Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colegio La Fe

: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 keep. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 00:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Colegio La Fe]]=

:{{la|Colegio La Fe}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colegio_La_Fe Stats])

:({{Find sources|Colegio La Fe}})

Article without sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I see from the deletion sorting crew that this is a Venezuela school. Is there a reason here for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

::Um, being unsourced is a reason for deletion... p b p 04:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Being unsourced is a reason for improvement. I see that you're still getting AFD confused with CLEANUP. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

::::::The tags asking for inprovement and sources are there for the last half year. So I considered that nobody is going to improve the article. And when nobody cares, it can be deleted because is lacks the notability to attract any cooperation... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

::::I didn't start this AfD, so your beef is with Night. But being unsourced is a reason for deletion, too. I don't believe that all articles can be sourced their way out of deletion, nor do I believe it would be worth our time to do so with all the articles that possibly could p b p 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I worry that there might be room for consideration of WP:BIAS here. I would prefer seeing some input from local wikipedians before deleting. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete: per nom p b p 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Consensus is that we keep verified secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep Evidently a verified secondary school. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep - the claim in the nomination that the page lacks sources is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason for improvement. No evidence of a search for sources in Spanish nor that a local search has been carried out. We delete when a subject is inherently non-notable or when the necessary sources have been shown not to exist. Neither applies here; no reason to assume that WP:ORG cannot be met. The way we build Wikipedia is by extending content not by lazy deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

: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.