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 delete. ✗plicit 00:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Harvest Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article concerns a defunct charter school in Los Angeles, California that allegedly existed from 2002 to 2012. The article currently cites no live sources and BEFORE searches do not return any sources that could be used to support or verify the contents of the article. Thus, I do not believe this article passes WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines and, lacking reliable sources, the content of the article is unverifiable. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up enough evidence to show that it passes WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles#Education - no substantial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass the GNG. Redirects are cheap, and this one would at least tell the reader where the school was and what happened to it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This school clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Which isn't really suppressing. Since schools of this type hardly ever do. So, I'm strongly on the side of deleting the article. I'm not sure a redirect would be needed because there isn't enough references to support whatever will be added to the other article about it if it is redirect and I'm not personally into merging or redirect when un-referenced material will be involved. It's better just to get rid of it and call it a day. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sourcing is no where near what we expect to show that an institution is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2021 (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.