Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Foundation High 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 delete. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Foundation High School

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Started by SPA

WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ostensibly written for promotional purposes and clearly fails
WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Lead makes unreferenced assertions, and the rest appears to be a staff directory. Fails GNG. How has this article survived for 6 years? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene Because before 2017 RfC we had a policy that high school articles are notable regardless of what is written in them. Störm (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Störm, but even before 2017 wasn't the standard supposed to be proof of the school's existence? Today I found exactly one RS from 2009 that appears to be an official and independent source. There may have been offline sources, but nothing more online. Three other sources here, here and here appear to be commercial directories, the last more of a blog with a pop-up window advertising how "to be the top-listed school in Faisalabad", presumably by paying a fee to the host site. I understand the last AfD was a procedural keep based on the 2017 RfC, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised that the article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2013 (almost within half hour of its creation!), and also that no one has removed the promotional text/tone since then. Thanks for nominating it this time around... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (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.