From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. –  Joe ( talk) 07:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Al-Kamal Boys High School

Al-Kamal Boys High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because it is private, so it has to pass WP:GNG. No significant coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate ( chatter) 18:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete actually the "general" notability guidelines are the key to verifiability. If something cannot pass the GNG, it is unclear that it is verifiable, and so no reason to to keep it. I would hold the same views on the article on this school if it was a public institution. It is an article with no sources, it is high time we make it so articles cannot be created without sources and we delete all the articles lacking sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Appears to be the same school as this one. If so, redirect. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply
  • If we had reliable sources, then we could work out what the article should be called, too! Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (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.