Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razi Institute of Medical Sciences (2nd nomination)

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. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Razi Institute of Medical Sciences[edit]

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

It's an 8 year-old trade school that grants two-year paramedic diplomas. "Keep" arguments in previous AfD consisted of WP:ITEXISTS. Article still has no reliable secondary sources - in fact, no sources at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep err..what's the main argument here? There's the official website which proves that the institution does indeed exist. If it was a hoax, that would've been different. Mar4d (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same "argument" you made last time. As I pointed out in my nomination above, WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument in an AfD. The fact that something merely exists is not reason enough for it to have a Wikipedia article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In response to the claim above, it's worth remembering that "a website exists" is not the same thing as "the school exists". Anybody can create a website. Schools (especially limited trade schools like this) are normally deleted if we cannot find an independent source that proves the school to really exist. All notability guidelines require the existence of at least one source that is not published by the subject of the article, and that source must say something more than merely the name of the subject. Also, it'd be impossible to comply with the content policies requirements about basing all articles primarily on third-party sources, if zero such sources actually exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it exists, it's really a business so I don't look at it as a school. As such, the lack of reliable third party sources is a problem. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article as it stands lacks in-depth independent coverage required by WP:CORP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (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.