Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public 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. "Delete" arguments involve the GNG; "keep" arguments mostly point to a now-adjusted consensus. Sources are pointed at by Davey2010 but adding "Vasundhara" to the search dramatically reduces the results; specific evidence of reliable sources that warrant "keep per GNG" are not provided by anyone. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public 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)

This is a school with no information about it save that a bus carrying its students caught fire and a bus driver suffered burns; this coincidentally happened a year after the 2008 Mumbai Bombings, but that doesn't convey notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Ivecos (t) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, school doesn't pass WP:GNG and news incident fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems the bus fire had widespread media attention at the time, as it was easy to find additional sources although it was more than eight years ago. I verified that the school is CBSE-affiliated and provides education through Class 12. I also found that the faculty might be outspoken about CBSE policies and standards, and added a couple of references. Does anyone have knowledge of Hindi and access to local media? Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school also receives annual national media attention for achievements in the Centre for Science and Environment Green School Awards. Overall, this seems to be a "Keep" per WP:GNG as there is regular significant coverage from reliable sources since 2006. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a secondary school, and that is not disputed. Also there is coverage about it. --Doncram (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah I've not checked the page for a few years, Well consensus has always been to keep these so I'm still going with that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked into sources for this school to see if it meets WP:GNG yet, Davey2010, but I'm not sure that is the consensus any more. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheffield Private School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Shaheen School System (2nd nomination). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well for the majority of AFDs these have all been closed as per the longstanding consensus, If you want to !vote please do so but I'm sticking with !keep as per that consensus. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I will if I get time to investigate sources, Davey2010. I just wanted to give you fair warning that in recent school AfDs, votes accompanied only by the rationale that we keep schools per consensus were discounted in the assessment of consensus (see some of the closing statements). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per sources on the school - Not all are amazing however notability does look to just about be there. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of those sources appear to be about different Evergreen Public Schools, Davey2010. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the sources appear to be about this specific school Cordless Larry, It might be more productive if you were to stop replying to my !votes and instead !vote yourself, Although the article looks like it's gonna be kept so it's probably pointless !voting at this point. –Davey2010^Talk 10:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I came back to try to do a proper assessment of sources to judge notability, Davey2010, and because you had provided a link I thought I would start from that. The majority of the sources it gives are about a school in Vancouver, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced article. As an article of high school, it is 100 times better than thousands of high school stubs. More sources also have been added after the nomination. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a good number of sources, enough to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG. While the bus incident got some coverage, there doesn't appear to be broader, significant coverage of the school in reliable, secondary sources. An initial search appears to uncover quite a lot of coverage, but there are several schools with the same name, and most of the news sources appear to be about a Canadian school. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notable for single event WP:NOTNEWS. Other sources are passing trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is our policy to keep articles about secondary schools, as specified by Jimmy Wales. Such schools are notable, being significant public institutions and this seems to be no exception. Andrew D. (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide some links here, Andrew Davidson? At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 224#Schools (again), Jimbo states "My own views on this matter are of little importance, but I think that only in rare cases will high schools ("secondary schools") be suitable for an encyclopedia entry". I don't see how you can square that with your statement about him specifying that we keep secondary school articles per policy, but perhaps I have missed something? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• More importantly, "as specified by Jimmy Wales"? Really? He's just another editor, who probably has a vague understanding of policy and guideline. We certainly shouldn't be using a WP:PERJIMBO argument anywhere on Wikipedia. He's not a "privileged user". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo established the policy in a mailing list discussion: Partial solution to rampant deletionism. At that time, his views were quite influential and so we now have thousands of articles about schools. It would be systemic bias to now exclude Indian ones. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo's views are just one of millions of editors. That he established some kind of view is completely irrelevant, and being subservient to those views is certainly a failing by a terrible systemic bias to believe in WP:PERJIMBO. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable beyond one event. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Recent votes on secondary schools have shown that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is still highly relevant to the encyclopedia. Nominations for schools based on articles that were of verified schools but didn't pass GNG at the time, were after in depth searching able to be made notable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phor_Tay_High_School and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanglin_Trust_School. Of course the people who do this searching to improve school articles (rather than deleting) cannot always be around for deletion debates, nor can have the time, language skills, or access to local news (especially if it's offline) to add to the article within the time frame of a deletion debate.

This is why, the sensible option for schools that are proven to be verifiable (they actually exist) is not to delete them, as schools are focal points of communities and experience shows that there will almost always be sources to shoe notability, yet expecting wikipedia editors to do this within the frame of a AFD nom is not helpful to anyone. WP:BEFORE applies here, has the nominator done a thorough search? I would also like to know if the nominator contacted the editors of the school page, including the creator? How about adding the school to a relevant wikiproject? There is so, so much that can be done with school articles before deletion. Experience on wikipedia has shown that if they are verifiable they are more than likely to be relevant and notable. So, as long as the school is verifiable, It should be kept while sources are found. Egaoblai (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You better start reading WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES again and especially the RfC mentioned there... The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. As the much ignored RfC] about the notability of schools clearly states: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Banner talk 18:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, but I also believe that in almost all cases public secondary schools are going to be notable. Deleting them just wastes time in acknowledging the ineligible. That's why we came to a consensus at one time that they were notable, and while it should not be considered an immutable truth, in the long run there will be an article, and it will take far more time and effort because we repeatedly destroy the article, and waste countless hours arguing about whether it should exist. Here's one vote for stopping the insanity sooner rather than later.Jacona (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:07, 22 January 2018 (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.