Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moulovir Char High 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. Daniel (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moulovir Char High 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)

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." Other than some listing site or passing mention, I didn't found any significant coverage in reliable sources about this school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page was created back in 2016. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brascoian When a page was created has no relevance in determining whether it is kept or deleted. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not nearly enough sourcing to justify an article on an organization. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we do not keep old articles just because they have been awhile. 2016 is actually fairly recent in Wikipedia time anyway. We currently have a deletion discussion on a 2002 created article alleging it is a hoax, and another proposed deletion on a 2005 created article suggesting it is a hoax. The ratio of the size of Wikipedia to the amount of editors who patrol against such problems, plus our failure to have an adequate process to screen articles while in creation has lead to this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then there are people like me who actually submit articles to AfC. I did so back in Feburary, and the article is still not reviewed. We have over 4,000 articles in AfC waiting for review. We need more editors to become AfC reviewers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I swear I voted on this already, but apparently I didn't. Given that that though, I'm going to skip the long winded rant about why this isn't notable and instead just say that I agree with Johnpacklambert about why it should be deleted. Hopefully that's good enough. If not, then "blah blah blah, fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG/Whatever..Etc. etc." ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 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.