Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat 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 speedy keep as part of a pattern of intentionally disruptive AFD nominations and contributions. ,, and are clearly one and the same person, and the contributions history gave the game away. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Birmingham Blue Coat School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Reason: Non notable UK primary school. Does not pass WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom - no significant coverage to reach WP:GNG criteria for organisations. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the "WP:GNG criteria for organisations"? WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is almost certainly the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Normally I would vote delete for primary school articles, but this is a large (550 pupils), historic (founded in 1722) prep school and I consider it to be worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy based argument. Sources with significant coverage are required, and here there is nothing sufficient to pass WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You make the common beginner's mistake of assuming that opinions are not valid in AfD discussions. You are incorrect. But if you really want one, here's a policy-based argument: Use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might start by listing 2 sources which you believe indicate notability for this school, and which would satisfy WP:RS for the purpose of notability as defined by WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you might start by reading what people write before answering. Oh, and not using three different sockpuppets would be nice too! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNGZachFoutre (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Account set up 19 minutes ago, apparently solely to vote for deletion on this and similar school articles. Surprisingly similar to the nominator, in fact! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepFounded in 1722 not notable? nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (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.