Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorven Public 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft if any editor thinks they can fix the article's shortcomings there. BD2412 T 17:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lorven Public School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the name, this is actually an organization that runs a group of schools. The individual schools appear to be private elementary schools, so they aren't independently inherently notable (and in any case, notability isn't inherited upwards). I'm not finding sufficient sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH that would enable us to keep this article. It's possible there are non-English sources, but since the article doesn't provide a non-English name, I can't even search for any. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete article lacks indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment as John says above article lacks indepdent sources- in fact it lacks many other things too! Like content- I feel that is is worth putting a little effort into understanding the subject- there are many important Indian school articles that are getting similar comments, I think it is our fault that we don't know where to look. A school of 2000 that is described as
 * " A well-known educational institution, Lorven Educational Centre in Chandapura, Bangalore was founded in the year 2001. This Schools takes pride in the holistic and innovative learning methods which have helped them raise the bar in the field of education. The centre follows a well-researched curriculum that is based on the play way method of learning. This school offers education for children in different age groups." "There are a host of other supplementary activities that children can enroll in to enhance their skill set. In a populous suburb of bangalore, this centre is situated near Opposite to Vijaya Bank of Chandapura." . As is sadly common with many schools there have been many name changes as it has grown- Lorven seems common in all the names. It is no longer an orphan- I have added it to List of schools in Bangalore, doing a comparison with other schools on the list it seems to differ only in that it is only 18 years old and being better than most. It is registered with the - and from their self published material appear tto be doing notably well (again no independent source yet?. There is the argument of precedent-  that all the other comparable schools qualify so what makes this the exception.  cc  I am tempted to be bold and contact their IT teacher and ask- and ask him for verifiable sources! I am happier doing that than making a deletion decision on absence of knowledge.ClemRutter (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or optional Merge/Redirect: Fails any notability criterion. Attempts to rake through the leaves to find sources to prove existence does not advance notability per CORPDEPTH. Satisfaction of even the barest notability standards requires verification by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Assertions "that all the other comparable schools qualify" is not a good argument and dubious without evidence of a "clear claim to notability" (#1). While listing all schools in the world might be a noble idea, lack of coverage would be evidence the subject might be better located in Chandapura (really in need of expansion and a fantastic place for a "School" section) where a single primary source (shown above) might be sufficient also adding substance to that article. It is my opinion that the creation of thousands of unsourced or poorly sourced forever stubs, possibly just for the sake of inclusion (or maybe even just growing Wikipedia), is not a good goal. If there is already coverage on Wikipedia then expand that article. If the content grows too big we can then consider splitting-off as not every subject in the world qualifies for a stand-alone article.    Otr500 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with your absolutist binary interpretation of WP:notability, particularly when dealing with new unexplored areas. Look at the definitionm of sources, and the footnotes, including footnote 8. In saying there are no sources you must demonstrate you have made a significant attemot to find them. I am not against looking at expanding the Chandapura article- but that is not the question, we have the germ of an good article here- examining their selfpublished material and comparing that with properly WP:RS article it looks as if RS will be there all be it in Hindi! If all else has been tried, one looks for the auditors report on the public company running the organisation. Finding them is the way to go, teaching ourselves in the process of the best places to look when similar cases occur in future. (And it may help with the development of Chandapura!) ClemRutter (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - non noted school and fails WP:GNG. Besides the article is stubby and there is no effort to expand it - Jay (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - there doesn't seem to be the depth of sourcing necessary to justify an article on this. Reyk YO! 07:18, 6 December 2019 (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.