Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaitan Public School, Ghaziabad


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Khaitan Public School, Ghaziabad

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

I can see very little that is an article about the school itself, but a great deal of weight in attacks on the school. The only neutral aspect of this article that is about the school per se is the unreferenced history section ". Even the lede is attacking the school.

This leads me to one of two conclusions:


 * 1) That the school is not of itself notable
 * 2) That the article is not about the school but is about controversies surroudning the school

The first conclusion is a reason for deletion. I believe we need to compare this school against current guidelines for the inclusion of schools, broadly that it should pass WP:NCORP. As expressed here it does not pass.

The second conclusion depends on the first. If the school is not notable, how can the controversies surrounding it be notable? Indeed it has become a campaign page against the school, As a campaign page, an attack page, it is vulnerable to speedy deletion.

A better solution, if and only if the school can be confirmed as notable is to roll back to the last version where this is shown, all the while considering the level of protection to be given. The article has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND with factions fighting for and against the controversies. Indeed this deletion discussion is likely to be packed by factions. I have deployed the notice about this as I open the discussion

I would suggest serious consideration by the closing admin of full protection after determining the last neutral version and rolling back to it if it is determined that this article be kept. If it is determined that it be deleted I suggest consideration of salting this and similar titles. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think school is notable and passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The tone can be improved in the article but deletion is not a solution. DMySon (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but reduce the controversy to one line, and protect the article. The nominator is quite right: this article has been turned into a campaign document. We're supposed to summarise what sources say about a (notable) fight, not roll up our sleeves and join in! Overall: (1) School notability is ill-defined, with only a failed guideline Notability_(schools). But it's possible that large secondary schools should be considered notable anyway; (2) Unfortunately schools tend to attract national press attention only when things go wrong; otherwise they get trivial local stories of small significance, meaning that an article truly based on secondary sources will often be negatively-biased; (3) it's possible that this argument about fees will, eventually, remain notable, and that this school might be a key player, so it's premature to delete the entire school; (4) the article has some useful stuff (info-box, history) that should remain. So overall, I'd say get the controversy down to a line and keep the article, and wait to see whether the fight is more than a storm in a teacup. Protection is a good idea. It'd be great to have an Alumni list, if anyone can find any (I couldn't; there is a Miss India, but she comes from a similarly-named but different school). Elemimele (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This original article was in a disastrous state after all the vandal attacks in the past, I tried in stages to create some neutrality in this article (with the addition of the infobox, with new information about the school, as well as deleting the information without references). You can see the version, I have studied dozens of articles about schools Cambridge School Indirapuram, Central Hindu Girls School, Delhi Public School, Azaad Nagar, to find out what an article may contain that has 80% vandalism and 20% neutral text. I am of the opinion that in the current format the article can be deleted conformable WP:ATTACK.--Grigorie77 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (comment from a blocked user. ─ The Aafī  (talk)|undefined  08:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC))
 * Delete due to the lack of notability and the fact that it's clearly an WP:ATTACK article. Maybe someone could argue it's notable due to the references currently in it, but I don't know how there can be a none WP:ATTACK article based on them and I couldn't find anything about it that is neutral. Let alone enough to balance the article out to not be extremely negatively slanted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this school passes WP:NORG. It appears like a bank that gets into news when there's some robbery. How else does this school try to address WP:NORG requirements? ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: just tried to add non-controversial text to the entity's page with sources. Segregated all controversies related text in one segment. Somebody who is a native, having local knowledge, should try to streamline the controversies segment by cross verifying with native sources. - Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Clearly an attack article. I might have considered speedy deletion as such..  DGG ( talk )
 * Delete The school is not a notable one. Also after seeing the article talk page, I noted that the school management got some of the news updated after 13 years of their publication. For example check the original news published in 2009 original news which was modified to suit schools need just recently modified news. Similarly all other news critical to school have been modified or deleted. Also a quick look at school's website and social media handles one can see that user:Akhaitan71 is Vice Chairman of the school and User:Vidhan_Sundriyal handles social media marketing of the school. Similarly the critical accounts belong to the parents. If the page is retained then the battle may start again.2409:4050:2D87:9E7:1BCB:809E:65D7:D599 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2022 (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.