Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination)

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 delete. This debate obviously has caused fractures across the wider community, in other places than simply this discussion page.

In assessing the discussion, I have discarded all !votes that purely related to procedural issues. Given the wide section of the community that came to take part in this discussion, the procedural issues are reduced in relevance. I hear their concerns, and if this was a poorly-attended debate - or one that did not have such a clear consensus - I would factor them in.

However, on the topic of content, there is a clear consensus to delete this article. Ultimately it has come down to an interpretation of our relevant notability guidelines, and there is a strong consensus that this article does not meet those requirements. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARS Public School

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

ARS Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:RUN OF THE MILL school. Nomination a few days ago closed as no consensus and was tied up in ARS drama so I’m renominating in hopes of a clearer consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per discussion, and when an article goes on the rack twice and survives I would think that no further attempt should be made (should be a guideline or policy). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe in short succession, but multiple years apart no because that’s long enough for consensus to radically change. In very long term cases I’d recommend not factoring in the old AfDs at all since standards were radically different back in like 2007 for example. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. And school-articles have to prove their notability since the 2017-RFC. No guessing or canvassing, just proof. The Banner talk 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per myself twelve days ago, per myself four years ago. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per myself the last time I voted since nothing has changed about it's clear lack of notability since then. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE references to show that its notable now. If so, I'll change my "vote" to keep, but I doubt they can. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy who wrote the WP:THREE did explain that people kept misunderstanding his personal essay. Some people would post a dozen sources, and he said no one would look at that many, just post the three best ones and he'd look at that. You don't need Three references to prove notability, two is enough for that as the notability guideline page clearly states. Many are saying Wikipedia:Speedy keep because its a bad nomination. You can't just nominate something again right away because you didn't get the results you wanted. Dream Focus 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your point is since there isn't even two good references. Also, I didn't re-nominate the article, I probably wouldn't have, and I could care less about what the outcome was last time. So I don't know what your point with any of that is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Now kept twice. Continual nomination is against the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result of the 2017 RfC was no consensus, defaulting to status quo.

    Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

  • The status quo was that schools are notable if their existence is proved by a reliable, independent, secondary source. Which is the case here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the quote you cited refutes the RFC results being valid. The original statement posed in an RFC can be rejected but the broader discussion can still lead to a consensus to implement other things besides what was originally posed. Just like with ANI cases where the original proposal for sanctions is rejected but alternatives aren't. Neither is an "original statement or bust" type of thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The original statement was Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Sure implementing other things besides what was originally posed can happen. But the crux of the argument was what was initially posed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Anything else is just using semantics to disruptively game the system. Like I said before, this would have resulted in keep if a valid argument for keeping it was made instead of people making generic, low effort votes that go against the RfC. That's it. Period. End of story. Outside of that it's stupid to complain about the article being re-nominated when none of you were willing to put the work into it the first time around so it wouldn't have to be. Really, all articles that end in no consensus due to low effort, generic voting should be speedy re-nominated. No matter which side is doing it. Otherwise, we are allowing the process to be derailed. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That very first sentence is ambiguous anyway. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This will remain a perennial AfD candidate if people keep talking about procedure or voting "per previous discussion" rather than discuss the available sourcing. The previous AfDs are of remarkably little value and of no help here: first one was dominated by the RfC with very little discussion of the source material (supervote-kept nonetheless), the second predictably had lots of "keep per previous discussion", with some openly admitting they hadn't read any sources. The article currently references: 1, the school itself, not independent; 2, a database, no prose; 3, a profile/database entry in a web outlet that was deemed non-notable a couple years ago; 4, a listing of several schools with high number of applicants, ARS itself not being the main topic; 5, likewise; 6, passing mention. How do these sources establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed in the previous AfD, the school is discussed in various newspaper articles but unfortunately they aren't in English. We have to consider offline sources too, as point three ("References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.") states, and it is evident the school has significant coverage in newspapers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I could tell the only English reference that was mentioned in the previous AfD just affirmed that they have a basketball team. Outside of that since we can't read the news articles that are posted on their website there's no way to tell if they are "significant coverage" or not. But going by the article titles a lot of it looks extremely run of the mill. Like 6 of the articles are about school functions and they are likely local news papers. Also a few, like "Our Troopers Class" are primary. My guess is that others are also. None of that does anything for notability. Actually the more I look at the articles the more I'm convinced they are primarily from a school newspaper or paid to print pieces. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage. In fact, the 2017 RFC linked above specifically mentions local media coverage as helping to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware. Purely local coverage does not a notable article make though. There also needs to be one reference from a regional or national outlet and as far as I'm aware there isn't one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe that to be true, and such a requirement doesn't appear to be present in GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in WP:NORG. Which are the notability guidelines to follow depending on what type of school this is. There's really no way to know if we don't have any references though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as no one can produce concrete examples and demonstrate that an actual encyclopedic article can be written with them (meaning no trivial mentions or application statistics), this is all speculation and WP:V is not met. It's also remarkable that in 11 years no one ever bothered writing a non-English Wikipedia article of this school; this one only exists in the first place due to the work of a single-edit, single-purpose account (presumably promotional). Avilich (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What does "A.R.S." mean? Might help find more sources. Also could help to search "A.R.S." vs. "ARS" .. the former according to sources. -- GreenC 19:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Their run by A.R.S. Memorial Educational Society for Human Welfare. So probably that's where the name come from. I can't find jack about them though. Except that they also run a college. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic personal argument
    Why this article? Why NOW? And why again? This is a continuation of the just closed nomination
    And Dronebogus has now provided an explanation for his overwrought actions. Streisand effect. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop with your paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense. Yes, I was making fun of your group for Molon labe-ing over this silly school article, but I also think there’s legitimate issues with notability and over-reliance on old AfD consensuses. Do you have nothing more productive to do than run the wiki around ranting about me? Even Andrew and Lightburst have cooled it a little after their tbans, and DF has participated in several AfDs (including this one) without stirring up drama. Why can’t you do the same? Not every AfD needs to be a battleground. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this closes as no consensus because of their obstructing nonsense again you should just renominate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll be taking them to ANI again first so they don’t immediately do it again. Dronebogus (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you taking to ANI and for what reason? NemesisAT (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this article had been made now, under identical circumstances, would it have survived a simple PROD? Would it even have passed draft review? I doubt it. We need to stop grandfathering in ancient, low-quality articles based on dated or low-effort consensus, or “no consensus” closes handwaved as “de facto keep” closes. Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nobody is considering the previous no consensus result as a "de facto keep", but my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is if you're unhappy with the result of a recently closed discussion you go to WP:DRV, you don't renominate it and hope for a different result. NemesisAT (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No consensus isn't really an actual result is it? That's why AfDs that are no consensus can be renominated after a certain amount of time passes. I don't think there is set amount of time that has to pass before renominating something either. In the meantime there's no way a no consensus close can be fairly adjudicated at a DRV. Since it literally means there isn't a clear outcome that the closer might have miss-read or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      All the “keep” votes just seem to be relying heavily on procedural arguments rather than providing evidence the thing is actually notable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      With most of them I’m assuming good faith, but with 13 I’m guessing it’s because they don’t actually care about providing a non-technical argument because they seem to be of the opinion that articles must by default be “rescued” by any means possible, even when they’re likely-promotional articles about unremarkable schools made by single purpose accounts over a decade ago. Dronebogus (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      After the whole discussion on Jimmy Whales' talk page I'm pretty convinced that their bar for what should be included in Wikipedia is so low that it's nonexistent. At that point they will vote to keep anything. So they can't really make rational, guideline based arguments for keeping articles when they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Just doesn't pass the notability test, with me. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - all the "per previous" !votes should be discounted. Any keep without two GNG sources should be discounted. Until/unless someone posts two GNG sources, it's a delete. Levivich 15:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should they be discounted? Am I okay just to keep renominating an article until it gets deleted? That doesn't seem very fair. NemesisAT (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      see my reasoning above: they all rely on technicalities that don’t get to the meat of the issue: is this even notable? Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We already had a discussion, some people felt it was notable while others didn't. The "no consensus" vote was appropriate. The article hadn't changed in the intermediate two days. Per WP:RELIST, it isn't really appropriate to relist (or in this case, restart) a discussion because it ended in no consensus. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I still think this is much ado about nothing, since as I stated earlier this argument is only happening because the article was made ages ago and thus gets some kind of unwritten grandfather clause on its notability. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "Am I okay just to keep renominating an article until it gets deleted?" That's not why this was relisted. It was relisted because one side decided to force a no consensus by way of obfuscation. In the meantime if this is actually notable then there's as much chance of it being closed as keep. Which I'm sure Dronebogus would accept. I know I would. So there's zero reason you should care. If your so concerned about WP:RELIST not being followed then you should hold keep voters who are ignoring the notability guidelines to the same standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -A boringly routine secondary school. While there do seem to be too many bobs at the apple here, that is countered completely by the quality of the overwhelming majority of the “keep” votes. Qwirkle (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are three sources in the article that can be considered as contributing to notability. One has a single sentence Rohit Ranjan, of ARS Public School, scored 99.91 percentile., and in the other two it is part of a list of 14 other schools. Not seeing anything close to GNG. Aircorn (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I've spent some time trying to clean up and improve this article but just cannot. There is no way this meets WP:GNG. Sources are either passing references or just routine. I cannot speak for Hindi sources but I think it is folly to presume something I cannot read provides notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:MILL; sources are self-published or routine. Miniapolis 00:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Haven't been involved in this subject or the previous AfDs. While this AfD may have come too quickly after the last, I think WP:NOTBUREAU policy can be invoked in this case. That's because looking over the sources, I see nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG in terms of a depth of coverage.
    The 2017 RfC is very clear that these schools do not get an automatic pass simply for existing. Reading through other !votes here or in previous AfDs, I don't see anything in the keeps even coming close to addressing notability. Instead mention of sources is nonexistent or extremely superficial passing mention, so deletion seems pretty clean cut here unless there are other sources out there. WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:NSCHOOL give guidance on what is needed, and I see nothing even approaching that. KoA (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge: to List of schools, colleges and universities in Bokaro. I'm not happy with the WP:BEFORE instruction B#5 to respect Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion re-nomination timescales and the probability this school's article was targeted due to the "ARS" component of the name being the acronym for "Article Rescue Squadron". Going beyond that important possible discriminatory point is can we improve the situation by merge and I think we can. The sources here would help improve that target. To be clear I am volunteering to do the merge work and will try to improve the suggested target. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I'm fine with that. Merging the article is better then this being closed as no consensus again. Hopefully the keep voters will be fine with it also. Since doing so retains the information and that's what their concern is. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That list is very bad and its entries don't seem to be notable either, it's all arguably deletion material. Avilich (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I was thinking that, but it could be a while until the other articles are deleted if they even ever are. So there's no reason not to merge it in the meantime. Maybe the content from the articles that aren't notable can be merged also. Then the list might be worth keeping. Plus, I'd like to be done with this whole thing already and merging it seems like a good way for that to happen while still retaining the content worth having. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Merging it is fine by me given the article merged into is going to be improved. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, with no reliable sources that indicate otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep 1) No good reason for speedy renomination has been noted, and 2) the fact that this has been drawn into the Article Rescue Squadron debacle (note the acronym similarities) demonstrates that any number of the above opinions are not about this article but picking sides in a meta-disagreement. WP:POINT applies. This is not so bad that leaving it around for two months months per WP:RENOM's advice is problematic. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The spirit of RENOM is presumably that, by allowing some time to pass between nominations, each participant's input and the concept of a 'consensus' won't be so fleeting or meaningless, since only the last nomination's result ultimately matters. But the previous AfDs were remarkably devoid of actual discussion on the sources, so an arbitrary 2 months of waiting serves no purpose here. It would be silly to prevent people from discussing this further, especially now that they're finally focusing on the GNG/SIGCOV issue, which is what actually matters. Avilich (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also when those of us largely uninvolved editors see a clear problem with notability and lack of sources itself, Jclemens' !vote just becomes WP:POINT itself and violates WP:NOTBUREAU policy. If anything, their comment is casting WP:ASPERSIONS and poisoning the well for those of us actually focusing on the article and sources, not whatever editor disputes have been going on in the background. KoA (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, the speedy renomination and all this noise about procedural pedantry has brought the issue to everyone's attention and is attracting more editors to the discussion, creating a much more solid and legitimate 'community consensus' than the previous two AfDs. Avilich (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had a point, you lost it by suggested that WP:POINT applied to my contribution. Seriously, this is not a deletion debate about a school, as we can see by the cast of characters presenting themselves here. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    POINT is for describing disruptive comments, especially aspersions that are not appropriate here. That has no place in an AfD. I'm well aware that disruptive editors have been following others around, sanctions have been handed out, etc., but that is no reason to disrupt those who are actually ignoring or cutting through that to focus on the article's notability itself. KoA (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, WP:POINT is about taking actions to disrupt Wikipedia. KoA, I highly recommend you actually read it before citing it. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do suggest rereading POINT. Your continuing to inject a battleground mentality and cast aspersions is actively working to disrupt this AfD for those trying to look at this actual article dispassionately rather than inject Wiki-politics into it. Normally when told to knock it off, people either are expected to back off or even strike their comments, not double down. KoA (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My earlier keep vote is based on the lack of evidence of a search for non-English and off-line sources. Deletion without such a search unbalances Wikipedia by unduly favouring the retention of articles on similar schools in developed English-speaking countries. Although it will count against my favoured outcome, I should draw attention to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School (3rd nomination), where ArnabSaha indicates that the newspaper cuttings on the school's website[1] do not indicate notability. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails GNG and lacking in SIGCOV, sourcing is mostly just sporadic mentions. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural keep. Per WP:RENOM, which suggests waiting two months to renominate a no consensus AFD. Re-litigating this two days after the previous close is too aggressive, and not a good use of time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, albeit weakly. I'm seeing some significant coverage of the school in the sources in the article, but only from one organization (The Telegraph). Per a 2017 RfC, schools aren't presumed notable just because they exist. Therefore, per WP:N, they need to either meet the WP:GNG or a subject notability guideline (such as WP:ORG). That 2017 RfC's closing summary also states Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. I don't really see discussion on that for now, and it's likely that many local publications are going to be non-English. An editor in the previous AfD identified this source as significant coverage; I'm not quite sure of that, though it affirms that the school does (or did) have basketball as a sport. Some of the tone issues can be resolved by means other than deletion, and I have attempted to do so in my edit. However, in the absence of anybody claiming to have done a thorough search of print and/or local media regarding this school, though at least one editor found a page on the school's website that contains screenshots of print articles that the school claims are about it in a previous discussion. While I can't read the language those local news articles are written in, some of the articles at minimum contain a photograph that includes an English-language sign containing the name of the school, so it doesn't look like the articles are totally frivolous. I lean towards presuming notability given that it's received some coverage from at least one national or large regional outlet and it appears to have received significant coverage from multiple local outlets. If anybody can read those articles, it would be helpful in determining the extent of WP:SIGCOV, but I can't think of doing anything but keeping it given what's been presented. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has anyone !voting for delete actually evaluated the over one dozen non-English news articles available here? Notability is based on the sources existing, not the status of the article. I'm seeing nobody really address these sources. I understand that they're written in a language that pretty much none of us can read, but it would be rather detrimental if we decide to delete a page not knowing what all the sources we can find on it actually say. We've found local coverage of the school—it would be incredibly premature to delete the article under the assumption of a GNG because none of us can actually tell what the articles written in the local language actually say. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for other people but I've addressed them several times. They all seem to be self published PR and (or) extremely trivial. Although it's hard to tell since I don't read the language, but the titles of the articles are in English. Going by them it seems what I've said is the case. Unless someone can prove otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean to say that the English-language blurb underneath the articles is a faithful translation of the newspaper headline? I find that really unlikely to be the case. My argument is that the people claiming a WP:GNG fail are systemically excluding these WP:PUBLISHED sources on the basis that we can't find an editor who is able to read them. Shame on us if we can't, but that's no reason to wholly ignore the school RfC's guidance that a WP:BEFORE search should include some local print media. Honestly, even if there's a single editor who is capable of reading this stuff (or better yet, reading it and finding links to them in an online publication that can be machine translated for everyone to read), then I would think it possible to make a firm and hard delete !vote if the stuff is not going to contribute to GNG. But, at the current moment, we can't. I don't see the great harm that would come from keeping an article up until we can actually figure that part out. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using a visual translator, this appears to be Hindi text. Unfortunately, since it's a translator that relies on visuals, it's not making any sense of the tight newspaper columns. On the bright side, since it's Hindi, we should certainly be able to find a good deal of people at WP:WikiProject India who would be able to read them and evaluate their depth. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relying on machine translations, but this source, this source, this source appear to mention the school and/or its activities in non-trivial depth. I'm very limited in my ability to search in Hindi being that I can't read or write it, so others might have more success, but it looks like local digital media is providing some non-English online coverage. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first two references are about ARS College, which is a different school, and the third one is about the health benefits of the wormwood plant lol. In no way do those mention the school and/or its activities in non-trivial depth or at all for that matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, the third one appears to be about a science experiment conducted at the school that got attention from the "National Science Congress". I'm unsure if it's Indian Science Congress Association, but if so, that would be of note. The translation on the first source is pretty obviously bungled, though it does mention "ARS Public School" and "ARS College" almost as if they're the same or a similar entity. The second source is accidentally the same as the first source; I now can't quite find the link I'd intended to put there, and it's not going to come easy. The claim that the sources don't mention the school at all for that matter appears to be rather silly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The college and this school aren't the same thing. They are run by the same organization though, and therefore both have ARS in the name. That said, the article is clear that "there is also ARS Public School in the vicinity of B.Ed College." So I'm not sure how it would make the two sound the same when it specifically says they are different. Outside of that, WP:GNG says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage." Further, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." Looking at the third article the sentence "amanna Kumari, Siddhant Kumar, Shraddha Kumari and Anshita Kumari of Ars Public School, Bokaro , under the guidance of their scienceteacher, have made a wonderful project to prove weed is a friend of man" is the only time the school is talked about. I wouldn't call a single sentence that amounts to "so and so goes to X school" to be a mention of the school. At least not in a way that is relevant to this discussion. It's definitely not the direct, in-depth coverage that WP:GNG requires. You could argue the school is notable through attention the students got from the "National Science Congress", but there's two issues with doing so. 1. The students got the recognition, not the school, and this article isn't about the students 2. Notability isn't inherited. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Wikipedia has a systemic bias toward the English speaking editors. Trying to find and accurately interpret (I did not say "translate") articles in non-English language sources is a problem. And it has had an impact here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have any indication that there are relevant, independent sources to rescue this article? If so, why did nobody come up with those sources? The Banner talk 17:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd think after 3 AfDs and a long break in between two of them that even non-English sources would have materialized. Realistically we can't just keep every single badly sourced non-English article just in case someone decides to add references to them eventually. That's what drafts and deletion reviews exist for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

    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/ARS_Public_School_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1055659438"