Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Mary Higher Secondary School

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Mokokchung#Education. While some sources have been added to the article during this discussion, nobody has demonstrated that they satisfy the requirement of substantive coverage to meet GNG. Draftifying this was suggested, but I can't see where anyone has expressed interest in working on this; if they want to do so, the history will remain available. I would strongly caution against recreating this without substantially improving the sourcing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary Higher Secondary 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL; lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources; lack of coverage in general. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this media coverage then? Spiderone 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are hardly enough to meet WP:GNG and are passing mentions at best. What makes refs 1 and 6 reliable sources as well? Spiderone 07:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is a fair solution. They should not be in the mainspace until they pass GNG. Spiderone 09:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify With the caveat that it has to go through a review to determine it's notability before being recreated. I think that's the fair thing to do. Otherwise, Delete.
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.