Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools

WP:SDEL

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Schools. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Schools|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Schools. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Primary and secondary schools

Hunan Self-Study University

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

This article does not appear notable based on WP:RS Amigao (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important, if brief, part of modern Chinese history and a listed cultural heritage site in Hunan. Chinese wikipedia has an article: zh:湖南自修大学旧址 (admittedly, unsourced). I've added a number of links, including a biography of Li Da which discusses his time at the university, and this article from China Daily.

Article is not an orphan (single link at Yang Youlin but could be linked to from a few of the notable students/teachers' pages. There are a few uncited passages in the article which may or may not be supported by sources, but I've left them for now. This should pass GNG either as an orgainzation or as a historical site (which is how it's treated on the Chinese wiki). Here's some info from the China Daily article.

China Daily "From Qingshuitang to Chuanshan Academy, Chengbei witnessed Mao Zedong's "small family, big country" road[1]

Via Google translate "Under the plaque of "Chuanshan Academy" in the courtyard, there is an inconspicuous signboard of "Hunan Self-Study University". Surrounded by progressive youths and workers and peasants, Mao Zedong took to the podium to give instructions and talk freely....The second two rooms restore the bedrooms of Mao Zedong and He Shuheng, the office of the Hunan Student Union, and the library of the Self-Study University. Pictures and other forms show Mao Zedong's experience in the Self-Study University, as well as photos and life stories of some people who studied at the Self-Study University.....In 1921, Mao Zedong, He Shuheng and other comrades set up Hunan Self-Study University here to gather talents from all over the world. From its founding in August 1921 to its closure in 1923, the Self-Study University had more than 200 students, including Li Weihan, Xia Minghan, Yi Lirong, Jiang Mengzhou, Guo Liang, and Mao Zemin, who trained and sent a large number of backbones for the Party."

Oblivy (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao would you like to have a look at the article and see if you still think it qualifies for deletion? I think we're at WP:HEY. Oblivy (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fishes Preschool

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

No evidence of notability, no obvious redirect target. Sources are routine coverage or not independent. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Florida. Fram (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple new secondary WP:RS directly referencing the school over decades. Local newsapers as well as county & state government websites and reports ZebulonMorn (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added things like [2] and [3] but I can't find anything about the Little Fishes Preschool on these pages? Fram (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully:

[4] Page 21 – Title:Little Fishes Preschool to begin registration

[5] Page 11 – Title:Community helpers week ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you linked to other pages, it was rather hard to find these. You can't expect people to read a whole local newspaper to find what you intended. Both articles are routine local coverage, not the kind of thing that makes a school notable. Fram (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Command F on mac at least takes 2 seconds? ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search on Chrome returns nothing here, and the internal search of the website returns "Unknown error occurred We apologize for the inconvenience. Click here to return to the library. Click here to report the problem." And none of this explains why you would link to page 4 if the article is on page 21. Fram (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious [6] [7] [8] [9] ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? WP:NOTINHERITED. Fram (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he's notorious, murdering children, is separate. The fact he has interacted with and had a history with children, relates heavily. Additionally, this tragic incident has gained notability in recent years with a more modern outlook and approach to police reform which has altered public perception of domestic violence by police. The association of the subject with the school/children is an interesting example of the complex nature of mental illness and violence, as well as this school and the broader educations system's inability to detect potential threats. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, no connection at all, just like I thought. Fram (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So had he gone to the dry cleaners instead, we wouldn't note that in their article. That's a very thin string upon which to build an article. Had he shot up the school maybe you'd have something. This isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preschools usually do not hold N/GNG universally outside a few prominent ones, and this one is standard and WP:MILL. Nate • (chatter) 17:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC
Delete Does not meet any standards for notability. All sourcing is primary self-published, inclusion in lists of accredited daycares (which, let's be honest...if we're using that then every single accredited daycare deserves an article, which is utterly bonkers), or small announcements in local newspapers (which does not meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. The stuff about Terry's notability transferring to a daycare he once visited is almost a comically stereotypical case of WP:NOTINHERITED, again...do we do an article on every entity that had a cursory interaction with a notable person or event? It'd be like having an article on every place that has a "George Washington visited here" sign inside. If someone wanted to include this information in Terry's article, then maybe, but it does NOT mean it deserves an article on its own. nf utvol (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong failure of WP:MILL. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The school's website, then various listings, then an indeed post.... There just aren't enough sources to show notability. Having a police officer visit the school that later murders his family is a bit of a stretch to notability.... If he had gone to the bakery instead, we wouldn't note that in the bakery's article. Outside of this, there isn't anything to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Every single source can be easily categorized as (a) their own website or social media account, (b) a very brief government listing, (c) a brief mention in the news so attenuated in proximate cause that it's bordering upon urban legend, or (d) run of the mill coverage, or some combination of the above. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rib Lake-Prentice Hawks

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

Results from invitationals and other events for a high school/junior high cross-country team and its young participants (minors listed by name in this article) is not a notable encyclopedic topic. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Schools, Sport of athletics, and Wisconsin. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High school teams are not notable and WP is not the place for students' individual results. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely no indication of notability. Note I removed the material that's better suited for the state athletic association website. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Jean Mermoz (Saint-Louis)

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

Not finding anything that satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this school that devote significant coverage to this school are provided. This two sentence stub makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cullen328: I found that a French newspaper covered the school. You can check the articles via Google Translate, and please let me know if this is the kind of coverage that would be useful. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply WhisperToMe, three articles from the same newspaper is certainly better than nothing, but it looks a lot like run-of-the-mill local coverage to me. I guess it comes down to whether "the largest school in Alsace" is a plausible claim of notability. Thanks for finding those sources and adding them to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome! I found another article from a different newspaper which compared the school to that of a city (I'm not sure how significant that is in the universe of French high schools). I cant see all of it yet since it seems to be paywalled. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reindorf Review

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

There is only one secondary source in this entire page that is even remotely about the subject. This appears to be mostly WP:PROMO mixed with a WP:COATRACK for various anti-trans grievances. Regardless this appears to fail WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Social science, and England. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are allegedly 10 sources on the page, but 4 are just from the review itself so ignoring those, I looked at the 6 remaining:
- Sex Matters [10] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue. ?
- The Times [11] Lawyer demands inquiry into trans ‘gag’ by university is news reporting. A primary source. N
- The Guardian [12] is on topic generally but I cannot see any mention of this review or of Essex. N
- The Telegraph [13] As for the Guardian, no specific mention. N
- The Irish Examiner [14] And another one that doesn't mention it. N
- Impact [15] How can universities promote academic freedom? has significant coverage across two pages (23 and 24). It is independent, reliable and secondary. This one is very good. Y

So I broadly agree with the nom. that there is only one secondary source, but that first source, problematic as it is, still shows something. The Impact discussion lends quite a degree of credibility to the notability of the review, and the general subject is clearly notable. I would consider a suitable merge though. Although the review is at least marginally independently notable, the issue (as indicated by the newspapers that don't actually discuss the review) is wider than this specific review, and the review could be a case study in a larger article (as it is in Impact). Do we have a suitable article about academic freedom that this would belong in? If not, this should not be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Suissa and Sullivan article is a clearing house of "look at how important this anti-trans activist is" apologia. It should not be used to establish notability on an anti-trans topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic, surely, is on academic freedom. Spinning this as anti-trans is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The source demonstrates notability whether we agree with it or not, because it is a secondary treatment, using this as a notable case study. Indeed, although I was concerned about the advocacy element of Sex Matters, I do not actually see what is wrong with that one either, as regards notability, unless we can show the source is unreliable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. One secondary rs shouldn't be used to make a whole article. Agree with sirfurboy that this belongs as part of a larger article instead of its own stand alone article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These references could easily be added to the article demonstrating its significance and notability: The Times: Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row (Archived) "Stonewall has been accused of misrepresenting the law in its advice to Essex University, which failed to uphold free speech when it dropped speakers accused of transphobia." and the Guardian: Essex University makes further apology in trans rights row "Vice-chancellor says sorry over independent report’s impact on trans and non-binary staff and students". The report has also been cited here and here in the House of Lords by Lord Willetts during the debate on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. I'm sure more could be found if necessary but this is clearly a significant page that needs to be kept. Zeno27 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All four new links are useful links, but they are all also primary sources. For notability purposes we are looking for secondary sources. We have two, but the first is problematic. News reporting about the case is likely to be a primary source. However analysis about what the case tells us about, say, the application of such policies in UK universities would certainly be a secondary source. The Times article, for instance, is about a finding that the relationship between the University and Stonewall was flawed. That is reporting. The Guardian article reports their apology. Thus primary sources. The nature of what secondary sources are likely to look like (analysis of a situation of which this is a case study) does suggest to me that a merge somewhere appropriate would still be preferable to keep. We just need to find where (and if there isn't anywhere, we should probably keep this but recognise that a good development of this page would perhaps lead to a rename in the future). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Quarterly: Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England 10.1353/hrq.2024.a926223 (pdf) "(ii) Incidents at Essex University Two incidents at Essex University attracted significant political and media attention and were the subject of an independent review by Akua Reindorf, a specialist employment law barrister."

Times Higher Education: Essex apologises to academics disinvited over gender views (Archived) "The university’s vice-chancellor, Anthony Forster, made the “open apology” after receiving the report of an external review he commissioned on the cases. “The report makes clear that we have made serious mistakes and we need to do our very best to learn from these and to ensure they are not repeated,” he writes in a blog published on the university’s website. Essex’s apology comes at an important political moment, with the Westminster government having confirmed plans to introduce legislation on campus free speech in England." Zeno27 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McGoldrick (2024) is just the kind of secondary source I was expecting, with the primary topic expressed in the title, Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England. It is independent, reliable and secondary and has significant coverage across pages 8 and 9, beyond what you quote. This one is a Y, but I think it still begs a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. This review is not a subject in itself. There is a broader subject and this is a case study. The THES article is a very full one, covering all aspects of the case, including the relationship with Stonewall, but to me it is still a discursive primary source, reporting the apology. I would use it in an article, but I don't think it adds to the notability. However, I think we are already there on notability. The University website material is also clearly primary, as is the news about plans to introduce legislation. Again, this page should not be deleted, but I remain unconvinced that the review itself is really the primary subject. The THES and McGoldrick are really rather similar in what they say (although the THES adds a little regarding Stonewall). This is indicative of the fact that there is really not much more to say about this review. It is a case study. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Brahmanbaria

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

The article is mess, WP:NOTPROMO. It fails both WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE resulted in only few press release, appointment announcement, and navigational maps. The sources mentioned within the article do not pass WP:RS, 1 being press release statement, source 2 leads to a blank website (at least for me), source 3 is an announcement and source 4 is University's official website. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have removed unsourced sourced content and added more references.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daily Star 1 – Trivial / WP:ROUTINE, fails WP:SIGCOV
- Dhaka Tribune – Trivial / Focuses on an incident happened at Brahmanbaria district, fails SigCov
- Daily Star 2 – Same as Dhaka Tribune, fails WP:SIGCOV
- Business Post – Trivial / Focuses on broader issues affecting private universities in the country, likely mentioning the subject as one example, fails SigCov
- Daily Star 3 – This is one good source to count, discusses a local environmental issues with the subject in non-trivial mention, passes SigCov
- NewAge BD – Trivial / Announcement / WP:ROUTINE, fails SigCov
- Daily Sun – Trivial / Announcement / Press-release WP:ROUTINE, fails SigCov
With the newly added sources, none appear to meet the GNG nor WP:NSCHOOL to keep this article. Most of the sources seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE or

WP:ORGTRIV with only one providing WP:SIGCOV but fails WP:ORGDEPTH for this subject to be a stand-alone article. Also, the subject is a for-profit private institution, WP:NORG must be met. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above analysis of the new sources and MimsMENTOR is also correct that as a new startup private and for-profit university, this certainly needs to meet WP:NORG. We are looking for multiple independent reliable secondary sources that have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Even the dailystar article therefore falls short of WP:SIRS] being a news report about the courts finding the plan to lease lands in favour of the university to be illegal. This is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. We are clearly WP:TOOSOON for this new venture and the page is essentially promotional. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not !voting keep unless the sources found are added to the article and the incomprehensible lead is re-written. Ping me when you get this done. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [16], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 1 google news hit. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay

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

The sources listed do not establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus‎. A discussion on a merger can continue editorially Star Mississippi 04:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norkam Secondary School

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

Nonnotable school --Altenmann >talk 07:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see 3 reliable sources (1. BC government, 2. IB, and 8. sports), although whether those are significant coverage is debatable. Please convince me one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found a couple of sources covering this school. Here's a couple of examples:

Dress code controversy at school in 2021 - 1 2 3 from CityNews Vancouver
Coverage of a club within the school in 2017 from The Vancouver Sun
Coverage of the introduction of "TV-Teaching" at the school from 1965 (published in the St. Catharines Standard, notably not in British Columbia, thanks to The Canadian Press newswire) (not entirely sure this meets WP:SIGCOV

Other sources include:

[BC gov't school website]
Kamloops This Week stories - will add here later, if needed

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Dressing controversy hardly increases notability. student's club - local news., TV teaching is a piece of trivia, etc. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann, the usual thing to do with a non-notable school is to merge or redirect it to the city/location (e.g., Kamloops#Education) or the government agency (e.g., School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson). Why did you decide that this needs to be completely deleted instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this "usual thing" about merge/redirect, I am not editing schools, I have no recollection how this one caught my eye. Redirecting looks reasonable to me. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is one excellent source (Coleman & Love, 2004), which has a portrait of a principal, Hoberly Hove, under heading "Succeeding with Diversity". The piece discusses the school at length from pages 59-66. We need multiple sources, but this is very definitely one. I am !voting keep, because I believe more sources are likely, but would suggest that until more are demonstrated, there is an IAR aspect to this !vote.

Coleman, Peter; Love, Nancy (2004). Principal Portraits 2. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education (SAEE). ISBN 978-0-9734046-5-4.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

(this comment is from User:Sirfurboy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Oops yes. Sorry. I have added a signature now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 13 December 2024 (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.

Bukit Mewah National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2024 (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/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Tbh I would usually be starting at delete on this one and trying to disprove my assumption, but this is one of multiple nominations all nominated within minutes of each other without any evidence of a deletion rationale or a WP:BEFORE. Looking at the others, many seem fairly obvious keeps with minimal searching. Searching takes a lot of time, and I don't see the case is made that this time be spent. I think we should procedurally keep this one, without prejudice against a renomination by anyone (without the usual six month stand off) who has spent sufficient time looking at the issue to write a fuller deletion rationale. Or just close it as no consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are only three sources that mention this school and all of them are simply made in passing[17][18][19]. There's no WP:SIGCOV that would justify this article's existence. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no references and fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of notability, among others, has been tagging for years with unimprovement. This school may have the largest count of students in its state by a 2022 data. A search of "bukit mewah" AND "school OR sekolah OR smk" on Google did not provide any relevant news. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ong Kai Jin, boolean search doesn't work on google, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work on google news, either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if it did, "school OR sekolah OR smk" is searching for that exact string and not boolean operators. Not surprising that showed nothing. Also to note, this !vote is by the nominator. Nominators vote is assumed and need not be stated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It worked and for both. What I meant was that the results of news were unrelatable. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - News: [20], [21], [22], [23]. Arguably WP:MILL but if you are not finding this stuff you are not searching properly. It gets two full pages in the book Improving Schools (2014).[24] However that appears to be self published. Despite being self published, the two pages refer to a published newspaper letter in the Star and as we haven't yet found that, searches are clearly not gathering all the information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I helped you, that turned out to be a self-submitted article. [25] I then assume it is a book of compilation of own submission. For your information, The Star often excluded from Google's news tab search results because they usually locks old articles. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just WP:MILL, individual achievements are not inclusive of article per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search of "bukit mewah" school OR sekolah OR smk site:thestar.com.my OR site:nst.com.my on Google should work the best or a search of "smk bukit mewah" OR "bukit mewah secondary" site:thestar.com.my OR site:nst.com.my on Google should be more precise. Still, individual interviews, individual achievements and that person's own submission. I do not think a news on a debate national-champion is enough. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a fair amount of sources to argue GNG is met, just over the line, met which for schools, is enough per WP:NSCHOOL. And as Sirfurboy pointed out, this was part of a "barrage" of nominations with no rationale outside of "Fails WP:NSCHOOL." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 and non exhaustively many m o r e. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and colleges

Neotia University

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

This will need to satisfy either WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable, both of which it fails to do. Although this article cites no usable sources, the sources I found while performing a WP:BEFORE did not have WP:SIGCOV, most of them were only mentioning it's rankings or the events conducted at the university. [26][27][28][29], note that none of these sources identify an individual reporter and have generic bylines as author information, so they all fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Please point out the relevant guideline/consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has consistently been the result of AfDs. Hence consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only notability guideline pertaining to universities is at WP:NSCHOOL which states :- All universities, ..... that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline. (Emphasis mine). There's an apparent contradiction here between what you are saying and the guideline, additionally can you also demonstrate how what you are saying is the consensus on notability of universities established by statue.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the somewhat related SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC,[30] the RFC close found that
Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community.
Rightly so. The page is notable if it meets the appropriate notability guidelines and policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the RfC only applied to secondary schools and not universities and shouldn't be cited to support any other deletion arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my words somewhat related. Circular arguments do not stop being circular when the students at the relevant institution are a couple of years older. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing that I can find that this meets NORG, which would be required for a private university. I would happily move to redirect if someone can find an appropriate target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence so far establishing notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SKANS School of Accountancy

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

Non-notable for-profit accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus, did you search for sources in Arabic? Did you check the Pakistani newspapers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Pakistan is not an Arabic-speaking country, so asking me to do checks in Arabic is not ok. In Pakistani newspapers or magazines, I found this press release. This is a for-profit school and fails WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Polytechnic Institute

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

The only independent reliable sources found are brief mentions within primary source news reports about broader events (e.g. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-75355, https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/5enz43u7pl, etc.). Per WP:SIRS, primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. This title was previously redirected to the supervising Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but the redirect was removed by an editor without regard to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce, non-profit and government-run schools don't have to comply with WP:SIRS. They only have to meet the GNG.

Also, did you check for sources in the Bengali language? Or in the local newspapers, such as the ones listed in Comilla#Media? When an article says that a secondary school is one of the oldest and largest of its type in its entire country, and that it has thousands of students, the failure to find sources usually turns out to say more about our limited search skills than the actual availability of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Nearly all of my editing is of Bangladesh-related topics, so I'm constantly searching in Bengali, but sometimes forget that not everyone will know that, and neglect to mention it explicitly in nominations. In addition to general searches in Bengali, I specifically searched three local news outlets that in my experience are reliable: amodbd, comillarkagoj and dailyamadercomilla.

My reading of WP:ORG is that all schools must comply with WP:SIRS or WP:GNG, so I agree with you in part. Although WP:ORG's second sentence says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups ... with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, ...", its subsection WP:NSCHOOL says "All universities, colleges and schools, ... must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline." The subsection goes on to say that with respect to WP:ORG, for-profit educational institutions must in addition satisfy WP:COMMERCIAL. WP:SIRS is not part of the commercial requirements, but part of the top level "Primary criteria" section. WP:GNG doesn't spell it out as forcefully as WP:SIRS does, but says "'Sources' [used to establish notability] should be secondary sources ..." I can substitute that language for what I said about WP:SIRS in the nomination if you prefer, but the thrust of my argument remains the same.

It's true that Comilla Polytechnic Institute (1962) is one of the oldest government polytechnics in what is now Bangladesh, but the same can be said of the other 20 or so that were set up between 1955 and 1964. About 30 more have been established, I think all since 2000. Very little has been written about them individually, but some sources cover them collectively, so I believe a redirect to an article that treats them as a group is best. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG doesn't "spell it out as forcefully" as SIRS because the GNG doesn't agree with SIRS. Secondary sources are not necessarily rare; a source that says CPI is "one of the oldest" is a secondary source (because it's comparing it against other schools, and comparison is a form of analysis, and analysis is the hallmark of a secondary source).

IMO some of the best sources for schools are government agency reports that cover multiple schools. A report that says something like these are bigger than those, these are cheaper than those, these require higher test scores than those, etc. would be perfect for getting a decent little encyclopedia article together for each of the schools in the report. (Neither CORP nor GNG require a source to be exclusively about the subject, though obviously the parts of a source that discuss only 'School 1' are not useful for determining whether 'School 2' is notable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School or university organisations proposed for deletion

To check articles which are being proposed for deletion search by date at Category:Proposed deletion or see the summary of PRODs at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. It is common to find schools of all types on this list.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools

Primary and secondary schools

Hunan Self-Study University

Little Fishes Preschool

Rib Lake-Prentice Hawks

Al-Khair University

Lycée Jean Mermoz (Saint-Louis)

Reindorf Review

University of Brahmanbaria

Rugby School Japan

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College

Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay

Norkam Secondary School

Bukit Mewah National Secondary School

Universities and colleges

Neotia University

SKANS School of Accountancy

Comilla Polytechnic Institute

Other school or university articles

Division of City Schools–Valenzuela

School or university organisations proposed for deletion