Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute

Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:NHS - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep - per WP:NHS. Notability is not a problem with several sources verifying its existence. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"verifying its existence" does that mean notability!?Serv181920 (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:NHS. I'm not going to quote it to you. Actually read the lead. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cuñado and Serv181920: WP:NHS an old essay that was superseded by WP:NSCHOOL. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep Obviously it does more than verify its existence.Smkolins (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Notability requires significant coverage by reliable sources. Trivial mentions are not enough. Check WP:TRIVIALMENTIONServ181920 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment "trivial" is different than "singular". If a source says, for example, a program was from x, mentions it once, the program still represents a major reference and it is improper to call it "trivial". Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so you believe "one" news item as a "significant" coverage?Serv181920 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are misusing the framework of articles about schools marking them to be deleted rather than to actually spend the effort seeking sources as is plainly stated in the lead of WP:NHS. Don't try to obfuscate what I mean when I say "one" when it is not "trivial".Smkolins (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't bite. You have just given one source at the talk page and you think it is significant covrage?Serv181920 (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Verification of existence alone is insufficient for keeping the article per WP:NSCHOOL (cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Any explicit links to independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the school would be very helpful here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, I was going by WP:NHS because it was in the nomination. I found one non-trivial mention of the school: [1], covering a performance of the students. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

MarkH21, Thank you for the info. I don't know how one mention (not verified, it is behind paywall) makes the school notable. It is a Baha'i school thus I assume both the Baha'i editors (Cuñado & Smkolins) want to keep it.Serv181920 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920 you forgot to mention your role as a single-issue account that does nothing but promote negative views of the Baha'i Faith for the last six months. But since that doesn't affect the notability of an article I can see why you didn't mention it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Cuñado, What negative views? There are POV issues with many Baha'i articles and you have yourself admitted that, I am just trying to touch those issues and I am using the same sources that you have been using since years! For now let's discuss the notability of this particular subject. If it's notable it should stay.Serv181920 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, let's focus on building an encyclopedia and not on the intentions of editors. Good idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Entire article depends on two sources. Both sources are dead links. Might even fall under a G8 speedy deletion WP:SPEEDY Illuminator123 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)