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 keep. John254 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bait-Ul-Ilm School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable school article that reads like an advertisment and is a mish-mash of copyrighted material from the actual site. Conflict of interest since the article was created by User:Baitulilmschool. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - incorporates a high school so it is notable. This is a significant two campus school. As with all Indian subcontinent schools it has a negligible web news presence in English so sufficient time needs to be allowed for local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias. The promotional nature of the page is not a reason for deletion rather it should have been tagged for cleaning up. TerriersFan (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - now cleaned up. TerriersFan (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - being a secondary/high school does not automatically make it notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education). However, I may likely be closing this AfD for now at least.-- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep High schools are best considered as notable, because weeding out the 10 or 20% that are less than notable is not worth the work-- especially considering we'd probably have at least as high a rate or error and irreproducibility--as we did two years ago, when such articles were individually debated, school by school, with great effort and ingenuity and totally inconsistent results. I was reluctant to accept this blanket way of coping with them at the time, but the more I argued the more I became convinced it wasnt worth the arguments. The encyclopedia would be more improved by writing articles than debating on these details at AfD. DGG (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well set out and has refs. This is the type of article we keep. Valid High school article and reliably sourced.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:07, 5 January 2009 (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.