Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn School

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. The "keep" opinions do not address the actual sourcing status of this article, but only refer to a supposed consensus for keeping all secondary schools. All who have followed the RfCs and discussions about this topic know that this is precisely an issue on which the community has no consensus. The "keep" opinions must therefore be discounted as weakly argued.  Sandstein  09:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn School (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)

Article's sole source is to the school itself, and the text proper is promotional. Google News turns up only the school's Facebook page with quotes, and irrelevant news stories without. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  09:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC) My original vote was based on my (clearly incorrect) assumption this was a primary school. Dysklyver 08:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NOTPROMO. Pburka (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean the longstanding precedent and consensus that was explicitly rejected back in February? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• <Sigh> No, it wasn't! The RfC was completely inconclusive and does not override existing consensus. This has been discussed endlessly since and still almost no secondary school articles have been deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that because few have been taken to AfD or because you keep citing-not-citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and not pointing people to the RfC? At this point you're about to be put in the same class of editors as Flagged Revisions supporters to me. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano ('Jeremy'), I'll repeat Necrothesp's comment in case you missed it: The RfC was completely inconclusive and does not override existing consensus. This has been discussed endlessly since and still almost no secondary school articles have been deleted. If there is any consensus, it is the one that that RfC didn't have one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not buying it. The first line in the summarisation of the close is: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The closer also makes note that any argument on that ground essentially boils down to appeal to tradition circular reasoning, as opposed to the arguments agaimnst it whiich actually pointed to relevant Wikipedia policies. In other words, your "per longstanding precedent and consensus" argument was in fact explicitly rejected in the RfC, no matter how you try to spin it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Yes, the RfC did not override existing consensus on the notability of secondary schools. It did however, effectively override existing consensus by making these such AfDs such heavily participated that both the consensus' you pointed out are being overruled as people are actually reading the closure. please read this: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, which was actually the consensus, making all of this extremely hard to understand. Unless I missed something, in which case it would go completely bollocks. :) J947^{( c ) (m)} 20:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to a lack of reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if it was inconclusive, the summary of the RfC on secondary school notability identified above includes the following:

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.

The article should not be deleted without a thorough search for reliable sources, which should ideally include local print-only newspapers and sources in languages other than English. I know that this will not be feasible for most editors. This is particularly important for schools outside first world countries where web coverage, English-language sources and Wikpedia editors are less common, because of the risk of systemic bias. The article does not appear to be a hoax, and school's website suggests that the school is large enough to be notable. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Verbcatcher, I have searched the 462 Indian sources archived by LexisNexis, and not found any coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cordless Larry thank you. However, the LexisNexis website says that are for "seeking legal solutions, news & business insights", which does not indicate a focus on this area. Their 462 Indian sources is not impressive in the context of Media of India which says that India has more than 70,000 newspapers. Does it cover the sources listed in Media in Chennai, particularly the Tamil language newspapers and the local newspapers? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It includes many newspapers, but not in Tamil and more focused on the national and regional level than the local. However, I would argue that without any independent sources available to us, there is nothing to base on article on at present. If local coverage is found at a later date, then perhaps the article could be recreated based on that coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Larry, for what it's worth. Once we start seeing usable independent sources, I have no objection to re-creating the article, but with the sources we can find right now nothing doing. The language barrier is going to be a significant issue here, especially as more and more schools from the Subcontinent are going to be looking at Wikipedia as free Google ranking. I just wish automated translation of those languages didn't return broken English at best. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Local media gives nothing relevant or significant.(I mean the state dailies et al)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not kept then it should be merged into Nolambur, where the school is located, with a redirect. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any independent sources, Kudpung? My understanding of the consensus (whether it still remains or not is debatable) is that it involved keeping articles only when independent sources existed. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the RFC from February 2017 that states (among others) Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a medium to promote a school. The Banner talk 14:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That RfC also states: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.. In fact as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus is nothing more than [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES] but than without mentioning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and so circular reasoning. The Banner talk 14:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School, another school in India, where the same issues apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful redirect (or smerge) (in)to Nolambur per longstanding precedent for schools not kept at AfDs – Upon reading through the closure of [the February RFCI have found that the closure is confusing and inconclusive, but from my understanding the result was 'no consensus, defaulting to status quo. However—rather surprisingly, in fact—I have found not a single reliable source that is independent of the subject. If some editor can find some, I will change my !vote to weak keep (second choice, per this being in a third-world area with limited news coverage) per the outcome of the RfC. Also, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist was the status quo back then; existence has to be verified by a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I believe though, that the correct interpretation would of been reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Now though, school AfDs have become much further scrutinised because of the RfC, and I feel that is a slightly negative aspect. I cannot find any mentions of the school, which is probably because the school was made only in 2008. As a further note, promotional language is a content issue and ought to be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. J947^{( c ) (m)} 20:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unconvinced by the argument that sources might exist but we can't find them; they might not and even if they do, until they are found, they can't be used. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Pinkbeast, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Jéské Couriano, J947, Cordless Larry, reasons for not deleting this article are clearly laid out at WP:ATD-R (Alternatives to deletion) - a policy, not an essay or a guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's one of the reasons why my !vote was redirect. J947^{( c ) (m)} 02:11, 7 October 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.