Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur


 * 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   no consensus. The argument that offline sources "surely" exist, and establish notability, are not particularly compelling; everything must be verifiable, and assumptions cannot be used to justify editorial actions. However, consensus to delete does not exist presently. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nomination per suggestion at WP:COIN. This may well be notable, but I can't find any reliable sourcing for this school's details, only a lot of rather low-grade clone listing websites. There also appear to be WP:BLP issues; User:Gonzinuk, after an initial confusion over how Wikipedia works, has raised what appear to be valid doubts about the truthfulness of the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The proposed deletion tag was removed from the article because of the presumption that all secondary schools are notable. That's usually the case, but that also assumes that information on the school is verifiable. I can't find any reliable sources to show anything beyond the existence of this school, there is no potential for a meaningful article here. --  At am a  頭 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to clarify what I mean, if we were to remove all of the unverifiable information in the article, we'd be left with a single sentence saying, "St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School is in Udaipur, Rajasthan, India" Surely something like that would be better served in some list, not its own article. --  At am a  頭 16:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete — per above, and it's had an "unreferenced" tag for 20 months. Another possibility would be to merge it in to Udaipur or List of schools in Udaipur, Rajasthan, although both of those are just lists now. Rees11 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Eastmain (talk • contribs)  16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are the "valid doubts about the truthfulness of the article"? Ignoring the obvious FUTON bias, the school appears to exist. tedder (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another non-RS mentioning the school. tedder (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another couple of sources saying that the school exists, and it's in Udaipur, and nothing else. Again, is a single sentence enough for an article? --  At am a  頭 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, no WP:RS, but it probably exists. Note I haven't said "keep"; just showing that there are some hints to existence, even if no depth of coverage to even make a step down the path to WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think we have enough for inclusion in a list as Rees11 suggested above; it's clear that the school exists at least. --  At am a  頭 18:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - verifiable senior high school. The arguments for keeping are at WP:NHS. Indian schools rarely have much of an Internet presence so, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought. TerriersFan (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - That essay states the following:
 * "Our practice is to retain articles on high schools. This is for the pragmatic reason that, because of the importance of high schools, and that there is almost always suitable, sourced material available, it is more sensible to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one to try to eliminate the very occasional school for which coverage is hard to find."
 * But in this case, there isn't any suitable, sourced material available. If and when such material can be found, then the article can be created. I don't buy the, "well, maybe some day there might be some sources for this article somewhere" argument. What the essay about high schools says is usually true, but there are exceptions. This is one of those rare exceptions where we can barely show that the school even exists. Surely you have more to your argument than an essay that you wrote yourself? --  At am a  頭 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep If there is enough material to show the school exists, it should be kept. Most school articles here grow when people from the school discover them, & sources are almost always available. It is much much easier to keep than all than to argue over each possible exception.  Before we had the rule, we had dozens of these debates every week, and they were a real waste of time and trouble. the point is to write articles, not argue over just which ones to keep in marginal cases. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - DGG, I have the utmost respect for you, but doesn't that argument seem somewhat irrational? "Sources are almost always available", "not argue which ones to keep in marginal cases"... It sounds like you're talking about other articles in hypothetical terms and not addressing this article itself. There just aren't any sources for this school that anyone has found, WP:BEFORE has been done. This isn't a marginal case at all, everything but the school's name and the city it is in are unverifiable. I'm not even 100% sure what the name of the article should be, since I haven't seen what the school's "official" name is. There's really something wrong with having an article about a subject that we have absolutely no information about. --  At am a  頭 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Offline sources almost surely exist, but will require someone with access to a library that archives newspapers from India. DES (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin: Please delete this article unless those who vote keep provide actual sources instead of just hand waving that they must be out there. Woogee (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (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.