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The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. After considering the discussion below and considering recent changes made to the article by various editors including myself, I believe that there is enough notability and potential to warrant keeping the article. I still believe that the article needs expansion and that it needs to be reviewed to remove any hint of advertising and self-promotion but that can be addressed via the appropriate tags.

NB: For those who might be unfamiliar with the AFD process, my withdrawal of nomination of this article for AFD does NOT end this AFD debate. I cannot close the debate once it has started. The debate continues until a consensus for speedy keep is reached OR an admin closes the debate.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this debate.

--Richard 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of notability Failed WP:SCHOOL when I nominated. Addition of references suggests that it might barely pass WP:SCHOOL IF material in those references are added to change the tone of the article away from being of a commercial promotion of the school and towards a more encyclopedic tone. Richard 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some of the material from the references. --Richard 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any assertion of notability is a speedy deletion criterion, that only applies to people, bands, and clubs/groups. It is not a criterion for normal deletion, and it does not apply to other things. Uncle G 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. Notability is relevant to all subjects although the criteria for notability may differ from subject to subject.

  However, I am on the brink of withdrawing my nomination after looking at the references which were added subsequent to the nomination. To pass criterion #1 of WP:SCHOOL, some of the information in the references should be included in the article itself. Also important would be taking material from the references regarding the claims of unique pedagogical approach claimed by the school, thus satisfying criterion #4 of WP:SCHOOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 2006-09-28 15:48:45

  • You are disagreing with a straw man, not with what I actually wrote. You are conflating notability with assertions of notability. There is a difference between an article on a subject that is not notable and an article that doesn't assert the notability of its subject. The latter only applies to the speedy deletions of certain, specific, classes of articles. Uncle G 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not interested in mincing words and getting into a wide-ranging policy debate about notability and criteria for deletion. The bottom line is that, if the article doesn't explain why the school is notable and therefore encyclopedic, I'm keeping my vote at "Delete". The information that would satisfy me is in the two articles that are referenced. Stop arguing with me and improve the article to meet Wikipedia standards and I'll change my vote. --Richard 21:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet more straw men. This is not a policy debate about notability. This is you using a rationale for deletion that is not a reason for deletion, and your error being explained to you. Uncle G 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, since you seem intent on educating me, please do so. Let me jumpstart the dialogue by providing the Wikipedia sources I am relying on and you can show me the error of my reasoning. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Notability is not policy; it's only a guideline. However, if you read it, there is nothing in it that limits it to "certain, specific classes of articles" while excluding schools. Also, if you look at criterion #1 of WP:SCHOOL, what it's getting at essentially is notability even if it doesn't say so explicitly. Or, perhaps you're getting hung up on "notability" per se. The core may be about reliable sources. You've got marginally reliable sources. They are marginal, because the source articles still sound like regurgitated press releases with thinly veiled promotional intent. Now, all I'm asking is that you lift the points made in these marginally reliable sources and put them in the article. Why is this so hard? --Richard 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some apologies: On reflection, I understand User:Uncle G's point about "assertions of notability" vs. "notability". Apparently, some articles could be about notable subjects but still be candidates for speedy deletion if the article doesn't assert notability? Sounds crazy to me but that is apparently what the current policy means and what User:Uncle G has been trying to say. Note, however, that this is not a CSD debate but an AFD debate and, as I stated above, notability counts. I think Uncle G will agree with this. I am not convinced that this new school is notable or, skip "notable", the article does not pass WP:SCHOOL in its current form. Also, I still maintain that the article reads like an advertisement and therefore fails Wikipedia is not an advertising medium and Wikipedia is not a directory.

Also, I note that my responses above have addressed Uncle G as if he were the primary author of the article when, in fact, he has only added sources. Nonetheless, if he believes the article should be kept, then he should add text to raise it to Wikipedia quality. --Richard 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:SCHOOL. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 08:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Keep, my prior vote was a little too hasty, and recent changes assert notability. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 08:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per the article, it just about satisfies the primary criterion, albeit that there is less source material here than there is for many schools. Uncle G 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High school. There are hundreds of precedents for keeping them. It is beyond belief that these disruptive nominations go on and on and on. Piccadilly 22:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that every high school in the world deserves an article in Wikipedia? I don't think that's what WP:SCHOOL suggests. --Richard 01:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOL suggests that any school with enough stuff written about it to create a meaningful article should be kept. Most high schools fit this bill, although some don't. It's nice to see an Asian school that's sufficiently verifiable. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The current version of this article looks fine, go hash out this debate at WP:SCHOOLS. RFerreira 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a well-constructed article describing a creative and innovative educational program. Nomination acknowledges that WP:SCHOOL would be met by improvements to article. Alansohn 03:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Is a for profit school therefore WP:CORP should control and this fails it. JoshuaZ 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC) keep The most relevant guideline is most likely WP:CORP but looking at the linked sources indicates that it does meet WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The hindu asserts notability.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as nominator Richards says. Mereda 06:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change or strike out your vote above. Thanx. --Richard 07:09, 29 September 2006 (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.