Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bal Vikash Secondary School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. And I suggest opening an RFC on the notability of secondary schools; there has previously been a consensus that they are notable, so it's probably not best to re-hash the discussion on individual AfD pages but to centralise it. Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Vikash Secondary School

[edit]
Bal Vikash Secondary 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)

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, with a search demonstrating lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. There are enough mentions on the internet to prove it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No serious content. And as Necrothesp should know, his consensus is blown up recently... The Banner talk 21:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First off, the dates need conversion from the local system to the common system. Outside of that, this is a secondary school and therefore should be kept in accordance with the longstanding consensus that secondary schools are automatically presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that consensus is recently blown up when a school-article was deleted. The Banner talk 12:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I've been watching this, and the one establishment of schools we've made is that we find all notable if they actually exist, although I will say sourcing has actually been hard to find here, its existence is all we still need for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't necessarily agree with that consensus, SwisterTwister, and as noted above it hasn't necessarily been holding lately, but can I ask what independent sources verify this school's existence? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an independent source that mentions it and establishes its existence as a school [1]. Not a great source, but existence is established by an independent NGO. Again, as expressed below, English-language internet sources for high schools in South Asia are going to be more difficult to come by, but you generally can determine through some NGOs whether a school exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TonyBallioni. My response to that source is, what can we actually say in a Wikipedia article based on that source? "Bal Vikash Secondary School is a school in Nepal" is about it, I think, and I don't think that makes for a worthwhile article, so my view remains that we should delete pending more and more detailed sources being found. Otherwise, like the kept Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School, the page will just attract the addition of unsourced material, generating work for editors to keep it in a sourced but minimal and not particularly helpful state. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article currently states that the language of instruction is English. If that is correct, then I am surprised that we can't find more English-language sources about the school. Maybe it's wrong? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Cordless Larry. If you look at the concerns at the one AfD that resulted in deletion, some of the !votes were based off of the fact that editors thought you couldn't prove the school exists. That's not the case with this article. Historically, we have only required that a secondary school be proved to exist for it to be deemed notable as SwisterTwister and I have pointed out. Re: the English language point: many South Asian schools do have English as the medium of instruction (in the case of India, English is even an official language. Even with that, because the percentage of the population that speaks English is relatively small, you still have trouble finding online English sources like you could find for a US high school. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a secondary school. It exists. It is notable. If you want to challenge that consensus, start an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tatters is a strong word here. There is not a consensus that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the longstanding precedent is outdated. There has been one school deleted that you provided. That is consistent with school outcomes which presumes notability for secondary schools, but in individual cases can differ from that. Those of us that are appealing to it for keep !votes are essentially saying that there is no reason that this high school differs from the general consensus for high schools. The two no consensus outcomes are just that. No consensus on deletion. The obligation is for those arguing for deletion to prove a positive case for deletion and develop a consensus for that, which is why we default to keep when no consensus is achieved. There are still a substantial number of editors who stand by the views expressed in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is why a RfC would be a better place to deal with it than in a series of AfDs as expressed by the closer in one of the no consensus closes. As I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram, I think a lot of the issues with these schools is that foreign secondary schools are less likely to have English-language sources easily accessible online, which is part of the English Wikipedia's intrinsic bias since it is the English Wikipedia. The same amount of sources that exist for Anglophone country secondary schools likely exist, and could be found with digging. Per the existing consensus on secondary schools, I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to schools in non-English-speaking countries that we give to schools in English-speaking countries. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a bias to believe that schools are notable as soon as you can prove that they exist. The Banner talk 11:05, 24 December 2016 (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/Bal_Vikash_Secondary_School&oldid=1089513527"