Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fountainhead School


 * 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Fountainhead School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possibly copyvio and advertising. I notice it's already been deleted G11 and G12, and I'm not sure if there's much here worth saving. Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Earwig suspects copyvio. Adam9007 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising: Dynamic graduates! Exciting! Will be the largest! Started from humble beginnings (which is kind of the definition of beginnings)! A school that started in 2008 and thus will matriculate its first full class in a year. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -I have removed almost all the details which could identify this as an advert. It was further cleaned by Necrothesp Talk to remove all the issues with the article.  Sikandar Talk


 * Delete as promotional shite - Even a rewrite won't save this monstrosity of an article!, Non notable school. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well I've been proven wrong it has been rewritten/removed- As much as I find it utterly pointless to keep this unfortunately per SCHOOLOUTCOMES as well as the consensus here consensus is usually to keep so I'll have to go with just that. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now rewritten to remove promotional rubbish. See how easy that is? Try it next time instead of nominating for deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a secondary school. It's a K-12. Secondly, there were difficulties of verification. I assume you solved all of those. Third, there were troubles establishing any notability, and arguing that it gets a pass because it falls under the high school exemption is at least a stretching of the standards, especially when it's not clear that this is yet a school that has matriculated a class. Fourth, there were copyright violation concerns. Wagging a finger is rarely going to help anyone you're pointing at, and it's probably not even accurate. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way on earth is a K-12 school not a secondary school? Or are you just being pointlessly pedantic, as it's not just a secondary school? Or do you genuinely believe that it doesn't count as a secondary school because it also educates younger children? How daft would that be? I am sick and tired of editors nominating viable articles for deletion rather than trying to correct them. It's supremely lazy and it in no way benefits Wikipedia. We always keep articles on verified secondary schools (it took me thirty seconds to verify via reliable sources that this school exists and is a genuine secondary school) and claiming it's not a secondary school as the first class has not yet graduated is laughable (in any case, we usually keep any school that educates up to 16, as they too are secondary schools - this is the normal school-leaving age in many countries and this is not Americanopedia - so your claim doesn't even apply to this school). It is tiresome having to explain this every other day to those who would rather delete articles than expand Wikipedia. As to copyright violations, once again, just delete the rubbish and create a stub as I did. Not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, shouting is much better than finger wagging. A secondary school is "primary education." K-7 or K-8 is primary school. When one runs across a K-12 combined, it's usually private, as this one is, and that means that there is frequently money being made. Is this one a for-profit? The article's writing means something to some of us: it was written with copyright violations and spamming, and now the author who did that gets honored and preserved, along with the links. In fact, the author of the spammy version can send out e-mail links to the historical version. I trust you'll be watchlisting this school to keep it clean. In sum: You believe it's much better to keep the "valuable" article that you wrote, and if we have to preserve the spammy version with the violations of the law in the history, well, that's a small price to pay to maintain the sanctity of schools and to teach the "lazy" people a lesson? You didn't see a bad writer, bad intent, and bad effects: you saw a SCHOOL and bad people listing it for deletion? I saw a person violating Wikipedia's guidelines, aims, and founding philosophy, but probably I just have a thing about schools. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the assumption that this article will be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I've requested revision deletion of the copyright-infringing revisions under criterion RD1. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've lost me. What on earth does "A secondary school is 'primary education'" mean? Seems to be a completely contradictory statement. So what if it's private? Completely irrelevant. As to the rest, I apologise if you think you and only you have got the project's best interests at heart, but I think if you check my edit history you'll find that maybe I have too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but per RexxS, if possible revdel the copyvio history as described in Revision_deletion. Ghostwheel ʘ 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: But revdel. Adequate notability for schools. Admittedly, it's a low bar.  But once I weeded out all the mirrors, pr pieces, and other places with a similar name, I got third party things like, , ,  which I consider to be adequate.   Montanabw (talk)  00:03, 10 June 2015 (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.