Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakland Colegio Campestre


 * 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 redirect to List of schools in Bogotá. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Oakland Colegio Campestre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A BEFORE indicates no evidence of notability in English or Spanish for this private school. Star  Mississippi  18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  18:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Private schools have to pass WP:NORG. Which this one clearly doesn't. Since there isn't even the WP:MILL trivial coverage out there that usually exists for a lot of schools. Let alone anything that would pass the notability standards put forth in WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of schools in Bogotá. The article needn't meet WP:NORG: as WP:NSCHOOL makes clear, meeting the GNG is just fine. In this case, however, that's a distinction without a difference since there are zero reliable sources at all. My searches aren't finding anything either, so I'll conclude it isn't notable. But redirecting the page to the list of schools in Bogotá, where it's already mentioned, seems to be a reasonable alternative to deletion, if only per WP:CHEAP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Really what it is says that they need to pass GNG, NORG, or both. I'm sick of being called out by people who rather leave out the last two options like they aren't in there just because I acknowlege that they are. Especially in cases like this where it doesn't even matter. So maybe give it a rest next time. If you think the guideline is off repeatedly bringing it up here isn't going to do squad and I'm still going to cite it no matter how many times I'm called out for it. That aside, I'm fine with a redirct as an ATD. Adamant1 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:48, 3 July 2021 (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.