Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American School of Bombay

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The result was WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. While I am not sure if I am "allowed" to self close, I have made an error in nominating this article and am choosing a WP:IAR close (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American School of Bombay[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)

Secondary (etc) schools no longer get a free pass, and must pass WP:NCORP. This one is substantially different from the draft previously mandated by the first deletion discussion, but has not demonstrated that it passes our notability criteria. One reference is deployed in such a manner as to suggest that it verifies that which it does not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The deletion admin of the previous AFD and I worked together to add sourcing and I moved it based on the discussion here User_talk:Star_Mississippi#American_Embassy_School. I'm not quite clear on how GNG is not being met by the sources I added. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhisperToMe It is perfectly possible that I am mistaken. I simply do not see the notability. If sufficient opinions are offered to keep and none to delete in the next reasonable time I will happily withdraw. I am not, however, content with the reference that in my view fails verification for two out of its three deployments. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Thanks for the reply! I went and checked the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Decisions_based_on_verifiable_evidence which explains how an article about an organization passes or fails the General Notability Gudeline.
    - 1. The Kably article was written by a Times News Network staff member (independent) and discusses the school in detail. I see no evidence the school sponsored it.
    - 2. The Chhapia article was also written by a TNN staff member and also discusses the school in detail. I see no evidence the school sponsored it.
    - However Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Times of India does say this about the TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." However I felt that TOI should still count towards notability since there doesn't seem to be much political controversy about the school itself, and I feel TOI's coverage did not seem outrageous.
  - WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was my opinion, as WhisperToMe alluded to above, that their edits addressed the WP:ORG-ish (school criteria are confusing) concerns as well as G4, but I have no doubt Timtrent has seen more schools than I have in a long AfC tenture. I broke up the section linked, you can find this article discussed at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Mumbai. I don't have time to fully search on and add more sources now, so neutral and watching. Star Mississippi 19:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi I see g4 as addressed completely. I hope I said so properly in the nomination. I would like to see what those not so far involved in the article have to say. Long experience can also lead to errors by the long experienced reviewer, you know. Time served is never an arbiter of good vs poor decisions

@WhisperToMe I do see that the reference you describe discussed the school in depth. Did I miss where it discussed the points I flagged with {{fv}}? I am always happy to put my mistakes right. I dont think of it as a sponsored source at all. I just see it as not verifying that which it has been deployed to verify. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR I misread one of the references. My fault. One can make a mistake, and I have. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:25, 27 April 2022 (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.