Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stichtse Vrije 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. there appear to be plenty of sources around has never been sufficient when sources haven't been checked to indicate they meet GNG. No one has substantively refuted the nominee's assertion that they don't. Star   Mississippi  14:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Stichtse Vrije School
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. I see listings, statistics and social media but nothing in-depth. Unsourced, but kept in 2014 The Banner  talk 13:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools,  and Netherlands. AHatd (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, it was kept in 2014 largely due to a policy which then existed that worked on the basis of all secondary schools being notable. This ceased to be a policy several years ago and despite the article on NL wikipedia being significantly more developed, I am not actually seeing any sources on it. Due to any sourcing likely being non-English, I couldn't really say if it's notable or not. I'd probably lean delete as things stand. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can read the Dutch sources, but that adds nothing to what I wrote in the nomination. The Banner  talk 15:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Banner: Fair enough, I hadn't noted you are a native dutchman! Alas, you'd be in a fairly good position to identify them better than say myself (although do you have access to historic dutch newspapers too?). My point is that it may be harder for participants of enwiki to do an appropriate WP:BEFORE search, but even with that said, I would still lean in favour of delete. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. There appear to be plenty of sources around, enough to meet WP:GNG. And as long as sources exist that's sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And did you check the sources that you claim are there? The Banner  talk 13:12, 29 June 2022 (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.