Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMD 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 keep. Michig (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

SMD high school

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability as per WP:ORG. I conducted an Internet search and found nothing but Facebook pages and Tumblr results. No one notable has ever graduated from here, nothing notable appears to have ever taken place here, and there appears to be no coverage in any media by any reliable third-party sources anywhere to be found. The preponderance is evidence is that there is a lack of evidence of notability, and so despite the policy set out in WP:NHS, I propose that the article be removed. KDS 4444 Talk  07:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "despite the policy set out in WP:NHS..." That's an essay, not a policy, not even a guideline. Even so, it clearly says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards."-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "An unsourced article on a school, or an article on a school without enough content for a rounded article, should not have its own page." -- from WP:All high schools can be notable KDS 4444  Talk  07:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree, it doesn't pass ORG. There are a couple of passing mentions in this book but no real coverage that I can find. It's basically the same situation as Articles for deletion/MAPS International High, which was kept, against all guidelines. Hope this one doesn't turn out the same way. In before someone says "Systemic bias" or "WP:OUTCOMES". :P -- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for my usual reasons. Appears to exist and a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've told you before, existence is not notability and no guidelines or policies confirm your assertion that all secondary schools are automatically notable. Please address this specific school's notability by citing specific sources which discuss it.-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And as I've told you before, no amount of verbiage on your part is going to change the fact that articles on high schools are going to be kept! You may as well turn your attention to more useful pursuits than arguing against consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, please show me the discussion where this consensus was established.-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the hundreds of previous AfD discussions on secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I've always voted to keep large institutions. They are used by 100's of folk every day and that makes them notable. scope_creep (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, this nomination is deeply flawed. The nominator claims to have conducted an "internet search", didn't find sources readily at hand on a computer screen, and thereby concludes that the the school isn't notable. The nominator fails to mention which languages were used in that search. The common languages spoken in Srinagar are Kashmiri and Urdu. I would expect that the nominator would inform us that in-depth searches had been performed in Kashmiri and Urdu. But no. Nominator relies on the essay WP:All high schools can be notable but ignores the heart of the second paragraph:


 * "However, outside the Anglosphere, particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is very poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. This may involve researching local media, for example at a neighboring library."


 * We all know that reliable sources need not be readily available online. So, I ask the nominator, has a paper search been conducted in a library or perhaps a newspaper archive in or near Srinagar as recommended by the very essay you cited? Atlantima, who is very eager to see an article about a secondary school deleted, has jumped in quickly before anyone else (such as a guy like me) has the opportunity to mention WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. So be it. However, systemic bias was mentioned in the essay that the nominator used in the argument to delete, so I consider mentioning it fair game. I believe that every single editor of this encyclopedia has the obligation to try to avoid systemic bias, because that bias is an insidious enemy of our goal of developing a comprehensive and neutral worldwide information resource. The nominator also writes "No one notable has ever graduated from here, nothing notable appears to have ever taken place here". What does this have to do with whether or not an article about a secondary school should be kept? Is the nominator arguing that secondary schools inherit notability from notable graduates, or that the school would be notable if only some notable event (I can't imagine what) had occurred there? I am tempted to oppose this nomination solely on the procedural ground that the nomination itself is fatally flawed. But the flaws speak for themselves. Instead, I will advance the argument that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an exceptionally useful rule of thumb, that it accurately describes and summarizes our working consensus over quite a few years, and that it keeps this type of debate to a minimum. Articles about the vast majority of secondary schools are in, and we work to expand them and reference them as time goes by. Articles about the vast majority of primary schools are out. Done deal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "eager to see an article about a secondary school deleted". That statement seems to come very close to a personal attack on me. I'm simply trying to enforce the notability guidelines. It just so happens that secondary schools are routinely given exemption from those guidelines for no clear reason. No guideline or policy says that we should counter systemic bias by lowering our standards for proof of notability. -- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's your problem. Notability guidelines are not "enforced". They're guidelines. Nothing more. Your attempts to act as some sort of unofficial enforcer for something which does not need enforcing are getting you nowhere. You are mistaking Wikipedia for some sort of monolithic bureaucracy, which it isn't and never has been. We work by consensus. How many high school articles can you show us that have been deleted at AfD? See? That's consensus! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was originally to going to vote to delete, though reading Notability (high schools) has swayed me on this one. I think notability can be demonstrated, but the article's creator has simply failed to do so up till now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But there must be sources!: We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.-- Atlantima  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Atlantima, I have struck out the comment you didn't like. I am not criticizing you as an individual; I am disagreeing with you on this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I consider healthy disagreement at AfD to be an essential part of the process of developing a more nuanced understanding of consensus, and I respect your input.


 * You yourself pointed out that this school is mentioned in the English language source "The Indian Geographical Journal" from 1934. It is also discussed briefly in another English language source, a 2002 newspaper article in The Tribune, called Heavy polling at Salahuddin’s village, where it is reported that this high school functions as an election polling station. This tells us that the school had been in existence for at least 68 years. Of course, I wish that we had more source material readily available in English. But no one, so far, has reported searching for sources in Kashmiri or Urdu, the languages of Srinigar. I consider these two sources to be enough, for now, for a brief stub on the school, which can be expanded in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well written enough to be kept.  108.12.134.72 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. See school 32 at Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education which says the school is located in/near Soura. SBaker43 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2013 (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.