Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Choice School

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. Despite the fact that the nominator has been blocked indefinite for abusing multiple accounts, the "keep" arguments make sense. The close as "keep" is not because of the sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice 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)

~~This is just like a promotional Article. Nothing more. And also fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG. JaiMahadev (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

The nominator is blocked/banned. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing promotional about this article at all, the nomination is false Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever the case is about the existence of promotional material or not, there clearly isn't the needed sourcing for this to pass WP:NORG, because news stories about a schools regulating buses and cutting down on junk food just don't. I'm not seeing anything else that does either. So, based on that the article should be deleted. Unless someone can provide three good, non-trivial references. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep erroneous nomination by an outed sock puppet. If we discover it in time, I don't think socks should have standing to start AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 22:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's kept just because of the sockpuppeting I'll probably re-nominate it. So it's a mostly a matter of do we want to evaluate ot on the merits now or later. Also, I'm pretty sure sockputting doesn't make any other type of edits null and void. Like if a sockpuppet adds a good paragraph to an article that has a solid reference it doesn't automatically get reverted and wiped from Wikipedia. The punishment is banning someone for doing it. Not setting Wikipedia back. So I don't see why AfDs should be any different. Otherwise, it's punishing the quality of the platform. Not the person who did it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: The nomination itself seems suspicious. Nothing seems promotional in this article and I have found plenty of sources to establish notability. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:24, 10 March 2021 (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.