Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMK Residential 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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RMK Residential School

Flunks ~~WP:SCHOOL~~ WP:N. No references in this article for this Grade 3-10 institution. THF (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referenced. THF: last time I checked a proposed policy that failed to gain community consensus is not a reason for delete. We don't arrest people based on the Offences Against the Person Act 1828 now, do we. Something repealed, overwritten or never accepted in the first place has 0 weight in a deletion discussion. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no references in this article. The school's own home page doesn't count. THF (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't count for the standard referencing reason (referencing controversial information, for example) but they are perfectly valid as references to hard facts. I'll repeat as others have below; referencing (or the lack thereof) is not a reason to delete. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons I declined the {{prod}} on this. There's nothing to suggest this school isn't notable, and consensus is generally that schools are notable due to their impact on local communities. Arguing to delete on the basis that the article doesn't comply with a rejected notability guideline is just plain bizarre. And whatever the nominator might think, "unreferenced" is not a reason to delete. – iridescent 18:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the general consensus as that schools are notable they wouldn't be nominated so often. Clearly there's no consensus of the sort. At least nothing like the consensus about towns/rivers/mountains. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - includes a high school and is significant in its community. There are some web sources that can be added. Indian schools have a poor internet presence and to avoid systemic bias time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Chennai~~. While primary references are somewhat acceptable to cite particular hard-to-verify-facts, they can't be solely relied on to verify an entire article. In that case the article would fail WP:RS and WP:GNG (the last one applies because there's no indication the school itself is particularly special). It wonno awards, had no notable alumni or anything that would make an WP:ORG notable without extensive coverage in sources. = Mgm|^(talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the references added by Orlady. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just now added two third-party sources to the article, and more online sources are available. It seems that RMK is an oft-mentioned example of the growing phenomenon of residential schools in India. It's notable! (But since it was established in 2007 and only enrolls kids up to the 8th standard, it's a bit premature to look for a list of notable alumni.) --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (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.