Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bijpur A B High School


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   02:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Bijpur A B High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish the notability of Bijpur A B High School. Having no sources, it falls short of meeting Wikipedia's standard: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Question for nom Can I just 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 Bengali? AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I did not. As I acknowledge that failure, I simultaneously submit my resignation from the new page patrollers. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably wise. AusLondonder (talk) 22:32, 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.
 * Comment. I added a couple of links: West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to source the claim that the school is registered with said board (also verifies it is co-ed), and West Bengal Department of School Education to source the claim that it includes senior secondary (twelfth grade and hence graduation). More research is needed to improve the article, and this may mean offline sources from local media. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep on the good faith assumption that a secondary school that claims to have 1200 students enrolled would have enough sources in print or offline media in some language to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability and references. The "good faith assumption" of above editor opens a pandora's box for other AfD. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this has long been the consensus, this is not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOSSIBLE. The recent RfC asked that anyone who might nominate an article look for the sources and consider the possibility of offline sources. They of course can't prove a negative, but following NPOSSIBLE and considering the possibility sourcing was clearly not done here. Deletion in this case would be an application of WP:GEOBIAS, which is especially apparent in school AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep . User:Necrothesp wrote: "Keep on the good faith assumption that a secondary school that claims to have 1200 students enrolled would have enough sources in print or offline media in some language to satisfy the criteria for inclusion school per longstanding precedent and consensus." Today, I have seen a few instances where AfDs were ignoring common sense. This is one of them. I have noticed that Wikipedia does have a slant against the developing word in terms of its notability requirements. Why is public high school of similar size in the USA/UK notable whereas a high school in the developing country does not qualify? Dean Esmay (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Schools are notable by default. L3X1 (distant write)  17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. High schools are notable.  I missed it at the time, but am aware of RFC not long ago that ruled otherwise, which is just causing unnecessary work and undermining Wikipedia credibility, shutting the gate after all the U.S. and U.K. high school articles have been created. -- do  ncr  am  17:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: rationale being WP:NHS as they reasonably pass verifiability; obviously, the articles need to be improved extensively to contribute for encyclopedic usage. TopCipher (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools of demonstrated actual existence are presumed notable. Sources appear, meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 21 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.