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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi Convent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Removing from db-spam queue, taking to AfD. See WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a high school this is a significant institution in the city. Indian schools have a poor presence on the Internet and time should be given for local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias. This page was only created today so a deletion discussion is premature. TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 pages of Google hits for "St. Francis of Assisi Convent" Navsari, all of the hits appear unreliable. I understand that there are likely to be useful printed sources for most high schools somewhere, but they may be hard to locate. What should we say to people who are trying to be careful with their CSD tagging work? Should we tell them that it's "premature" to bring an article to AfD if there's not a single useful Google hit and we don't know how to locate other sources? If this one was premature, then how about the other school articles I'm pulling out of the db-spam queue that have no notable ghits, most of which have a tone that strikes many Wikipedians as promotional? I'm fine with the general principle of "Don't bring it to AfD if the outcome is known in advance", and I'm sure there are some articles where I'm the only one in the discussion who didn't know the outcome in advance, but I'm not sure if this article is one of those. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would tell the CSD taggers to proceed more carefully in tagging tag perfectly legitimate articles for deletion. This article was not promotional when it was created. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm right with you on the systemic bias issue, especially as it applies to notable Indian institutions; I just left a reminder today at WT:INDIA for people to keep an eye on the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. As a practical matter, we're on more of a 10-day clock than a 5-day clock, because most of the admins who are closing these days will relist if it looks like more time is needed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TerriersFan. All high schools are notable. The existence of this school can be verified by this Google Books link. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am in agreement with TerriersFan's assessment regarding high schools and notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I understand that there's an argument that it's a waste of time to debate notability about high schools, and that it's highly likely that some kind of printed references might exist and someday be consulted for most high schools, at least in the countries I'm familiar with. My question is ... how do we write an article without sources? Since we can't find any reliable sources on Google for this school, and there's no assertion that sources exist (outside of the city government site, which only gives the name), what makes us believe that this article was written by someone neutral, rather than a booster or a rival of this school? The article "sounds" fine ... but is that how we judge NPOV these days, from the tone rather than the sources? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the one who placed the speedy deletion tag onto the article's original form. I agree now the article should be kept because of its new revisions and added references bringing it to a encyclopedia appearance.--Rent A Troop (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2009 (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.