Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAL School Korwa

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAL School Korwa (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 article fails to establish the notability of HAL School Korwa. Having no sources, it does not meet Wikipedia's standard: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for nom Teblick your nomination states that this article, in its current form fails to establish notability. But can I confirm that you have fulfilled the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE? Step D states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Obviously the current lack of sources is not a basis for a nomination itself - only a lack of sources in existence is. Also, did you conduct any searches in Hindi? AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Secondary schools are generally kept in AfD if more can be verified than that the school just exists. There is content for the article here and here. I also don't have much access to Indian sources and wouldn't be able to read them anyway. If the consensus is that the school shouldn't have an article, it can be verified and merged to a new section on the article Korwa, Uttar Pradesh. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you support a merge if I sourced the article? SL93 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per default. This IAR trend of AfD schools is bad. L3X1 (distant write) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. High schools are notable, per longstanding precedents. I am not looking to see if this particular article is new, but in general the trend to nominate for deletion all the new articles on high schools in India and elsewhere is obnoxious, after all the high schools in U.S. and U.K. have articles. --doncram 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--Somehow the relisting script missed my reason but the reason for relisting was--

  There was an RFC which closed with--WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.

  .Winged Blades ^Godric 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Barely anyone participated in that. Such a joke. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More than a hundred votes, extensive discussion, and a four-person closing panel is wide participation by Wikipedia standards. It's certainly less of a joke than the handful of prolific AfD participants who vote to keep schools because we keep schools because we keep schools. Rebbing 17:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggested a possible merge and my keep was based on what I found plus the non-widespread coverage of the foreign language sources needed. SL93 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SL93: the sources they brought forth give us enough to have reasonable confidence that someone with the resources would be able to find the sources needed to meet the GNG, which is what WP:NPOSSIBLE says that we should consider before nominating for AfD. The strong chances of geographic bias in sourcing here makes the argument strong. I'd be fine with a merge over delete as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2017 (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.