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) 05:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Caribbean School

Caribbean School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Following policy ( WP:ATD-R), I blanked and redirected this article to List of high schools in Puerto Rico#Ponce Municipality. That action was reverted, and so WP:ATD-R allows the matter to be taken to AfD. This article fails the GNG: It has zero independent references. A BEFORE search yields only trivial coverage, and there is thus no sign of notability. Therefore, the article should be redirected to the article noted above. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable. Mercy11 ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The nominator is reminded that initiating an RfD is the only WP-approved process for deleting an article. No single editor gets to decide --unilaterally--, as the nominator did here, that an article can deleted. We, instead, follow policy and file an AfD request, as the nominator has now done (thank you), to allow for the matter to be discussed by the community at large, consensus to be reached, and for an uninvolved admin makes the keep/delete decision. Incidentally, invoking WP essays, like the essay WP:D-R as the nominator had also done in his edit summary during his article blanking action here, is not a valid basis for delete actions either. Let's be sure WP-approved processes and WP:PG are followed instead. Thank you. Mercy11 ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Have you read the policy I cited above, WP:ATD-R? It quite clearly permits what I did, while allowing for the matter to be taken here only if someone disagrees. In future, I'll cite WP:ATD-R in the edit summary, but in any event I did comply with relevant policies and guidelines. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

To prove a school is non- notable takes considerable work. I would have expected the nominator have done a simple google, and found www.cambridge-strategies.org I would then have expected them to discuss each paragraph aqainst our policies. When concensus was reached, then a redirection may be the correct action, but we need to discuss WP:UNDUE. Making an ex cathedra decision wastes a lot of other peoples time. ClemRutter ( talk) 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The school handbook, (primary source should be an External link) And I would like to see a es.google as well. ClemRutter ( talk) 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Neither the school website nor its handbook can possibly speak to notability in any way, per WP:INDY. And bold redirection is not prohibited by any policy; it is endorded by ATD; no consensus is needed to do it, and the editor in question did exactly the right thing when they encountered resistance. They came here. 174.212.222.24 ( talk) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete we need multiple cases of in depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to show a subject is notable. Currently we only have the subject's own webpage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment notability must be proved, not disproved. Wikipedia is built on verrifiability, which means we need secondary sources that cover the matter. We do not do original research in Wikipedia which is what we have when our sourcing on a subject is only material created by the subject. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Since I could not find the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources it needs to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. That said, it probably doesn't help things that the name of the school is so general. Maybe one out of the 1,680 results in Google News is about them, but it's doubtful. I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find WP:THREE that are though. Just as it is I couldn't find any myself. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Two sentences long, no sources, and only one external link. No proof of notability. Blubabluba9990 ( talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails GNG, and as the name is fairly generic, I think a redirect would do as much to confuse as to clarify. 174.254.192.112 ( talk) 01:52, 13 February 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.