Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salwan 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 keep. Consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salwan public school

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

Article provides no independent evidence of notability, and is primarily promotional. Just saying that the school is renowned doesn't make it renowned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory Google search (as required by WP:BEFORE) reveals a cornucopia of potential sources, including ones like [1],[2],[3],[4] and [5]. It appears that the school is affiliated with the Salwan Education Trust, which probably deserves an article, too. Pburka (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found 253 hits by a simple Google news search for "Salwan Public School" and the content of the article doesn't seem to be be overly promotional. "Renowned" should just be edited out, "landmark" is credible for local people (a building doesn't need to be the Taj Mahal to be a navigation point), and the other positive claims have citations; on the other hand, it has the negative "news for bad reasons" that is also verifiable and could be expanded. Add this to the fact that the February 2017 RFC suggested that WP:BEFORE should include a search of offline, local print media, and I don't see that we can come to a decision to delete. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a school directory or yellow pages. Fails GNG and EV. ^{Atsme📞📧}

EV? The Evanescence WikiProject? Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Value. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly agree that WP should not be a school directory, I believe that this example passes WP:GNG and I encourage you to review some of the sources I identified above. Pburka (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. None of the cited sources establish the school's notability. It's a local school with local issues and local acclaim via its own promotional activities. Also, how can a school have two branches? Such a statement is confusing and unsupported by RS. There's no explanation as to how or why the 3 schools are connected. The article mentions notable subjects, such as Pandit Girdhari Lal Salwan but notability isn't inherited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many schools have multiple branches, or locations. For example, consider the University of California. Pburka (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are referencing branches at the university level and I was speaking about K-12. For example, in the U.S. K-12 is zoned into independent districts comprising differently named elementary, middle and high schools which are overseen by their respective school districts in their particular state. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This school isn't part of the US system, so we shouldn't expect it to be organized in the same way. Even in the US, it's not unusual for private schools to have more than one branch or location (e.g. Harlem Success Academy). Pburka (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is of a private charter school that actually is notable because of the coverage it received in RS. There is no comparison to this school which is just another public middle school or two or three with no notability, and very limited coverage, not to mention poorly written and never should have left AfC; therefore, as stated numeous times, the article fails GNG. Again, I refer you to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "public school" in the American sense, as it is not govt owned or govt aided, it is fully self-financed. It's also not a middle school, but a K-12 school. From the disclosures at http://sps.salwanschools.com/, you can add up the numbers and find the main campus has 3,282 students. It seems likely some research will reveal significantly more information. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete:--Per Atsme.Winged Blades^Godric 18:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that comment by? Wikipedia is not a YellowPages is used for promotional advertising and this has no instances of that at all. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's been no forwarded policy basis of why this article is violating any policies, and whether improvements have been considered as an alternative. No one can say sourcing is a concern since it is, therefore satisfies policy WP:V. GNG is cited above yet to quote WP:GNG, "independent reliable sources" are needed and that's currently in the article therefore addressed. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High Schools should be presumed notable and these sort of time-wasting, energy draining deletion debates should be eradicated. If it's promotional, that's an editing matter. SOFIXIT. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite - might want to read this: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Even schools have to be notable or else we'll have a listing for every school on the planet. SwisterTwister the policy is what typically guides all articles as it pertains to WP:N and WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says we need independent reliable sources for an article, so how is that any different from the currently offered ones? Also, there are no violations of WP:NOT since this is not: an advertisement, copyviolation, dictionary or social media (or anything close to these), so which violation exactly? Also, as for the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it only claimed the simple argument could be questioned, but there was never a consensus-based policy showing we were de facto deleting any schools. Also, to quote, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it says anything that suggests we are a YellowPages, and since these usually contain mirror information about their "About", that's not the case in this current article at all. Could you show any serious policy violation in depth? SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the keepers to substantiate WP:N because when an article doesn't pass N it's nothing more than a directory listing (the Yellow pages is a directory that lists all schools in a given area). Apparently the school is privately funded and not a government funded school. What is notable about it? There are thousands upon thousands of schools in cities, particularly private schools whose funders promote those schools and market them any way they can. The notable ones get published, the rest don't. Read the arguments that have already been presented in the delete outcomes. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this explicitly ever said why we should discount the current sources so whoever funds it is not relevant; also not relevant is whatever was said at the SchoolOutcomes since this AfD is about this school and how we judge it; however, comments at the thread suggested independent sources which are still in the article, regardless of preference. WP:N and WP:V say that an article can likely be acceptable as long as good sourcing exists and that there's no violating advertising or copyvio. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Notability. Without satisfying N it is just another middle school among many - just like there are plenty of hamburger stands and hardware stores and so on. It is also not covered in multiple independent sources to establish any sense of notability. Just being a school doesn't make it encyclopedic but listing can be construed as a violation of policy per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I've made my case. Happy editing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:30, 3 July 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.