Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gajol H.N.M. 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. There is consensus that any high school that have been confirmed to exist is notable for its own article. If you wish to contest that notion, I would suggest taking this issue elsewhere. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  01:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Gajol H.N.M. High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Purely promotional article of no significance. Regards,  KC Velaga  ✉  02:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

*Keep obviously per long-standing precedent as documented in OUTCOMES and evidenced ny several 1,000 AfD closures. However, contact the author, and help him/her clean up the article per WP:WPSCH/AG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft space, improve then back into mainspace.  Varun FEB2003   I am Offline 10:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. I cannot find anything reliable in the searches I have done in web, news etc except the schools own website. And as per the author, he is facing sockpuppet investigation and the it was confirmed that the user have multiple accounts. Regards,  KC Velaga  ✉  15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks reliable independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The longstanding consensus of the community as reflected in WP:NSCHOOL (a guideline, not an essay) is that schools are held to the same notability requirements as other organizations, namely, that they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Cf. WP:NRV ("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."); ("[N]otability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources."). Topics that do not meet the notability requirement "are not retained as separate articles." WP:FAILN. See WP:WHYN for an explanation of why this is. In this case, there is virtually no qualifying coverage of the subject, so the article must be deleted.  Rebb  ing  07:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, proof of a secondary school's existence is usually accepted as proof of notability. That is the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And here we go. Listed on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education website. Definitely exists. Definitely a secondary school. Accredited by a state agency. Clearly meets the consensus requirements for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And if that wasn't enough, here's its profile on the website of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability determinations are to be based on the criteria established by the broader community in the guidelines, not the whims of an active cabal of AFD participants. The notion that proof of a school's existence satisfies notability is flatly contradicted by the NSCHOOLS guideline, the plain intent of the community ("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."), as well as the reasoning behind our notability requirement. If it were acceptable practice to find notability based on our own criteria, even when those criteria are contradicted by written guidelines, I would be voting "keep" in a lot more discussions. Rebb  ing  08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You really don't like this consensus thing do you? WP:BURO. WP:IAR (that's a policy, you know! Given your obvious love of guidelines, you should love that even more!). Almost no AfD on a verified secondary school has ever been closed as delete. If that's not a consensus, I don't know what is. I note you conveniently forget that little sentence that ends WP:NSCHOOL: "But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES..."! That's a clear proviso to the guideline being set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do like consensus, which is why I have a healthy respect for the consensus of the broader community, not just the historic successes of AFD activists. Neither BURO nor IAR stand for the proposition that guidelines may be disregarded at will. BURO suggests that guidelines can change and that the intent of guidelines is more important than the letter. In this case, the intent of all of the notability requirements is obvious: to ensure that we can write useful articles that comply with our content policies, there must be actual evidence that subjects have received significant independent attention. BURO encourages amending guidelines; if the consensus you allege existed, it would be trivial to update NSCHOOLS to say: "Schools are notable when they can be shown to exist and be accredited." The fact that no one has done so strongly suggests that you know the wider community does not have your back on this. IAR is about exceptional cases, which this is not; it's also not license to disregard our guidelines whenever you disagree. The footnote at NSCHOOLS to SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't contradict NSCHOOLS' plain wording; SCHOOLOUTCOMES says only that schools are usually kept; it does not say that schools should be kept. The introduction to OUTCOMES further reaffirms this point: "When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. . . . Avoid weak or illogical arguments, such as 'Notability is only an optional guideline' or 'We always keep these articles.'" The fact that most school-related discussions may have closed as keep doesn't mean anything. SCHOOLOUTCOMES only says what has happened; it doesn't say what should happen. Also, CONLEVEL (policy) supports the view that established guidelines trump informal consensus from AFD discussions. (Were it not so, all of our content policies and guidelines could be disregarded by the "consensus" of the multitude of nonconforming articles.) If your consensus exists, go rewrite NSCHOOLS to say so.  Rebb  ing  09:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And for the perfect illustration of the consensus, see this very well-discussed AfD (in which you actually took part as one of the few dissenting voices)! It was obviously fully discussed by those with an interest in the subject. It came to the conclusion that even a school whose existence can only be verified by a few official web entries should be considered notable. Even though it was actually closed as no consensus (mainly for procedural reasons), it is obvious that the majority of contributors were in favour of this illustrating notability. If that does not illustrate consensus, what are you going to accept as so doing? My suspicion is nothing that contradicts your own point of view on this subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how a discussion that was closed with no consensus can be perfectly illustrative of a consensus, ! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there was... no consensus, so that illustrates nothing. Incidentally, the closer explained that both your and my views are valid, but, per CONLEVEL, the precedent from individual discussions, even collections of discussions, does not override the guidelines. I will accept as consensus a change to NSCHOOLS (or any notability guideline) to say that schools are presumed notable when they're verified to exist. Rebb  ing  10:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep = 17, Delete = 8. No consensus? Really? Come on, be real here (and don't give me any of the standard dissenting rubbish about AfDs not being about numbers - it doesn't wash in this instance). As I said, the no consensus close was clearly for procedural reasons. This was the most fully discussed school AfD in ages and it came out as a clear majority in favour of keeping. And that was only a school whose existence could only just be proved! How much will it take to convince you of the consensus? I refer you to my previous comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on relist. OK, so this article was deleted as a G11 promotional article by . Less than 2 hours later, it was recreated as a stub. That stub was moved to Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School a day later. The notability issues discussed here apply just as much to the new version as to the old - so I'm going to WP:IAR this. I'm relisting the debate and adding Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School to the nomination, as if the original article had just been turned into a stub and moved. This is, I think, a better option than re-nominating the new article based on the notability concerns raised here. If an admin wants to overrule me and close this, fine - but note that the admin who G11'ed the original did not close this debate, which is why it's sitting at WP:BADAFD a day later. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * did close it,, with this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * True - but then reopened it here once it was recreated. So a better phrase on my part would have been "closed and reopened", I imagine. It also suggests that they agree that the AFD here applies there. And now I've gone cross-eyed. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for better or for worse, it is policy that we keep all high schools if verifiable, to avoid this kind of long argument every time. Despite the difference of spelling of Gajol/Gazole, it appears clear that this secondary school exists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - It exists, so we keep it per consensus on secondary schools. If only all the energy expended here had been put into improving/sourcing the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's easier said than done, . There don't appear to be any reliable sources available online that cover the school in any depth, so what would we use to improve the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We wait until offline sources have been researched and added. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but finding sources about this school offline isn't something that I could realistically do instead of posting here, so "If only all the energy expended here had been put into improving/sourcing the article" doesn't really apply in my case - and I suspect the same is true of everyone commenting here. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 21 August 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.