From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 04:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Palayathu Vayal Govt. UP School

Palayathu Vayal Govt. UP School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally PROD'd w/ rationale: "Non-notable elementary school (as far as I can tell). See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". PROD declined by author, edit summary "Removing Deletion proposal as it is not applicable and not under the purview of the deletion policy. The School has achieved quite some notability in the region." Original rationale stands. Ansh 6 6 6 04:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seems that Notability is often defined and discussed from an American geographical point of view. It is highly condemnable to apply the same principles of general notability (as derived from scenarios of well developed societies) to entities elsewhere. Kerala has hundreds of thousands of schools but this one has very notable special features as you may read in the article, especially the rare initiatives by children (with guidance from teachers) to start up a post office, museum, broadcasting centre and farm. Hence the notability. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 04:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to an article about educational institutions of the region. Our accepted standards on the notability of educational institutions ought to be applied equally worldwide. I have consistently advocated keeping articles about Indian secondary schools and colleges. This sounds like a very fine school trying some innovative teaching techniques. However, our broadly accepted consensus is that individual primary schools are not notable except for those of exceptional architectural or historical significance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The problem is that we are looking at the article, first as categorized into schools and then its notability among the class of schools. Definitely, it happens to be a school, but the features that makes it notable (its remoteness and yet innovative missions) are completely distinct. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 05:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
But a school can be considered as a stand-alone organisation, regardless of its status as an educational institution - that's what we have WP:ORG (and within it, WP:ORGDEPTH) for. I would think that even within that guideline there would be some room to move for most editors in terms of the sort of coverage we would accept as being sufficient to meet those requirements. But I can't see this organisation/institution coming close without more coverage. I'm sure they do wonderful things and we're not here to judge the "value" of organisations and schools to their students or local communities. But hard work and innovation are not necessarily notable. Stalwart 111 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note that Wikipedia's definition of notable differs from the "normal" (dictionary) definition of notable. I'm sure it's quite notable by ordinary standards, but we don't follow those around here, unfortunately. Ansh 6 6 6 06:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
It gives a devastating feeling and chill to see how articles are considered and classified by the "levels" (primary, secondary etc.) of a school!" Are we all still working in Wikipedia!? ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 16:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
They're not. If a primary school is notable then it will be kept. But most aren't. All secondary schools, on the other hand, which tend to be much larger, are. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD". Please see the word "most", not all primary schoodl are non-notable. Also, the rule that just being a primary school means inherently non-notable and a secondary school being inherently notable comes handy at times, but is not a law of nature; you don't need to follow them blindly. This particular case, the article provides info, based on the reference provide, that establishes its uncommonness and hence notability. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Again, note that Wikipedia's definition of notable differs from the "normal" (dictionary) definition of notable. Ansh 6 6 6 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article " This article has provided a reliable source (in the regional language); that source is a newspaper article about certain aspects of this school. The newspaper is Mathrubhumi, a state-wide newspaper (as opposed to a self-published or very limited-circulation periodicals). That establishes Wikipedia's definition of notable.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "significant coverage in reliable sources" - plural. At least more than one. That has been the issue here from the start - one source is generally not sufficient for notability via WP:GNG which requires multiple sources. Find more sources and it'll be a different story. Stalwart 111 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:GNG does not require multiple sources. It says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". So, multiple sources is the general expectation. However, that does not mean you can delete an article with a single good quality newpsaper reference just because it does not have two references. That said, I'd definitely request editors with Malayalam knowledge to try to find out more references in that language, just so that WP:GNG "expectation" (not rule) is met.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 19:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, yes, but multiple sources is the general rule, as is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Neither are policy or even guidelines, but they're generally followed anyways. 6 an 6 sh6 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, now ( this version), the main author of the article has added two more citations. One citation features a TV program highlighting this school's achievements, and in which eminent education experts interview some teachers and students of the school (as explained below by the editor VishwaPrabha). Another reference is from a book (offline). Now, the article meets the "expectation" of more than one references. So, I reiterate my keep vote.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the arcle about its locality - which is the standard procedure per long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Those are all redlinks - see the first line or two of the article. Ansh 6 6 6 02:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Primary schools are non-notable but secondary schools are notable, as a rule! Really sounds like "racism" between school levels. The point is any school which is notable should be kept & that which is not shouldn't. AshLin ( talk) 13:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Racism? That's a new one! What instances of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources make this notable enough to be kept then? I can only urge the closing admin to ignore all the WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Stalwart 111 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Racism?! The reason is that primary schools tend to be small, insignificant and not to have a massive impact on one's future life. Whereas secondary schools tend to be large, occupy significant real estate and have a very large impact on one's future life, since one is at the school in the years when one matures, grows into an adult and decides one's future career path. Most villages have at least one primary school, whereas secondary schools tend to only be found in significant population centres, where they are often major landmarks. Some primary schools clearly are notable, but they don't have the presumption of notability that secondary schools have. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
occupy significant real estate and have a very large impact on one's future life, since one is at the school in the years when one matures, grows into an adult and decides one's future career path. That very point is a POV on the pedagogical stands! For one, I believe I was made upto what I am today all by the first, humble simple rural school, where I was lucky enough to be educated. It may not look big by any standards you may apply, but I got qualified to study in all those prestigious higher educational institutions only subsequent as a result of my 'great training' I got in that little school. How do you even suggest that a school should be 'large' enough by its real estate assets to be notable! Are we pondering upon them as the great oceans or rocks of the world? If you have got any idea that men/women are made into what they are, when they reach puberty or adolescence, I must tell that you are completely misguided about the development of human intelligence and life. Again, let me plead you all to look at the case with a global perspective. Not just the western way of classifying size and real estate gravity. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Again, that has nothing to do with WP:N and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 6 an 6 sh6 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - all this debate has shown is that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, like most policies and guidelines, can be twisted in many many ways, sometimes in direct contradiction with others. Of course, any attempt to "reform" it will become bogged down in bureaucracy and fail, but something to keep in mind. 6 an 6 sh6 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. any comments, questions, complaints, or suggestions about the new sig are welcome on my talk page.) reply
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline. For want of a designation it's classed as an essay, but it simply does what its name implies; it documents common outcomes that have been established through long-standing precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I know (syntactic ambiguity, sorry); see my comment at the end of Dwaipayan's !vote for evidence on that. Still doesn't stop it from being commonly used as one, though. 6 an 6 sh6 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply


Before you assume any WP:ORand non-notability, you are also invited to refer to this commons category and the descriptions of an important Wikimedia community event/project based at this very school. Lack of strong citations from media and publications in English and other international languages does not necessarily imply OR in the case of articles on regions of less privileged/empowered societies. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 11:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply


I have added some more citations to the article. One among them is a video recording at Youtube.com where you can see the school featured with its students and teachers being interviewed by eminent educational experts such as Dr. B S Warrier, Dr. RVG Menon, acclaimed Malayalam Writer KR Meera etc. Though in Malayalam, the program includes discussions about the challenges faced bythe inmates of the school from wild elephants and other local natural hazards, transportation accessibility to the school from both the outside world and from the homes of students, the various extra-curricular clubs and activities ofthe school, a commendably high involvement rate of 70% students in regional school sports competitions, the school's indigenous music and poetry initiatives, theeir efforts to preserve the herbal medical wisdom and related flora and fauna etc.

By now, as a creator of this article, I feel quite frustrated and sad. I have been reading, editing and evangelising Wikimedia projects for more than 10 years now. In fact, I have dedicated my life for the cause of Wikimedia projects in recent years. Yet, these days, I rarely edit any English Wikipedia articles fearing its wastefulness.

The Wikipedia has been effectively taken over by over-zealous deletion maniacs. Deleting articles for want of 'Notability' and 'citation' is much more easy than creating ones for which there are serious constraints (such as lack of third party citations. Unlike USA or Europe or Australia, most parts of world where the majority of mankind lives, we just do not have an environment where such third party references exists readily. Yet, it is only a matter of time that they may also catch up.

In the first look, the 'Deletion Maniacs' may appear to be 'saviors of Wikipedians'. They might show you a lot of big numbers in their edit statistics. The adrenalin that gets pumped into their body after having achieved the complete burial of somebody else's sincere, non-biased and meaningful work may be quite satisfying. But I fear that, it is this very culture that will eventually kill the concept of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was meant to be a 'universal source of knowledge'. But thanks to the 'regulation army', by now, we have deviated a lot from the original concept of 'gathering every bit of knowledge ever aquired by the human race'. Although it may look like a clean job to purify the Wikipedia, the idea of caging every article within some rules and dogmas formed by a set of people who are trained and accustomed with highly prejudiced view points, is actually killing Wikipedia in other languages and communities.

The fact is that consideration of 'notability' and selection of citations is a matter of high wisdom on a subject. Many often, it is not the job of edit desk clerks like most of us who are merely more expert on editing wikipedia than on a subject of the article. If at all any new user dares to start creating or editing an article, you can just turn them off for ever by this attitude. After all, they would care for at least their own valuable time that shouldn't be wasted in such unworthy discussions.

As for one, I still feel sorry for having first took the efforts to write another article in English Wikipedia and then after an year, during a very busy time, to spend yet another week fighting and arguing against a 'very casual' but fatal deletion suggestion. It only shows that creating an article and ensuring that it stays for ever is a life-long responsibility. There is always this Democles sword hanging above your article, no matter how much sincere and encyclopedic energy you may have put into it in good old times. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can march ahead and smash through your painful work. I should have been doing something much more worthwhile for the Wikipedia (or even more useful something else - but what!?) at large. :(

I never thought categorization of articles into some meaningful realms would have a bad effect on the life of the article itself. But now I realize, if you want to delete a rather independent article, first put it into a category (like Schools) and then treat it as one among those 'worthless' lots. It's easy then!

To those who still think such articles should be deleted, "you can go ahead". Just clean up the Wikipedia into a 250 page highly authentic pulp encyclopedia!. Best wishes but with no thanks. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ talk 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There are hundred-thousand primary schools in Kerala. There should be some reason behind an article being came up in Wikipedia on a particular school. This school is in a remote village, literally inside a forest where there is no modern amenities enjoyed by other public or Government schools. Still they are standing out with many reasons stated in the article. All of the matter written in the article are with ample references appeared in prominent media too. While most of the schools in the tribal areas in India are running for the sake of functioning, this one school where most of the students are from some local tribes whose parents have not even had the basic education are making the kids of the town schools where all the things are at their call, putting to shame. It is heartening to note that this article has been marked for deletion. -- Vinayaraj ( talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, typically I'd argue that 99.9% of primary schools are not notable and should not have articles. However, this case seems unusual in that there appears to be feature articles and television documentaries on the subject, which would appear to indicate it meets the WP:GNG. I don't speak the language, so I don't know how substantial these are (hence the 'weak'), but I think we can give this one the benefit of the doubt. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 01:55, 16 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palayathu_Vayal_Govt._UP_School&oldid=1140154336"