Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatikchhari Coronation Model 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Fatikchhari Coronation Model High School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable school. DOESN’T meet with WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL guideline. ||  Tajwar.thesuperman   💬  07:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ||   Tajwar.thesuperman   💬  07:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. As the vast majority of secondary schools, this one is not notable.--Bduke (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching in Bengali found a lengthy independent piece on alleged corruption at the school before it was nationalised. Combined with the article's brief independent references that verify specific facts, that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing recommendation to redirect to Fatikchhari Upazila after further discussion with Adamant1. There's some evidence that decent offline sources exist, but legible copies can't be obtained within the duration of this discussion. Redirecting to the lowest level locality is a common practice for schools, and a good alternative to deletion because it takes readers to the sourced information available (dates of founding and nationalization, former names). --Worldbruce (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * delete The reference provided by Worldbruce seems to be a personal blog post from a news aggregator site. So I'm not sure if it's a reputable source. Even if it is, news articles about allegations that haven't been proven aren't exactly a strong bases for Wikipedia articles. Especially since the allegations were never followed up on. So there's nothing about it except "someone said something bad happened." Which isn't notable and including it would likely go against some guideline. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a news source. Outside of that everything else is to brief to qualify it for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Describing Sokaler Somoy as a news aggregator is probably accurate. I wouldn't call the article a personal blog post, but on reflection admit that it is weak. It says, however, that it is following up reports in the Dainik Purkobone and Dainik Azadi (reputable mainstream Bengali-language newspapers), and provides poor quality snapshots of photocopies from them. They're so blurry that I can only make out "ফটিকছড়ি করোনেশন" [Fatikchhari Coronation] at the top of the first headline and "ফটিকছড়ি করোনেশন ছলে / দুর্নীতির অডিযেগ" [Fatikchhari Coronation Scam / Allegations of Corruption] as the start of the second, dated 10 Bhadrô 1422 [BS, or 25 August 2015 AD]. The articles are not available online, but that's not surprising considering how poor the online archives of most Bangladeshi Bengali papers are. For me, there's sufficient evidence that offline sources exist that this 100-year old rural Bengali-language school shouldn't have been nominated without first searching offline archives. Performing such a search now that the clock is ticking is impractical for discussion participants. How would you feel about redirecting to Fatikchhari Upazila as an alternative to deletion? Sourced information about dates and the school's various names could be preserved in its education section of the locality article. If good offline sources are found later, the redirect could be expanded again. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't necessarily mean "blog post" in the a diminutive way, just that the person who owns the site wrote the article based on other sources. It's to bad the references they were basing the article on are offline. You'd think if the charges went anywhere that there would be online sources discussing it though. That said, I'd be perfectly fine with a redirect as an alternative to deletion until proper sourcing can be found. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  09:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom. –– FormalDude  talk  10:06, 24 October 2021 (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.