Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Muhammad Mohsin Government High School, Rajshahi


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Haji Muhammad Mohsin Government High School, Rajshahi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

School fails NCORP. The Banglanews24 cite is a mere mention. Banglapedia says nothing about this school. The Ministry of Education cite is ROUTINE. The first academia.edu cite only mentions this school; the second says nothing at all about it. The Prothom Alo and Daily Campus are ok but I think that's too little for GNG. I worry this is a stealth advertisement, as most of the content is not cited. Chris Troutman ( talk )  15:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh.   Chris Troutman  ( talk )  15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chris troutman The second academia.edu cite has used for Reformed Madrasah Scheme. This school was included in that scheme. And Banglapedia cite has used for Commission on National Education (1958) and the school was also included that commission. Is it not normal not to mention the school name separately? Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a reformed madrasah scheme. We need sources that are actually about the school, itself per WP:SIGCOV.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  16:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman The sources is given for the scheme or commission which is mentioned in the article not for the school. This school was under that scheme or commission. -- Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational  03:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been [ previously PROD'd].
 * Logs:  ←
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article looks fine. While I note the nominator's concern over advertising, I'm not seeing evidence. It's a state school, so do not immediately see a promotional angle. It's been written differently from most AfD'd schools, which tend to concentrate on facilities offered. This provides content on the school's history/background. Granted, sources are not great but one should take into account the possibility that offline Bengali language sources exist especially given the school has been in existence in various forms for 150 years. Based on this and existing sources, I'm giving a weak pass of the GNG. I'm also aware there's an apparent conflict of interest. The article creator's user page states they previously attended this school. I don't on the face of it see this as a big problem, given the way the article's been written. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Most of the information mentioned in the history section is not cited by any online or offline source. The editor is trying to add and keep a website as the official website, which is made by the alumni of the school. Significant coverage was not found. GoddessFG (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has written impartially or neutrally. I don't see anything promotional here. In the article editors focused on its history and I think it is connected with the education history of Bangladesh to a great extent. It is right that some content is not coverd by reference. This article is translated from Bengali Wikipedia where many sources are not cited, but the editors have cited some source here. In this case, the article can be kept by removing the unsourced materials and keeping the sourced material. And I can't see any evidence about the website being unofficial and website is not used as a source in the article. As the website's domain is a country top level domain prefixing .edu so, I don't see any possibility of it being unofficial. That's not a big problem. Cihangir (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — RX720 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Citation added to some information and unsourced information has been removed. Farhansnigdho (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Daily Campus and Prothom Alo sources are providing significant independent coverage.  Arman  ( Talk ) 10:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (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.