And, incidentally, if you don't know it is still toast. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you're trying to misuse a guideline, WP:NEXIST, to overrule policy, WP:STICKTOSOURCES: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it". WP:PAG is quite clear about that: "if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence". Your argument is not supported by policy, and unlike your policy-free assertion, I've quoted the policy that supports my position. The policy is clear: No sources found = no article. It is pure nonsense to argue that some sources might exist and expect objectors to prove a negative. No, the article needs to be based primarily of secondary sources; it isn't; it has no right to be on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

But then WP:STICKTOSOURCES is part of the page WP:OR which is about original research. Nobody is suggesting that anyone here is making up a school, that they're conducting original research into one or anything of the kind. So one needs to consider your quote within the context of what the page is saying and the sentence immediately after it "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery". Nobody is announcing a discovery about a school, one is just saying that if we have evidence that the school exists (which we do from the third party sources that we do have), then we can infer something about other sources that must exist and then say something about the notability. This is all within the notability guidelines and the accepted practice. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Long-standing consensus is that articles on secondary schools are accepted when they are clearly verified by reliable sources (including inspector's reports). The frequent AfD nominations of Subcontinental schools is a case of systematic bias, as we rarely see AfDs for US or Canadian secondary schools. We include an English-language secondary school in India in the same way that we'd include a Hindi-language secondary school in Canada. The closure of the suggested that a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find sources – at minimum, this search should include some local print media. The nomination here has no mention of a search of local print media, thus failing WP:BEFORE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is a useful recommendation, but has no status, not even as a guideline. Conversely, the requirement for the article content to be based on secondary sources is policy and this article fails it. The concluded that your argument of "we've kept them previously, so we should keep them now" is circular and needs to be discounted. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We know your point of view, there's no need to restate it. By the same argument, all policies and guidelines are circular. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that policy is rather more than just my point of view; I wonder why you feel the need to argue against clear policy if you're already aware of it? As for "all policies and guidelines are circular", you'll find that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, and that no policies or guidelines were expressly deprecated by the RfC. But your argument was – in those exact terms. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the GNG, NEXIST and ANALYSIS are more fundamental policy for determining notability than anything you have cited or even the RfC. If you want to challenge the general rationale for keeping secondary schools, you need to change the wording of all of these policies. JMWt (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG doesn't need to be reworded for a school article to be deleted - it just needs to be demonstrated that the particular school doesn't meet its requirements, surely? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have argued that government reports are very likely to exist for this school. Therefore it is notable as per note 2 of the GNG and NEXIST. The onus is therefore on delete to indicate why this school does not appear in government paperwork given that almost every secondary school everywhere is very likely to. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I think you'll find that GNG, NEXIST and ANALYSIS are not policy. If you feel that the guidelines you're using conflict with the relevant policies that I have shown you, the onus is on you to change the policy, since policy on Wikipedia supersedes any guidelines. Case closed. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Utter rubbish. As per WP:DEL the way to determine whether a page is to be deleted is to consider the notability against the notability guideline, particularly the WP:GNG. In fact there is no contradiction between the "policy" and the "guidelines" when the one follows from the other. This is in contrast to "essays" or "outcomes" which are descriptive.  Referencing the WP:GNG is not somehow ignoring WP policy. If you don't like it, that's fine - but you are contradicting the very standards and policies that are customarily used to determine the notability of many different pages at AfD. JMWt (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's patently deceptive. You've carefully avoided WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL14:
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Any other use of the article ... namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * All of the attempts to find reliable sources have turned up nothing more than entries in directories, apart from the briefest mention of one year's exam results in The Hindu. That's nothing like what is needed to write an article. One established separate policy governing inclusion of articles in mainspace is WP:No original research, which excludes any article that has no reliable third-party sources. All your hand-waving about notability guidelines is just distraction from the fact that there are no independent sources available to base this article on. If you had your way, a spammer could write an article about a school based entirely on its own website (which is what actually happened here), then rely on enablers like you to argue that some secondary sources must exist, so the article has to be kept. We write articles based on reliable secondary sources, not guesswork, and articles lacking those sources need to be deleted. That's what this process is about, not some sort of intellectual navel-gazing about what might be, if only we could find the sources. If you're that keen on secondary school articles, why not write one on St Rexx High School – I'm sure there must be some secondary sources for it somewhere. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that secondary schools of verified existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , just to make you aware that the closing statement in a recent school AfD, Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, discounted keep rationales such as that. That's not to say that they will be discounted here, but I thought you might want to know what has happened before. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A closing statement by an editor who expressed a strong "anti-school" opinion in the RfC. I have to say I am deeply uncomfortable with this editor closing school AfCs having expressed an opinion at that RfC, especially by discounting "pro-school" opinions. We all know this is a controversial issue and closing these AfCs should be left to uninvolved editors. Anything else will be seen as partisan, and rightly so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's how you feel, can I suggest that you take that AfD to deletion review? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing has been found to show the school exists. Because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, more work needs to be undertaken to find sources in the other Languages of India, including offline sources, especially in light of the nom indicating they did not complete the steps at WP:BEFORE. AusLondonder (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely an English school is likely to have sources in English, yet no-one voting to keep has been able to find any. Pburka (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's often forgotten in these sorts of debates that the Five Pillars, the fundamental baserock of Wikipedia, states "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (My emphasis added). Secondary schools are the sort of information that is consistent with a gazetteer's content. In addition, it is very long-standing WP:CONSENSUS that secondary schools that can be verified are considered notable. The article does need work and references, but there is no deadline for those, and bearing in mind WP:BIAS as well the conclusion can only be that the enclopedia is not improved by the deletion of this article. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You do know that the very essay you linked to, WP:OUTCOMES, explicitly contradicts what you wrote? It clearly states Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. and you need to accept that. --RexxS (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, consensus clearly has not changed, despite some editors wishing to believe that it has. The RfC was inconclusive and its wording did not set out to change consensus on the established notability of secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RfC was patently conclusive, and the closer made clear the following changes to previous consensus:
 * Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
 * Since the question asked was "whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable", it is false to pretend that its result did not establish a new consensus on notability of secondary schools, no matter how much a small die-hard band of opposers wish to believe otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing the notability guidelines. I'm with Jimbo here, when he writes "I don't think that, in general 'a whole pile of government paperwork' is what makes something notable". Such piles of paperwork also exist for primary schools, but we don't use that as a reason to keep them. He also makes the point that secondary school stubs can be an invitation to boosterism and vandalism, which is a point I made at Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School and which I will repeat here: I have a set of school articles on my watchlist that survived AfD. They are like flypaper for vandalism, promotionalism and unsourced additions. I would be a bit more sympathetic to "keep" arguments if those making them spent more time trying to ensure that kept school articles are maintained properly, but often they just come up with a source or two in the AfD and never actually edit the article concerned (sorry if this is a mischaracterisation based on an incomplete sample, but it has been my experience). Keeping school articles for which there are very few sources wastes editors' time further down the line, and I feel that this should be taken into account more than it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If we're going to delete certain articles just because they're a magnet for vandalism then there are many more articles we should delete: Adolf Hitler, for instance! And if we're deleting articles that are magnets for promotionalism, then most articles on organisations of all types should go, since their members have a tendency to add such material. They're really not valid arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we delete them just because they're a magnet for vandalism or promotionalism. I am suggesting that we might want to take those things into account amongst other factors, especially in marginal cases. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm not as versed in secondary school notability guidelines as the others here, but I did a search and found some coverage in the Hindu, one item of which I added. All the coverage is fleeting and minor; there is no indepth coverage (that I can find) in English, and absent any guidelines I'd be voting delete, but what's here seems to be just enough to satisfy the guidelines. I also see them in several directories listing schools - I know, primary sources, but it seems pretty clear this school exists. Hopefully more coverage will turn up down the road. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which guidelines do you feel is satisfies? (The relevant ones are WP:ORG and WP:GNG). Pburka (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. We've shown that they exist with a minimum of sourcing. If there was any way to merge to a controlling body, I'd support that as well, but a quick glance at the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations articles show that won't work. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  21:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a guideline though, . See Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Indeed, the section on schools notes the outcome of an RfC which concluded that "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm at a weak keep. I'm also basing this on my history at AfD seeing many Indian articles targeted because the creator's English was flawed and there's a bias against some Indian sources, particularly in the entertainment industry, because of their fawning nature, which stands in direct contrast to our relatively more measured publications. In any case, this is going to be at worst a no consensus.  If there's ever any firmer policy decision on high schools, we can revisit. TimTempleton (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - the I exist therefore I'm notable argument fails GNG. We have to look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY which is policy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:50, 10 November 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.