Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsworth International 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 delete and redirect to 16th arrondissement of Paris#Education. Daniel (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsworth International School[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Advertising. his article was deprodded with the edit summary "deprod, secondary school". But current consensus holds that there is no inherent notability for secondary schools; they must instead pass the GNG. This school does not. The Banner talk 18:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 16th arrondissement of Paris#Education. This rather promotional article offers no independent sources, and my searching doesn't find anything adequate for notability purposes. Redirects are cheap, so redirection to the municipality's article, which mentions it, won't hurt. This case is quite similar to this AfD. (I'm glad that the nominator has found some of my verbiage from that AfD useful.) The school isn't notable, but we might as well redirect it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional piece of content. No reference to justify WP:NSCHOOL. Timberlack (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did look at the article and their website and found half the text was added by one single topic editor and the edits surrounding it were by a user that looks as if it is a school account. The school is tiny. The bit on exam boards looks like a cut and paste, and is promotional. Remove that and there is nothing left to merge. Other sections of WP:WPSCH/AG not evident. ClemRutter (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we are not going to hold schools to our normal corporation notability guidelines, or even minimum understanding of GNG, we still need a source (lacking here) other than the institutions own website (which seems to be what was used to create this article). Wikipedia is supposed to be built on secondary sources, not primary ones, which means we can not just parrot an organizations own website in creating articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons everyone else have already given. I.e. this a promotional article about a school that lacks any independent sources discussing it. Aside from news articles about one of the schools founders apparently, but they are not enough to justify keeping the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 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.