Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learnium International 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The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learnium International School

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

withdrawn by nom This is a good faith AfD and I'm sorry if im blindly missing some policy point. Maybe it's that I don't understand what an international school is (public v. private?) but I don't see why this school meets notability criteria. However, if it has the same equivalent as a U.S. high school and not just some private enterprise, maybe it's more complicated? Gaff (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This school has a secondary school section and can be verified to exist. Secondary/high schools are almost always kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a comment then or a !vote for keep? --Gaff (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. It would take a better foundation in policy for me to give a keep vote. That said, high school deletion nominations usually end the the school being kept. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (essay not policy). • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is irrelevant to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn I found sources and will rewrite the article.--Gaff (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This stub is not sourced properly and needs to be reworded. (The creator seems to be a new editor). OK, but that's no reason to delete it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (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.