Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can find no sources for this school except Facebook and a few mirror sites, seems like it fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. The previous discussion was closed with reference to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (with the closer somewhat bizarrely suggesting that that essay overrode the need for sources), but common outcomes are not policy, so I don't see why we shouldn't assess the article against notability requirements, which are policy. Yes, articles on secondary schools are usually kept, but this one strikes me as one that shouldn't be, due to a lack of sources to base article content on. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as the debate was closed before and result was keep. This article's citation can be taken as proof that it exits.  Nepali keto62  Questions?!?!?  14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment by sockpuppet struck - see Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But it has no citations? Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It had citiation before someone must have removed it. Please check edit history.  Nepali keto62  Questions?!?!?  14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The citation was removed by unknown Ip user. I will add again.  Nepali keto62  Questions?!?!?  14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability. The current version has one reference, a 404. The deleted reference mentioned above was to a list of schools, with no discussion at all. Maproom (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If it can't be verified by a reliable source, it may need to be deleted. There would have to be Nepalese sources out there, that would be equally reliable, especially in the age of Google Translate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to account for this when I searched for sources,, by searching for the name without the English words in it. I can't say that I found much. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're still using an English transcription, not the Nepalese. I've had success searching this way in Thai, for a geographical feature that had a common noun in the title. I used Google Translate to translate the words into the foreign language, then did a search. I can't help you here, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, good point. If anyone can find Nepalese sources, then I will happily reconsider my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously.A classic example of the very long-standing consensus to keep such articles as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Already kept at a recent AfD where  provided the correct argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But DGG's argument there was not to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * His argument there was to keep the material and merge it into another article. Merge outcomes are a subset of keep outcomes. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Policy and guidelines are made here in two ways: one is the explicit changes in the actual statements, and the other is by consistent practice. Without the ability to make rules based on consistent practice, we would be forever squabbling over how to interpret the written rules, to the extent it would detract rom dealing with our many real problems where action is needed (I see the two most critical at this point removing promotionalism, improving article quality, and adding article for areas we cover inadequately--but there are of course others, and people's view of priority may matter.)  The practice with schools is a deliberate and successful attempt to do this by compromise: keep high schools, redirect/merge primary schools to the town or school district or other suitable place. Before we had this policy, we had about a dozen afd discussions a day on these, most often leading to those results, but with random variation as always at AfD.  They were always complicated discussions, involving usually the interpretation of the sourcing requirement.  Some (myself included)   would have wanted to keep all schools at any level, and yet others wanted to remove most of them, and neither side was prepared to give up their positions. But with the compromise although neither side was satisfied completely, neither were they  dissatisfied completely, and by making the compromise we could have time to better discuss the articles that really needed discussion. We've had similar compromises in other fields, such as Sports, and they have served us very well also, Without compromises such as this, AfD would be several times as large, and the net result would be no better from any point of view,  except those who think we should cover things at random. I and probably most of us have accepted compromises where we very much disagree with the result, because the purpose of WP is to write an encyclopedia , not to be a debating society or have a competition to see who can persist in arguing the longest.  DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says “Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.” Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This !vote from DGG I do agree with. We are able verify this high school exists and so we should follow schooloutcomes, because the downside to not doing so is vastly worse. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But where are the independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is starting to remind me of Articles for deletion/Rapha International School, where some experienced editors wanted the article kept simply because it asserted that the school was a secondary school, even though not a single source was cited in the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All we'd really need is just one source verifying that it exists -- this isn't GNG. Google web search displays a link for some kind of .gov site that lists this place -- but the link won't open on my browser. An official FB page lists a school website, but you have to request the link and I have not yet received access -- and perhaps won't. Plus there seems to be at least 2 different public FB pages by students and alumni. That .gov site -- whatever it is -- leaves me reasonably confident this place exists -- though I can see why others are unsatisfied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per above— Constanstin 03:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , you might want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and be a bit more specific about your keep rationale, otherwise your opinion might not be taken into account by the closing editor. There are several arguments above, including those for deletion. What is your reason for wanting the article to be kept? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Cordless Larry, per DGG's reason.— Constanstin 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existing source in the article does verify the school's existence, and I would judge it to be a reliable source (gov.np domain). It doesn't verify any of the facts such as year of founding etc, but per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (and as discussed above) the material point when it comes to keeping the article is its existence shown in a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - If a secondary schools exists, we keep it by consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment article was created by blocked user User:Bibekbhurtel5 and extensively edited by other socks. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2016 (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.