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. This is a tough one, obviously, and may have broader implications. Having read the VP article linked to which confirmed that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a guideline, not a policy, I am closing this as delete since a. the deleters claim that the subject does not pass the GNG b. the keepers do not argue that the subject passes GNG. I fully expect this to show up at DRV, and can only urge that voters in AfDs provide more helpful and more complete justifications for their votes. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd English School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a school with no indication of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This school has been in the spotlights in India, see for example here. As off yet around one (negative) event. If more verifiable, independent sources are brought forward, I may reconsider my opinion. Based upon the information that I had in front of me, the school fails WP:N and WP:1E applies. The sole newsworthy event, BTW, is not mentioned in the very basic article. Otherwise I could find the school only in regular listings. gidonb (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more than that it is one of the good cbse school in karaikal with strength of 1200 students.lots of educational ideas are made in the school. you can't tell a school worst by just watching a teacher's activity. she did it because all the class students had payed the annual day fees except this class students.it is the mistake of the teacher not the school's. kind request not to delete the article made by a student of that same school.talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why we have the one event rule! Otherwise we'd go dig up that one incident and it would be all over the article because that is all there is right now. Please wait until there is broader coverage of your school, probably this will take years, if it will happen at all, then you can create this article again (assuming it will now get deleted). We would still list the incident, but it wouldn't be the only independent, verifiable information. gidonb (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not being proposed for deletion because it isn't a "good school", but because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, Wiki tamil 100. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! gidonb (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the long-established consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have also conducted a cleanup. AusLondonder (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing our attention to this essay! For now I'm going to stick with the GNG, as it is an actual guideline. However, if more verifiable, independent sources will be found (not around that one event) I will change to keep. gidonb (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's called precedent and consensus. The "event" is irrelevant and not addressed in the article. AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we are in disagreement about the weight that should be given to the statements in this particular essay. That's OK. In general I'm an inclusionist but here I do not see sufficient evidence that the school is notable. I remain willing to adjust my opinion if more evidence becomes available. gidonb (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a secondary school per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Schools_and_notability inregards to SCHOOTOUTCOMES so per that (and per my comment there aswell) I'm reopening and relisting the AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Davey2010. To briefly summarise the issue (though please do read and engage with the discussion, all), WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay that summarises typical outcomes, and not a guideline or policy. As such, to cite it alone as a reason for deletion is circular reasoning. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there are exceptions to SCHOOLOUTCOMES ... Cases where a fairly exhaustive search for sources has been made, and none can be found. The fact that most schools are notable doesn't mean that every school is automatically notable. OUTCOMES simply means that we can start off with an assumption that a school is likely to be notable... However, assumptions can turn out to be wrong in specific cases. perhaps this is one of those exceptions? Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only independent coverage of the school I've been able to find is this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been an automatic keep. Each kept school has to pass WP:V (i.e., have RS proof it exists and is a secondary or higher school). I have !voted delete (and the school get deleted) when a school fails WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognise that, VMS Mosaic, but users are treating it as if it were a guideline, not a summary of typical outcomes. Arguing for a keep solely because an essay says most similar articles are kept is circular reasoning. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the essay as a statement of long standing consensus and nothing to do with circular reasoning. I assume you propose changing that long standing consensus thru this AfD? Consensus can change over time. Has it? VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that I seek to challenge the consensus, so much as test it and see if it's based on anything other than a reading of SCHOOLOUTCOMES as if it were policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Schools require notability just as much as any other organizations do, and this one pretty clearly doesn't have it. We may presume notability in the case of schools, but that presumption is and should be rebuttable. Here it is in my view rebutted, so deletion is the policy-based result. DES ^(talk) 02:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the broader issue Personally in have never agreed with, or supported, the nearly automatic grant of notability to schools that is associated with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I recall when this was being applied to elementary (primary) schools as well, before the tide retreated. I can cite AfDs from some years ago where such schools were kept largely on the argument that "all schools are notable", and which were later deleted when the fashion had changed a bit. I think this sort of categorical notability does Wikipedia a disservice, and is not very logical. I would change any consensus that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES may represent. DES ^(talk) 02:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An essay with pseudostatistical generalizations about past events is not a prescription for future decisions such that we bypass all of the other policies and guidelines. If there's really a long-standing consensus to keep them all no matter what the circumstances, it needs to be in an SNG. Long-standing consensus is not that schools get a free pass; it's that most schools have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject sufficient to satisfy our notability criteria. There is, however, long-standing practice of citing WP:OUTCOMES at AfD as though it were an SNG, essentially resting arguments on "other stuff exists" (an "other stuff exists" argument that continuously feeds itself). As this does not appear to have been subject to that coverage, it should not be kept just because it's a school. Happy to change my !vote if someone has more luck with sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand AfD. AfD works by consensus. WP:OUTCOMES illustrates that consensus. Therefore referring to it to show that consensus exists is perfectly valid and only tends to be criticised by those who are miffed that the consensus exists because they disagree with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to misunderstand AfD. AfD works by consensus. Mindlessly pointing to an a generalization of past examples as the scripture on which to base future decisions -- and which has repeatedly failed to receive sufficient consensus to become anything more than an essay -- is not part of the consensus-finding process. It's circular reasoning. The purpose of AfD is not to perpetuate the mean of what has happened here in the past; it's to use judgment to evaluate a subject according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:OUTCOMES, again, is an essay and neither policy nor guideline. Consensus is not supplanted by a record of past events that has failed to achieve consensus to become a general rule despite people treating it as a general rule. When you argue that something should be kept because other things like it are kept and make no attempt to justify your position with policies and guidelines, it's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, plain and simple. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not circular reasoning. Nor is it an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It is simply shorthand for: a consensus already exists so why are you bothering us with yet another AfD on a secondary school? Oh, and I should point out that the word "mindlessly" could be interpreted as a personal attack. I should avoid using such words if I was you. Nobody here is mindless, least of all me (and it was me to whom you were replying). Just because I don't agree with you does not make me mindless. Please desist from using language like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting that something is generally done a particular way does not equate to consensus for doing things in that way in all instances moving forward. If a consensus actually existed for what should be done, rather than observations about what has been done, it would've successfully been incorporated into or turned into a guideline. And it has not. So no, consensus does not exist for mindlessly !voting keep for any school. "Mindlessly" obviously is not a personal attack as it refers to an argument, not a person. The people who mindlessly argue to keep schools are often people who in other scenarios give well reasoned critical arguments. But the argument here is "mindless" because it's a kneejerk reaction. (1) See it's a school article, (2) Point to WP:OUTCOMES, (3) Object to anyone asking for more. There's no judgment or critical evaluation of the subject, no interpretation of policies or guidelines relevant to deletion -- just pointing to statistics that have failed to achieve sufficient consensus to become a guideline as though they are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Sometimes a mindless reaction is fine. If someone nominated John Lennon or Tokyo, no careful application of policies and guidelines would be required there either. The SNGs work that way too, in some ways. The difference is, there's no guideline on which your argument is based. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) While it is true that I have long disagreed with the "all schools are notable" mantra (more recently "all high schools are notable"), i have also disagree with the use made of the various sections of WP:OUTCOMES. Without having received the level of consensus needed to become guidelines, they are in effect treated as if they were guidelines. Often these repeated outcomes were established in a series of AfDs with limited participation, frequently with the same small group of editors weighing in. Such a small group should not be able to establish a precedent that effectively governs future actions across the project. Even if these OUTCOME essays represented a wide consensus (which I feel that they do not) consensus can change and so merely quoting or linking to OUTCOMES is not and should not be dispositive of the specific issue about a particular article. If a sufficient consensus exists to elevate these to guidelines, demonstrate that with a proper RfC, and mark them as such. See the recent policy discussion on this issue. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You cannot possibly argue that a consensus is invalid because only a limited number of editors participate in AfD discussions. That would effectively mean that no consensuses ever exist on Wikipedia, since every discussion involves only a limited number of editors. This argument is generally one used by those who disagree with the consensus. "I don't agree with it so it can't be a consensus". Yes, consensus can change, but in the case of secondary school articles it clearly has not done, since the majority of those who contribute to school AfDs obviously agree with it. A few dissenting voices occasionally does not mean a consensus has changed, even though those who oppose the consensus tend to "shout louder". -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is that some of those people who contribute to school AfDs are basing their support for inclusion solely based on the fact that they've read that secondary school articles are usually kept, rather than on consideration of the merits of inclusion, which is what consensus should be based on. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's purely an assumption on your part. Given my knowledge of the contribution record of the editors who cite it (most of whom are regular contributors to school AfDs), I think I can safely say that almost all of them know what they're talking about and are using it as shorthand as I have said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps, but I think the closing summary here offers some evidence of this. Cordless Larry (talk)
• Keep This is a secondary school. It didn't used to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, since it had no references and thus was not verified, but I have added a couple of sources and it is now verified. It is unfortunate that this debate was linked to from a discussion elsewhere about SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so that since the reopening of the discussion multiple people who dislike the guideline have come here to !vote "delete" as a protest against the guideline, rather than an actual evaluation of the school. (In effect this was a kind of canvassing; what would the response be if this discussion was highlighted at WikiProject Schools instead?) This discussion has become an argument about the guideline rather than a fair evaluation of the school itself, which like virtually all secondary schools IS notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't address the accusation of canvassing here - please report me if you feel that that is what I did. Can I point out that at the top of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it clearly states "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline", and yet that is exactly how you refer to it. That was precisely the point of my post at WP:VPP - people are treating a common outcomes essay as a notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MelanieN: It's a fair complaint re: canvassing, but I do object to two things in your comment. First, rather than an actual evaluation of the school. That's the problem. Most schools are notable. This one is not. I did look for sources. Second, meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Verifiability is not a requirement of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as though WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has an inclusion criteria which trumps policies/guidelines and requires only verifiability. Verifiability is a bare minimum standard for all content on Wikipedia. What that essay says is (after linking to notability guidelines) "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." In other words, the "most" observation regarding the past has an exception in those that are not verifiable. (I should certainly hope so.) But it doesn't say that if it's verifiable, then you're golden. It just means that it is now within the class of schools for which most have been kept in the past. The take-away from that shouldn't be "all verifiable schools get a free pass". It should be "you should save yourself and others some trouble by being really super sure there aren't sources before nominating -- because you're probably wrong". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 27 March 2016 (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.