Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School


 * 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 ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr.S.HUSSAIN ZAHEER MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
Non notable school asserting no encyclopedic content, I don't think there's such thing as "regioncruft" but this articles assertion of "stalwarts like IICT, NGRI, CCMB" is also hopelessly relevant to only the region in which the article is commenting. The style and grammar would require a complete rewrite (with the capslock key levered off the keyboard) and the POV issues if removed would probably result in a 6 word article. Best to just bin it.  •E l om i s•     03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no verifiable sources, very little on Google, no showing of notability. Agree with Edison below, I don't know why sports have anything to do with anything in the guidelines we have, but the Nobel bit is unique and impressive, so changing to a keep. Seraphimblade 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*DELETE. EVEN THOUGH THE PROBLEMS DESCRIBED ABOVE HAVE BEEN FIXED, THERE STILL REMAINS THE ISSUE OF VERIFIABILITY. ONLY 13 GHITS, THE ONLY THING VERIFIED IS THAT THE SCHOOL EXISTS. (Yes, I was poking fun at the caps lock thing). MER-C 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete per MER-C. -- Kicking222 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As irony would have it, I was cleaning away the rubbish as Elomis was listing it. I think we should beware systemic bias. It is probably of interest to people in India. I have also moved the thing. Still digging for sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  03:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per below. MER-C 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Google did not turn up anything useful Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  03:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. Gonna go down pleading not paper as I drown in a SEA OF DELETE'S.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Stuff me with green apples and call me a pie. Good job, Alansohn.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. Inclusionists could learn some things from Alan, who, instead of just saying "keep all schools", actually went out of his way to assert notability and include reliable sources. Well done, my friend. -- Kicking222 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of satisfying WP:V and no evidence that the school is notable. JoshuaZ 03:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Changing to keep per Alan below. JoshuaZ 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment systemic bias?! pfft. I can only assume you are talking about the AfD process often having a common outcome of deleting an article. This isn't systemic bias (or if it is it's easily explainable and satisfactory), if any sensible Wikipedia editor submits an article through the AfD process, of course the chances are it will be deleted.  Those that are suitable to the outcome of remaining in the Wikipedia aren't typically submitted to the process!   •E l om i s•      04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Systemic bias" as in the fact that nearly every school in the USA has a page about it, yet this one gets picked for AfD even though it seems to be quite talked about over there. yandman  16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that bad articles have been kept in the past is no reason to keep other bad articles. Bring some of those US or British secondary schools up for AfD, and I will happily (in most cases) vote to delete.  Xtifr tälk 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*Delete No claim of notability and no multiple independent sources. Changing vote to Keep Sources were added. Sports competition notices in paper are pretty ordinary for a school, but the reference from a national paper showing three Nobel laureates interacting with the students in the science program is impressive enough to allow inclusion. Edison 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not Assertions of notability. TJ Spyke 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unasserted notability is cruise control for removal. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, newly added sources do not assert notability. It exists, has a science program, hockey team, etc. Okay, it's a school. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn school. --Ter e nce Ong (C 08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Delete no schools are notable! (I'm gonna spread this meme if it kills me.)  :)  But, in particular, this school is not notable and fails WP:V.  Xtifr tälk 10:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to weak, the article is much improved, but I still don't see enough to justify keeping the article--and, while I'm concerned about systemic bias, I would say the same about my own alma mater if it had this little to justify keeping it. In fact, if the high school I attended came up for AfD, I would vote to delete without hesitation. :)  Xtifr tälk 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesnt pass the (incredibly lenient) WP:School test. I am changing my vote to Keep per Alansohn (good research), I'm trying to keep to WP:School and this article definitely meets it. Amists  talk •  contribs 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no intimation of notability. BTLizard 11:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's hard to blame all those above who voted to delete the original version of the article as it appeared when the AfD was created, especially if anyone actually read the article. With a little bit of research, it is clear that the school is indeed notable, and the additional information has been added to the article with material from the school's web site and several references from The Hindu, India's main national newspaper. With its management and operation by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, the school has a unique science program that allows students to learn from India's top scientists, and to have heard from several recent Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureates. The school competes in, and has won, at the top levels of sport in the state. I strongly suggest that all those who previously voted to Delete should re-read the article and reconsider their vote. Based on fulfilling the coverage requirements of criterion 1 and the fact that the "school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools" in compliance with criterion 4, the school meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:SCHOOL for retention. Alansohn 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. Accurizer 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Far more notable than most of the school pages we have here. It's even talked about in the "Hindu" (India's "USA today"). yandman  16:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since it's been rewritten and sourced. Meets verifability criteria, and certainly meets the proposed schools notability criteria. Akradecki 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if/when this article is kept, will the closing person please rename the article SO IT ISN'T SHOUTING AT US?Akradecki 18:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: it is already moved. --Iamunknown 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per (1) addition of quality verifiable sources, (2) its alumni, and (3) countering systemic bias. (Change to tentative delete. See below.) --Iamunknown 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per convention. Thanks to whomever did the rework. It was in a pretty sad state when it was up for Prod. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this article has been nicely expanded with some notability established Valoem   talk  19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename for reasons which I hope are obvious. There are multiple indicators of notability here, with thanks to Alansohn for the improvements.  Silensor 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I guarantee you that a comparable school in the United States would have more ghits and would be kept. The external links and references assert notability. 129.98.212.69 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Alansohn. bbx 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it's on the Subcontinent doesn't make it less notable. Caknuck 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep High schools are by default considered notable. -- Librarianofages 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not on Wikipedia, they're not! There's ample precedent to prove this claim wrong.  Xtifr tälk 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*Change of comment to Weak Keep I don't think high schools are considered notable by default per Librarianofages, I don't think anything is notable by default and must always assert it's notability clearly (hence my exclusionist philosophy). Further, systemic bias is a weasely excuse to slow consensus forming for deleting articles, notability is to be independantly asserted, not asserted more than other articles per Arkadecki, voting is evil so anyone who was requesting change of votes either in this debate or via my talk page have earned themselves a rap on the knuckles with a ruler (and a smile for their good intentions) schools always have notable people talk at them (Nobel Laureates included) because important people educate tomorrows important people so that's should be taken thinly when asserting notability. BUT all that said, this article now reads quite nicely and seems to have rushed to attain a high quality quickly while on death row, I say an 11th hour repreive is in order.  •E l om i s•     21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment If you compare this article with all the other articles about high schools, this one should definitley be kept. This article has sources and asserts nobility. Thats a lot more than I can say about most high school articles on here. Clamster5 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS.  RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   --  Agεθ020  ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 07:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I'm opposed to the inclusionism surrounding high schools; I strongly feel that only a small few are notable enough to justify having articles. However, I have become resigned to the fact that I am in the minority on this matter as virtually all high schools are kept.  Now if we are going to continue following this policy, then we need to accept foreign high schools as well.  See what kind of doors this opens?  ;)  Regardless, this schools article is decently well written and appears that it may be notable anyway.  --The Way 09:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tentative delete. I have similar sentiments as The Way (see immediately above). I left them at the table before I came to the discussion, because I feel they are minority, perhaps even fringe, sentiments, but I now feel compelled to argue with conviction. I do not think that this high school, though it seems like an admirable high school, merits an encyclop&#230;dia article. I had Holocaust survivors, Stephen Covey, and wealthy businessmen speak at my high school, but I do not consider that to establish any notability. If a high school were to influence educational standards for a whole national region, or attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement (not, "They delivered N number of cans to FEMA") or fiasco (something on the scale of Columbine), then I would certainly consider it notable as to justify encyclop&#230;dic inclusion. --Iamunknown 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no idea what "systemic bias" is supposed to mean, but I do know how to define notability. Your "tentative" status is demonstrating an extreme version of deletionist elitism as to what schools merit inclusion in Wikipedia. At this school, the Nobel laureates lectured as part of an integrated program with the parent Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, unlike the feel-good appearances by those on the lecture circuit at your school, which had no connection whatsoever to the curriculum. By your logic, Columbine High School should not merit an article, as it was merely the site of a massacre. If the incident had happened at a local fast food establishment, would there be an article Columbine McDonald's that talked about the restaurant's menu and staff simply because a whole bunch of people were killed by two members of the wait staff who worked there after school? Or would there be an article for Columbine Post Office about the hours and services offered at that branch, if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had graduated high school and gotten jobs as letter carriers before they went berserk? As to your "influence educational standards for a whole national region" criterion, can you name more than a handful of schools (if that many) that would meet this criteria? We have to stop sitting up all night trying to figure out new hoops for school articles to jump through. And when did Wikipedia become a US only site that we have to question whether foreign schools should be admitted? Schools, as an integral part of our education system, and as demonstrated by the frequent, in-depth coverage they receive from multiple, independent and reliable sources, are often notable and deserve articles in Wikipedia, should they meet these standards. This school is simply one of the better-qualified for Wikipedia inclusion. Alansohn 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your expeditious label of me as an extreme elitist is merely an underhanded tactic designed to discredit my justification to delete this article. Instead of addressing my points directly, you first prefix an accusation of systematic bias in order to label me as a miscreant and a systematically biased Western bigot. I ask you this: if I were an extremist like you explicitly accuse me of being, why would I be compelled to "tentatively" argue for the deletion of this article? If I intended to systematically delete this and every other article which did not fit in with my bigoted "deletionist [elitist]" views, would I argue to "tentatively delete" this article? No. If I were in fact an extremist as you accuse of being, I would argue vehemently for the deletion of any article which I did not include in the limited corpus of human knowledge I deemed appropriate to include in any encyclop&#230;dia. Because I in fact argue tentatively rather than vehemently for the deletion of this article, I am not a systematically biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western bigot as you readily accuse me of being. Thus I loathe your accusation that I am prejudiced by an "extreme ... deletionist elitism."
 * Further, nowhere did I argue that because Columbine High School was involved in one of the the largest, worst, most horrific school massacres in United States history that it should be priveleged to have data on its corresponding encyclop&#230;dia article including hours, staff, address, contact information, etc. My apparently systematicaly biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western-bigoted minority/fringe views which you shamelessly accuse me of compel me to disagree with including the aforemtioned data on the grounds of it being unencyclop&#230;dic. If the data could be integrated into the article in the form of compelling, even brilliant prose, then including would be fine by me. But I view that including it in a pithy directory format in an easily accessible table right in view at the top of the page is exactly what Wikipedia is not.
 * And no, as to my idealistic (but ultimately bigoted and "deletionist [elitist]") school inclusion criterion, that the school "influence educational standards for a whole national region," I cannot name more than a handful of schools that would meet this criterion. But, in the spirit of my alleged systematically biased "deletionist [elitist]" Western-bigoted views, I feel compelled to include only these few schools in any encyclop&#230;dia. But I loathe your label; I ardently argue that I am neither systematically biased, nor "deletionist [elitist]," nor a Western bigot when I think that this article should not be included in Wikip&#230;dia. A Western bigot would argue that this article be deleted but not articles about high schools in the United States deleted; I argue that not only this article but also articles concerning high schools in the United States be deleted, thus I am not a Western bigot. An "extreme ... deletionist [elitist]" would argue vehemently that this article be deleted; I am not arguing vehemently that this article be deleted, but am arguing tentatively that it be deleted, thus I am not an "extreme ... deletionist [elitist]". (I am arguing vehemently that your accusations and abstractions of my arguments are underhanded, accusatory attempts to discredit my arguments in favor of deletion by labeling me as a systematically biased, "deletionist [elitist]" Western bigot. There is a distinct difference.)
 * I still stand by my criteria for inclusion of high schools in Wikipedia. (I must note, however, that I do not pretend to hold them as a final decision. Indeed, I quickly summarized thoughts that had been floating around in my head upon which I have neither ruminated nor refined.) I do not use them as a strict policy, but instead I am informed by them, when I choose to argue to tentatively delete this article. --Iamunknown 01:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that you don't recognize that your argument that only those high schools that "were to influence educational standards for a whole national region" merit inclusion is not elitist? Again, how many schools in the world meet this criteria? It is a justification that is so irrational as to be meaningless. Your "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" is another standard that is so arbitrarily unrealistic as to be useless. How many schools on this planet meet this criteria? By what existing Wikipedia standard have you derived these justifications? Please refer to anything, anywhere that justifies your nonsensical vote. Alansohn 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally, I would agree with the premise that most high schools (e.g., most on the planet) are not notable. I changed to keep on this particular one, as it has some very unique and special characteristics, and has been verifiably recognized in quite a few third-party sources. However, generally, Local High is not notable, any more then a local Wal-Mart or gas station would be. I would say there should be some additional exceptions, such as historic/event notability (Columbine, for example, or the first high school in a country), exceptional standards or styles of teaching (though if this is related to a "chain" such as Waldorf/Montessori, this should already be covered under the main "X Schools" article and wouldn't establish notability for the school itself), exceptional and historic controversy surrounding the school (of more than just local interest), massive and verifiable influence on teaching standards over a large region or nationwide (not just state/citywide), winning a major national (not local) award and receiving significant press coverage for it, or exceptional and region/nationwide (again, not state/citywide) notability for a program at the school. Seraphimblade 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please immediately stop accusing me of being "irrational," "[voting nonsensically]," and providing "ludicrous arguments." I noticed that again, instead of arguing based solely on the apparent merit or lack of merit of my arguments, you prefix an accusation of irreparable and nonsensical bias. Why do I have to cite specific "standards"'s for my argument? I argued based on my conviction that only a few high schools are notable enough to be included in an encyclop&#230;dia. So what? My extemporaneous criteria are elitist. I know that Wikip&#230;dia is not paper; but that should never imply that Wikip&#230;dia should include everything of little notability and influence.
 * And why does it matter that my criteria are elitist? Precedent and consensus must start somewhere: an unrecognized and unrespected opinion. Does my argument offend you? Does it frighten you? Why are you so loathe towards my argument such that your reaction is first to alienate my argument, then accuse me of irreparable bias and nonsensical justification? Are you unable to discuss the apparent lack of merits you find in it, so you instead result to name calling? Bingo! That you are accusing me of elitism is again evident of your underhanded attempt to distance me from the mainstream. By attaching a label, you intend to stigmatize and alienate me from the average Wikip&#230;dian, based on the virtue that you dislike my opinion. Instead of arguing based on the perceived lack of merit, you attempt to create a divide via an automatic labeling procedure. Please stop.
 * I still stand by my criteria, even if they are "gasp" elitist. I nonetheless consider them a good set of criteria to apply to the inclusion of articles into an encyclop&#230;dia. If you want to discuss the merits or lack of merits of my arguments, instead of merely labeling them with divisive, stigmatizing, and alienating labels, please come back and do; otherwise, any further altercation would be superfluous, appalling, and redundant.
 * (Note: Consider the following clause from "wikietiquette". The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. You specifically accused me of "[not justifying my] nonsensical vote". I thought this was a debate, not a vote. I argued, either meaningfully or nonsensically, based on my conviction. My "vote" was a mere initial text to summarize my argument. Do you just want me to fall into line and vote strong keep, with little supporting argument, like the rest of the people you solicited to "reconsider their vote"? Perhaps you should cite any "existing Wikipedia standard" for your actions; that is, if you truly do require that to support any individualised action on Wikip&#230;dia.) --Iamunknown 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a vote. But the thing you typed where you wrote "weak delete" and tried to explain your justification is so far out of consensus as to be meaningless. Why is your requirement that a school "influence educational standards for a whole national region" or "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" any more valid than "all schools are notable"? How can you quote an obligation to "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments", which are solely based  on your own personal biases, not on any relevant standard? If you read above, I detail the criteria by which this article passes WP:SCHOOL and would pass any other relevant test for such an institution. And you appeal to what, other than your own personal whim?? How many schools in the world meet your elitist criteria? Please give us an idea so that we can judge if there is any merit to the standards you've concocted. Alansohn 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment To reply to the above comment by Alansohn, I don't find Iamunknowns justification meaningless at all and it could be construed as a personal attack... His requirements are more valid than 'all schools are notable' in the sense that they are actual requirements that can act as guidelines for determining notability while simply saying 'all schools are notable' is not, at least not in the same way.  Rather, 'all schools are notable' is a discussion closer; it offers no further justification and makes the whole idea of notability rather worthless.  Now, I am actually with you on keeping this particular article, but I agree with Iamunknown in claiming that this whole every high school is notable is a flawed approach that is not in line with most of Wikipedia's policies regarding notability standards. --The Way 11:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: You got me on that one. Okay, let's try this: a so-called standard that only accepts those schools that "influence educational standards for a whole national region" or "attract attention because of a nationally-publicized achievement" is no more valid than a standard that specifies notable schools as those with "more than ten students" or "has been open more than two years." One excludes 99.99999% of all schools, allowing about four or five to slip through, while the other includes almost all schools and excludes a few dozen. They're functional equivalents at exact opposite ends of the spectrum. At least those who claim that "all schools are notable" have the intellectual honesty to proclaim their biases out loud, without hiding behind elitist mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that what they really advocate is "no schools are notable". The plain fact is that a significant percentage of schools, based on the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard, are in fact notable by any reasonable definition. It's far less than 100%, but it's certainly far more than the 0.00001% that seems to be advocated by some here. The WP:SCHOOL proposal is a reasonable middle ground that is far closer to a rational middle ground than the wacky deletionist WP:SCHOOLS3 or the even wackier, even further away from consensus standard proposed proposed here. As a matter of fact Iamunknown has not listed any school (other than Columbine) that would meet his criteria. I guess any school that wants an article can always hope for a good, old-fashioned massacre. Alansohn 14:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Once again, I would assert that most schools aren't notable (just as the local McDonald's or CompUSA isn't notable, even if in aggregate McDonald's and CompUSA are notable.) The idea of high schools is notable, but very few specific high schools are notable. I think WP:SCHOOLS3, while still a little loose, is a reasonable compromise between the inclusionist "almost all schools are notable" and the deletionist "maybe 0.01% of schools are notable." WP:SCHOOL is not, it allows far too many non-notable ones through the cracks. I'd also add that your argument contains a fallacy-just because two arguments are on nearly-opposite ends of a spectrum doesn't mean equal validity. "Almost no one believes the earth is flat" is correct, "almost everyone believes the earth is flat" is wrong, even though they're opposites on that spectrum. Similarly, I would assert that "almost all high schools are notable" is incorrect, while "almost no high schools are notable" is correct. Seraphimblade 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Individual local schools are regular recipients of "multiple non-trivial coverage"; Individual McDonald's and CompUSA rarely receive such coverage. Schools receive national and state awards granted on a selective and competitive; ixnay for McDonald's and CompUSA locations. That said, it's nice to have your extreme deletionist bias out in the open. Wikipedia has a a clear consensus that a significant majority of schools are notable, and a succinct proposal at WP:SCHOOL that offers succinct guidelines to define which are and which are not. Your "no schools are notable" dictate, and the formal definition of this credo at WP:SCHOOLS3, is so far out of the mainstream as to be invalid for consideration. A significant percentage of schools, based on the "multiple non-trivial coverage" standard, are notable by any reasonable definition of the term. It's far less than 100%, but it's certainly far more than the 1-in-ten thousand standard (converting your 0.01%) that you advocate here. If there are 20,000 high schools in the United States, only two would have articles. Which two are they- Columbine and what else? Alansohn 15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment One would imagine that a local McDonald's or CompUSA would receive coverage for grand openings, and possibly even for sales or the like-especially in smaller cities or towns. The problem and point here is, however, that the coverage is of only local notability. Also, please do not misrepresent me-I said the compromise point should be in between "include every school" and "include 0.01% of schools" (a figure which I made up on the spot anyway), so I never suggested the 0.01% as a correct figure. The criteria I suggested earlier were somewhat lost in the sea of text, but to reiterate-I believe that schools which are the subject of exceptional controversy (more so than just locally), are historically important (Columbine, or the first high school in a country), have a notable and very unusual teaching method, and are not a "chain" such as Waldorf/Montessori in which this is covered in the main article (many charter schools would meet this), have won major regional/national (not state or local) awards and have received significant press for this, or are a verifiably major influence on regional/national (not state or local) teaching methods or standards, are notable and should be included. Some other schools such as this one (with Nobel-prize winners as regular lecturers) may have some unique claim to notability as well, which should be examined on a case by case basis as it was here. Oh, and before you label me an "extreme deletionist", you may wish to note what I voted here. Seraphimblade 16:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a number of remarks regarding this conversation. They are as follows:
 * 1. Alan, please try to be more civil. Making ad hominem attacks on Iamunknown simply because he disagrees with you is inappropriate.  Calling someone's views 'wacky' because they are different than yours doesn't help the situation and only heightens tension.  Referring to your arguments as the only ones which are 'reasonable' shares the same problem.  I don't see why reason dictates that you are more correct than others.  I'm assuming good faith on this matter; I believe that we are all reasonable editors with different viewpoints and our viewpoints all have some validity.
 * 2. This notion that those of us who would normally want to delete high schools are 'elitist' is perhaps somewhat correct, though it's a thinly veiled attempt to demean our position in favor of a more inclusionist one. As far as the way this term is being used in this context, I am of the opinion that encyclopedias are supposed to be elitist; they are not directories to have information on every school, hospital, restaurant and gas station rather they are supposed to discriminate and include information on those that substantially stand out from the crowd. Does the high school have a novel approach to education?  If so, keep it.  Has it won a considerable number of awards?  Then keep it.  Is it a typical high school, with a decent but average program?  Then it doesn't need to have an article.
 * 3. While this may not be directly on topic, it ties in with my above comments. After looking at WP:SCHOOLS3 I have to say I still find it too inclusionist based on its first criteria and the fact that a school must only meet one.  Virtually all schools, including elementary ones (and even many preschools) will meet that criteria.  Local newspapers often have several articles on each school in that locality every year.  This criteria makes the other three meaningless since it's going to end up resulting in articles for all other schools.  I personally, and I recognize this isn't the most appropriate place for this discussion, feel that criteria one should be required in conjunction with one of the other three criteria.
 * 4. Finally, as a matter of self-defense, please keep in mind that I did vote keep in this particular instance. --The Way 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had changed my notes to reflect some begrudging support for this based on the fact that the article had been cleaned up and removed some of the glaring problems that it originally had, but seeing some fellow exclusionists weigh in a little I'm inclined to comment further towards getting the consensus. I am unreservedly elitist in my view on Wikipedia, as an exlusionist I believe that articles should exist representing the top x% of schools.  Those which are notable above and beyond the usual collection of schools that all of us (presumably) went to and each of which had their own unique facets associated with them.  Some of the following need to be considered before we can reach consensus here.
 * 1. Is this school unique in any way which is unique to uniqueness? This horridly phrased question means, all schools are unique in some way or another. Each has individual personalities, innovative programs and achievements which set them apart from a category or categories in which they may participate. Some have nobel prize laureates give speeches, some have presentations by the Coca Cola yo-yo team (mine did), but by their nature schools do things that other schools don't.  Their unique achievements need to be considered in line with this, and should be more unique to assert their notability than perhaps a Safeway or McDonalds should.  My highschool in Australia had an annual festival whereby inordinate ammounts of dutch fruit and donut balls were cooked and sold to raise funds, it was very well known in the surrounding towns for it.  No other school did this or anything similar but schools do unique things, this doesn't make them notable.
 * 2. Systemic bias is a horrid labelling accusation designed to drag a debate into the mud. It is Reductio ad Hitlerum in the worst possible manner, designed to villify arguments by directly associating them with a widely despised phenomena.  Essentially the thin veil of accusations of racial vilification are being used to draw attention away from the fact that the school in question here, and often any school whose notability is up for debate, is hopelessly relevant to only a very select area.  We should not feel guilty about this, and we should wholesale reject any Godwin's law-esque accusations designed to make people feel guilty for expressing a valid opinion provided it is backed up with fact.
 * 3. Further on geography, I don't think we should take into consideration the location of a school when deciding on it's worthiness of inclusion. Let's just drag this down to common sense, let's assume that each Wikipedian reading my comments now is a vaguely intelligent person.  Let's say they randomly think up the names of 5 educational institutions.  For me it was University of Sydney, UCLA, MIT, Oxford and Lund Universitat.  Let's assume they think up 10 more, let's assume they are then asked to think up 1000, 10,000, 100,000.  Will an average person given ANY period of time, have the Dr. S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School pop into their head?  Notability doesn't mean fame I know, but would any 500 english speaking people chosen randomly across the globe when asked directly about the Dr. S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial School know what it was from a source other than the Wikipedia?  Now apply the same test to MIT, University of Sydney, Lund, Oxford, Standford, Julliard, University of Toronto, Hiroshima University...
 * 4. This final one is entirely my good-faith opinion, may be entirely wrong and is almost certainly going to be misinterpreted and leave me the subject of personal attacks. I believe that a part of Indian culture is a unified feeling of immense pride in India's educational institutions, particulary those related with the technology industry.  While applaudable this sense of pride needs to be considered with caution when evaluating encyclopedia articles on that subject matter, the cultural pride in India's schools may lend itself to editors of articles on them taking criticism of their notability personally.  I'm making no comment on the actual quality of India's schools, only that inside of India the opinion held by people outside of India on the notability of Indian schools may be overestimated.  •E l om i s•      22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph (Talk 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * keep and please help avoid systemic wp:bias this is a notable school within india Yuckfoo 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn, but move to proper case title if that hasnt been done already.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is almost B class. Bakaman  Bakatalk 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apathetic Keep As it stands right now, I would probably say delete. However, this article shows a dim promise of notability that might come out if given some time to ferment. Trusilver 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Well sourced and researched and notable, per comments before, much more than many Wikipedia articles sadly. Kudos for doing the work to further this encylopedia.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Are you talking to me?
 * Keep started looking into this because I was instantly suspicious of the slightly hamfisted american-centric perspective exhibited in the nomination. Decided it was a keep. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. --SandyDancer 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's start looking at this sensibly people. I am sick to death of the systemic bias garbage, being called hamfisted and american-centric (as an-even minded and tactful Australian this is nothing other than a personal attack by any sensible person's reckoning and SandyDancer is to be admonished for it), my reasons for nominating this article are that it is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS so spectuacular that it rivals a new-year's eve fireworks display.  That the comments for it's inclusion in the AfD debate are backed with ricepaper-like prose while considered discussion for the deletion of it seemed to be ignored in favour of the volume of "keep all schools rox kthx".
 * This debate was re-opened because I petitioned the administrator who closed it to take another look, thanks should go to him for being open-minded enough to let some more consensus form. The comments on his or her talk page were as follows and should be noted here.


 * (BEGIN)
 * I'd like to request you have another look at this debate, I think the consensus achieved was actually in the negative. If you consider that the aim of an article for deletion debate is to reach a consensus, not vote on an outcome, the consensus was overwhelmingly for the article's deletion.


 * But first, this school still spectacularly fails WP:SCHOOLS as follows


 * The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.
 * No, or none stated which is the same thing. This school has not been the subject of any non-trivial publications in the world at large, it is only notable within one country.


 * The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school.
 * This school has existed for 27 years, a little over half of that requirement. Even if we halve the requirement as per WP:SCHOOLS it just makes it.


 * The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities and has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities. These can include, for example, sports teams, band competitions, cheerleading competitions, engineering contests, and so forth.
 * Again, no. The article states two fields of endeavour in which it has been successfull. This is again a case of if the requirements set out in WP:SCHOOLS were halved it would still just make it.


 * The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.
 * My understanding of this (perhaps you disagree) is that the school would have to have something very specific about it that sets it apart. A school which provides for IT industry certifications as part of it's highschool education curriculum, a school which teaches braille or sign lanugage as part of it's curriculum in servicing the blind or deaf, something which sets it apart from highschools.  This is another spectacular failure of WP:SCHOOLS.


 * Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff.
 * None. The school has not been awarded any state awards, or had any commendations from notable people as would be outlined in WP:Notability.


 * The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)
 * No, or not stated, again the same thing. You could almost consider that it's namesake is notable, but I'd doubt it and I think the other considered arguments for deletion would agree.


 * The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others.
 * No. I assume that this school is not on board a spacecraft, under the sea, at the 150th floor of a building or in a building which has existed for time immemorial as an example of a particular period of architecture.


 * As you can see this is a failure of WP:SCHOOLS that can not possibly get any worse. Further the debate that was meant to achieve a consensus, only tallied votes.  These "keep votes" had such nonsensical explanations as "Weak Keep- Seems to be a notable educational institution. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)", or  "KEEP. NOT ALL SCHOOLS ARE INDEPENDANTLY NOTABLE, BUT THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THIS SCHOOL IS. RFerreira 05:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)" a cursory counting of heads and people weighing in.  There were paragraphs upon paragraphs of weighted, supported, considered reasons for it's deletion.


 * (END)


 * Guys my (hopefully) final word on this is that this school is not notable, it is not made notable by having a hockey ground even if it is a very nice one. It is not made notable by important people speaking at it (ALL schools get important people speaking at them), it is not made notable by a sea of people saying "Seems notable" without providing any information as to WHY it seems notable to them and on what version of WP:SCHOOLS they are making the assertion.


 * Any Wikipedians who comment on this AfD further, would be doing me a personal favour for which I'd be most grateful if they didn't drag the debate into the mud with Godwin's Law-esque accusations of racial villification, calling people ham-fisted, a doodie-head, or do anything else to try and detract from the actual subject matter at hand in favour of a petualant race-card play. Any editor offering "keep it seems notable although I've never read any of the guidelines defining what that word means on Wikipedia" or "keep you are racist against India" or "keep This school now has two Google hits, nevermind both of them are Alansohn requesting on user's talk pages that they reconsider their opinion publically", should be discounted and if nobody can offer actual reasons why this article is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia the matter should be closed and resolved for deletion.

 •E l om i s•     21:42, 21 November 2006 (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.