Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mother's International School, Upleta

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother's International School, Upleta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a GNG issue? All I can find are mirrors, directory entries and listings by examination boards. I'm not sure where we at at following the recent RfC regarding

WP:NSCHOOL - the place obviously exists but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of coverage. Sitush (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. The RfD has sadly been misunderstood. It wasn't about destroying the existing consensus, but merely about formalising it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I do not understand, given how many people were fearful that it would cause a raft of AfD nominations, which implies that they thought it might "destroy the existing consensus". (This article is a post-RfC creation, btw). I do know that passing mentions do not constitute meeting GNG, regardless of "longstanding precedent and consensus". To be honest, it sounds like you are invoking
  WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and I vaguely recall that being precisely the issue per the RfC, ie: it should not be used in this way. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Please reread the purpose of the RfD. It was intended to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing. It was not intended to replace the consensus, since that has been arrived at over many years of AfDs. As I said, it's been misinterpreted (probably deliberately by a number of deletionists). And a number of secondary schools have been kept in AfDs since after the consensus has been cited. And no, I'm not "invoking WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES", since that too has been deliberately misinterpreted by the deletionists. It's a summary of consensus, nothing more, and I have never cited it in any of the hundreds of school AfD discussions in which I have been involved. The consensus of hundreds of AfDs has not been undermined by a single RfD. That would make a mockery of WP's consensus-based model. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have re-read it. I still do not understand. How the heck does this particular school meet GNG? Forget the consensus because, like it or not, that is an OUTCOMES argument. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - For clarity, I am referring to this RfC. You keep saying RfD - are you referring to something else? - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, merely a slip of the key. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Necrothesp:--It's a summary of consensus, nothing more, and I have never cited it in any of the hundreds of school AfD discussions. followed by The consensus of hundreds of AfDs has not been undermined by a single RfD (and thus I keep !voting the same manner as before}}--what does it mean?You seem to be skilled enough with your words but sometimes it's better to try to make some sense.And to discuss whether we should formalise the consensus in writing was a gem!Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 17:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NORG. The sole keep !vote above badly mis-interprets the RFC which Sitush references, and especially, the consensus viewpoint expressed by the closing editor. "It is notable because schools are always kept per precedent" is exactly a SCHOOLOUTCOMES !vote, if even it does not reference SCHOOLOUTCOMES explicitly. If the keep !vote above sincerely believes reliable secondary nonregional sources exist for this school, he should bring those forth. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Alternatively, I would accept a delete and redirect to Upleta#Education, where the school is located. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Directories such as this suggest it's a primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ...although it is registered as secondary here, but its affiliation is described as "provisional" (probably because it only opened in 2012 and doesn't have any students beyond class VI). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Cordless Larry: May I conclude that you've done some searches for sources and that's all you're coming up with? —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found that source in the article history, C.Fred (not sure why it was removed), but yes, I did some searching too. I found quite a few mentions, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious lack of notability (
NSCHOOLS. Rebb ing 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note Copied from article talk page A412 (Talk • C) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is highly evident that this place exists. Read out the laws before commenting about the provisional affiliation. Here is the link affiliation bye-laws - cbseaff.nic.in It is very much the norms of CBSE affiliation. And don't go for the literal translation. It doesn't mean temporary -.- There are more than enough citations. And if one starts knocking at the right places and not the spammy webpages about schools, one can find enough data. ZealD (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is denying the school's existence,
notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to WP:GNG to warrant an article, and there is no evidence of such. I would prefer a merge, but I will not object if the article is deleted and the redirect then created. All I know is, at the end of the discussion, this school should not have a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep That source only shows the accreditation. It is very common that true enrollment isn't updated every other week. In major developed countries, many independent, reliable sources about schools can be found on the Internet, beyond the scope of the trivial. However, outside those countries, and particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is 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 neighbouring library. Anyone living nearby ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.232.207 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — 103.220.232.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Internet coverage is actually pretty good in India but news media tends to be at regional level rather than local due to literacy issues (not much of a market at village/taluk or even single-town level etc). That media is usually available online. This idea that SYSTEMIC can be used as a bludgeon to keep articles needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These schools are important institutions within their communities and biographies of notable people often discuss their educational backgrounds including their attendance at secondary schools. An encyclopedia with well over five million articles certainly has room for such articles. If the existence of any given school cannot be verified, then I support deletion of such an article. But this clearly isn't the case here, (there are only 18761 CBSE recognised schools in India, as opposed to a total of 1.3 million schools) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh105 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Rajesh105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Re: use in biographies, notability is not inherited - that someone went there is not a reason to keep the article. Re: CBSE, I don't know where your figures come from but having multiple accreditation agencies is not uncommon and inevitably leads to institutions aligning with different ones. What makes the CBSE so special compared to any other? That it offers the much-criticised, nationalist NCERT exams? - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of discussions of articles for deletion is to get to the bottom of the idea: should an article be kept or deleted (or any of the other options available through the conclusion of an AfD such as merge). Ridiculing other editors and the education system of India, does not add to the value of the discussion but instead takes away from it.

All I am saying is References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD, which surely didn't take place considering this case, where the deletionist just nominated, for the lack of WP:GNG (primarily searching in the Google)

Re CBSE: Might as well Google and check the facts. It's right there. Rajesh105 —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is SYSTEMIC has been addressed above and the
WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It isn't easy to defend against deletion even though the school is no more notable than their counterparts in the region (many of those 'notable' ones have standalone articles consisting one or two lines) The School has been appreciated for their methods in more than enough local papers but they are circularised offline only (don't exist on the internet)

But some incubation time is warranted rather than upright debate on deleting the article.

The idea of rfc has certainly been misinterpreted and the already existent schools are being grandfathered while the new ones are COERCED and hovelled to the deepest burrows, hence SYSTEMIC. ZealD (talk)24 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand much of your latest comment (coerce?) but you're the article creator and you haven't provided the sources that you say are available. Sources do not have to be on the web. However, I'd like to see copies of them because you are also a
single-purpose account and we have a lot of issues regarding promotion, misrepresentation of sources etc on India-related topics (sorry: no offence is intended). - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2017 (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/The_Mother%27s_International_School,_Upleta&oldid=1138848681"