Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Centre for Excellence

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Centre for Excellence

National Centre for Excellence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, or what makes it stand out from other educational institutions. Yes, I know that all high schools can be notable, but this article as it stands does not demonstrate that. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The consensus is not that high schools (more properly secondary education institutions) "can" be notable, but rather that they almost always are. This school is pre-school to XII standard, which would make it the equivalent of an American K-12 school. The level of coverage easily found in national media should be sufficient to prove notability, but keep in mind the vast majority of Indian media is not readily available online, and often is not in English. Local and regional (likely non-English) sources are near certain to exist in addition to what can be found online with little effort. Such sources are the core to the idea that American high schools are notable, so to delete an Indian school because such sources can not be found in 2 minutes of Googling would smack of systematic bias. Pinging @
    Cutest Penguin: who accepted this at AfC for further input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The implication that I recklessly throw out AfD's without first considering things like
WP:INDAFD
is not warranted. I actually discussed this with CutestPenguin earlier today (though I believe her exact words regarding this AfD were "good luck"). However, during that discussion she was unable to convince me that the school was notable (and I was unable to convince myself).
As a side note, the top stories in your link above do not talk about this National Centre for Excellence (except for one name drop), something I noticed when I did my own search for more sources and is probably one of the unfortunate side-effects of having a relatively common name. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are intended as a discussion of the subject's notability, not a judgement of you. (I always ping AfC acceptors if they are active.) Sorry if you took them otherwise... Thanks for pointing out INDAFD, which I was actually unaware of. Using one of the suggested links there gives a much clearer picture of notability. I do not believe we have deleted a single US high school is a long time, so my comments about
systematic bias remain valid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
BTW, INDAFD states "Schools offering Nursery— Class XII are almost certainly notable", which is what this subject is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make it straight. If we go by
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you see my second link which turns up articles such "School shuts shop" that are clearly about the school itself, as opposed to the many about students and such? This coverage would certainly to sufficient to "keep" an article about an American high school. To enforce higher standards on an Indian school (whose best sources probably can't be found online) would be systematic bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but I just had a glance. I have earlier tried the search engine to find sources and one that I got, cited in the article. I'm not a fan of
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey those articles are of another school called National Center for Excellence in sarjapur road and not in Malleshpalaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same organization, as should be clear from the fact that people at that location were told to go to this one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Rahulmdinesh above. There is a serious lack of independent coverage here. The first ref is entirely trivial. The second is simply a rote registration and per
    WP:NOTDIR. The third ref was a bit more substantial, a comment on a very small school that appears to have closed suddenly and disappeared with the money. However that's two years old (if it were really notable I'd expect to see later coverage too) and Rahulmdinesh points out that it's not even the same school. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Pick a random high school in the United States and do a similar search (Here is one in my city [1]) and you will see the coverage for National Centre for Excellence is quite similiar... and most local Indian sources are not online, unlike most US local sources. Why then is the US high school notable, while the Indian secondary school is not? (And don't bother to say the US school isn't notable, consensus is quite clear that US high schools are all notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consensus is quite clear that US high schools are all notable" Firstly it's not always clear, secondly that is never an excuse for failing GNG.
    WP:NHS is quite clear on that. It's a generalisation that so few US high schools will be unable to pass GNG that there's little point in nominating them for deletion (There will be some arguing, someone will be pressured into searching, they will find something, it closes as keep). However that's not at all the same thing as saying, "Non-notable organisations with no sourcing skip around GNG because they just happen to be schools". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Then what about other schools in Bangalore like Jyothy Kendriya Vidyalaya, Little Flower Public School,Insight Academy School Bangalore and many more..... Why delete only National Centre for Excellence¿¿¿ if this case is true then there over 10,000 to be deleted which is a loss for Wikipedia and These schools i gave as examples don't even have proper referencing. This school at least has 3 to 4 references. So there is no need to delete this article. And the examples I gave are just 3 out of 100s of schools in Bangalore. There are over 10,000 CBSE schools in India. So stop debating on the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 11:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per
    Hangout 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thanks everyone. Can I remove the delete stuff from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as for all verified secondary schools. This is a standard convention to avoid the tens of thousands of inconclusive debates about the degree to which the sources are significant--the other part of the convention is that we normally do not accept primary schools--if the convention were ended, we'd be arguing about these also. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -per
    Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Is the debate over? Rahulmdinesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulmdinesh1234 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • No, the debate is not over yet. An AfD discussion typically lasts for 7 days. And please stop using multiple accounts. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OH, OK ALRIGHT FOR THE INFORMATION!Rahulmdinesh1234 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep but remove the promotional stuff. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Centre_for_Excellence&oldid=1090679903"