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 Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De Britto Higher Secondary School[edit]

De Britto Higher 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)

Severe doubt if this school satisfies the notability guidelines, as most G-hits are social media or WP-clones. The article itself only uses its own website as source. The Banner talk 22:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which for secondary schools only requires that " independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." In this case there are tons of articles in The Hindu that talk about this school. Some are even online. In case that's not enough, here's another one. I can see plenty more in various databases, but clearly by the notability guideline, two are more than enough. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read RfC on secondary school notability and WP:RS. Just proving that the school exists is not enough any more. The notability must be proven. The Banner talk 23:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep independent sourcing in the Hindu is more than enough to pass a school AfD, even after the RfC which actually closed as no consensus and not a consensus to overturn our standard practice, as has been confirmed by the closers. Everything else was commentary that was beyond their mandate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think beyond their mandate makes much sense.A RFC-closure is not always about a one-liner yes/no answer to the floated proposal and to me the commentary was perfectly rational and good enough.Obviously, you can have the closure quasi-challenged at AN and the commentary expunged.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Winged Blades of Godric, the closers far exceeded their mandate by trying to explain what the no consensus close meant. Closes can be more than a yes or no, but they should not create new rules that were not clearly proposed and commented on by the community: which is what those citing the RfC claims that it does. The closers made the mistake of trying to provide an answer at the end of a messy discussion. They in turn created a text that has no consensus among the community, as is apparent by the fact that it is still debated as to its validity and meaning a year later. There is no need for a review: it wasn’t part of the actual close to the RfC. Half the community ignores it routinely. It is part of no policy and has no actual policy or guideline status. All the RfC tells us is that there was no consensus as to what we should do at schools, and as such any opinion in an individual schools AfD is equally valid. To be honest, the confusion they created with their excessive reasoning might make it the textbook example of how not to close an RfC. I’ve held back on criticizing their work for the past year, but the fact that no one can agree as to what the close means over a year later means the we should simply treat it as even the closers have admitted is the case; a no consensus close. Nothing more. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: multiple independent sources as listed by IP192 established notability.– Lionel^(talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those passing mentions do not a thing to the article. Beside that, reliable sources should be added to the article to prove notability, as it is now just based on the school website. Presuming notability (in my opinion an euphemism for "gambling and praying that there are really useful source out there") should not be used when an article is challenged. Just clear proof. The Banner talk 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pass the threshold as a high school and considering both the sources given above and the ones already in the article.–Ammarpad (talk)
  • Both sources just mention the name, it does not prove the notability. And it is not enough any more just to prove its existence. The Banner talk 11:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per long established precedent. RfC on secondary school notability did not result in a consensus to discontinue it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but it stated that Schooloutcomes is a circular argument (and better to be avoided) and that the notability of a school has to be proven, not only its existence. And about the precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Career College (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhi Public School, Riyadh (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundas Public School (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Hardoi (deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Alia International Indian School (deleted) The Banner talk 12:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as they have noted themselves, this was not actually the close to the question asked. The answer was no consensus. Yes, we do delete schools more now (which is probably a good thing), but we still keep the overwhelming number of secondary schools, even since the RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please get your facts straight, The Banner. I didn't mention Outcomes. Literally thousands of school articles have been kept - that means a precedent and an accepted practice. The 5 deleted schools is just the random luck of who turns out to vote on the AfD and some big wind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "long established precedent" could only exist due to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES being just as a keep-policy and a very, very loud group of people. I understand that you are upset over the fact that school-articles can and will be removed when not proven notable, but that is life and changing consensus. But it is a nice trick to reintroduce the tradition of keeping schools without merit, just because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, because school-articles were kept in the past, etc. The Banner talk 20:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those random five deleted articles are all deleted this month. The Banner talk 01:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep--Sufficient hits in RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above comments. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:51, 15 March 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.