Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentle Angels 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Angels 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 and WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article that has horrid writing style as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero coverage in reliable sources; fails the GNG. The writing style is sufficiently promotional that a G11 might be possible. No redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Del per nom. Article history dates its creation in 2011, with an unencyclopedic, narrative, and seemingly promotional tone with the original intent of promoting the school (IMO), thus violated WP:PROMOTIONAL. It was later fixed but still didn't address the issue on lack of references, and at some point it was tagged with Notability template but someone seemed to have removed this tag. Up to now, no references and no sufficient evidence of coverage by independent and reliable sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:43, 19 April 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.