This article was about the only convent school and one of the first schools in the whole town called Noida and have been deleted (I think in prejudice) without properly looking into the article, especially its notability. There were many links outside of the schools own website used as reference. Its possible that many of the links would have become dead or archived, but it should not result in the deletion of the article as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 06:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment)Comment:Suggesting that the article may have been deleted in prejudice implies that the deleting administrator was acting in consideration of his own personal interests instead of the interests of Wikipedia. Is that the argument you really want to make here? Have you already tried to discuss your concerns over the article's deletion with the deleting administrator? Although such a thing isn't required, it's generally considered courteous to do so, often leads to clarification and even a quicker resolution in some cases. Anyway, you're correct that Wikipedia notability is not temporary, but it's also just as correct that Wikipedia notability requires verifiable evidence. Are you suggesting that new sources can be found to establish the Wikipedia notability of the school, or that the sources cited in the article at the time of deletion were already sufficient for that purpose. In the case of the former, perhaps you can clarify what these sources might be for the consideration of the deleting administrator and anyone else participating in this discussion. If, however, you're arguing the latter, then those sources were assessed by those participating in the AFD for the school and the consensus reached was that they weren't sufficient. Based on what was discussed in the AFD, the close doesn't appear to have been improper in any way, and a different administrator most likely would've closed the discussion in exactly the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strikeout sentence about article being deleted in prejudice since the OP has clarified what they meant in a subsequent post. -- 21:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)][reply]
They've already clarified what they meant below and that's good enough for me to strike that bit from my post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dismiss with prejudice is a legal term which means to dismiss an action with a prejudgment against filing it again. Deleting an article with prejudice means salting it, so that it cannot be recreated. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it necessarily implies the deleting administrator was biased as the project struggles with topics from certain geographical regions, including the topic of schools (though you are correct that it does assume bad faith on someone's part.) However the discussion with the closing admin would have been helpful here - it was a pretty easy close for someone since it was unanimous, but also a light discussion and on a topic where outcomes can sometimes be a struggle. I can't see the article but if there are salvageable sources, I'd be fine restoring to draft, and if not I'd be fine with a re-creation, assuming there are sources available. SportingFlyerT·C 08:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply that the deleting administrator had something personal against the article. Sorry if it comes out like this. I was just trying to say that a little more deliberation could have been done especially regarding notability. Also that the sources cited in the article at the time of deletion were already sufficient for notability in my opinion. Moreover more references would come out subsequently in time, perhaps from notable sources also. If the consensus is still resulting in deletion, I think there should be atleast some proper way to retrieve the contents of the article so that it can be improved for future ~~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 11:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those in the discussion saw the sources and concluded differently, why should DRV substitute your opinion that they were already sufficient? Likewise how long does a discussion need to last before you determine enough deliberation has been had, we can't leave discussions open forever. On the point of future sources appearing, that's not a reasonable way of doing it, on that basis we should create articles on just about everything on the basis that in the future there might be sources. Do you have additional sources (of suitable quality i.e. independant, non-trivial etc.) that weren't available at the time of the discussion? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those in discussion did conclude differently, I agree, but to be frank, I feel the Notability criteria can be a little subjective. I mean, since its almost impossible to clearly and objectively define notability criteria for each type of article topic, its the reviewer's own subjective interpretation of the Notability guidelines which finally defines the outcome. So I think a little more time could have been given to the deliberation so that all editors of the article would have a chance to give their opinions & options (clearly one week is not enough I guess). On the point of future sources appearing, WP:NTEMP suggests that an article maybe recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article. Since most of the references about this article would be in Hindi sources (there were already a few third party reliable Hindi news sources as references in the article), and searching in Hindi is not as easy as searching in English, I am hopeful of many new sources coming up in future. If it still does not merit a standalone article, WP:GNG suggest that it can be a sub section of another article. But for that we need the content of the article and instead of AfD, the article should have been requested for merge or something similar. In general, I would also say that, any article that is being deleted should have some way of retrieval of contents, atleast to the article creator, so that it can be improved. So I request Allow Recreation of Draft atleast~~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How much time would you have considered it appropriate for the discussion to run? You were notified of the AFD on your user talk page on October 27, 2021, but you never commeneted in the AFD at all. Delsort notifications were added for three WikiProjects and it still only received a couple of !votes. The discussion was closed a week later which seems short, but there was no indication of any more time being needed. Even if the close had been relisted another week for further discussion, it doesn't appear that the outcome would've changed. Should the close had been postponed until you commented in it or until a certain number of users commented in it? According to your contribution's history, you didn't make any edits between September 2, 2021 and March 9, 2022. After you resumed editing on March 9, you didn't edit again until a month later on April 12 when you opened this DR. That's fine because we all get busy or we all decide to spend our time in other ways, but I don't we can expect Wikipedia to wait to do what it feels it needs to do until the timing is better for us. In addition, Wikipedia isn't going to wait on deleting an article just on the hope that more sources might possibly show up in the future; they either exist now or they don't, and if they don't then it's most likely WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article created. Furthermore, since nobody requested that the article be merge or something similiar, there was no reason for the closing administrator to consider such a thing. If, however, you feel that content about the school can probably be added to another article, then you're free to do so. You don't need the article to be recreated as a draft to do that; just find reliable sources that discuss the school and incorporate content that reflects those sources into the other article. Then, if the school does start receiving more singificant coverage in reliable sources (like you hope will happen) to justify a stand-alone article, the content about the school could probably be split of into its own article. There are five reasons listed in WP:CLOSE#Challenging a deletion for which a close might be challenged. The only one of the five that might possibly be applicable in this case is (in my opinion) #3. So, if you're able to provide significant information which wasn't considered at the AfD, then please do so. However, you can't just say that such information might maybe someday exist, you have actually show that it already exists. Even if this new information is in Hindi, you can still point it out so that it can be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not very active during the deletion discussion due to real life matters and have been away from wikipedia for a long time. However I agree with what you say as a way forward. As far as I can get, These are some of the resources I could find [1], [2], [3], [4] ~~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 07:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the only opinions were to delete and no one had commented in a few days, I don't see what deliberation was going on that extending time would have changed anything. As you note such decisions are never "forever" views, so holding on just in case someone comes up with some decisive alternate view point, wouldn't really achieve much. To one degree or another notability is subjective, and that sometimes helps with a bit of flexibility in the greyer areas, if we did somehow decided on a set of comprehensive, bright line, un-gameable set of criteria, someone would always be unhappy that the line is where it's drawn and not an inch different one way or the other. The point about future finding of course is purely that keeping everything in the vague hope that sources may be found in future is not a sensible way to proceed from my point of view. I have no real opinion on if draft of this is sensible or not, though I personally wouldn't bother unless I was actively seeking out sourcing etc. S--81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Temp undelete A lot of ink here when we could just ask for an undeletion to see if the participants missed on this one. SportingFlyerT·C 13:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the correct closure of the discussion. If the appellant is relitigating the AFD, that isn't what DRV is for. If the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted to keep the article, without even having read this filing, then that is silly, but that probably is not what the appellant is saying. If the appellant wants to submit a new draft with new sources,
Endorse. Properly deleted. AfD is not limited WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If you want to try to improve a deleted article, go to WP:REFUND and ask for refund to draftspace. Read advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you advised, I have asked for refund of the page in draftspace, as I dont think I could successfully be able to convince people for the undeletion of the article. I think we can close this discussion now. I request the admins to do the needful. ~~ ScitDeiWanna talk? 04:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to wait for this DRV discussion to close SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.