Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Florence International Boarding School (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

New Florence International Boarding School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article about non notable school. ~SS49~  {talk}  09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  ~SS49~   {talk}  09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. No secondary sources, no inline citations, no attempt to demonstrate notability, promotional content. I can see that the previous AfD was Keep as per High school notability guidelines, merely as a precaution, rather than an establishment of notability. I don't think those rationales necessarily apply anymore. I would also note that the "boarding" in the name of the school is used indiscriminately in Nepal for "English medium private". Even very big private schools rarely have boarding, if ever. I couldn't find reliable sources to establish notability in my search. So, Delete. Usedtobecool  ✉️ ✨ 10:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced and promotional. No proof of notability. fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG The Banner  talk 07:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The agreement around schools with blanket notability set at a particular level was a way to end a massive brouhaha that was exceedingly disruptive. Personally, I hold that the PNC gets us there as notable schools get to be well-documented by their very natures. The problem here is, like several similar articles created in 2011–2012 (e.g. V.S. Niketan Higher Secondary School and Galaxy Public School) the article creators/principal writers only gave us hyperlinkage to now years-dormant Facebook accounts and each school's own WWW site, of which the ones for VSN and NFI are now defunct.  Would that those people had pointed to properly recorded and trustworthy documentation, not ephemeral autobiographical WWW sites and defunct Facebook accounts!  But then  was "writing" by copying the school's own, now inaccessible, advertising blurb.  Compare it with  that is still around.  It is no wonder that these articles look promotional.  the same happened for this subject.  However, I am unable to even find this school on edusanjal.  I cannot find sources for a good stub, and the copy-and-paste-advertisements people have been singularly unhelpful in pointing to any. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a keep argument is already in 2017 crushed by a RFC.  The Banner  talk 17:31, 7 July 2019 (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.