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. All substantive analysis of the available sourcing for the topic points to deletion, despite some protests to the contrary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizon Institute[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)

Was proposed for deletion back in 2016 as No substantive content to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY. Well, seven years later there's still no substantive content to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~See below: the nominator hasn't outlined their WP:BEFORE process undertaken prior to this AfD, which must include a search for local and offline sources. I'd be willing to change my vote if this can be explained. Jack4576 (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are editors supposed to prove they've done a WP:BEFORE search? Frankly, it goes without saying when nominating an article for deletion, especially if you're a editor with over 60,000 edits and seven years tenure, that you've done some form of search to find any potential sources. Better, you could have done your own search and tried to find sources, which I just did, and I couldn't find anything. Also, it's ridiculous to ask an editor to find offline sources, which most people don't have access to except for very prominent subjects that probably aren't here anyway. If it isn't clear, this is a Delete vote. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for proof that an editor has done a WP:BEFORE search, I am asking for assurances that they have done so.

Per the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability:

"Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them."

I am asking the nominator (or anybody else) to provide assurances that they have complied with the above and am opposing the deletion until that assurance is made.

Alternatively, you could provide the assurances that you have conducted the search, if you like. Did your searches involve any local print media JML1148 ? Jack4576 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are editing in good faith, but opposing an AfD for the sole reason of not stating they did a WP:BEFORE search comes off as a bit petty. I did spend a reasonable time on Google trying to find local sources - however even then I couldn't find anything, including in Nepali, and many editors write off local sources anyway, unfortunately. There may be offline sources, but I don't have access to that; however that doesn't really change anything, as per the RfC outcome that you quoted above. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will change my vote. Jack4576 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep for lack of adequate WP:BEFORE", without citing any sources yourself to back up the claim that both me and the original PRODder failed to find them, is nothing more than a form of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and should be given little weight. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to Rupandehi Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...

... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I am assured by JML1148 above that reasonable searches have been made yet none was found

Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now due to flawed WP:BEFORE and possible naming problem, and the fact that this is actually one of the better articles about Nepali secondary schools on English Wikipedia currently (most are microstubs, lack citations, or rely only one or two weak sources, often primary – I would have nominated any of those for deletion before this one). There is a lot of media coverage about New Horizon School and New Horizon College in both English and Nepali – so much that it will take a long time to sift through. (To be fair, the article which was called "New Horizon Institute" at the time it was nominated, was probably misnamed, and if you read the article you'll see that it's more like a conglomerate of multiple institutions also including Kshitiz International College, for example.) The school is very competitive in cricket, which is probably what it's most famous for among the general public, and one could argue that alone could help it pass Wikipedia notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Of course it would be great if we could find more in-depth secondary sources about the school itself (there does appear to be some in years when it has had strong results, which I will add in due course), but at least some of the language problems have been fixed and a few sources added for now from publications like Himlayan Times and Nepal Press and Online Khabar. Improve, don't delete. @Jack4576: I actually think your first instinct was right in this case. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the basis of the reasons provided by Cielquiparle Jack4576 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and ORG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV	1. "New Horizon Institute". Edusanjal.com.
Facebook	2. ^ "New Horizon College on Facebook". Facebook.
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "New Horizon English Boarding Secondary School :: Educatenepal.com". www.educatenepal.com. Retrieved 2022-08-07.
Story about a Cricket Tournament, fails SIGCOV	4. ^ Deuba, Tekendra (7 February 2015). "New Horizon edge Sunshine claim SPA Cup". Himalayan Times. Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via ProQuest.
Story about a Cricket Tournament, fails SIGCOV	5. ^ "SPA Cup Cricket title to New Horizons" . Online Khabar (in Nepali). February 2015 . Retrieved 2023-05-15 .
Story about a Cricket Tournament, fails SIGCOV	6. ^ "New Horizon triumph". Himalayan Times. 26 February 2017. Retrieved 2023-05-15 – via ProQuest.
About a Criket player, no SIGCOV about subject	7. ^ "Cricketer Kushal Malla honored with cash in Butwal" . Nepal Press (in Nepali). 19 March 2023 . Retrieved 2023-05-16 .
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV	8. ^ "New Horizon Boarding English Secondary School". Educate Nepal. Retrieved 2023-05-16.
Fails V, 404	9. ^ "HSEB affiliated Schools till 2068". Hseb.edu.np. Archived from the original on 10 October 2013. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV	10. ^ "Kshitiz International College". EducateNepal.com. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV	11. ^ "Kshitiz International College". Edusanjal.com.
List, nothing about subject	12. ^ "Kshitiz int'l College Official".
Database profile, content from subject, Fails IS RS SIGCOV	13. ^ "Butwal Model College". Edusanjal.com.

The above BEFOREs showed nothing with SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 01:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor sourcing and notability. NortonAngo (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep producing 7 SLC (now SEE) board toppers in the national level exam makes it easily pass WP:GNG. Result of SLC is a national concern and is covered by all national and local newspapers. nirmal (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.. and alumnis who are member of national cricket team having wiki articles. nirmal (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of schools is WP:NOTINHERITED from their alumni. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So prove it and cite those sources? WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a convincing argument. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-You have a point and have correctly tagged for references for unsupported sentences and even linked articles. But I have no access to offline content. One alumni is here (also added to the article). So I suggest to adhere to WP:GF as per WP:5P. nirmal (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:SIGCOV of Bishal Gyawali, but not of the institute itself. And I'm not sure how any of my comments here are assuming bad faith. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- one more alumni is here 1. Regarding cricket, it has been a regional center for producing national level players 2, recent coverage in online media is just a tip. Also it seems the school has won School of the Year in 2076 BS 3 awarded by Prachanda (I am not sure if he was a Prime Minister at that time). One mention in scholarly article is here 4. nirmal (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing basically everything except providing actual WP:ORGCRIT-satisfying sources - all of those only mention the organization in passing or not at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to avoid an improper deletion (systemic bias), sources in the original language must also be examined. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And TimothyBlue appears to have already done so, and nobody has either refuted his evaluation or provided additional sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They looked like English language Google results to me though it's better to ask him directly. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete source assessment by Timothy demonstrates GNG is not met. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed Facebook as a source following Timothy's analysis, which makes sense. I also added more articles about the school's performance in the national tests, and the closure of the school's bank account by the political party objecting to its fees. I agree that the fact that notable alumni have graduated from the school is not sufficient to establish its notability, but it is one of the factors that we often look at in evaluating whether or not a secondary school is notable in other parts of the world. The fact that the school's cricket team itself is regularly covered in the mainstream news media is arguably comparable to media coverage of an American high school with a notable basketball or football team. As this currently is one of the stronger articles about secondary schools in Nepal – possibly the strongest in terms of the number of references including independent secondary sources – I continue to maintain that we should keep it for now and continue to improve it, preferably with help from speakers of Nepali and those who are more familiar with education, sports, and culture in the region. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it ultimately amounts to WP:SIGCOV: whether you are able to write the article using mostly the third-party sources and perhaps a little bit of WP:ABOUTSELF sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the newly-added source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If I'm not wrong, three sources were added. the first seems to be an education directory/blog that would source its information from the institution. The second is a passing mention of the achievements this subject of the source made at the school, and doesn't comply with WP:SIGCOV. I cannot read the third source, but with a machine translation I'll assume that this is also a passing mention of the achievements this subject of the source made at the school, and doesn't comply with WP:SIGCOV. Karnataka (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NORG lacking independent and significant coverage. I do not see where "7 SLC (now SEE) board toppers in the national level exam" advances notability. WP:ABOUTSELF does not advance WP:notability which is not inherited. Notable Individuals, or even teams, do not advance the notability of a school or institute. For the record; It would be far more preferential to simply ask an editor (on their talk page) if they performed a due diligence "WP:BEFORE", See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions paragraphs #4 and 5. Casting doubt, without clear evidence, is a personal attack as to impugn one's integrity. It is a good trick because an editor will likely be sanctioned for something else long before being considered disruptive. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user that asked if WP:BEFORE has been performed (and he asked this in numerous AfDs) has now been topic banned from AfDs for disruptive behaviour. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 13 June 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.