Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh

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 no consensus‎. I just want to mention that we see a lot of schools nominated for deletion (mostly through PRODs) and I don't think I've come across such a hotly contested discussion regarding one. But opinions are strong on both sides so I'm closing this as No consensus with thanks for the work done on this article during the period of discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh[edit]

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

Our Lady of Fatima Senior Secondary School, Aligarh (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 a primary source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, India, and Uttar Pradesh. — Karnataka talk 10:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reason to delete it when it's an existing and historical school in Aligarh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Atif Nazir (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 Aug 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Mainly a primary source, perhaps, but it seems to be an important school for Aligarh region, dating from 1961, which in Indian school terms is old. I suggest giving more time for people to include references and citations, particularly given most secondary sources in this part of the world are unlikely to be online. Also if the same criteria were used, how many schools would have to be deleted, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Welsh_school_stubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmanst (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While a few articles with similar issues existing is not reason to keep a page, when there are whole categories of western schools with similar issues, one does wonder what should be the appropriate level of notability (a subjective metric), and whether the same criteria should be applied uniformly to non-western schools. Nonetheless I found a media article from Aligarh that does show it is one of the top schools in the district, in terms of the number its students who are placed among the top 10 ranks in a district of 3.6 million+ people. That should help meet notability criteria in wikipedia space. (Though I personally was convinced on the balance of probabilities it was an important school in the real world from the primary sources, and wanted some leeway given to the article creators to find secondary sources). Jagmanst (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misrepresenting the source; it lists a handful of names and that's it. It does not show that this is one of the top schools in the district; just that the school itself reported that a half dozen of its students placed highly on a standardized test. One-liners do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, and neither do self-reported results, and whatever notability accrues to the students is not inherited by their school. Beyond that, the requirements and criteria of the WP:GNG pertain to all schools, whether they are in Massachusetts or Morbihan or Maharashtra. Ravenswing 12:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood the source. The source is reporting students who came in the top 10 rank in the board examinations for the entire district. The newspaper said they did not receive the scores directly from CBSE the examination board, but reached out to the schools in the district to provide them the data. Based on the data they received from all the schools in the district they published the list of top performing students in the district. The methodology to me seems perfectly legit, and I have no reason to doubt it.
    My point is that a large number of the students in the top 10 rank come from this school. This is evidence that it is leading school in the district.
    It is clear from my other searches that for people within this region, Aligarh, it is a famous school.
    Jagmanst (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I said: that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source, and thus couldn't contribute to notability even if the article did provide significant coverage to the school, which of course it does not. Drawing conclusions from that list likewise has no place in an article. As to the clarity of your "other searches," if you have other sources, present them. Lacking any evidence of those sources, exactly what proof of your assertion did you find? Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is well known newspaper Amar Ujala. It is by definition a secondary source. It uses primary sources, i.e. data from the various schools, to make a report. That is what secondary sources do (hence the name). The article provided significant coverage to school by ascribing affiliations to the students on the list. Anyway I am convinced that on balance of probabilities this is important school for the people of Aligarh. I leave it to editorial community to decide what to do about the request for deletion. I have nothing further to add. Jagmanst (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, that was the only source you found; you found no others, and your conviction is based on zero actual evidence. Fair enough, so stipulated. Ravenswing 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "That's exactly what I said: that the data came from the schools themselves. While I agree that doesn't mean that it's inaccurate, that makes it a primary source..."
    No it doesn't. The newspaper collected data from schools and made an analytical and editorial judgment about the date. That's the definition of a secondary source. Jahaza (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional secondary sources have been added to article, including peer-reviewed articles and sociological studies of which the school was a subject. Jagmanst (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (specifically, keep without prejudice against a second AfD in 3–6 months). Yes, other stuff exists is not a reason to keep an article, but Jagmanst raises a valid point that many Western secondary schools don't have any better sourcing than this—and further that the sources may exist but are not online—or are online but not in the Roman alphabet—which limits a monolingual en.wiki user's ability to search for them. At the least, I'd like to keep this article for a few more months to allow for further development. But if the community really feels that this article is not worthy of mainspace, then I'd request it be draftified to allow incubation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise English is an official language of India? We don't give a free pass to articles in case sources may exist. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N guide does say "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.".
    Jagmanst (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide evidence of sources then. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I presume in the time spent commenting here you actually searched and found nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged "- from your linked source. I.e. Linking WP is not an argument. Please try again.
    • As I have discussed on this page, there is sufficient evidence to believe this is an important school in this district. Not least given it is disproportionately represented in among the district rank holders.
    Jagmanst (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the best coverage you can find? It seems WP:ROUTINE at best and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG. Translated from Hindi: CBSE has declared the results of class 10 and 12 exams. There is no toppers list released by CBSE. After the declaration of the result, the schools sent the list of their toppers. After which the top 10 names of the list of estimated toppers in Aligarh district have been revealed so far. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have failed to engage with the discussion. a) The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online. b) We have evidence the school is top performing. c) Putting links to a policy is not a discussion nor proves anything. These are guidelines, not mathematical algorithms, and need to be interpreted contextually and with common sense. I have nothing to add. Jagmanst (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "The school is located in area where sources are unlikely to be online". Why? Is there no internet available in Aligarh? You may provide evidence of offline sources like newspapers that are offline by stating the name of the paper, date of publication and page number. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Local news in India is predominantly non-online and in regional languages, as already explained.
      • I was not in involved in this article creation nor edited it before RfD, and I don't have access to local archives.
      • Editors should take this into account of time for the article to be updated, by those who have the resources, particularly since we have good reason to believe this is an important school. Jagmanst (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Being what you call "important" is not the same as notable in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        The guideline is pretty vague on what is'notable' actually- it says "worthy of notice". GNG is the recommended method, very broadly defined, to determin it. Jagmanst (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar Can I get you on the record, then, both that you have done the WP:BEFORE searches and that you turned up nothing in the course of your searches for sources? —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. LibStar (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. There is no evidence that the subject meets the GNG, and we do not keep articles based on airy suppositions that somewhere, somehow, sources might exist; they must either be demonstrated to exist or an article cannot be sustained. That many Western secondary schools lack adequate sourcing is not an argument to keep this article, but a good reason to tag/PROD/AfD those other articles as well. (And with that, to suggest that online sources are tough to find for India, one of the most wired nations on earth with a vast English-language media, is curious.) Ravenswing 12:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 7% of the population in UP speak English. To expect a large online English news coverage for this area is curious. Jagmanst (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uttar Pradesh is the most populous non-sovereign political entity in the world; just 7% of its population is equal to half the population of Canada, over twice the population of Ireland, a third of the population of the UK, two-thirds the population of Australia, and more people than all but three US states. To expect that it doesn't have significant English-language news coverage is curious.

    With that, we don't require that sources be in English. You're more than welcome to draw our attention to the non-English sources you've found. (You did find such sources providing significant coverage to this institution before advocating Keep, yes?) Ravenswing 11:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Local news, i.e. pertaining to state and districts is overwhelmingly in my understanding in regional languages and traditional non-online media. English media sources are typically national media, for which it isn't reasonable, imo, to expect coverage of school news, however, important the school may be to local communities. Jagmanst (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The keep !voters are unable to provide evidence of multiple sources and significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. At best, is one article in Hindi which is a very routine report on student performance. I stand by my nomination. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The keep position is that there are strong reasons to believe this is a major school in the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh. The school is is heavily represented among rank holders in the district. That 6 of the 22 highest performing students in this district in the year 10 examination came from this one school heavily suggests this is no ordinary school. While there are some online sources attesting its reputation and significance(for e.g this), the best sources are likely to be non-online archives of local media, hence some discretion should be used to allow more time for editors to improve the article before considering deletion. Jagmanst (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "School is likely important to the community it serves, the 3+ million people in the district of Aligarh" These are not criterion for notability. Many schools are important to their community but they don't necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok re-writtenJagmanst (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article was created sixteen years ago. Especially since it should never have been created in the first place if the editor was not prepared to adequately source it, that is ample time and more than ample time for someone to step up and do so. For that matter, you have had time to do so. It is explicitly the responsibility of those editors who want to preserve information to come up with the sources to verify it, when challenged. You're the best judge of your own time, of course, but the only alternative to deletion is for those sources to be produced. Ravenswing 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." That the original editor did not do a satisfactory job is irrelevant. ThJagmanst (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, the article was perfectly within SNG for school at the time it was created. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last April, when a beloved bursar from this school passed away, a local news channel livestreamed the entire funeral.
    - This further undescores the importance and significance of this school to the community.
    - This is significant media coverage.
    - This is also indicative that there are likely more sources (which are difficult to extract for reasons already given).
    - Finally, notability criteria applies to the topic, not the content of the article, hence this reference does not need to be added to the article.

Jagmanst (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant media coverage now referenced in the article:
Other significant media coverage not added to article:
Note:
"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Jagmanst (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This article does not meet sourcing or coverage required under WP:NSCHOOL. Mostly passing mentions, related or trivia. The Banner talk 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least 6 media articles by major newspapers cited that are fully about this school. This is a school that frequently gets attention in national and local media. The funerals of its staff members get livestreamed by local media and receive coverage in major newspaper.Jagmanst (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the newspaper reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion and added to the referencing of the article that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Libstar and Ravenswing's research (and argumentative ability). Though, weighing in for myself, half of the references seem to come from the school themselves, and the other half being passing mentions (WP:SIGCOV). I also see little reason that this school should be able to pass WP:NSCHOOL, just as those above me have determined. IncompA 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you list which sources you deem to be passing mentions. Since many of them to be fully about the school. Jagmanst (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created in 2007. Until February 2017, a high school was basically assumed notable under NSCHOOL SNG if it existed if the mere existence as a valid high school can be verified. This article predates the criteria change and it met the criteria. Whether to let it stay with notability criteria that was in place at the time of creation of to retroactively evaluate it under NCORP is something I don't have an answer to, but I would say keep for now until the community figures out how to handle high school articles created well before February 2017 but do not meet current GNG-NCORP based guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources presented by Jagmanst appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist - we are almost entirely numerically tied (and within relist-bounds whether or not 1/2 poorly policy backed !votes are counted or not). Discussion has generally moved past community importance/existence of sources elswhere to sources now in the discussion and article, but there is a major disagreement as to whether the non-primary sources meet SIGCOV, or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing coverage about the school itself, only about things it's been involved with or mentioned in articles about a different topic. I mean, the sources are reliable, but trivial coverage. I don't see this as being an important school, no more than any other high school in India. 64.16.24.247 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I posted that, but the vpn here at the office isn't playing nice today. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer enough for inherent notability, the fact still stands that most high schools are notable. So "being no more important than the average high school" is not a reason for deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Some of the sources provided by Jagmanst (the coverage of the principal's funeral and COVID fees) seem to be independent, reliable sources of significant local coverage. The article's coverage of the school's historical importance needs better sourcing outside of primary sources. The article needs improvement, but as it has some good sources (particularly its use in academic studies), I believe the subject is notable. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:21, 29 August 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/Our_Lady_of_Fatima_Senior_Secondary_School,_Aligarh&oldid=1172874760"