Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New R. S. J. Public School

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

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

WP:BEFORE mainly returns listings and wikipedia-clones. But I am aware of sources in Hindi that I can not read or find. Seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. No idea how to indicate that above; will somebody who knows how please do so? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using the search string न्यू आरएसजे, I found a couple of later news mentions, and one extended article on a graduate that I couldn't use. As was stated at the previous AfD, we need to be very cautious in applying high expectations of archived online coverage to schools in developing countries, which is a form of entrenched bias. This relatively young school (established in 2001) demonstrates continuing press coverage, albeit sparse. Despite the removal since the first AfD of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES guideline under which secondary institutions enjoyed a presumption of notability, given its location in India (in a major city with many private schools jockeying for coverage), I believe it passes GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least it makes assertions that it is notable, and has a citation for a newspaper of record, thus passing most of my standards for school. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 28 June 2022 (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.