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 per consensus. PeaceNT 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyashilp Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Please delete this page as it is getting subjected to a lot of vandalism..in fact, the whole of wikipedia is getting subjected to vandalism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpkmallya (talk • contribs).

• Comment fixed the nomination, the article was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidya Shilp Academy/ -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, vandalism is not a sufficient reason for Deletion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The original article (first revision) seems to have been created as an attack page, or advert for a rival. It has been much edited since, but it does suggest the initial motivation was not notability. Therefore the question of notability should be considered: is this educational establishment notable enough for inclusion? I don't understand the notability rules for schools, so I cannot comment. Notinasnaid 12:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment The initial deletion seems to have been partly motivated by a belief that the editor "owned" the article which they claim to have written (presumably rewritten, and presumably under a different username), see [1], and is fed up of other people changing it. Sorry, see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Notinasnaid 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination based on WP:OWN. DarkAudit 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As currently written the article reads like an advertising brochure, and is unsourced. Indeed I would be hard put to defend it agaisnt a speedy deletion as spam. I suspect this school may be notable, but without sources, I can't say. weak delete unless proerply sourced and cleaned up. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep compares favorable with most other articles on schools, and even has a RS in Times of India. If it's in there it will be elsewhere as well. Spam can removed, though in this case it will need rewriting some sections, not simple cutting DGG 00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per lucasbfr. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Delete an article because it gets repeatedly vandalized? Heck, the Los Angeles, California article gets vandalized all the time. --Oakshade 17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. No valid reason given by nominator, who blanked the article and replaced it with nonsense. Jyothisingh 10:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Jyothisingh. John Vandenberg 08:21, 15 May 2007 (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.