Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convent Of Sacred Heart Lahore

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convent Of Sacred Heart Lahore[edit]

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

This article was tagged for speedy deletion before by another editor, so I am brining this to AFd. The entire article has several issues; the people on the notable alumi section are not referenced and proof of their existence is not there, there are no references in the entire article except for the link to the school's main page. I believe this article can change if the initiative is put in to improve it. Thanks in advance Prabash.Akmeemana 02:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- After careful consideration, I have decided to withdraw the AFD, the article has changed considerably and at the point, needs some more cleanups. Prabash.Akmeemana 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written, but a verified secondary school which should be kept for our usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verified schools that serve secondary education are usually kept by longstanding consensus and precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I would definitely recommend cleaning up the article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rewrite, but agree per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I was the editor that originally tagged this for speedy deletion, because it was originally a copyvio. The article was rewritten to no longer be a copyvio almost immediately after being tagged. I see no further reason this article should not be kept. With this combined with the submitter's withdrawal, there appears to be nobody who wants the article deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2013 (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.