Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Liberal Arts

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. WP:V concerns around lack of third-party reliable sources take precedence over arguments about school notability. Hut 8.5 12:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

School of Liberal Arts

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

Non-notable, defunct organization, insufficiently sourced. Electoralist (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources and clearly fails WP:GNG. Pianoman320 (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non toxic article about a defunct school that is proven to have existed. This kind of historical is precisely what Wikipedua is for. Suggesting that AfD nominators and voters accumulate more experience of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the article or references "proving" it existed. They clearly had a website at one point, but that's about it. Pianoman320 (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ORG. (ORG, a guideline, explicitly states that schools are held to the same notability standards as other organizations.) What's available is far less than the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that our guidelines require. Rebb ing 01:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary schools are kept if they can be reliably sourced — but being a secondary school is not a claim of notability that entitles an article to an exemption from having to be sourceable. We have seen articles created about hoax high schools that didn't actually exist at all, so a high school does not get to keep an article just for claiming to be a high school if RS coverage can't be located to verify its existence as a high school. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - consensus has been to delete school articles that are not verified by independent sources, which is the case here. It is rather a nonsense to keep an article only to have to delete all of its content per WP:V. If someone finds some sources and is willing to put the work in, then the article can always be recreated. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as defunct school with inadequate sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2016 (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.