Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Paul's College, Lucknow

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. There is some thought of merging here that can be pursued, though it is unclear what material would be merged is acute. That can be resolved outside of this discussion, probably. I am happy to userfy a copy of this article or move it to draft-space if someone wants to pursue a merger. Go Phightins! 11:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's College, Lucknow

[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)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a project to destub all schools in UP: Then possibly merge. Saying Fails GNG is very tidy- but we we need to explain why. I have added a wl to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow which is totally underdeveloped- it reminds me of the articles we were proud to add fifteen years ago. It could be the target for a merge. Para one looks like it has been transcribed from a notable source as part of a batch but unsourced. Para 2 looks like a personal memory but suggests this school has over 500 pupils- so sources could be found. I suspect researching this one school, is going to be a similar process to reseaching other UP schools, so a more global approach to problems could be be more productive. ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has sat for 14 years with no sources at all, which is a very clear violation of our verifiability rules. A quick google search turned up no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete per JPL. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I not convinced to take action with any of the discussion points except ClemRutter's, so I am relisting in the hope of getting more detailed arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; subject fails GNG and ORGCRIT. No sources in article to check, BEFORE showed database listings type entries and nothing more. We often redirect to an appropriate target, I have no objection to a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucknow if there is support for this, but the article has no properly sourced content for a merge and I oppose merging unsourced content. // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 14 March 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.