Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Model School,Jhang


 * 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 Jhang. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Victory Model School,Jhang

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Elementary schools are not inherently notable and no apparent notability for this school. PROD declined without explanation. Tried to redirect to local government article and that was reverted. Note that there is no school district article to redirect this to. Safiel (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per previous consensus, to Jhang District (for want of a better target). Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Delete - No indication of notability is given. I know that redirecting is the standard practice with NN school articles.  I just have no strong personal preference between the two options.  But unless an actual indication of notability is given, the article itself should not remain.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Delete Leaning towards redirecting to Jhang, but wouldn't be opposed to a deletion. However, if chosen to redirect, a space should be added after the comma. Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, which has no recommendation to create a redirect for every nonnotable subject. Edison (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. Convention with schools such as this one is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Appears to be non-notable, given the lack of substantial multiple coverage in RSs in gnews and gbooks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (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.