Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar


 * 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. Reliable sources have been provided and most editors agree that there's no reason to deviate from longstanding practice in this case, so clear consensus to keep. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article needs more sources to establish the notability of its subject. The single source cited is insufficient to demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: there was an RFC which closed with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
 * Question for nom your nomination states "This article needs more sources to establish the notability of its subject" - that is correct. But AfD is not necessarily the appropriate place for that per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Can I confirm that you have fulfilled the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE? Step D states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Obviously the current lack of sources is not a basis for a nomination itself - only a lack of sources in existence is. Also, did you conduct any searches in the Bodo language? AusLondonder (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nominator. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp L3X1 (distant write)  21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC) *Delete - I've done as much searching as I can and the school appears not to meet WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Striking in view of the sources Tony Ballioni has described. I can't see them but AGF and all that. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. High schools are notable.  It is depressing and wasteful to see deletion nominations on them again and again. -- do  ncr  am  17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. SchoolsWorld.in doesn't appear to be reliable ("Disclaimer: The information provided in this website might be wrong or old information. Please add a comment above to get the information corrected") and while there is some other coverage, it's not really enough for me to support keeping the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly lacking notability under NSCHOOLS, which represents the community's "longstanding precedent and consensus" on these articles. Rebb  ing  15:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it doesn't. Never has done. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is what really represents it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not only is SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely an essay, but the broader community—not just a handful of frequent AfD participants—rejected its circular logic, suggested that closers may disregard votes premised on it, and refused to adopt anything like it as a notability standard, leaving the existing guidelines—including NSCHOOLS and ORGSIG ("No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.")—in place. Furthermore, NSCHOOLS is a guideline, which you are required to honor in ordinary circumstances. See WP:101. If you want to promote a different notability standard, it's on you to develop consensus and remove or amend the existing guideline. Rebb  ing  15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, someone else who thinks WP has rules and requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh dear, someone else who doesn't seem to understand the RfC? "Longstanding consensus" etc does not cut the mustard as a keep !vote and that at least two others seem also to be using the same argument will not wash. GNG is what matters, not precedent. Each article has to stand on its own merits. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge: to Kokrajhar. In the vast majority of cases, the sourced content can be merged to another article's education section. SL93 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the India Project was trying to keeps list at some higher level than towns because of the amount of clutter, confusing boundaries etc. There was also some sort of local consensus that the lists should include only schools that had articles because of the amount of promotion of "unworthy" private enterprises etc that was going on. So, yes, merge to the town but don't be surprised if it gets deleted from there some time in the future (won't be by me because I rarely touch Assamese stuff). - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects shouldn't have that much control. As far as I know, there is no policy which prohibits it. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they did - local consensus cannot over-ride the wider community. Odd that the schools project managed it for so long, though. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the totality of WP:N which includes WP:NPOSSIBLE and not just WP:GNG. That is the argument that the general consensus for the last decade that was and is reflected in SCHOOLOUTCOMES is based upon, and was a part of the recent close. The very few English language sources that do exist mention the placement of students and that this has happened in the past. That is enough to suggest that the school is at least relatively well known in the region, and has likely received coverage in offline non-English language sources, which we were also told to take into account before bringing to AfD in the RfC close. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOSSIBLE concludes with this admonition: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Also, WP:N includes NRVE: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." The only "source" we have, Schoolsworld.in, republishes public submissions—making it likely neither reliable nor independent; it's pretty clear that it isn't using a serious editorial process. Rebb  ing  18:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Practically anything could be sourced somewhere we don't know of yet etc. Reading NPOSSIBLE as you do would negate the entire AfD process for pretty much everything where the challenge relates to notability. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a sex abuse scandal, which makes it highly likely there is local press in other areas for this and we have an article calling it a prestigious school and remarks on its placement. Taken together we have the strong possibility based on the geography that there are offline non-English sources that WP:N and the RfC said should be taken into account before even getting to this stage. Sure, there's the admonition on the end, and no, we shouldn't just willy-nilly make the assumption, especially in areas where sourcing would be easy for most Wikipedians to find, but it needs to be considered, and that's not being done here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't see those sources here, sorry. Don't know why. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very minimal stub, but there is potential for improvement. Practice is almost 100% consistent that we keep all articles on verified high schools. In the recent RfC on school outcomes, the extremely confused close stated that there was no consensus to accept SCHOOLOUTCOMES as definitive, but there was also no consensus that high schools were not always to be considered notable . If you think that this sounds self-contradictory, you understand the situation. It leaves us to do what we always do, decide right here. The virtue of considering all high schools as notable is to avoid the thousands of potential AfDs like this--if we insist of examining them in detail, we will end up keeping 99% of them, and spending immense amounts of time removing a few like this, with the results determined by the chance of who contributes to the discussion. There are hundreds of thousands of articles in WP that really need to be discussed and removed, and dealing with high schools this way will just make it harder.  DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Those arguing keep as matter of precedent seem to display WP:IDHT behaviors, which is a competence-issue, to my mind. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably read the warning at the top of that page and note the editing experience of those you appear to be dismissing as incompetent. You should also note that it is not "disruptive" to express an opinion at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally attacking numerous long-serving editors as incompetent is far more disruptive than expressing a good-faith opinion at an AfD, . AusLondonder (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Those "numerous long-serving editors" ignoring community consensus to provide an opinion the consensus specifically rejects is "far more disruptive" than me calling them out on it. Those who would not follow rules cannot operate in a community. This isn't the wild-west Wikipedia of 2005. We cannot have editors just doing whatever they want. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Given you've only been around since 2013 are you really qualified to give editors such as who has been here since 2004 a patronising lesson on the rights and wrongs of "the wild-west Wikipedia of 2005"? Nevertheless, talking of "wild-west" behaviour, I have encountered some this month. Strangely, it was from none other than "Chris Troutman" who archived a message posted to a Wikiproject discussion project within less than half an hour of it being posted using an utterly absurd rationale of "reply to Another Believer, who seems to think people that vote right wing also smoke dope". As you said "Those who would not follow rules cannot operate in a community. This isn't the wild-west Wikipedia of 2005. We cannot have editors just doing whatever they want". Here is a rule you might like to learn to follow: WP:5P4 - one of our five pillars no less "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus...Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others". AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. Another editor who doesn't understand that Wikipedia doesn't actually have "rules" and clearly hasn't read (or maybe opposes? Although surely not, given how much you love rules!) one of WP's most important policies: WP:IAR! "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Which sums the whole thing up in a nutshell. Also please realise that there is nothing disruptive about expressing an opinion in a discussion. How on earth could there be? How could it possibly be disruptive to express an opinion? You are verging on calling for the imposition of principles usually seen in authoritarian states here. Freedom of discussion is only curtailed and considered disruptive in such environments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2017 (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.