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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.