Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallibharati Tilabani 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 delete. This AfD has mostly rested on whether there is indication of sufficient sources outside those immediately obvious to move from evidence of existence to evidence of notability. Post the community removal of SCHOOLOUTCOMES conventional notability rules are the prime factor. Amongst the Keep !votes there doesn't seem a clearly made case of specifically provided sources that meet the Sig Cov/Independent/Reliable requirements.

There are well grounded notes, freely conceded by the delete proponents, that sources are likely tricky to find and additional efforts should be made. At least some of those efforts have been made in GF, and haven't returned results despite three relists.

The delete !voters have legitimately stated that as they cannot prove a negative, and their BEFORE checks couldn't find suitable sourcing, a delete !vote was the correct choice. No indication of value judgements, rather than policy based deletes, appears to have been made.

Between the comparable weight of the policy-based arguments, as well as the absolute numerical position (factoring in that editors can only !vote once), a delete is appropriate.

While redirects were mentioned, there was never clear consensus for that. A post-delete redirect can be placed if desired. In the event that additional sources do turn up I specifically urge the editor who finds them to contact me. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pallibharati Tilabani High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable secondary school with little or nothing in the way of independent coverage, unless I'm missing foreign language sources. buidhe 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. buidhe 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 14:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Or at the very least merge with Simlapal (community development block). The article has some structure and is about a remote rural Bengali language school in a development target area. Is it any wonder we cannot find detail in the English Press. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to make value judgements on political decision made in a language that we cannot read. ClemRutter (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Deletion isn't a value judgement, it's a measure of coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Please list some reliable sources if you want to keep the article. Thanks. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 15:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great to have a little human contact. No I disagree. I have read GNG many times- and the word notable is in the sense of to be noted rather than exceptional. The onus is on the proposer to show that there really is nothing published - and we know there is through its inclusion in Bangladeshi governmment programs . If you are not operationally fluent in the home languages of the country in question that is difficult and judging that there are no reliable sources in print or online is a value judgement. Understanding the political decision on the medium of instruction and the priority given to providing foreign language translations is an important part of being non judgemental (NPOV). ClemRutter (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot support keep or merge because there is not a single source for the content in the article, but would not object to redirecting to Simlapal (community development block). I would be happy to change my opinion if sufficient RS can be found . Just saying that they might exist is not enough. Bangladeshi governmental sources dealing with the school (if they exist) are probably not independent and wouldn't demonstrate notability. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 10:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose I started this, against all the good advice of so I am obliged to do some further digging. From accessing their Facebook page (not a RS), I came across some more information: It is a government high school- and there are numerous photos of a two storey 19 bay flat roofed brutalist style building with a one storey block set at right angles. I am going to try asking for the photographs and RS references on that page from their alumni. A bit of an experiment! It may help us to better understand Education in Bengal and other high schools. I feel we are being a bit amateur at the moment.ClemRutter (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, "notability" on Wikipedia has a slightly different meaning than you seem to be thinking of. In the case of this school, there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy WP standards. A community-wide consultation process decided that schools are not presumed to be notable simply by existing.  At this stage, we have only established that the school exists, not that it is notable. I hope this helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  N0nsensical.system (err0r?)(.log) 09:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Eggishorn said, schools are required to demonstrate notability. This subject makes no claim to notability and I am unable to find any to support that. Ifnord (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The conditions for deletion as described in Village pump (policy) 23 Feb 2017 rev oldid=767023947#RfC_on_secondary_school_notability have not been fulfilled. I contributed to that debate, and because of the wide range of opinion from the knowledgable and the engaged there were a couple of important caveats. The one that is important here is:"Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them."

There is no evidence that local print media has been examined- indeed no evidence that any online Begali or even Hindi search has been made. We have enough facts about the school to know it exists- but no evidence that it not notable. This is time consuming and reveals an area where we have little coverage but as English is widely understood there is a high chance we have readers. From looking at the photograph- we have an interesting possibly notable building. It is frustrating that we do not know the school code or admission number so we can't access the government held information or exam board records. I concede that there are so many ways this article could be improved. At the moment we lack the necessary information to even decide to do a delete.

"It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the 'arguments to avoid in AfDs' list is undesirable. Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations." ClemRutter (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are sources available on the internet to verify this school's existence. I have added some citations. GargAvinash (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources added just show that the school exists, without anything like significant coverage. I don't think that I can prove a negative—that no such coverage exists. I still recommend deletion unless someone can show that such coverage exists. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 05:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.