Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surval Montreux

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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surval Montreux

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

I am suggesting this article is removed as it contains some inaccuracies about the school and as such cannot be deemed helpful to users who are looking for relevant and objective information about Surval. Wikilady2345 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have fixed this AfD, which was broken, by inserting the reason supplied by User:Wikilady2345 at Talk:Surval Montreux. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason provided to delete. The way to deal with inaccuracies is to edit with citations from WP:RELIABLE sources, not delete. There is a guideline WP:DUE and supplement WP:Inaccuracy explaining how to respond to inaccurate information. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Added subsequently. Agree with the comments of other editors. Lourdes 20:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)) Comment Which inaccuracies would you be referring to Wikilady2345? If you're referring to the silly Daily Mail reference provided in the article, I have removed it right now. Generally, inaccuracy is not reason enough to delete. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for guidance on what reasons may be appropriate to request for deletion. Thanks. Lourdes 01:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inaccuracies are there to be fixed, rather than articles being deleted as a result thereof. The school itself would appear to have sufficient coverage to be notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in fact keepable by WP:SK1 considering any mistakes can certainly be fixed and that's not affecting the notability aspect at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No valid reason was given for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inaccuracies is poor reasoning. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:22, 6 July 2017 (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.