Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Basically nothing has changed since the last AfD. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  17:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim to notability, google search provides no coverage beyond just listing and a obscure case of child abuse. FORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This private school educates students through grade 10 and is affiliated with the Secondary Education Board of Assam. Editors who participate in an AFD have the right to determine whether a subject is notable.. I am merely noting that in my experience established and accredited secondary schools  have adequate sources to satisfy WP:N when the search includes materials not instantly available online, such as newspapers from the region where the school is located.  Edison (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * CommentIt is disruptive to renominate this article for deletion at this time when an AFD resulted in "Keep" on April 25 of this year. This is not a "pitch til you win" kiddie carnival game.Edison (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just for the record that "I have no relation with the two earlier nominators" in fact I was unaware of the fact there were two earliar nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage found. The burden is on those arguing to keep to provide sources, not merely assert that they exist. James (talk/contribs) 19:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep  Delete. 3 weeks is is ordinarily disruptive after a keep, but the nom is apparently under the impression that consensus has changed. It hasn't, I suppose they are relying on the recent RfC. The recent RfC said first that there was no consensus to use SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and there was no consensus to change the rule that high schools are to be considered notable. That not very helpful close leaves us in the same state as before, except that we need to use a longer argument. That we consider them notable is part of a rational compromise by which we do not consider  elementary schools notable. Before we had the compromise we had 10 or 20 afds a day on both,and the results were no better than random, depending on how much energy the proponents of each position had. If we want to clog up afd again with decisions that really don't matter, we can go back to then, and once more have a random selection. I think we need to concentrate our effort onto things that matter.  DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I am not quite sure if you intend to !vote delete here. Your argument reads like keep to me, but I could be missing something. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * how right you are. This is the result of simultaneously working on too many different dicussions at Del Rev and AfD. I;ve fixed it.Thanks for spoting it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Was kept at an AfD less than a month ago. Another nom so soon is incredibly disruptive and bad-faith. AusLondonder (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It may interest you to know that I have no relations with the earlier editor .I did not even know there was an afd before this.Please do not judge this afd from that perspective that it is surely bad faith FORCE RADICAL On a insecure connection (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 20 May 2017‎
 * For future reference, before you nominate an article for AFD, go to its talk page to see if it has previously been nominated. Had you done that in this case you would have seen "This page was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep." near the top of the page. Edison (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinks Mr.Edison ! Will follow your advise from next time onwardsFORCE RADICAL (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources I brought forth at the last AfD that are enough to demonstrate that the school is likely notable. Secondary sources show that it had a major sex abuse scandal and was also considered a prestigious school in the region. That is enough to pass GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep-Withdrawing nom. But entrusting with the headache of including the sources in the article and expanding it FORCE   RADICAL ⭐⭮@ 05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I don't see what's changed from the recent AfD that closed as "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 23 May 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.