Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quaid School

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 December 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Per the recent WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC, I have discounted arguments that the article should be kept solely because it is about a school. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Quaid School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because it is private, for-profit high school so it has to pass WP:GNG. At least, in my searches there is no independent coverage so fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going to echo what Nate has said here. The idea that for profit/independent schools are any less notable that government ones reflects a systemic bias. In the context I am in, independent schools are sometimes more notable in their communities than government ones and by no means are simply rent seeking institutions. Furthermore, if what Nate says is correct and you are re-nominating an article with zero changes, then this can be seen as an abuse of the AFD system and I would reccomend that sanctions are placed against this nominator to prevent this happening again. At the very least, an administrative warning.Egaoblai (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide a single source independent of the subject before repeating your comment. They are business ventures and therefore need to pass WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the talk page and the edit history and there is no previous AfD. I also looked at the one external link in the article, and it seems to be a form with no entries. Unscintillating (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources that verify any of the article's content. A quick search for possible sources has not revealed anything reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiability is a core content policy and as per the administrator's guide to deletion, verifiability is not negotiable or subject to a local consensus to disregard. In terms of WP:DEL-REASONs, this is WP:DEL7 with an IAR for the source search, where the reasons for the IAR are both the statement in the administrator's guide, and the fact that sourcing an unsourced article is as much work as writing the article from scratch, so nothing is lost by deleting the article. Note that this article also fails WP:V#Notability. I also performed a minimal source search using "The Quaid School", "The Quaid Foundation School" and "The Quaid Foundation High School". Unscintillating (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of adequate sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - yet to find anything reliable which indicates that this school exists. Prove it exists and I'll happily !vote keep as per consensus. JMWt (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.