Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kendriya_Vidyalaya_school_articles References

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. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ( non-admin closure) — UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles

( View log · Stats)

These Indian secondary school articles part of a school system ( Kendriya Vidyalaya) are not independently notable. All the articles contain no secondary sources at all and carry large amounts of unrefernced fluff with promotional tone, some of which I recently tried to clean up. There is also a lot of duplication of information with the main article, since all the KV schools share the same features – affiliation, syllabus, fee structure, admission policies, etc are all the same.

I don't think there's anything worth merging into the main article. The only things that can be merged are perhaps the year of establishment and locational settings into List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Everything else is unsourced or sourced with primary sources, and duplicative, or unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR stuff.

As an alternative to deletion, we may also consider redirecting the pages to List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, or stubifying each article to 2-3 sentences, covering the non-duplicative details, that is, the year of establishment and locational settings. If/when one of the schools gets coverage in reliable source, its article could be expanded.

103.6.159.81 ( talk) 04:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 3. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing a reason here to show why Indian secondary schools are not notable - I'd have thought they're at least as notable as British state schools, most/all of which have a wikipedia page. The poor state of the current pages is not a reason to delete. JMWt ( talk) 08:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep : Mass deletion! without even catering to each article simple deletion of years of work by few authors, if any bias would be found it should be treated on case by case basis. Shrikanthv ( talk) 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Mass deletion proposals like this are very unhelpful in any case. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment There are over 1090 KV schools out which only the 60 listed above have articles -- even though they are no different from the 1000+ that don't have artilces. They were probably created by people with obvious COIs. If someone does a a real cleanup on an article, then there would be hardly anyhting left on it. We should either be mass-deleting these existing articles (my suggestion), or mass-creating articles for the remaining ~1030 KV schools. 103.6.159.83 ( talk) 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
- Not being a good article is not a good reason for deletion. Having an article when similar subjects don't is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
- WP:ALLORNOTHING comes under arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. There is a consensus among editors that all high schools are notable and reliable source coverage can be found for them eventually. The fact that so few KV schools have articles can be attributed to a systemic bias against topics outside the Anglosphere, not a lack of importance. Finally, let's assume good faith in article creation. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep all.We keep articles on all secondary schools. Some of these articles are fairly well developed, some stubs. The stubs are easy enough to expand--they make , reasonably enough, good projects for school classes. Wikipedia, as a matter of principle, is an encycopedia that covers the world , subject geographically only to the limitation that the articles be written in the English language, and that the choice of articles included will therefore inevitably reflect the interests of those who can write in English. I think it is possible that at the very beginning we may not have realised the very great number of topics possible in countries like India and Pakistan,whee some degree of English is known widely and where many people who know even a little are eager to write in English. Aspects of life where we are not the least surprised at receiving detailed treatment for areas in the UK or US (or Canada , Australia, NZ) seem over-coverage for us when applied to India (and we can expect this elsewhere) . To avoid having to debate the merits of each of the 10s of thousands of high schools in each country, we made a compromise to keep them all, but to not generally keep primary or ~~secondary~~ junior high schools except as redirects to the district. We were of course thinking of the US primarily, but the same principle applies elsewhere. It applies to even more force in areas where we have relatively fewer accessible reliable sources. Do we really want to debate each of these--we'd have to spread it out, for I think none of us can properly examine in detail more than 2 or 3 articles of this sort at a time--even for the US, the discussions when we had them were extremely time consuming (which is what led to the acceptance of the working compromise). DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: - one line of your above seems contradictory to the rest: you say "high schools in each country, we made a compromise to keep them all, but to not generally keep primary or secondary schools except as redirects to the district". In British English, a Secondary school is the same as a North American High school. I think the policy is to keep any pages written about High/Secondary schools. JMWt ( talk) 18:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I fixed my wording--just a typo,and thanks for the correction; I meant junior high schools, not secondary schools I of course did mean we include High/Secondary schools, and their equivalents in other counries however designated, including the UK institutions called 6th form colleges. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

At least one statement of yours is patently untrue. stubs are easy enough to expand. The trouble here is that there are no secondary sources available at all. How then would expansion be possible? At best, one can find pieces like this one that merely mention a school. 103.6.159.77 ( talk) 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep All - I checked one, it had a 12th grade class, making it a high school — kept by longstanding consensus at AfD. This is a ridiculously overbroad nomination that is more or less an end run around established precedent on schools articles. So Procedural Keep on them all. Carrite ( talk) 09:47, 10 December 2015 (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.