Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Xavier's High School, Mahua


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

St. Xavier's High School, Mahua

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources, acoording to this article it is just a branch of St. Xavier's College, Jaipur. No independent notability The Banner talk 16:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I can defend this school's inclusion and find additional references, but am currently banned from contributing to school articles. I ask that this discussion be closed until my ban is lifted. Jzsj (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are sources you think should be included, please list them here and other editors will consider adding them to the article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are these "other editors" only interested in removing articles?... have they no interest in improving or preserving them?
 * http://www.entranceindia.com/cbse-schools-in-bihar/st-xaviers-high-school-cbse-schools-in-mahua-vaishali/
 * https://www.cbseschool.org/st-xaviers-high-school-vaishali-hajipur-bihar/
 * https://in.linkedin.com/in/tapan-ghorai-5a0716116
 * http://www.indiaonapage.com/India/Bihar/Vaishali/mahua/Education/School/type-ICSE/perpage-10/3/item.htm
 * http://www.educationbihar.gov.in/LetterPdf/14Jun201361908.pdf Jzsj (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those sources can be used to "improve" the article. Linkedin is not a reliable source and the remainder simply verify the existence of the school, not its notability. 32.218.44.246 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "In practice articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes." from here. Jzsj (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, not a policy or a guideline. 32.218.44.246 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Notability Jzsj (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How many times have you already be pointed to Identifying reliable sources??? Understanding the differences between policies, guidelines and essays is important! The Banner talk 01:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good you found the relevant guideline, Jzsj; perhaps you should read it. This is what it says: "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. Some editors cite the contents of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or this page as reasons for keeping school articles that don't at face value meet notability requirements; it should be noted, however, that these pages simply document the current practice and are not in themselves authoritative." 32.218.47.251 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. the RfC being cited says very clearly that there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping all articles on verifiable high schools. This is not necessarily a statement on notability, but a statement that the consensus has been that WP is best served by avoiding the extremely high number of bitterly contented afds that would otherwise result. Looking back, I see that when I came here I ~voted elete on many school afds, but I soon became convinced that the results were no better than random, and hence I supported the current still effective compromise. That said, I think we'd do better strengthening existing school articles rather than makin new one unless it is possible to create a new very strong article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Creative interpretation of the RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC is NOT stating your interpretation clearly. But it is stated clearly that school are not notable just because they exist. Their notability must be proven... The Banner talk 06:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The closers have confirmed that the RfC outcome was no consensus to the question asked. Everything else was nothing more than personal commentary, and if it had been put to an RfC, would obviously never have achieved consensus based on the fallout from that RfC. No consensus means the status quo prevails, which means they are not inherently notable, but we likely keep them anyway in part because of our function as a gazetteer (see WP:5P1). TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. I'd also expect that there is likely reliable coverage in Jesuit and Catholic periodicals as it was a relatively recent construction and these type of things tend to be in them: I'm assuming those have not been checked and would count towards notability (and if we're going to go with the novel interpretation of the RfC commentary that isn't actually the close to the question itself that we can't argue keeping from practice, which is basically the opposite of everything we do here, we shouldn't ignore the part that says someone has to have done a search for those sources. I highly doubt that has been done.) WP:NPOSSIBLE is met, and if we're going to have absolute loyalty to the RfC, then that is enough to keep it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2018 (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.