Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razum International 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 delete. ✗ plicit  03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Razum International School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This commercial primary school with 50 students fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTADVERT. The references are blatant advertisements, as is our article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. tedder (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Razum International School added 2 more non-commercial and non-advertisement sources, please kindly see the References. We advocate to *Keep User: Hellorazumschool 12:43, 14 October 2021 (SGT)
 * — has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * both sources added were blogs. Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Google search turns up only school and company listings, fails WP:NORG. R22-3877 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the author gamed WP:ACPERM to create the article - it reeks of UPE. Cabayi (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is clearly an advert article edited by COI users and was created through gaming the system. So it should be deleted on those things alone. Even if that wasn't the case though most (or all) of the references in the article are questionable at best, and at worst completely inadequate. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 15 October 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.