Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DAV Sasaram


 * 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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DAV Sasaram

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm going to regret not speedy-ing this, because this is just about the spammiest school article I've ever seen. My rationale is: 1. I have no clue about advertising culture in India 2. I would really like input from WP:INDIA, and 3. the article has been here since Feb 20; a few more days won't make a big difference. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 05:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy G11 I think your instincts are right on the money. This would require a complete rewrite (and deletion of some of those images) to become encyclopedic. Ray  Talk 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep following DGG. Can I feel snow? Ray  Talk 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is written exactly as an advertisement, with sections like "About Ourselves" and words like outstanding and excellent being passed off as encyclopedic information. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete – Wikipedia is not your own web host. MuZemike 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Spam is usually easy to remove. I did so, leaving in only the elements customary in school articles--I even kept in  one part  that one I do really think suitable but that that most similar school articles include  the details of the uniform.   I   removed most of the photos.  I don;t necessarily think anything is wrong with illustrating a school article with portraits of the assembled staffs, but if anyone disagrees, go to it. DGG (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; following good work by DGG this is no longer an advertisement. What is left is a reasonably factual page on a high school that now requires sourcing and expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to keep per DGG's personal initiative on improving it. MuZemike 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to keep per DGG's improvements. Though I originally marked for speedy, the article has been salvaged. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.Nrswanson (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.