Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution

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 delete. Sandstein 08:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution[edit]

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

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

De-prodded. All 12 sources appear to be primary sources. Many are database-like websites presenting school data. My WP:BEFORE searches did not turn up quality secondary source coverage such as newspaper articles or books. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A good redirect target may be Jaynagar Majilpur#Education. Also, looks like this article's author has created articles for six other high schools in this city: Jaynagar Institution, Jaynagar Institution for Girls, Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya, Majilpur J. M. Training School, Majilpur Shyamsundar Balika Vidyalaya, Majilpur Atul Krishna Vinodini Bhattacharya Vidyapith, which may also need attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is now 2 days old- we need to give it far longer to develop before we pass judgement, as we don't bite newcomers. So far the enthusiastic editor has mastered in-line referencing, mastered the infobox. Mastered how to structure an article into sections. That is in two days- in fact it as a pretty good stub. It needs to be improved, it is a real advantage that an editor is addressing 7 other articles in the locality. The best thing we can do here is to help him out and show him our expectations. ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles should meet inclusion criteria when they are created. We do not need to give them any time to develop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree totally We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we all enter the process at different points on the timeline. Almost all editors get it wrong on starting. We personally are fifteen year ahead of editors starting today. They are seeing what we saw then- a tagline- saying anyone can edit Wikipedia-

They are not entering the ring having absorbed fifteen years of policies, essays and unwritten but approved (by concensus) POVs. Now from the point of view, of KISS, and jargon free- what is this weeks way forward? Most editors start as content creators with an idea of a hole that needs to be filled- and all our welcoming material talks about creating a new article. We then get them hunting and referencing- the old in the tooth Google warriors just limit their reference sear to online sources. (we still have kids in London whose internet connection is so bad- that they take their laptop on a bus to use the free WIFI- in order to study under lockdown! )

So we now have an enthusiastic youngster writing a stub on schoo;l that we cannot prove isn't notable in reliable paper sources. As stubs go it is a good one and had give enough primary sources to show it exists. Quality wise it is good enough to join many other stubs. We are always in danger of judging things as if were a GA review. We do have flexibility in the semantics of 'should' and 'must'.

To build the encyclopedia, we take all these stubs, and give advice on the talk page, and demonstrate interesting improvements. We KISS and watch the article grow- and if after two or three weeks it hasn't become a start- we step in and use our advanced skills and consolidate the articles into one article (merge). ClemRutter (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Agree that articles should meet the inclusion/notability criteria on creation and that this one clearly doesn't meet either. That said, I see zero problem with giving the creator the benefit of the doubt that it is notable or will be notable by drafting it so they can work on it and hopefully get feedback on it eventually through an AfC. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT, BEFORE showed nothing, sources in article are not IS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Evaluation
"Fact and Figures". Wb.gov.in. Retriev…	404, government database site, not IS, from other entries on site, not SIGCOV, just a database report
"52nd REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR…	Government report Does not mention the school, fails SIGCOV, IS
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Co…	Government report Does not mention the school, fails SIGCOV, IS
"School Details Circle Wise". Departm…	Database listing in government database, no SIGCOV, not IS
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". iC…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Sc…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Ed…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Sc…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
Google maps…	Google maps, no SIGCOV
. Shiksha o Sahitya: Teachers' Journal…	School name is mentioned in a list, no SIGCOV
. "West Bengal Board of Secondary Educ…	Database listing in school district database, no SIGCOV, not IS
"West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Affiliated	Database listing in government database, no SIGCOV, not IS

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.