Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evergreen Public School, Kanki

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 merge to Kanki, Uttar Dinajpur#Education. Per User:IamNotU and others. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Public School, Kanki

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

Non-notable primary school. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uttar Dinajpur district, which has no mention. This will improve the article (WP:ATD-M). See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen Per the RfC that people so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The argument here is not WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but WP:ATD-M, a perfectly valid argument that Wikipedia is better served in many cases by a merge/redirect of a non-notable article than a permanent delete. Doing a bold merge in uncontroversial cases like this can save unnecessary debate at AfD. There's no prohibition against a "see also" to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and WP:NSCHOOL does just that. It provides relevant information about current consensus, including a prominent summary and link to the rfc. The rfc found that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can't be used as an argument for inherent notability of secondary schools that fail WP:GNG, but we all agree that this school is not notable. "Delete per the rfc" seems in fact to be an invalid counter-argument, since the rfc outcome has nothing to say about delete vs. merge of non-notable schools. If anything, there is significant support in the rfc discussion for merging in general, and I believe that the custom of redirecting primary schools to parent articles remains a valid practice, supported by the WP:ATD-M policy and the WP:RPURPOSE guideline. The information in the article is verifiable, and appears to have a reasonably reliable source, so it meets WP:FAILORG. I'd be happy to hear any arguments against redirects for primary schools, based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as I'm not aware of any. --IamNotU (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kanki, Uttar Dinajpur#Education per WP:ATD-M. Non-notable. I have just added the school's name to that article, I think that's all that's needed for now, so a blank-and-redirect can be done, keeping the page's history for future reference. --IamNotU (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. (as suggested). On the basis of the schools compromise, which still does have support despite the confusing rfc. Secondary schools are almost always treated as notable; primary and intermediate schools not. That simple rule avoids contentious AfDs. Please notice it does not refer to the concept of whether or not they are notable--for a boarding school I or someone in the country of the school probably could find references if we needed to, but the compromise means I do not have to look--if there's nothing obviously notable we can just merge/delete. (fwiw, the rfc said nothing about primary schools--it just said that there was no consensus to change the practice of keeping secondary schools, and no consensus to merely refer to schooloutcomes--if we thought that coherent, we could deduce from it there is no consensus to treat primary schools as non-notable, but I thinks it's fair to both sides to go on as before.) DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 February 2018 (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.