Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dupchanchia Model Government Primary 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 redirect to Dhupchanchia Upazila. czar 19:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dupchanchia Model Government Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was redirected to settlement, redirect reverted. Non notable school per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and school notability guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Government school in Bangladesh have a clear source to notability. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Moheen Reeyad, can you please explain how this article meets either of the standards set forth in the nomination, or GNG even? John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why not notable a government school? Though, it have no sufficient sources, but in English Wikipedia there are thousands of article have no single source. This is a 40-year-old school and in 2003 received medal and certificate from the Prime Minister of Bangladesh due to best role in keeping the district level of the country. ~ Moheen (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dupchanchia Upazila per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If there has been a problem in the past with people expanding the redirect, consider protecting it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Redirect. I did a little searching, and didn't find anything that convinced me this meets WP:WPSCH/AG or WP:GNG. My search wasn't very extensive, hence the weak modifier. The main reason I'm commenting here is to support the idea that redirect to Dupchanchia Upazila is preferable to a straight delete, for the reasons given in WP:ATD and WP:WPSCH/AG. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- PS, page protection should really be a last resort. I don't see evidence of sufficiently sustained vandalism to justify protection. If it really gets to be a problem in the future, it can always be done later. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.