Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khowar Academy (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. L Faraone 02:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Academy

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

Fails WP:ORG. No reliable source to establish the notability of this organisation. SMS ^Talk 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wasn't aware earlier that this article was recreated after a previous AfD, so in that case CSD#G4 also applies here. -- SMS ^Talk 16:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw it during WP:BEFORE and didn't find it a reliable source. I don't mind if it is used in the article to support that two lines but it is not useful in anyway for establishing notability. Even if it was a reliable source, it hardly say anything about the subject as required by WP:ORG. -- SMS ^Talk 10:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After redrafting this article I added more references, please remove the deletion template. -- Mirajbibi (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Mirajbibi (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Akbaralighazi (talk • contribs). -- SMS ^Talk 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have added are not reliable at all. Per Notability criteria for Organizations, there should be:

reliable sources, covering the subject significantly. I am unable to find any of these attributes in the sources you provided and also they discuss the subject trivially. -- SMS ^Talk 15:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general notability guidelines. I can find no independent sources in LexisNexis treating the academy. There is one currently cited source, the Dardistan Times, that may be independent (I don't know), and another Dardistan Times article was linked in the earlier AfD. That doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability. The fact that both come from the same publication also does not inspire confidence. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2013 (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.