Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary


 * 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. Per long-standing precedents. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatantly non-notable. 17 Google hits. All but 2 are WP mirrors, this article, or the school's Facebook page. The other two aren't significant coverage. If someone can/will find offline sources, great. If not, this should be deleted. Per Notability (high schools) high schools still have to be notable to be kept --Jakob (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not notable. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position, I don't believe "most schools are kept" means that "all schools should be kept." While many schools may be notable, and thus should be exempt from A7, they shouldn't be exempt from AfD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If a topic is notable it is "exempt" from AfD, in the sense that the article should not be deleted. A7 applies when the article doesn't even indicate the topic's notability, and educational institutions are explicitly excluded. Lagrange613 17:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but improve referencing. The argument from Google is notoriously dangerous for establishing notability, especially for relatively undeveloped countries where news coverage is not always archived online - or searched by Google. In addition the name of the school creates noise in search (particularly since the school is often listed without the "Senior Secondary" part of the name). There are a plethora of directory entries, plus news mentions such as this (entirely about a student at the school) which are not useful to filling out the article but indicate it does have the notability expected of a school. And there are probably news mentions I cannot find because they are in Hindi or some other language I can't read. As the cited notability guideline states, it is generally best to seek sources in order to improve the referencing of such an article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Martin 4 5 1  22:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Blatantly and clearly is notable as a secondary school per long-established precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're mistaken. See WP:NONPROFIT and the subsection WP:NSCHOOL. --Jakob (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Aren't schools only automatically important enough to pass A7? We don't have anything where "everything of type X is notable". Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not mistaken. I've been here a long time and we have this argument every few days. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verified secondary schools always end up being kept. That equals consensus and that is how Wikipedia functions. We always have a few editors who disagree, but that doesn't change the outcome. Guidelines are guidelines; they're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – agreed with Yngvadottir; referencing needs to be improved. United States Man (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Notability (high schools). Verified secondary schools are typically retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as usual. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 09:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Since no independent sources have been provided regarding this school by the article's author (despite repeated efforts to elicit such sources from the author on the part of several editors who have been trying to shepherd this article along) and since no sources have been found by editors other than the author, there seems to be nothing on which to base a verifiable article from. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not advocate the retention of totally unsourced articles.  It is merely a guideline that suggests that most (but not necessarily all) secondary schools are notable, but that the requirements of WP:ORG still apply.  Given a total lack of sourcing as we have here, SCHOOLOUTCOMES recommends merging and redirecting the article to an article about the school district or locality that best fits.  In this case, the only truly verifiable aspect of this school from independent sources is its mere existence, in which case I suggest a simple redirect to List of educational institutions in Allahabad.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not unsourced. Its existence is proven. That's enough for an article. Lack of further sourcing is a reason for expansion, but not for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hope for a better argument than it exists. Better sourcing has been sought and found lacking.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hope for a better argument than there aren't many sources in the article (for an Indian school this is not terribly surprising) so it isn't notable! Generally we have always held that secondary schools whose existence is verified are notable simply because they exist. There's no reason to go against that precedent and consensus for this school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And even if anyone wants to go against the precedent and consensus, this is a wrong venue. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 15:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As per User:WikiDan61, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't say we should keep unreferenced articles. Even WP:SCH/AG says that "articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept" (emphasis mine) and that "It is recommended that editors only create a school article when its content shows that it already passes the notability guideline by displaying significant coverage in reliable sources." WP:NHS (which some people seem to be using to vote keep) says that "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards, such as those at Wikipedia: Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifically." and "There are thousands of high schools for which no independent reliable sources have been published." WP:NSCHOOL (which is an actual guideline) says "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." Can anyone point to a discussion that says that all high schools are inherently and always notable?
 * On another note, I have a compromise in mind: the article is redirected to List of schools in India or similar and the content is moved to the draft namespace, pending addition of reliable independent sources. --Jakob (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again; all your lengthy talks can go to WP:VILLAGEPUMP or somewhere else to debate against WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the many years I've been here I honestly can't remember an article on a verified secondary school being deleted. That's consensus. We've had this discussion so many times it's really quite tedious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Please recall that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a policy or even a guideline. The page itself (at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) states that consensus can change and that SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not trump standard notability guidelines.  Just sayin' ... WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it merely indicates a consensus, which is how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but consensus can change, and must be taken on a case-by-case basis. The consensus here appears to be to keep the page, but that consensus appears to be based on prior consensus rather than actual Wikipedia policy.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a wrong venue to change past consensus! (Lets hope that third time is a charm!) §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 17:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AfDs are largely based on opinion. Opinions have been given. The consensus remains. One or two people claiming that their arguments are ever so policy based and everyone else's aren't doesn't change that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - large secondary school that, when local research is carried out, will probably be able to be brought into compliance with WP:ORG. There is never much on the Internet about Indian schools, unlike say US schools, so we should avoid systemic bias and await hard copy searches. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment about sources. There is a bi-directional language barrier here; the creator of the page, Pratham, has said that they will provide sources clipped from the local papers "at the appropriate time", and even named two specific newspaper publishers unprompted... but gave us no dates, nor URLs.  Not sure if the "appropriate time" they intended to communicate, was more like when-I-am-ready-to-give-wikipedia-the-sources-I-will, or rather, when-the-publishers-are-ready-to-finally-report-on-our-awesome-school-the-appropriate-time-will-have-arrived.  :-)   Anybody able to read the Allahabad-specific sections of Dainik Jagran or of Amar Ujala newspapers?  They are online, but I was unable to figure out how to search for what we seek; somebody fluent is needed.  Please send suggestions (if any) to my user-talkpage,  to avoid further cluttering this AfD. ;-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s. While I'm here, guess I may as well chime in, and comment about Dah Consensus... my understanding is that the 'real' reason we almost always keep high schools, is because they symbolically represent the geogaphical-political-school-district of a physical place, and that inhabited physical places are " nigh-inherently notable" per long-standing (essay!) consensus.  The argument basically is, that if a place is inhabited, and has a name, that means said place is organized politically.  Thus, there *are* going to be a  very large  number of  government documents  which demonstrate WP:42 in some pedantic sense... history of human civilization... and even if said sources are  not *yet* published, someday they  will be.  Strong consensus, but definitely pretty handwavy, and almost certainly with a strong dose of  pillar five thrown in.
 * Of course, methinks the real reason for the always-keep-highschools-approach is that our bait-n-switch tactic gets us a lot of new editors, proud of their high school. Some of them are headstrong;  can back me up on that one.  :-)    But the good ones eventually learn, and stick around as valuable wikipedians, as they go through college or internships or teaching-careers or whatever.  See also, for much the same reasons, our voluminous collection of teevee and music and nakedness articles... all of them, gateway drugs to becoming WP:ADDICTED, their true (and truly insidious) purpose methinks.  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect."  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, replied to you on your talk page. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I am sorry for all the unintentional wrong things i have done. Please pardon me. I will not do it again. And please help me by giving me ideas to improve my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Consensus is that secondary schools are notable. I'm not sure I agree, but this isn't the place to argue that. We shouldn't expect to find extensive online English-language coverage of schools in India. Demanding deletion on the basis that we should is the sort of thing that leads to systemic bias. Lagrange613 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent set by the closures of 100s if not 1,000s school  AfDs (documented at  WP:OUTCOMES). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (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.