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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)

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 delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Philip Neri Catholic School

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

Almost never are elementary schools notable, there is nothing to suggest otherwise for this. The fact it stops as 8th instead of 6th grade does not change that it is part of the general class of elementary schools. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2021 (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/2021 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This promotional article on a non-notable primary school fails WP:GNG, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ORG. Enough said. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo content aside, this is clearly a non-notable school. So, it not surprisingly fails WP:NORG and the article should therefore be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial coverage found during a search, fails WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Primary and Middle Schools are generally NN. This article is a badly written ADVERT, as it does not even indicate where the school is. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grand'mere Eugene and Peterkingiron. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:12, 1 March 2021 (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.

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 redirect to Buffalo Public Schools. — The Earwig (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy

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

Non-notable elementary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools. Elementary schools are rarely notable, and there is no coverage sufficient to convince me that this one is an exception. Redirection to the district's article should be sufficient for the reader. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buffalo Public Schools. I think a redirect is a fair compromise to outright deletion. Since school isn't notable. Elementary schools rarely are though. So, no surprise there. Yet, it seems like a viable search term. Therefore, I'm good with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2021 (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.

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahat Public Junior High School

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

I was unable to find any coverage that would establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The best sources that I can find are the bare minimum descriptions provided in school directories such as Edugorilla and Schools.org.in. From the sources available, there is nothing to suggest that this school is notable, historic or significant. It is a recently-founded and very small school that has apparently never been subject to any decent media coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to List of schools in India#Ghaziabad.~~ Junior high schools are not usually notable, and this one appears to be no exception to that rule. The school lacks substantial coverage and therefore fails the GNG. ~~The school is listed in the list of Indian schools article, so a redirect could be useful since it would at least tell the reader where in India the school is located.~~ Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern with redirecting would be that that list is only for schools with their own stand-alone articles. Once this school is determined to not be notable enough for an article, it will then be removed from the List of schools in India, which would then make the redirect potentially confusing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Count me as a delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that this unsourced article on a school that is below the top level of secondary school has existed for 5 years would be a mark against Wikipedia, except we have had unsourced articles sit for over 15 years, so this is nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is unsourced and there isn't even the usual trivial news stories about it that a lot of schools have. So, clearly this doesn't pass WP:NORGs standards of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plavelil Shanku Pillai Memorial Upper Primary School

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG; the former requires the school to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. During my WP:BEFORE search I could not find any evidence that this school has ever received this kind of coverage and most of the search results were just Wikipedia mirrors. I could not even find trivial news stories that most schools get, such as local papers promoting the school fête or notices of being closed due to COVID. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 23 February 2021 (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.

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 delete. Somewhat snowy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Public School,

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

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable primary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from having a comma at the end of the article title (???) and being created by an SPI, utterly utterly unnotable. ser! (chat to me). 17:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NORG. Java Hurricane 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ser!. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete a non-notable school that fails WP:NORG, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete This is clearly not a notable school from the research I did and the delete votes of other. Since I don't see that changing I suggest it be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable school, hardly any RS’s.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed to establish WP:GNG Padavalam🌂 ► 15:28, 27 February 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sainik School, Manasbal

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Collection of trivia The Banner talk 14:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has some good WP:RS. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG, per the cited sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references here are good in comparison with other similar articles from the navigation table that have not been deleted. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 11:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 2 March 2021 (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.

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 delete. There is some thought of merging here that can be pursued, though it is unclear what material would be merged is acute. That can be resolved outside of this discussion, probably. I am happy to userfy a copy of this article or move it to draft-space if someone wants to pursue a merger. Go Phightins! 11:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's College, Lucknow

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a project to destub all schools in UP: Then possibly merge. Saying Fails GNG is very tidy- but we we need to explain why. I have added a wl to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow which is totally underdeveloped- it reminds me of the articles we were proud to add fifteen years ago. It could be the target for a merge. Para one looks like it has been transcribed from a notable source as part of a batch but unsourced. Para 2 looks like a personal memory but suggests this school has over 500 pupils- so sources could be found. I suspect researching this one school, is going to be a similar process to reseaching other UP schools, so a more global approach to problems could be be more productive. ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has sat for 14 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per JPL. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I not convinced to take action with any of the discussion points except ClemRutter's, so I am relisting in the hope of getting more detailed arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; subject fails GNG and ORGCRIT. No sources in article to check, BEFORE showed database listings type entries and nothing more. We often redirect to an appropriate target, I have no objection to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow if there is support for this, but the article has no properly sourced content for a merge and I oppose merging unsourced content. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 14 March 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you look through the talk archive, you'll see their are myriad sources discussing this school. It easily passes GNG. 174.212.238.134 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But most of those sources were related, not reliable, independent sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed article in a big city daily along with the usual list of common sources should reach the relatively low bar we've set for schools. 174.254.193.220 (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say there is a low bar for the notability of schools. It's about the same as other organizations. Especially considering the recent RFC about subject specific guidelines taking precedence over the GNG and school outcomes not being valid in AFCs anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources might pass the GNG, although it's questionable IMO, but they don't pass WP:NORG from what I can tell. Which is the relevant guideline for the notability of schools now that there was an RfC about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McCabe, Kathy (2015-05-02). "Making the grade in Lawrence". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article notes that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is "modeled after Nativity and Cristo Rey (Christ the King) schools founded by Jesuit priests decades ago in major cities". The article notes that Lawrence is "one of the state's poorest cities" and Cristo Rey schools depend nearly fully on charity and companies. The article notes that Notre Dame's students are in a work-study program in which they spend five days monthly at a company. Their tuition is $12,000, and the work allows them to receive wages that pay for 60% of it, or $7,000, so they only need to pay $2,900.
  The article notes "Notre Dame, located in the former St. Mary parish high school on Haverhill Street, must attract more business support to grow." It says that the work-study program makes the school $1.5 million annually. This is almost 50% of its $3.3 million yearly budget. The school has partnered with 74 companies at which its students work. Law firms, technology companies, and hospitals participate in the work-study program. The school has classes from 7:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Volunteers help tutor students in "study halls". The school has vans that transport the students to and from work; the transportation can be 1.5 hours in one direction.
2. Donovan, William; Thielman, Jeffrey (November 2017). "Cristo Rey Schools: A Model of 21st-Century Catholic Education" (PDF). Pioneer Institute. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27 – via Education Resources Information Center.
  The article notes, "Notre Dame Cristo Rey (NDCR) High School began as a new school in Lawrence, starting with 80 students and totaling 270 students in 2016. It is run by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. ... In the 2015–2016 school year stu- dents at Cristo Rey Boston earned more than $2.6 million at 125 businesses and non-profit organizations. Employers pay about $34,800 per year for a team of four students, which equates to $23 per hour, according to John O’Keeffe, director of the work study program, though the program is sold both as a way for companies to get work done and an opportunity to help urban young people pay for a college preparatory educa- tion. About 60 percent of the school’s revenue comes from the work-study program."
3. Tennant, Paul (2017-09-22). "Aiming high. Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School touts 100 percent college rate for grads". The Eagle-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article notes, "When Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School was founded in 2004, its mission was to give students from low-income families in Lawrence the opportunity to receive a solid Catholic education and win acceptance at colleges and universities. Thirteen years later, Cristo Rey is batting 1.000, according to Sister Maryalyce Gilfeather, SND, PhD, the school's president and a longtime member of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur." The article notes that Anthony Zavagnin is the principal, the tuition is $7,750, and the students can "afford" that tuition by doing a "corporate work/study" job. The students work at MITRE, Raytheon, Lawrence Catholic Academy, Lawrence General Hospital, Lowell General Hospital, Ironstone Farm, New England Biolabs. The students do jobs that involve "filing, data entry coding and serving as receptionists" as well as nursing assistants. The students wears blue uniforms. Sports offered by the school include softball and basketball. The school is located at 303 Haverhill St., which housed for numerous years the all-girls school St. Mary High School, which stopped operations in 1996. The Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur took over the building and established Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School in it. In 2008, the school's inaugural class of students graduated.
4. Laidler, John (2020-03-04). "As one Catholic high school shutters, another readies for its new home". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article notes, "Opened in 2004, Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School is one of six schools in Massachusetts run by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. The Lawrence school, which rents its space from a local parish, is the only Notre Dame school in the country that belongs to Cristo Rey, a national network of Catholic schools that serve disadvantaged youth."
5. Marchetti, Garrin (2015-06-07). "Notre Dame Cristo Rey celebrates 63 graduates". The Eagle-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The article notes that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School held a graduation ceremony for 63 seniors who received a 100% college acceptance rate. The article notes that during the students' four-year tenure at the high school, the school had four principals.
6. Edelstein, Breanna (2020-02-26). "Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School to move into Presentation of Mary". The Eagle-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-02-27. Retrieved 2021-02-27.
  The articles notes that Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School was established in 2004, has 282 students (70 seniors, 62 juniors, 72 sophomores, and 78 freshmen), has a $14,500 tuition, and 85% of students cannot pay the full tuition but every family contributes an amount. 90% of the students live in Lawrence. 66% of the students are female and 34% are male. The article notes that Sr. Maralyce Gilfeather is the president of Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources presented by Cunard convince me that the subject passes the GNG (and, for that matter, NCORP). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on the sources provided. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 2 March 2021 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Westland Row

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

Non-notable WP:ROTM school, search finds nothing beyond primary sources and directory listings etc. — fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. Go for it! Fob.schools (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (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.

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 speedy keep under criterion 4, and there are enough arguments from banned editors here to make a consensus difficult if not impossible not to determine. There is no prejudice against speedy renomination if an editor in good standing wishes to renominate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes Public School and Junior College, Kottayam

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

~~Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. Not even a good reference. Bornfromashes (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2021~~ striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2021 (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/2021 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant reliable references to justify the notability of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC) striking blocked sock/meatpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement 27.61.53.70 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was up for AfD yesterday and was closed as speedy keep. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator blocked for socking. Blablubbs|talk 14:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) because the speedy was closed as keep (2) A dearth of citations is not a reason for deletion : we require verifability not that it is verified by references; the excpetion is BLP, which this is not. In India English-medium schools are the gateway to well-paid employment, which might be a factor towards notability, but I take no view on notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable references to justify the notability of the subject. JaiMahadev (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC) striking another blocked sockpuppet of the original nominator, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with the other delete voters. There's nothing sourcing wise to justify this being notable. The nominator being a sock is unfortunate, but really a separate issue to the purpose of AfDs IMO. So, I see now reason this can't still be evaluated on the articles merits or lack of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the organisation does not appear to have ever been subject to significant coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Sources found do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and ultimately WP:NORG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request Procedural Close: I agree withthe Delete !votes, but noms by socks should not be considered, doing so only encourages more socking. If an editor feels this is not notable, they should renominate and this close should not be considered. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy makes a good point. I have struck my vote. This was created by a prolific vandal and we should not be encouraging their behaviour. If this school is to be deleted, the discussion should be started by a good faith editor, not someone with a clear COI who has had multiple accounts blocked for promoting a rival school to this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 6 March 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Cherthala

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. Daniel (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Catholic College, Casino

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it passes WP:GNG just based on the sources currently in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one looks ok to me with the existing references. I also found this, which I have not added as it suggests this is a fee-paying school and there is nothing in the article about that at the moment - so didn't want to put it in without a fuller understanding. Also found this, which I think is about their building project, but cannot access it. Tacyarg (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportingflyer. Deus et lex (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (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.

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 redirect to Cumberland, Maine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friends School of Portland

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

This school only goes through 8th grade. Schools in the US that do not go to the high school level need very good sourcing to show notability, which is entirely lacking here. In fact this article has existed for almost 13 years, and the only source is the subjects own website. I did a google search and found the usually review websites we can find on basically any school that currently exists, but since we have never held that every school that exists is notable, there is nothing about that which shows that this is a notable school. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the school is well-known for its energy-efficient design and to a lesser extent its political activism. Here are some links from a variety of sources. [1][2][3][4][5]

[6] [7][8]--User:Namiba 22:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The building does not make the school notable. The Banner talk 09:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources are substantially about the school, at least one is a caption to a picture provided by this school to a very specialized publication, and the last is about students from many schools and does not specify this school at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - JPL, you should read the last more closely. The student leading the protest attends the school and the school is named. Given the plethora of independent sources, the building the school has built is clearly notable and should have an article. The school itself should be covered in that article as well. Note that I've added two more sources and begun cleaning up the article itself.--User:Namiba 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having someone from a particular school be a leader of some random protest march, does not make the school itself notable. Wikipedia needs less presentism. Until we have articles on every elementary school that fed key children in civil rights action in the early 1960s, having this article based on such a passing presentist case is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Presentism has nothing to do with it. There are now 2 full-length newspaper articles, sources from 4 independent non-news sites, and an academic journal article on the page.--User:Namiba 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the settlement it's located in, Cumberland, Maine. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.193.169 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." This is an independently accredited institution.--User:Namiba 15:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a K-6 institution, that is elementary level, it does not grant a degree. So it does not fall under that rubric. The quote you cite is refering really to tertiary institutions, although for other reasons we generally treat secondary institutions as notable. We only accept that a very, very few elementaries are notable. You are misapplying and minsinterpreting the text you are quoting. It in no way refers to this elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I agree that most elementary schools are not notable. However, most elementary schools don't have two major newspaper articles about their unique beliefs and values, nor has the building they built and occupy been discussed by a half-dozen or more sources because it is among the first of its kind. That's why this school in particular is notable.--User:Namiba 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partially merge. The school is clearly not notable. The school building is arguably marginally notable, which is the wrinkle here. I think I still support deletion, but I'm not sure the school guidelines are the best way to decide this one. A sentence in Cumberland, Maine is probably appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of Maine history on a historical island, its cited and should stayGeneraluser11 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Cumberland, Maine per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. Sourcing does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT for the subject, sourcing above about the building does not meet NBUILD, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Looks like a wonderful school with a good facility, but this is not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the sources are sufficient to meet NBUILD? They are numerous, independent, and in-depth.--User:Namiba 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but Namiba, may I make a suggestion? Why don't you pick the three best sources, and make arguments on how they show NORG? Perhaps an organized argument might sway myself or others. 174.254.198.242 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here are 4 unique, independent, in-depth sources. There are more available. [9], [10], [11], [12].--User:Namiba 03:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above shows historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. It shows someone built an energy efficent building and it has nothing to do with the subject of the article - the school and does not have SIGCOV about the school. Namiba I suggest you write an article about the building if you think this is notable coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My plan is to add several sections on the building itself. It doesn't make sense to delete the article and simply start it over. Moreover, the two full-length Press Herald articles on the school itself constitute significant coverage.--User:Namiba 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Schools, churches, and clubs/fraternal lodges are in special circumstances for notability purposes. Sometimes they are notable for the organization that operates in the physical structure. In other cases, they are notable for the historic or architecturally significant structure in which they operate. In such cases, we typically have a single article that can discuss both the organization and the building/structure. See, e.g., Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States by city, Category:Masonic buildings in the United States by state, Category:Schools in the United States by city or town. If this school is notable on either count (the organization or the building), it should be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2021 (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.

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. Daniel (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laksam Government Pilot High School

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

Nothing to suggest notability, and search finds no RS mentions let alone sigcov; fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DisagreeFadew-wiki 12:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep possibly a strong keep, but this looks to have passed GNG through the non-English language sources currently in the article. I only assessed their titles, but they look like they would qualifying coverage if they were in English. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources do not need to be in English.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2021 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Scorpions13256 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Memorial Girls High School

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

Does not pass criteria set forward by WP:NSCHOOL. There is not a single reference is there to prove the notability and existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle eyer333 (talk • contribs) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 16 February 2021 (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/2021 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. ~~Searching yields ~3700 results and no news results. It is unlikely that there are any reliable sources at all.~~ ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 14:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article with two independent english language sources and cleaned up a bit of the prose. What do you think now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering similar articles (see List of schools in India#Kerala), the sources provided here is relatively notable when comparing with similar articles. I think adding the secondary sources here and some primary sources solely for the school's basic information might be enough. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 04:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two decent sources, a statement from the Governor of the area about the school and an article in The Hindu discussing the statement and visit from the Governor. If those two sources are in english I expect there's a significant number of other sources in Hindi. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article with the two sources and cleaned up the promotional language. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I would expect the citations to cover more than two sentences. However, considering the school is Indian, there might be a significant number of sources in Hindi as you said. It would be nice if someone could search using the native name and report the result. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 16:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Google Maps, the native name is ബേക്കർ മെമ്മോറിയൽ ഗേൾസ് ഹയർ സെക്കൻഡറി സ്കൂൾ. I have just tried searching for that and found even fewer results. 1260 for all results and still no news results. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 16:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone knows Hindi, please help determine whether there exists non-English sources. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Another source about the bicentennial. I think with the claim that they're the first girl's Christian high school and the claim that they're the first school in India to have a Girl Guides chapter makes them notable, and there's enough independent coverage to establish that notability even in English. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Per WP:MULTSOURCES, the subject should be covered by multiple sources (different publishers), and I do not think one publisher (the Hindu) covering the school is enough. Another thing, I am still thinking about whether being the first in something calls for an exception. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  If there is one more source from a publisher with reliability similar to the Hindu but not related to Hindu, then I think I will be convinced. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The statement from the governor of the state I linked above doesn't cover that? I'm looking to see if I can find anything else but it's difficult with english sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I've also found three books which mention the school and it's 150th anniversary, but alas my ability to go to the library and borrow obscure english language Indian books is pretty limited. Specifically Polity, Society, and Women has several pages dedicated to the school. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Another book that mentions the founder and the school on 336 and can be viewed in google books as more than just the search result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The book only has three results when I tried searching for "Baker Memorial". You can check it out by going here and type the search term. It seems to be a passing mention, but the preview is pretty limited. For the other book, it also looks like a passing mention. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I was looking at List of schools in India#Kerala and clicking on some random schools to see how many references are enough to be kept. It turns out, the requirements are pretty low. For example, take a look at Brook International School, Sasthamcotta and Infant Jesus School, Kollam. Considering this, I think the sources you have provided might be enough. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This school is in Kerala,India. But no reliable sources are there. 27.61.23.239 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY as it is a weak keep, but for gazetteer subjects like schools, that should be enough. IMO, there's been way too much deletion of gazetteer subjects over the last year. It does bear note that the range of available sources doesn't end at the same place Google does. That applies even more in parts of the world where data digitalization hasn't got as far as it has in others and contributes to systemic bias on Wikipedia. 174.254.192.137 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the notability guidelines due to lacking multiple, independent, in-depth reliable sources about it. As far as the "systemic bias" thing goes, about 55% of Kerala where this school is located has access to the internet and it's the 13th largest state in India. Which is on par or better then a lot of places in more "developed" countries like America. So, I don't think it's an issue in this case. Otherwise, it wouldn't be acceptable to delete an article on anything in India. Maybe if the population and (or) the percentage of people who have access to the internet was smaller there, but it's hard to make a case for the potential of bias being the cause of lacking sourcing when when the place has over 15 million people connected to the internet. More then likely there's no good sourcing because this school just isn't notable for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The school is notable for being the first girl's school in India, which is asserted in the sources I've provided above. There's also several books which cover or mention the subject. "Polity, Society and Women" has a three page section on the missionary family who started the school under the heading "Women's Education in North Travancore," which states that the founder of the school was the pioneer of girl's education in North Travancore. There are more sources discussing the school, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to get my hands on a lot of the books that cover it. There's another book called "Above the Heron's Pool" that covers the family and the school, but the only places I can see that have it are a few scattered college libraries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the systemic bias point, I think there are more factors affecting the bias than just the Internet penetration rate, so even with a relatively high Internet penetration rate, there is likely still significant systematic bias due to other factors. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 03:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the internet penetration rate, according to ScottishFinnishRadish there's more sources that discuss this then a lot of high schools in the United States. So, how exactly does systematic bias play into this particular AfD then? You can't have it both ways where there are supposedly multiple sources that discuss it (enough for it to be notable), but then also "oh yeah and systematic bias if those aren't good enough." Doing this fairly, you have a source that discusses the missionary family who started the school. Which likely wouldn't be usable due to not being directly about the subject if it was an AfD for a school somewhere else. So, how does it suddenly become usable in this case "because systematic bias"? In other words, "systematic bias" works as an argument against deletion when it can be used as a reason for there being no or hardly any sources. Not when it comes to situations where there are sources, but they just aren't up to the standards though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the first mention of systematic bias, which is from 174.254.192.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP states that deletion of this article contributes to systematic bias, and systematic bias is bad, so instead we should avoid deletion of this article to avoid contributing systematic bias. As far as I can see in the guidelines for WP:NSCHOOLS, this is not a valid reason for non-deletion, so I think systemic bias here won't work well anyway. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the details. I'm never sure where it's an issue and where it isn't myself. I guess it doesn't matter though. Since it's not a part of AfD or notability policy anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some info and refs and think it is very likely that there is further coverage in paper sources of this school, given its long history. Tacyarg (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added references are good enough for WP:NSCHOOL. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability and significance established through multiple sources now added to the article; meets WP:NORG and WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage JaiMahadev (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is blocked for sockpuppetry. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Comment After giving this a week to see if anyone could come up with anything and looking over the sources currently in the article, I am forced to go with delete. Mainly because the sources as clearly in the article obviously up to par. Just to give a breakdown, two references are from government sources and are therefore not independent of the subject. Plus they are rather trivial. Two sources are not even about the school. Therefore they do not address it directly or in-depth as is required. The only might work, "ADDRESS AT THE BICENTENARY CELEBBRATIONS OF BAKER MEMORIAL GIRLS’ HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AT KOTTAYAM", doesn't because it is a non-neutral blog post. That doesn't even mainly discuss the school anyway. So, I'm not really seeing what makes this pass either WP:GNG or more importantly WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Amending 'delete' to 'comment' as Adamant1 has already voted in this discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Thanks. I thought I looked through the discussion to make sure I hadn't voted already. Must have missed it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has sat for 10 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of Wikipedias' verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all. 223.228.161.135 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP is now blocked due to sockpuppetry Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated by a sock, which is never a good sign, but discussion is far enough along now. I think the sources establish notability and there are other mentions we haven't uncovered yet as well such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/4408460. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 2 March 2021 (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.

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 redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshore Discovery School

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

Schools that are not secondary schools are very rarely notable. The sourcing here is not enough to show notability and my google search found no other sources that would indiccate an actual passing of notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be an unremarkable school; I searched but could not find any sources that would satisfy WP:SIRS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board, per WP:ATD. It's a unique enough name to retain as a search term. Beyond a listing, which already exists, there's not really anything to merge. 174.254.192.137 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board, per the IP. In the event that someone comes looking for it, at least they'll find some relevant item of information. BD2412 T 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greater Essex County District School Board. Fails the GNG in light of the absence of any secondary sources. (This is of course not terribly surprising: few elementary schools are notable.) Redirecting to the school district's article is the ordinary procedure, as redirects are cheap. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (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.

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 redirect to Ann Arbor, Michigan#Education. The "keep" opinions are weak, but the "delete" opinions do not oppose a redirection as a plausible alternative to deletion. Sandstein 12:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner School of Ann Arbor

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

Page has no reliable independent sources. The sources that exist are either to the school, to associations the school is a part of, or to websites advocating use of the school's techniques - nothing truly reliable and independent.

I tried and failed in trying to find significant coverage of the school online. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Waldorf education. 174.254.192.112 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Information about one school would probably be undue in that broader article, in my opinion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has a high school. Rmhermen (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools aren't inherently notable, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ann Arbor, Michigan#Education. The school fails the GNG: all references are either unrelated or not independent. Redirects are cheap, so we might as well redirect it to the town's article, which briefly mentions it. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up until about 2017 we held that any high school that we could actually verrify existed we would keep an article on. Then we wised up to realize how many high schools there really are, how many have 300 or fewer students tacked on in a K-12 situation, how many are in rural parts of Wyoming where they may have 10 or so students, in a good year, tacked into a school that is K-12, and the high school students are lucky if they ever get out of the same room as their classmates. Also that system was clearly presentists biased. We have since decided that high schools have to at least pass the threshold of having multiple in depth, independent secondary sources about them, although how much the articles have to be about the high school to count has not been fully decided, we have not quite gone to requiring the same level of coverage we require of any other organization, but just demonstating the place exists or existed is no longer in and of itself enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the previous comment appearing to lean towards deletion and a mixture of other views, consensus is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it's right on the edge of my standards for schools. If we could get more reliable sources about its team or alumni (plural, not just one), I'd go for a weak keep. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of unreliable sources by some authors doesn't make this school less notable. This is simply a reason for editors to improve the article with more reliable sources. This school is named for the founder of the global Waldorf School system. It has a unique pedagogy that sets it apart from more conventional schools.--23mason (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2021 (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.

Universities and colleges

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saintgits College of Engineering

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

I can't find any decent coverage outside of primary sources and routine database listings for this college; does not apparently meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The article was possibly created for promotional purposes. JaiMahadev (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:01, 27 February 2021 (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/2021 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need independent sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be built on original reearch, and that is what we have if we directly republish from an organization's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Socks shouldn't have standing to nominate articles for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BEFORE. A simple Google news search finds lots of possible sources, although I can't tell easily if they are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2021 (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.

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudeva Institute of Science And Technology

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

~~No decent coverage outside of primary sources~~ JaiMahadev (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC) User is a sockpuppet of Phoenix man. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 11:57, 27 February 2021 (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/2021 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. Plus no reason whatsoever given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an annotated internet guide. If we cannot produce even one independent source we need to not have an article. I will even take a quasi-indepdent source at this point, we need something other than the website of the institution. For example I will take the All India Council for Technical Education accrediting documents, even though those would be semi-primary. We need some source other than the institution's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the opinion of Johnpacklambert. Could not find any single source thats eve mentioning the name of the subject. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 13:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the issue with the nom, per WP:V and WP:NCORP. Google searches reveal zero newspaper and news articles about this supposed college. Either it's too new or it goes by another name, but I can't even verify its existence with good sources. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (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.

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. Obviously this is not the most notable subject in the encyclopedia, but after much-extended time for discussion, consensus is that it falls just above the scraping-the-barrel line. BD2412 T 05:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya

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

Completely unsourced article that doesn't meet WP:ORG, WP:SCHOOL. Google search didn't return a single independent source. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little coverage can be found online. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my understanding is that sources for degree-awarding colleges can usually be found. I'm not finding anything myself, but perhaps someone fluent in Hindu or Urdu would be able to find something. I'd frankly be quite surprised if there really was nothing online. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be surprised if there was nothing on line, but also note that sources do not need to be online, they just need to be reliable, secondary and independent. Having seen today multiple articles on vocational colleges in the US that lack any source beyond their own website, I am not as sure as I once was that sourcing on all tertiary institutions is easy to find. Although I did no searches just moved on after adding a founding date category to those pages, so for all I know it is really easy to find sources and the article creator was lazy. My current example of this is that Dallin H. Oaks lacks any sources on his bio for the first 2 years it existed, and it has never been hard to find sources on Oaks. I still think we need to use a broader array of sources on Oaks' time as BYU presdient, but it has always been possible to find sources on him. Well, at any time after 1970.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, as per-- User:Necrothesp There appears to be a disturbing trend that South Asian sites are nominated before any research has been done in Urdu, Tamil of Hindi, or in this case deletions are proposed quoting policys or essays that just don't apply. ClemRutter (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarding institute in India acceptable. Niceguylucky (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately the article creator has been in the habit of creating new articles, getting them past draft, then adding promotional content. I have just blocked him temporarily for spamming - he's had plenty of warnings. Maybe it would be a good idea to draftify. Deb (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep accredited school, although sources light, it meets guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" votes suggest sources do exist without clearly supporting that view. Relisting to determine if a clearer consensus and notability can be determined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it exists, but there's not much here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 13 March 2021 (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.

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Institute of Technology

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

No evidence of nobility. Completely unsourced and promotional article. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support 100% self-published sources Abcmaxx (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this meets WP:NSCHOOL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep a notable Engineering college which is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Niceguylucky (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of oldest and notable engineering college in Meerut affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Yashvash60 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify:Sources are not available and the present ones are self published hence definetly fails GNG. But the subject is a notable educational institute which lacks sources to establish notability. So moving to draft is recommended as interested users can work on the subject after finding suitable references of any kind. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 10:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, leaning towards delete. Yashvash60, could you provide evidence that this instituition is particularly old (especially since it claims to be founded in 2001) or notable, therefore making it wp:NSCHOOL? I tried but I can't find any evidence of that by myself. Necrothesp, I do see that it awards degrees, but from what I can tell, their degrees are mostly trade certifications/industry group certifications, ie [amazon web services]] certified user, etc. There are many instituitions that grant these degrees, and I don't believe that any of them are by themselves notable per wp:NSCHOOL. I would appreciate your thoughts. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Changed my !vote to delete - searching for the instituition by name doesn't even show any coverage in newspapers or review journals. I can't imagine how a tertiary institution that succeeds under GNG or NSCHOOl could possibly have 0 coverage in unconnected sources. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by what you mean. The article lists plenty of degrees up to PhD level! We have always kept degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, could you point out where it says that this institution grants research PhDs? From what I can tell, the closest thing they offer is a DPharm, which is certainly a professional degree, not a research degree. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school also offers a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy)... But in any case, professional degrees are as valid as general degrees. They are not simply "trade certifications/industry group certifications" as you allege above, but degrees! According to the article, it grants BTech, BPharm, MPharm, MCA, MBA and PhD. Every one of those is a recognised degree, not a trade certification. These (plus others) are confirmed by the college's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article makes such a claim, but the present website for the instituition has dropped that claim: [13]. At any rate, granting of degrees doesn't necessarily mean it will survive under GNG - pre wp:schooloutcomes, the most important thing that saves an instituition's notability is substantial secondary source coverage - which I simply haven't found evidence for. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are independent of the subject. Alexius08 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of colleges affiliated with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University: Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT (NSCHOOL). Sources are not independent of the subject. No SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes do not provide any sources or rationale based in guidelines. Being affiliated with a notable school does not make this subject notable. // Timothy :: talk 16:14, 5 March 2021 (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.

Other school or university articles

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 redirect to Berkeley Student Cooperative. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lothlorien Hall

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

While the co-operative of which it is a part is notable, this small dorm-like building (less than 60 students) is not notable by itself. Searches are difficult due to the Tolkien-themed name (don't know if that is why it was named such, but it is what makes searching difficult), but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Current sources include two primary sources, one blog, and one nice article. But the article is about the co-operative, not the house, although it is mentioned briefly in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPLACE. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree WP:NPLACE - "Bars, pubs, cafes, restaurants, and hotels tend not to survive AfD unless multiple independent sources have written about them in non-trivial detail." The notable particularities of this place have elicited multiple independent queries. The examples below are from culture anthropological and urban development fields:

- Cultural anthropology: "My three years at Lothlorien had convinced me without any doubt that I wanted to live in community for the rest of my life, and that my ideal community would look and feel a lot like Lothlorien. The house is an oasis in Berkeley's otherwise vast and impersonal student setting, where high turnover is endemic... Where many student co-ops struggle to create a lasting identity, Lothlorien succeeds, persisting as an entity unto itself, where the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts." Sterling, Ted. Foundation For Intentional Community; Rutledge Iss. 110, (Spring 2001): 41-44.
- Urban development: "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house... utility bills, while low, were not always at the per capita bottom among the 20 BSC co-ops. A look at Lothlorien offers some insights on the unique challenges that co-ops face in environmental performance... Presently Lothlorien uses 125 kWh of electricity per day, just over 2 kWh per person... Solar panels were installed on the roof of South House in 2010. Occupying 3/4 of the roof (the rest is used for solar hot water), these panels produce nearly all of the electricity needed during summer afternoon peak hours when rates are 300% higher than normal... it’s easy to romanticize its image as one of perfection. In actuality greater heights in co-opitecture can be achieved." Lothlorien & the limits of sustainability Note the multiple architectural and engineering diagrams.
Delete The Berkeley Student Cooperative is notable, this house is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Johnpacklambert: I disagree. Please note the two article I cite in response to Cupper52. One states that "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house. Elves, as residents of Lothlorien are called, are prominent at the forefront of the green movement" wile the other states that "Where many student co-ops struggle to create a lasting identity, Lothlorien succeeds, persisting as an entity unto itself, where the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts." Rybkovich (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If "Lothlorien Hall" is something someone could meaningfully look up on Wikipedia, then it is probably a decent search term that should lead to Berkeley Student Cooperative. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @MJL: There is a problem with the redirect option: the Berkeley Student Cooperative article is already overstuffed with individual info for different houses, its almost impossible to navigate. Rybkovich (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Rybkovich: Well, I didn't suggest we merge the two articles; just do a redirect. If an article needs to be split (like List of Berkeley Student Cooperative properties or something), then we can always do that later. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Context, this is important info to consider: Affordable housing is a rarity for large universities in big cities. A one bedroom apartment close to UC Berkeley is approximately $2k a month. Berkeley students are fortunate to have an affordable option - Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), the largest co-op system in the USA, where food and board are $7,500 per semester. The system can house approx 1,300 students, there is a waiting list to become a member. Getting info about the co-ops is essential. If you go to the BSC page you will see that it is almost impossible to navigate. Different houses have different reputation and character, there is interesting history and specific culture for several halls - BSC is not a just a collection of nearly identical dormitories. Unfortunately, info regarding the distinct halls makes the BSC page very confusing and requires a great effort to find what one is looking for. My project is to trim the huge BSC article and create individual pages for the standout halls that now have large subsections. There is additional relevant info about the particular houses which will make the BSC article even worse if inserted into individual subsections.

Info regarding the stand out houses is really important for the students: Consider two houses Cloyne Court Hotel and Casa Zimbabwe, both have their own character with important differences. For example: Cloyne is a sober house, no drugs or alcohol allowed. If we look at the stats we can see that there are a lot of people looking for this info. If you examine the stats for 2019 (2020 would not be a good example). Casa Zimbabwe had 3,463 views, Cloyne had 2,713.

Out of all the houses, Lothlorien stands out the most. Yet at the same time it is considered a representative of the whole BSC system. It very well fits the hippy stereotype that some still associate with this university and its students. Its a very close community, you can't have meat inside the house, there are gardens and tree houses, and to some extent the community has its own diction and vocabulary. Take a guess on which house was the origin of the nude run through Berkeley libraries at the end of each semester? ;) For the past several years it has been one of the focal points of political activity in the USA. All of the above is essential info for both students making housing decisions (a house full of revolutionaries making phone calls 24 hours a day may not be enticing) and important for those interested in whats going on Berkeley. The article you are looking at right now is the info taken out of a BSC subsection. I'm currently expanding it. There is a lot of historical info in newspaper archives that I'm going through and relevant architectural info (historically and environmentally) that I will be adding. The problem with working on it and expanding the info within the Berkeley Student Cooperative article is that it would be making it even more confusing, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. @Johnpacklambert:, @Cupper52:, @Shellwood:, I'm pinging you just in case. Rybkovich (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- That above demonstrates that BCS is notable, it in no way persuades me that this particular house is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnpacklambert, exactly, which is what I said in the nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree that "a very close community, you can't have meat inside the house, there are gardens and tree houses, and to some extent the community HAS ITS OWN DICTION AND VOCABULARY" is not notable info (in addition there are murals running a long the sides of the house that would be presented in a gallery). I can't think of any dorm buildings like that. Also have you considered it as solution to the very serious problem with the BSC article? Please consider the view stats, there is distinctive information that students are basing their decisions on, which is very hard to get to if its retained within the Berkeley Student Cooperative article. Approx 3,000 annual views for each house is not an irrelevant factor. Rybkovich (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re notability - "While having house members indirectly committed to a theme does not inevitably produce tension, intra-house dynamics are are highly variable semester to semester. For example, Lothlorien, the vegan/vegetarian-themed house, has also become known as a space of political activism. Lothlorien resident Iman Kazah said, “It took me a long time to learn a certain dialect in Loth,” a house where the culture encourages speaking in a specific rhetoric as to best engender inclusivity". I think that having a co-op house that is closer to being a commune than a dormitory is notable. Rybkovich (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re notability - "As the sole vegetarian house in the 1300 member Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC), Lothlorien became the de facto eco-theme house. Elves, as residents of Lothlorien are called, are prominent at the forefront of the green movement - just in my four years there, we passed a campus referendum to create $100,000 of funding a year for green initiatives at UC Berkeley, started a collective grocery store, and participated in tree sits." Rybkovich (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re notability - Lothlorien holds theater performances: Activism plays role in student-run production of Bertolt Brecht’s plays Rybkovich (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re notability - Some members consider Lothlorien to be haunted, Two female spirits haunt the co-op — both victims of domestic violence and fraught passion who died while living at Lothlorien years ago. Rybkovich (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re notability - "UC Berkeley has a longstanding tradition of nude activism, stemming in large part from a push for sexual liberation on campus that occurred around the same time as the Free Speech Movement... At UC Berkeley, the practice of streaking to relieve finals stress has been traced back to Lothlorien House, a UC Berkeley co-op." Given the sources above I doubt this is a surprise given the character of house.Rybkovich (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on arguments above, mainly that it could be legitimately covered in the Berkeley Student Cooperative article, but it is too much to merge into that overstuffed article. I disagree with suggestion that it could be deleted but "If an article needs to be split (like List of Berkeley Student Cooperative properties or something), then we can always do that later." No, that would make the material inaccessible and would tend to violate Wikipedia's basic operating agreement with editors, that their work should be attributed. It would be okay by me for that list-article to be created, and this article redirected to a section about this place. Properly the merger edit should indicate credit owed to original authors of the article being merged. And the edit history would survive at what becomes a redirect. --Doncram (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I didn't comment suggesting deletion; I commented in favour of a redirect. You seem to be misunderstanding my statement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are not RS, we defer to RS. Even if every single wikipedia contributor held the personal opinion this dorm wasn't notable, it appears some genuine reporters and editors disagreed, and covered it in the kind of detail required to measure up to GNG. When a topic measures up to GNG wikipedia contributor's personal opinions take a far second place. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, I would agree, if that were the case. However, which of the independent sources actually cover the dorm (not the co-operative) in-depth? The 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 11th are not independent sources; the 3rd is a blog, and not reliable; the 5th is about the co-op and only offers a brief mention of the dorm; the 7th and 8th are a mere mentions; the 9th and 10th don't even mention the dorm. And I don't even know what the 1st one is, I can't find any clue about Communities as a publication, or the author Ted Sterling. So, out of the 11 current sources, there is not a single one which is in-depth from an independent, reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - onel5969 I'd be very interested in why you don't consider Lothlorien to be independent from The Daily Californian. There was a large student run cooperative housing corporation at two of the University's I attended. They were fiercely independent of the University administration, given that they raised the mortgages, and ran million dollar operations, independent of the University. The Daily Californian, its a student run paper? I didn't realize that, at first. All the student run newspapers I have ever come across, also fiercely independent. Since the newspaper and the coop housing federation are independent from the University aren't they independent from one another? Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Geo Swan, Because student newspapers are funded by the university. The co-operative is funded by the university. No matter how loudly the claims of "fiercely independent" they decry, they are inexorably linked, and hence cannot be considered independent. In addition, all you have to do is look at the content of student run newspapers, and the vast majority of that content is university related. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Funded by the University? Are you sure? Up here College and University newspapers are paid for by student fees. Yes, the student federation has an agreement for the University to collect the fees, they then hand them over to the independent student federation.
      - There may be Universities in the United States where the administration controls the student newspaper. But Berkeley? Berkeley is well-known as one of the most radical campuses in the United States.
      - The Berkeley Student Cooperative article contains zero hints it is run by the University. bsc.coop also contains zero hints it is run by the University. All the houses are off campus - same as the coop housing at the Universities I attended. Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The first sentence of the main page of The Daily Californian https://www.dailycal.org/ says: "We're an independent, student-run newsroom."

onel5969, I have an essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/On apologies. I am not looking for an apology from you for insisting that The Daily Californian was not an independent organization. I do expect a clear acknowledgement that this claim was incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, entities can make any claim they wish to. The fact is they are funded by the school. What don't you understand about that? If they are funded by the school, they cannot, by definition, be independent. TCM magazine can claim they are independent of TCM, doesn't make the claim true. The paper receives a portion of it's funds from student fees through the university ($2.50 per student). In doing so, they can claim independence from the administration, but not from the university. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? I asked you to substantiate YOUR claim, and your proof is to just repeat yourself?
- The Daily Californian: 40 years of independence
- The Daily Californian is an independent, student-run newspaper published by the Independent Berkeley Students Publishing Company, Inc...
- I urge you to do the responsible thing, and acknowledge that one of the basic premises of your nomination was incorrect.
- I also urge you to acknowledge that you were mistaken when you thought that the independent coop housing corporation was answerable to the University administration. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) @Onel5969:[reply]

- By that logic, PBS and BBC are not independent since they receive funding from their respective governments. Where the money comes from is irrelevant, what matters is editorial control. I'm undecided on notability, but I'm not buying the argument that the paper isn't independent. Smartyllama (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969, WRT Communities, you can purchase that issue from Amazon, for $3.75 USD.

Do you put any stock in the advice of WP:ATA? It has advice at WP:PAPERONLY that says "If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy." Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for providing the link to Communities, which has no editorial oversight, and exists only as a promotional tool. So yes, I do put stock in non-online resources, and this one is not reliable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. How does it not have editorial oversight? 2. Why would you think it's a "promotional tool"? 3. Lack of independent review does not classify it as unreliable. Rybkovich (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I too would be very interested in an explanations as to why you concluded there was no editorial oversight, and why you concluded it existed only as a promotional tool. Geo Swan (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Geo Swan, because the site which publishes it says that it exists for promotional purposes of its members. And in response to the comment down below, no matter how professional a blog is, it's still a blog. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Onel5969: Really? Please substantiate this claim with a link. Please quote the passages you think substantiate your claim. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

onel5969 Independent source 1. It's a Magical Life by Ted Sterling 2. While it is a blog and there is a rule. The rule is not set in stone. I looked up the author on linked-in - he majored in architecture, and received an MBA in Sustainable Business, both degrees directly relate to the content of the post. He received his MBA in 2010 while the post was made in 2011. We can see that the post was done professionally - diagrams and reference, as well as how the relevant study was conducted. Also you can see that the blog was run for almost four years, and has multiple posts re the same topic, all done in the same high quality, professional manner. I know that these facts will not convince everyone that the author is a "subject matter expert", but its pretty clear that others will find the source reliable even if he is not SME. Re four directly related articles by DailyCal - Berkeley Student Cooperative is independent of the university, about half of its members are students but not at UC Berkeley. FYI while co-ops do technically fit the definition of a dormitory, they are not usually referred to as such. Per wiki article prisons also fit the definition of a dormitory :) Rybkovich (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the link to the article didn't work through my firefox, but it did through chrome. Also #2. The article is not complete in the link, but my friend is a librarian and sent me the complete article, if you want to read it I can send it to your email. Rybkovich (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Right now, it's filled with footnotes and tangents on lore and urban legends. Please fix this if you want to rescue this mess, and ping me when you're done. I would settle for a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I like your "footnotes and tangents lore and urban legends" rhyme, but we are not in a warehouse rap battle so no need for the attitude. You can keep up with the discussion by starring it. I see one "urban legend", which is listed as such so no need to pluralize. Tangents on lore are required because lore is what makes this house stand out. That is why its always one of the 30+ Berekeley Students Cooperatives houses mentioned in articles about the system. I believe and others will agree that the WP:GNG is met. I see that you're a lawyer, me too. So lets just keep to supporting our propositions as we continue the discussion. Rybkovich (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian's invocation of wp:TNT as reason to delete is an admission that the topic is Wikipedia-notable plus a call to ignore Wikipedia's requirements for giving credit in edit history to editors. It should not be deleted only to be re-created. Please see wp:TNTTNT (to which I contributed) for expansion on these arguments. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I don't know what you're on about. If I write an article from scratch about topic A, and you write an article from scratch about Topic A; then that doesn't mean you have to credit me since none of my material was used. Not saying I agree with the delete and redirect approach nor the TNT approach here, but it is widely accepted valid outcome in general. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, I see that the wp:TNTTNT essay had been modified, and had lost its upfront statement that arguing "TNT" is plainly "acknowledging the validity of the page's topic", and more, which I have just restored. Consensus of a good many editors about that essay, e.g. when it itself was nominated for deletion, is that indeed it is not right or good for us to delete one version of an article, only to replace it with your own, or to leave a hole where it is agreed that an article topic is valid. The bad practice, in cases when an original article was created and developed in good faith (as opposed to copyvios, say) should not be accepted. Discuss further at Wikipedia talk:TNTTNT. --Doncram (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Looks very promotional, CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY due to extensive editing by Rybkovich. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:HEY, article is well improved now. Cuoxo (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant coverage in independent sources. I'm not convinced that Communities is an independent source, and much of the rest of the article's sourcing fails WP:ORGIND.----Pontificalibus 09:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"much of the rest of the article's sourcing fails" thats a strong claim. How does it fail? Rybkovich (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's either not independent, or it doesn't contain significant coverage, or otherwise doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. For example the most cited sources are [14] and [15], which are self-published. Strip out the non-independent sources and there are only passing mentions.----Pontificalibus 14:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: Communities Magazine is an independent source, and both it and the specific article are available at universities' research journal collections see. Re "passing mentions", you can find articles specifically about lothlorien - here, here, and here. Berkeley Student Cooperative is non profit corporation independent of University of California, Berkeley. The Daily Californian is a non-profit California corporation independent of University of California, Berkeley. Given the above I don't see how the article fails any one of the WP:ORGCRIT primary criteria. Rybkovich (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT states that a dependent source is "any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly" - a student newspaper serving one university is obviously closely associated with that university and its students, including any associated student accommodation buildings and organizations such as student cooperatives. It can be used as a source but not to establish the notability of an organization.

However, even if we're generous and agree that the UC Berkeley's Student newspaper is not even indirectly associated with UC Berkeley students and their accommodation we still don't find enough sources with sufficient in-depth independent coverage to satisfy WP:ORG:

Sterling, Ted (Spring 2001). "It's a magical life". Communities. 110: 41–44 – via ProQuest. Not independent - akin to a promotional trade publication
"Lothlorien | Berkeley Student Cooperative". www.bsc.coop. Archived from the original on 2020-11-26. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not independent - this is the owner of the building
"The Daily Californian - Vegan, Vegetarian Students Find Berkeley Welcoming". 2006-02-23. Archived from the original on 2006-02-23. Retrieved 2021-01-26.One sentence, trivial fails WP:ORGDEPTH
"The Daily Californian - Increase in Food Costs Forces Co-Ops to Cut Meal Spending". archive.dailycal.org. Retrieved 2021-01-27.One sentence, trivial fails WP:ORGDEPTH
Staff, Sophia Weltman | (2014-03-03). "Activism plays role in student-run production of Bertolt Brecht's plays". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Trival, two mentions merely as a location
Kurata, Elizabeth; Smith, Conner (2016-04-29). "Demystifying the co-ops". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Fails WP:ORGIND - article states "it is also important to note that the writers are both BSC members"
"Lothlorien House - History of the Houses". 2007-10-06. Archived from the original on 2007-10-06. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not a reliable source
Ginsburg, Marsha (1995-02-10). "Killer of Berkeley student "Bibi" Lee to be paroled". SFGATE. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Trivial mention
"People v. Page (1991)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2021-01-26.Primary source where mentioned in passing - cannot confer notability
"A real haunted house: the spirits of Lothlorien | The Daily Californian". 2016-08-14. Archived from the original on 2016-08-14. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Indirectly associated student paper fails WP:ORGIND
Staff, Michelle Pitcher | (2015-12-07). "The naked truth about the Naked Run". The Daily Californian. Retrieved 2021-01-24.Trivial mention
"Low-income students question whether UC Berkeley co-ops are living up to mission - SFChronicle.com". 2020-10-29. Archived from the original on 2020-10-29. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Trivial mention
"Drummond: UC Berkeley students feel the Bern". East Bay Times. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
Staff, Sareen Habeshian | (2016-10-31). "Campus students join protest efforts in North Dakota over proposed pipeline". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on 2019-04-06. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
Alfred (2011-09-05). "It's a Co-op: Lothlorien & the limits of sustainability". It's a Co-op. Archived from the original on 2020-12-01. Retrieved 2021-01-21.Not mentioned
Jones, Carolyn (2007-12-02). "One year into protest, UC Berkeley's tree-sitters firmly planted". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-06-28. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Trivial mention
"Four Remaining Tree-Sitters Leave UC Berkeley Oak Grove". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on 2016-01-21. Retrieved 2021-01-23.Not mentioned
"Solar Photovoltaic - Sustainability". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2021-01-27.Trivial mention- also not a reliable source

Currently the sourcing falls short of what is required to establish notability.----Pontificalibus 19:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are sources in the article which would not independently establish notability. Thank you for listing them.

Re Community, yes its about communities like lothlorien, and yes it targets a specific group of readers and organizations, but that dose not make it solely a "promotional trade publication". Research libraries have them part of their catalogues, the journal would not be there if it was a "promotional trade publication".

Re "absolutely closely associated". Because Daily Cal and Lothlorien are made of students in the same geographic location? Under your definition small town newspapers would not be able to establish notability.

Per WP:IS "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Can you please leave a list of the vested interests Daily Cal has in publishing articles about Lothlorien. Rybkovich (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, even if you think that the Berkeley student newspaper writing about Berkeley student accommodation is acceptable in establishing notability, these sources additionally fail to meet the other requirements necessary to establish notability. The only Daily Californian article which isn't either a mere passing mention or has an explicitly declared conflict of interest is the one about ghosts. Aside from that the only in-depth article not published by the cooperative themselves is the Communities article. Even if you thought that wasn't promotional, these two sources alone are still insufficient to satisfy WP:AUD - there are no regional or non-specialist sources.--Pontificalibus 08:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the political theater article, which is centered on one of the main themes of the community which is the combination of art and politics.Rybkovich (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re WP:AUD, Community is considered academic as it is held at higher education libraries all over US, the requirement that it can't be "media of limited interest" does not exclude journals on specific academic and/or cultural topics. Rybkovich (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found a detailed description, it is not academic but what makes sense is that academic research libraries have them as a cultural anthropology source for communal living cultures. It is not a promotional trade publication. From the description:

We see Communities: Life in Cooperative Culture as a guidebook for that changing world—one that will help us find ways to live together more effectively in a new age in which we cannot ignore or escape the feedback loops, the effects of our actions and choices on the planet and on one another. If any doubt remained that we are living in an age of koyaanisqatsi (“unbalanced life” in Hopi), this past year of pandemic, racial disparity laid bare, climate chaos, threats to democratic institutions, and much more has eliminated illusions about that. And at the same time, if those of us involved in intentional community and other manifestations of cooperative culture ever doubted that our choices held value and long-term relevance and applicability for our larger world, 2020 has also eliminated our questions about that. Sharing the examples, lessons, stories, visions, practical guidance, and insights emerging from experiments in creating cooperative, regenerative culture in a world that sorely needs it has never seemed more important or urgent than it is today. Rybkovich (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a very niche limited audience per WP:AUD: "...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (my bold). No such source is apparent, therefore this fails WP:ORG.----Pontificalibus 14:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the student cooperative article. Being vegan is neither here nor there and this largely seems like a puff-piece. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Is your opinion that its a puffer piece because it describes one of the social rules of the house? Rybkovich (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A traditional fraternity or sorority or college dorm or college-associated house being vegan is a pretty dramatic fact worth noting. Maybe Oaktree b considers it to be a trivial fact, but from my experience it is quite a big deal and conveys a lot about the social nature, the composition of any such place. Hmm, actually the place is not vegan; the article states "Many residents of Lothlorien are vegetarians and vegans, but ...", which is likewise informative in a big way. I !voted "Keep" above, and i think this is ready to be closed "Keep", too. --Doncram (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Berkeley Student Cooperative, fringe coverage and notability is weak, as suggested by page views in the last 90 days. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: The last 90 days is not a good indicator, the page was taken off redirect less than a month ago. Describing a page that someone's put a lot of work into as "fringe" or "weak" that's not nice :( A great editor from the UK once said "If you are uncivil you might want to take a break because honestly? It's not worth it, there is so much more going on in life." Rybkovich (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rybkovich: I was describing the subject not the article as fringe. It is of limited appeal to the a wide audience. When I look at deletion discussions I ask myself two questions "1. is the content notable and reliably sourced?, 2. Where would someone feasibly best access the information best?". If you cannot accept feedback on your work then community-based mediums like Wikipedia might not the best place for you because no article, no matter how much someone has worked on it, no article belongs to any editor. It is not personal - you shouldn't see the decision/or others wanting to redirect an article as a personal attack on either you, your personality, your abilities or your determination/hard work. We can see from the discussion that you are passionate about the topic/subject and your work but the loudest voice doesn't necessarily win. This is a discussion and it won't be solved by repeatedly making the same point. Also just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you shouldn't assume good faith. My contribution to this discussion has no malice and does not from a procedural or ethical point of view have anything negative towards you as a person, editor, or your work. It is simply my view that the topic is not noteworthy for a standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist might be useful, as this is very much in No Consensus territory at the moment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Berkeley Student Cooperative. I accept that The Daily Californian is independent from the University of California, Berkeley financially and editorially, but it is not independent for purposes of conveying notability. As a student newspaper at a university, the Daily Cal can be expected to cover aspects of student life at the university which would not necessarily be of note to persons not affiliated with the university, and thus doesn't convey notability to student-related things at the university. I've been espousing this position on Wikipedia for many years. Most of the non-Daily Cal sources cited are incidental or unreliable. And while there's no doubt that students at Berkeley may be looking for information about housing where they may want to live on or near the campus, I would expect the Berkeley Student Cooperative, and other entities which are more- or less-connected with the university, to publish web sites about the various housing options that are available. It's not the task of an encyclopedia to serve as a housing guide. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: I agree to disagree. Being a housing option is one of the reasons that the article can be used for, but not sole or central. Lothlorian stands out among other cooperative living communities. It has unusual and permanent cultural characteristics that persist even though it's group of residents is constantly changing. If you search ProQuest (its publisher) journal database for Communities Magazine 6 different articles come up. One of them is solely about the house and its culture. Communities Magazine should be considered as a respected source in the field as academic research libraries carry it. Rybkovich (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Berkeley Student Cooperative. After reading over the discussion the only thing I can determine is that The Daily Californian is the only possibly usable source. I don't think it works on it's own though. As notability requires multiple sources, that also have to be regional or national. Not in the same location of the subject. Plus, it's independence is questionable. Although, maybe that could be disregarded, but the fact that it's local and only a single source can't be. Come up with one (really it should be two) good national or even regional, but preferably national, source (more like sources) that is independent and in-depth, and I'd be more then willing to change my vote. In the meantime though, there's zero wrong with redirecting this as an alternative to deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge to Berkeley Student Cooperative as suggested. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the suggested target. The sourcing just isn't quite there for the reasons discussed above, mostly by Metropolitan90, which I agree with, so I can't support keeping this. SportingFlyer T·C 02:23, 1 March 2021 (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.

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.

Muhammadiyah University of Makassar (via WP:PROD on 26 December 2020)