Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace School System (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 December 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Per the recent WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC, I have discounted arguments that the article should be kept solely because it is about a school. – Joe (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ace School System

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

For-profit, private schools has to WP:GNG which this school system fails. Störm (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of any sources other than the organizations own website. Beyond this, the procedural keep was a horrible way to close. Wikipedia has lots and lots of unneeded junk articles that are not up to our standards, and these should be removed, not left because of archane rules that do not even exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. At first, I thought there was some good coverage, but this turned out to be about Accelerated Christian Education schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as secondary schools per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2017 (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.