Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hutchings High School

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchings High School[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Hutchings High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only primary sources provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, (1a) I agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards, it's inconceivable that a school of such age would have generated no paper write-ups of its history, and in any case (1b) the school itself knows quite a bit about its history[1], and although we're not supposed to use the subject's own words, given the choice between assuming that they made it up, or assuming that they got it from somewhere, I think the latter is more likely. (2) We have a strong systematic bias on this. Most UK high-schools have articles, often based on little more than local news reports of whatever scandal or rebuild has happened. This school is in India, but also has local news reports of scandals[2] etc.[3]; why would we treat Indian schools differently to UK schools? Elemimele (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it currently sits. The sources are totally inadequate. The notion that it's old so it must be notable doesn't hold water. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't work either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elemimele and found some refs from The Indian Express ,The Times of india [4] [5] [6][7] Hence meets WP:GNG.Divesome (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elmimele and the sources found by Divesome. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to assess new sources brought up in the deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has been revised and has multiple solid sources now.
Lijil (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely per Elemimele. I find the "scandal" sources more persuasive than the others cited in this discussion so far. In any event, here are some additional sources that haven't been cited thus far: [8], [9], [10]. Being quite substantial and directly related to the article subject, and published in independent reliable sources, it appears to me that these articles in particular meet the GNG. (They might meet NORG as well, but we don't have to get into that per WP:NSCHOOL.)
    As a side note, I would observe that invoking OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to dismiss any consideration of systemic bias is such classic WP:ATAATA material that it has its own bullet point there and also gets a mention at Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. -- Visviva (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2023 (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/Hutchings_High_School&oldid=1167018391"