Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:01, 14 May 2024

WP:DELSORT/EDU

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Education. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Education|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Education.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Education

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revera (event)

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

Unsourced with no notability per GNG or EVENT. Google search returned no reliable independent coverage on the event. Promotional tone with no denotable notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything about it on the web except for Facebook posts. This topic doesn't seem notable at all; it appears to be promotional and fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Grabup (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it appears to be promotional, fails WP:GNG or WP:N(E) ~~User:Spworld2 (talk) 2:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete. No sources on the page and this page seems like promotion of an event held by student union of a college. WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources are provided, event do look like some promotion. Hookiq (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadia Joint Lyceum

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

Local high school in Finland fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. All available significant coverage is from official websites. Media coverage exists, but it is either in local news providing list-style coverage of high school graduates and test scores, or it is routine coverage in news related to school openings and closings. One news story appears to constitute significant coverage, but one is not enough to clear the hurdle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Finland. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 13 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Compugoal College

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

It exists but I don't think it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable subject for Wikipedia --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Shivaji University as an AtD. Given limited participation after one relist, this is in effect a 'soft' redirect. Daniel (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Raosaheb Ramrao Patil Mahavidyalaya

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. College affiliated with a university. I'm normally pretty lenient regarding GNG sourcing for schools but this one has zero independent sources much less GNG sources. And I couldn't find any. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shivaji University to which it is affiliated.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Lin Chih-chien. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Zhijian's paper plagiarism case

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

I've already suggested what could happen here (WP:BLAR) but haven't gotten a bite yet; meanwhile I'm a bit worried about potential BLP issues here. Many of the sources are very low quality, and the article's level of detail seems idiosyncratic, unencyclopedic, and more than a little POV if treatment of plagiarism by other public figures in articles is anything to go by. I feel I have little choice than to bring it to AfD, I'm not even sure what else needs to be said about the plagiarism on Lin's own article. Remsense诉 06:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lin Chih-chien for all the reasons you give. Policies and guidelines may include WP:SUSTAINED and WP:POVFORK. As you say there's not a lot more to be said on Lin's article, although that section of his article could use a bit of editing. Oblivy (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per User:Oblivy. --Wish for Good (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Cleanup is needed (including mispelling of Chih-chien as Zhijian), but there are arguably RS covering this incident, so it seems to pass WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic from the subject's biography. (Most sources are in Chinese, unfortunately, but for example Taipei Times covered this in multiple dedicated articles: [1], [2], [3] - note are cited, in our article which unfortunately relies solely on Chinese sources, likely due to being a translation from Chinese Wikipedia). We have many similar articles, see Category:Plagiarism controversies. What we need is a review of sources by someone familiar with Chinese (Taiwanese) outlets, in terms of which are reliable. PS. The incident is mentioned in at least one academic, English article: Liao, D. C. (2023). " Party Turnover" on the Move? Assessing and Forecasting the Dynamics of Taiwan's Politics after the 2022 Local Elections. American Journal of Chinese Studies, 30(1). (I can't link it due to EBSCO being link unfriendly and paywalled, but it comes up in Google Scholar query here. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 04:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really disputed that the subject passes WP:GNG, but could you articulate why the subject should have its own article and isn't best treated in a section of Lin Chih-chien per WP:PAGEDECIDE? Notability is not the only criterion for whether a page should exist. Remsense诉 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page size and WP:DUE (particularly in BLP context) are all relevant considerations. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tad troubling if the best solution is to have a very underdeveloped base BLP and a very well-developed article about an exclusively negative aspect of that BLP. I do not think this is in keeping with the spirit of NPOV if we let the abstraction of a separation in pages result in the total content of material covering a BLP be totally lopsided like this. See the examples at WP:SPINOFF. Remsense诉 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with @Remsense except I don't agree it's a particularly "well-developed article", just a long one. I think any merge would have to cut it down quite a bit. Lin's article is relatively short at about 13K and this one is about 50K. Even if all of the text was ported over (something I'd 100% oppose for WP:DUE reasons) it still wouldn't be beyond page size guidelines.
Note that the plagiarism article is entirely about Lin, not about some larger issue of which this incident was emblematic. There's a sentence fragment about strengthened anti-plagiarism measures at the school, and a weak attempt to blame the DPP's overall showing on him. The latter is only supported by a source that regurgitates a press conference in which he apologized. Nothing is gained by separating the two. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to NPOV concerns and because the article doesn't cover anything that could not be discussed in the main article on the subject. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football. as a viable ATD. History is preserved if folks want to merge Star Mississippi 01:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft

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

No evidence that this grouping meets WP:NLIST, the article is just a straight copy of the single database source. Can at most be merged to Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football if this is deemed of some importance after all. As can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 420#DraftHistory.com, there are concerns about the source anyway, so new creations based on this source should probably be stopped. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Education, American football, and Mississippi. Fram (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources in regards to Delta State football players being drafted ([4], [5], [6]), though I agree that a lot of the lists should be expanded upon (which myself and a lot of others are very much trying to work on), and turned into FL's. In regards to this list, I would not be completely opposed to a merge/redirect, but for now I just view it as a Stub. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's required for list notability is reliable secondary sources doscussing the grouping, not the members of the group. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of secondary sources. The sources cited here along with the one in the article are all primary. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LISTN asks that "Delta State Statesmen in the NFL draft" be discussed significantly in IRS as a topic in itself; separate sources on individual Statesmen in the draft are not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not meet WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge largely per nom; the sources from KingSkyLord are machine-generated. There is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument based on articles in Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team, but many of those articles can/should also be deleted or merged. That said, I see no reasons this information couldn't be included at Delta State Statesmen and Lady Statesmen#Football. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't have a particular stance on this, but I thought I'd mention that everything from the source in question can be easily replaced with links to Pro-Football-Reference.com. This link verifies the content in the article, but it of course does not provide any SIGCOV for the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 03:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PES PU College, Mandya

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

The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as other nominations for school, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 03:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPM Govt High School, Adavimallanakeri

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

This is a contested draftification. The references do not indicate that the subject passes the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organizations, and a quick search for sources turned up nothing to disprove that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources meet WP:SIGCOV, and the single sentence of article barely makes grammatical sense. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources found (outside the ones provided by the article). No prejudice towards a redirect to Advimallanakeri as well. Sohom (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources have been found to establish the notability of this government school. Generally, there is limited reporting on government schools in India, except in some special cases. Grabup (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, this page too has poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitulu Day Secondary School

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

Non-notable institution and un-sourced article, a search returns nothing. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 19 May 2024 (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.

Temoc

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

Was turned into a redirect due to having no independent sources before I brought it back. I think this does deserve some discussion because there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc. Okmrman (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the person who first redirected the article. The fact that there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc means that there are a lot of mascot pages that ought to be deleted for failing WP:GNG. Excluding press releases from UTD and articles from its student newspapers, the best references I could find were insignificant coverage from The Straits Times and the Chronical of Higher Education Mach61 22:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas-Dallas Comets, specifically Mach61 23:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mach61 00:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mach61 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this was changed to a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps the article could be broadened to be about "student life" in general? A lot of the article is about topics only tangentially related to the athletic mascot. Texas–Dallas Comets is the only plausible merge (or redirect) target I see, none of this material needs to be in the main university article. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more opinions. We have a possible Redirect target to be Texas–Dallas Comets but not much consensus for it. I almost feel like this could be closed procedurally as the nominator was indfinitely blocked for their single-minded deletion campaign in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati

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

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, India, and Assam. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.

Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus‎. I don't think a 3rd relisting would lead to a consensus. There is a basic difference of opinion here among well-intentioned editors on the quality of available sources and standards for notability that need to be met. Of course, those editors interested in pursuing a Redirect option can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~ Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.

I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a red herring in this thread. In response to @Grand'mere Eugene's comment that this would pass GNG with local sources, WP:NORG supersedes GNG (this is very clear at WP:ORGCRIT). And under WP:BRANCH, a local unit of a national org requires coverage in sources outside of the local area to be considered notable. The only notability this local school has is tied to the unique model of its network, which is why a redirect is best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" that specifies, All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. Either NORG, or GNG, or both. GNG is thus not a "red herring", but one of the ways schools may satisfy WP's notability requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. See, for example: this. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the CBS8 source considered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the CBS8 and SDEntertainer sources are sufficient for GNG; the arguments that this is insufficient because this is a school affiliated with a national organization are unpersuasive. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that a CBS station isn't "independent" of a private school because the headline mentions the name of the school? I agree the source isn't perfect, but claims that CBS isn't "independent" of this school make me dismiss everything you say. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I didn't say that. The concern is that the headline makes quite clear that this local news article is predicated on a call for local businesses to act as sponsors for their local school. "... needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— I added another source from ProQuest, which is accessible via Wikipedia Library. To access this source, login to Wikimedia, then login to WP Library before clicking the ProQuest 2550545515 id link.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this source, it is another local news source. "The San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) is a weekly newspaper in San Diego, California covering local business news." - San Diego Business Journal. It is written by the paper's editor (Jay Harn), and is not clearly predicated on a funding drive. The coverage again only talks about the funding model. We really aren't getting much to say about the school beyond the funding model, and if that model were so significant, there ought to be national coverage. As a news source, reporting is a primary source, and sources should be secondary. I still believe that if the funding model itself were notable, a national news source would clinch it. Otherwise, for purely local coverage, more depth is needed about the school itself, such that an article about the school can be written. I will say I am not far from a keep here - I just don't think local reports about the funding model are enough on their own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Lubao#Notable schools and colleges. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lubao Institute

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

Fails WP:NORG/WP:NSCHOOL. found no independent sigcov online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lubao#Notable_schools_and_colleges per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 10 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization

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

I don't see this Pakistani NGO passing the WP:NCORP. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The problem of WP:SIGCOV is alarming and I may be justified to say WP:MILL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:29, 18 May 2024 (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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [7] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Miyanji

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

She doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG beause the press coverage she received in WP:RS lacks significance or depth which does not satisfy WP:N. N-Peace Award alone may not confer WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Mapúa Malayan Colleges Laguna. Star Mississippi 18:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MCL College of Arts and Science

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

Subject could be redirected to Mapúa Malayan Colleges Laguna. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mapúa Malayan Colleges Laguna per nom. Parent article could use expansion as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 May 2024 (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.

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after a little clean up has been done by the nominator and discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption College, Kilmore

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

Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails GNG to meet significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not passing mentioned or verification.

Most of the sources are primary (assumption college or its founder Marist Brothers). Sources are not from Assumption College or Marist Brothers are the "Notable alumni " section where by - source -1, - source 2 and source-3 only mentioned the alumni members and not mentioned about Assumption college in length or in depth and info are part interview pieces which makes it not independent. source-4 is football club which is not reliable source. source-5 is football organization which is not a reliable source. Section on "Assumption College VCE results 2012-2020" - source -5 is from private company which makes it not reliable. Section on "Sporting achievements" which does not mention Assumption college and the the article is partially interview piece which makes it not independent.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the face of it this is a significant sized school and at the older end of all Australian schools. Not the oldest but a venerable institution. It has significant web presence, but like the concerns about sourcing on the page, much of that is not independent. There are three books about the school on the page that are not discussed above. However, one of these is published by the school, and the other two by a Kilmore publisher so independence is questionable. Yet a school that is publishing volumes about its history is still unusual in itself. Add to that very considerable sustained newspaper coverage, including a lot in The Age. The Age is an Australian newspaper of record, and a reliable source. Much of the coverage is primary, but again, 125 years of coverage is certainly not to be sniffed at. Then it gets mentioned in multiple books that are independent. E.g. [8], [9], [10], [11]. Although passing mentions don't help much, there is more significant coverage in some of these, and again, the very fact it gets mentioned so much indicates a level of significance. This looks like a GNG pass to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, This is Wikipedia and an article needs to pass the notability requirements to have a page in Wikipedia and it is NOT about how old and institution it has been operation or the unusual the history of the school. Primary sources can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Your sources [12], [13] - is a primary source; [14] is about the owners of the school and not about the school and it is just a book cover which does not indicated it cover the school in detail or in length; [15] is about Research Methodology and Research Results in Catholic Schools in Victoria, Australia and not about the school itself and lastly [16] is about Two Centuries of Surgery in Papua New Guinea not about the school itself. As you have mentioned, they are all passing mentioned which do not pass the notability requirements of Wikpedia. Cassiopeia talk 02:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in my nature to draw attention to the weaknesses of the sources I present at AfD as part of a rounded argument. My drawing attention to the fact that many sources are primary therefore is a demonstration of familiarity with the guidelines, not unfamiliarity. But I note that your nom. statement only discusses the sources in the article (and misses the three books) and does not take into account the huge number of sources shown up in the linked searches (Google/books/news/scholar) and in newspaper archives. Looking at that, and at the detail here, that this is a very large and very old school, with sustained coverage and an actual history book written about it that has been accessioned by the National Library of Australia [17] - which book is already linked on the page, and which tells us it is noted for academic and sporting prowess and was one of the largest country boarding schools in Australia - I personally would not even have considered nominating this article after a WP:BEFORE. It does need cleanup, but AfD is not for that. Very clearly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last source is good but not the last 4 including the 3 books where the books are not talking about the subject but part of it, further more, you provide the book name and not the info of the book about the subject. If you can point to the page where we can read the info and verify significant coverage is in place then that is the different story but not because the old established of the subject as the means to pass the notability. To say this, it is unfortunate many colleges/educational institute or in the matter of the fact academics do not have a page in Wikipedia because of only primary sources covered them. Cassiopeia talk 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So again, I already highlighted the issue with passing mentions in the 4 books I highlighted (but remember that a book or article does not have to be about the subject to count towards notability). The point was not to say that those themselves were the best sources - the point is that on the face of it, there is not a snowball's chance that a school with this level of attention, coverage and mentions will fail to meet GNG. And I didn't just provide the name of that book, I provided its full bibliographic record at the National Library of Australia, which also includes an ISBN number. Not that this is strictly necessary, because that book is already listed on the page. I don't need to provide a page number - the whole book is a history of the school. I don't have it. It was published in 1976, and I do not think there is an electronic copy. Recall that sources do not need to be on the page, nor do they need to be available electronically to count towards notability. They merely must exist, and this book exists). However the information I was able to ascertain about the book can be seen on this ebay listing: [18] Very handy that they show us the synopsis and the contents pages. And it doesn't stop there. I made the case I did to save the necessity to trawl through 2,481 newspaper articles mentioning the school. But if you were to search Newspapers.com in the Wikipedia library, the very first page of hits would show up this thorough article[19] which would count as reliable (the Age is a reliable paper of record) with independent secondary coverage, a full page spread certainly being significant. There are other papers too that discuss the school [20], but more significantly, articles in The Age about their sporting prowess, this being just one example.[21] This school is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do agree the article in its current state is promotional and relies mostly on primary sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. On Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore, I've listed four RS (and two more passing mentions from alums that might help balance the tone of the article). The subject meets WP:GNG, even though the article needs an overhaul. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the article substantially to remove the promotional language and reorganize the "team of the century" table but did not have time to add the potential sources listed on the talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Sirfurboy for sources added to Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vistamar School

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

advertising. All the sources self-referential, little hope of finding others, no NPOV Melchior2006 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable school Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'ed articles are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Significant write up on it here. [22] The page is indeed very poor (and tbh, it would be no great loss to just delete it). However there may be more sources, now that the school is approaching 20 years old. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I revised the article, adding sources (at least 3 meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG). I also listed another ten potential sources on Talk:Vistamar School, as more evidence of notability, keeping in mind that notability attaches to the subject, regardless of the state of the article. (ProQuest sources are available by signing in first to Wikimedia, then to Wikipedia Library Platform.) Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the article. However, there are not 3 articles that count towards GNG. There is the LA Times article I found and then you have two from the Daily Breeze. These count together - multiple articles from a single source count as one towards GNG. I think it is the Daily Breeze articles you meant to count, but just in case, I have looked at all the sources you added, and produced this analysis. I am, however, leaning keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - As per my comment above, We have two sources towards GNG. I consider "multiple" to mean three or more, to allow a thorough article to be written, but on the basis of the two, and particularly because one of them is in teh LA Times, I am leaning keep. Of course, an LA school is local for the LA Times - but the quality and reach of the source makes this a good candidate for notability. I also found other mentions in ProQuest, such as PR Newswire sources [23] but note the primary news reporting nature of many of these. Nevertheless, on the basis of the sources found to date, my feeling is that more are very likely to exist. Now that the article has been expanded a little, there is also a weak WP:HEY for keeping. I would like to see it expanded further, and I would like one more good source, but I don't see deletion as being a net positive in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Accredditing Commission for Schools [24]		~ Reliable but a primary source	Directory	✘ No
Vistamar School History [25]		Primary source	~ 404 on link so cannot evaluate	✘ No
LA Times [26]		The source is a major newspaper	The article focuses on the school founding as a concept	✔ Yes
Daily Breeze [27] AND Daily Breeze (second occurence - multiple articles from the same source count as one towards GNG) [28]	Local papers (see below) often publish press releases with little alteration, and as such the independence is questionable. In the first case the author is given as Shelly Leachman. [29] A communications officer since 2012, we are old She previously worked more than a decade as a journalist for news outlets across California, covering primarily education[30]. This piece has her byline, and as such it is unlikely it is just a press release. Indeed she seems to have interviewed students for this piece. In the second case the author is credited as Ian Hanigan. Researching the author, I find Ian Hanigan serves as chief communications officer for the Orange County Department of Education, overseeing the Communications and Media Services unit.[31] However he was the Daily Breeze educational journalist until 2006 by the same source. This piece is dated 2005, so it appears he write the piece himself - it has his byline and this was his beat.	Daily Breeze is a local paper with 57,000 circulation, slogan "LAX to LA harbour". This is local coverage only, but still reliable and secondary.	With local sources, the question is whether there is sufficient information to write an article in the source. This criterion is often not well considered, but these articles appear to give the basis for some article. The problem with my analysis is that I don't have Proquest institutional access to these full records and they are not available in newspapers online, so I cannot fully assess whether these are in sufficient depth to meet this criterion. However we have two articles, three years apart, and looking at different aspects, so taken together, I am giving a cautious yes here.	✔ Yes
NCS directory [32]		~ The source is reliable but this is a primary source	Directory only	✘ No
Niche [33]	I am not sure how Niche select schools for listing but will give it a pass on this as it fails on other measures	~ A directory is a type of primary source, and it is not clear how the information is collated. Some is clearly taken from the school's own materials, again primary	Directory listing, and substantial information is copied from the school and is not created by Niche.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment: Sirfurboy, Thanks for providing your analysis in the above table. It's very useful, and I know it's a significant amount of work. Were you able to access the ProQuest sources, yet, that I listed on the talk page? Also, non-local sources are not required for WP:GNG, only for WP:NORG. The latter specifically exempts non-profit educational institutions like Vistamar School: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. I point this out because sometimes editors equate the term private with the term for profit, concluding erroneously that all private schools must meet NORG. Again, thanks for the care and thoroughness of your analysis. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs are primary, routine opening press releases etc., and databases. Even the LA Times is covering the opening and doesn't wash for GNG. Desertarun (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Source analysis table is a help. This isn't a strong keep, but we have just enough I think. Some PROMO concerns with the wording used, but that can easily be fixed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A couple years ago we would not be wasting volunteer time and energy on this debate. The SNG for schools: (a) is it 9-12? (b) does it exist? QED. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - >>"Even the LA Times is covering the opening and doesn't wash for GNG." — This is wholly incorrect. Carrite (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG (as do all American high schools bigger than a breadbox). THIS is LA Times 1/21/2007, p. 200 ("The School as Brainchild"). Carrite (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick

AfDs for this article:

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

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage of her municipal appointment as to North Texas' Water District Board of Directors and a range of coverage of her consultation in education and other sectors (Wikipedia Library required): [34] [35] [36]. I've gone ahead and removed some unsourced information from the article and rephrased elements to be more straightforwardly neutral. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 May 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to List of schools in Jordan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Reyada School

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

WP:UNSOURCED school with no good place to redirect. A quick search reveals nothing more. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination is incorrect in that the school has a reference. When the article was crerated I believe this scraped through as a "Highschool" because it was judged at the time that such a school was inherently notable. Today I have my doubts. A diligent WP:BEFORE finds that some sources have potential, but do not meet WP:NSCHOOL. I choose to remain neutral in this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Jordan where it is listed. It is not notable for a page, which is the bottom line. If there were a more focussed redirect target I would suggest that but it gets no mention on the Amman page, for instance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Junior School

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

PROD countered. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, articles about primary schools are only kept if they can be shown to meet WP:NORG. That is not the case here. Indeed, this is an article about a kindergarten. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kenya, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is also a story about a UK-based charity. I added a few references. Hopefully just enough to save this story.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud Buitelaar.Tamsier (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although happy to consider a suitable redirect. I'm sorry but there is just not enough information about this school, as is the case of the vast majority of junior schools. Yes, this one is a charitable venture. Lots of them are. There are now four sources on the page. I analyse these below (with the first SHOFCO source being the only one that was there prior to AfD). On my analysis we do not have anything that meets WP:SIRS. There is almost nothing we can actually say about this school in an article. Source analysis:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
SHOFCO [37]	SHOFCO is Shining Hope for Communities, US based, I think it is a charity, and with a focus on Kibera.	SHOFCO appears legitimate. I have not investigated too hard on that score because this source fails on SIGCOV	The link is dead, but it is dated April 2009, and archive.org has a copy of the article [38]. There is no mention of this school at all in the article.	As there is no mention of the school, this is moot.
Charity Commission [39]			An overview of the charity, Maisha Tust. Nothing about th school. The charity is small too.	This is a primary source.
Optima [40]		Fitzwilliam College Newsletter with news of an alumna, the school's founder.	There is a single paragraph telling us that Sarah Shucksmith, a former Geography student, founded this school in her gap year, and they are building a new school building. It's creditable, but it's not notable.	– It is reporting and this is primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. However, as I know people will want to claim otherwise, and SIGCOV is not met anyway, I'll leave that as undetermined. It does not change anything.
Rus Newton [41]	This is a WP:SPS - a blog is a self published source	– I have no reason to say the writer is unreliable, but this is still self published.	To be honest, this would be well short of CORPDEPTH, but I would give ground to this being a charitable work, not a corporation. There is a little information here from which a page could be written, but it really isn't much. A lot more is needed, but I'll give it a yes on this one.	y

Delete per above, and based on my own long-standing factors. This is a very small charity/school that serves 65 young people. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (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.

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [42] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [43] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2024 (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.

Education Proposed deletions

List of children's books featuring characters with limb differences (via WP:PROD on 28 August 2023)

Check WP:PRODSUM for articles proposed for deletion.

Education categories

Category:Japanese high school television series at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 18#Category:Japanese high school television series (18 August 2017)

Primary and secondary schools

Mangrove Institute of Science and Technology

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSschool. Most of the references are from the institute’s website. The other link https://theorg.com/org/mangrove-institute-of-science-and-technology is from an internet directory. Wikilover3509 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, Technology, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington International Diplomatic Academy

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

Sources provided are primary and/or non-independent. A search does not uncover any further SIGCOV in independent sources. Organisation seems unlikely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Schools, and Washington, D.C.. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources all go back to the organization itself (eg a New York Times op-ed authored by the org's executive director). No sources support WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Jalil National Secondary School

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

Non notable school fails to satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations see WP:NSCHOOL. Existing sources show passing mentions only and a before comes up with nothing of note. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Malaysian article, you don't search Bukit Jalil National Secondary School which is the non-native name and expect to find a lot of things. As per the Wikipedia article, the school is commonly referred to as 'SMK Bukit Jalil' and 'Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Bukit Jalil.' Here are the materials/citations that I've not put and put some are in Malay and some are not. In the mean time the article has been moved to draft.

N niyaz (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have clearly misunderstood what we mean by significant coverage, all of the above are passing mentions only. Theroadislong (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; notability nowhere near established. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; searching for further coverage under the "commonly referred to" names referenced in the first comment here doesn't dredge up anything supporting notability either. Chiselinccc (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RRLS ICT Academy

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

Fairly new private school with questionable notability due to lack of reliable sources online. Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Claim for notability is that it is TESDA accredited. However, accreditation is mandatory and just requires routine paperwork and orientation from TESDA. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fontys Academy of Journalism

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

There has not been a source added to this article since it was created in 2006. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Netherlands. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fontys University of Applied Sciences#Tilburg as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a justified spinoff. No valid reason to delete was brought forward so tempting to just procedural keep. Merge, however, is a correcter resolution. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Appears to fail GNG, and therefore WP:NORG. This, however, is based on an English language source, and better sources proving notability may exist in Dutch. Bgv. (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas El-Akkad Experimental Language School

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CCOS, GNG and NORG. Bgv. (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.J.M. Matriculation Higher Secondary School

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Can be mentioned as an educational institution in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakumari_district Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adventist schools in the Philippines

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

Contested prod. Prod reason states "This list is made up of mostly schools that are not notable and also there are no references it has been like this from day one that it was created". As I am conducting a procedural AfD, I am neutral on the matter. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Adventist universities in the Philippines. As far as sourcing goes, I wouldn't know what is available in reliability, but I figured reducing the list to be just the colleges and universities would be more suitable to WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the majority of Seventh-day Adventist schools in the Philippines are not notable and never will be. And we do not need a separate list for Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities in the Philippines, that is why we have List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. Catfurball (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before a rename is considered, you have to put forth a good, policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept. A rename can be discussed after an AFD if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prabodhan Vidyalaya School

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

Zero coverage in independent sources,fails WP:NSCHOOLRatnahastin (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Maharashtra. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narayandas Laddha High School

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

I cant find any mention of this school in reliable secondary sources, fails notability requirements for school (WP:NSCHOOL). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkawkaw Senior High School

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

Nothing much to be notable. While I agree with WP:NSCHOOLS, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." I can't find any WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE for a simple article. WP:SIRS already was not enough except for the schools 50th anniversary. A redirect can be kept though at List of schools in Ghana#N. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may not be the most influential school in all of Ghana, but it meets the GNG and WP:NORG. See source analysis below. Bgv. (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Babegriev, I still guess why this and this should be called WP:SIGCOV or attribution for WP:GNG. Per WP:NHSCHOOL, these are type of sources used to clarify a school exist just not about notability. It was a passing mention of "breaking a teacher's windscreen or thereabout" in this source, and here about a set/class that did something for the school (which is no way notability). It's very hard to see this things and say a school lacks notability, that's why even the SNG guideline says "all school are assumed to be notable". You can also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.ghanaiantimes.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-celebrates-50th-anniversary/	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	School is the subject of the article	✔ Yes
https://newsghana.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-lacks-logistics/	No association with subject known	~ Appears to meet WP:NEWSORG	Critical article about the school and its administration	~ Partial
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1119989/solution-to-west-african-senior-school-certificate.html	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Speaks to the school's involvement with a state examination controversy.	✔ Yes
https://www.modernghana.com/news/817913/nkawkaw-senior-high-school-receives-support-from-1992-year-g.html	No association with subject	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Coverage of alumna's philanthropy to school.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MES College

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. The only source is from the college's LinkedIn page, and I found no press coverage online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Goa. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Doesn't warrant its own page since it doesn't meet GNG. Can be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_University#Recognised_institutions Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goa University#Recognised institutions as an ATD. The college by itself doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Lourdes Institute of Technology

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

Private school that does not appear notable due to lack of reliable sources. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable ref hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to General_Santos#Education per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University of Technology and Skill Development

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable, see Jang, Urdu Point, Dawn, [44], Business Recorder, Urdu Point, Daily Outcome, Dunya, Jang, etc. Again, I'd like to stress that the nominator posted 7 AfD nominations with identical rationales with 2 minutes, no indication of any real WP:BEFORE being performed. --Soman (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, Urdu Point and Daily Outcome are not even RS while the coverage in rest of the sources are not sig/in-depth. Do we need a standalone WP article on every university exists on this planet? Fails WP:NCORP IMO. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does any law from the government or state say it's a public university? Charlie (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CharlieMehta, This is what HEC says HEC NOC granted provisionally for 6 months upto June, 2017. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, primary, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Lam, Yim-hung 林艷虹 (2022-11-24). "優才（楊殷有娣）書院特色課程培育多元人才" [G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College's special courses cultivate diverse talents]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院（下稱優才）為直資一條龍學校，小學初小部（小一至小三）位於旺角校舍，高小部（小四至小六）及中學部（中一至中六）則設於將軍澳校舍。 ... 值得一提的是，優才以推動資優教育見稱，校名英文縮寫G.T.，G代表Gifted，即與生俱來的天賦；T是Talent，表示每一個小朋友都有獨特才華，因此提供多元特色課程來培育孩子。"
  From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (hereinafter referred to as G.T.) is a one-stop school under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. The lower primary section (Primary 1 to Primary 3) is located in the Mong Kok campus, the upper primary section (Primary 4 to Primary 6) and the secondary section (Secondary 1 to 6 ) is located at the Tseung Kwan O campus. ... It is worth mentioning that Youcai is well-known for promoting gifted education. The English abbreviation of the school name is G.T., G stands for Gifted, which is innate talent; T stands for Talent, which means that every child has unique talents, so it provides diverse Special courses to nurture children."
2. Hui, Lok-hang 許珞珩; Cheung, Wai-ting 張瑋婷 (2022-10-24). "升小備戰｜直資優才(楊殷有娣)書院小學部　5層架構推動資優教育" [Preparing for primary school entrance｜Directly gifted G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College 5-tier structure promotes gifted education] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部共有兩個校舍，小一至小三的初小部校舍位於旺角洗衣街，高小與中學部則共用將軍澳調景嶺嶺光街校舍。學校由天才教育協會會長李業富教授於1996年創辦，多年來均實行小班教學及分組學習形式，老師會按學生的能力及長處分成小組，每班6組、每組約4人，不同科目也採用此形式上課。"
  From Google Translate: "The primary school of G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College has two school buildings. The junior school building for primary one to primary three is located on Sai Yee Street, Mong Kok. The upper primary school and the secondary school share the Ling Kwong Street school building, Tiu Keng Leng, Tseung Kwan O. The school was founded in 1996 by Professor Li Yipfu, President of the Gifted Education Association. For many years, it has implemented small class teaching and group learning. Teachers will divide students into groups according to their abilities and strengths. Each class has 6 groups with about 4 people in each group. Different subjects are also included in the school. Take this class."
3. Hui, Melody (2023-05-09). "優才小學5.13開始報名校長分享3大面試貼士小朋友有一個特質最重要" [G.T. Primary School starts registration on May 13. The principal shares 3 interview tips. There is one trait that is most important for children.]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "直資一條龍小學優才（楊殷有娣）書院小學部每年吸引超過3,000人報讀小一，學校推行獨特的教學模式，及深受家長喜歡小班教學，以每級5班、每班不超過26人，每年提供約130個小一學位，平均27人爭1學位，競爭非常激烈。本周六（13日）為2024／25年度小一報名日期，陳偉傑校長回覆記者查詢時，分享學校的教學特式、面試貼士及模式。優才最吸引家長的其中一個原因是一條龍學校，逾九成學生直升中一，而中學部同時開辦中學文憑試（DSE）及國際預科文憑（IB）雙軌課程，小學學生在無需面對升中選校的壓力下，可充分享受校園學習生活。"
  From Google Translate: "The primary section of the DSS one-stop primary school Youcai (Yang Yin Youdi) College attracts more than 3,000 students to apply for primary one every year. The school implements a unique teaching model and is well received by parents for its small class teaching. There are 5 classes per level and no more than 26 students per class. There are about 130 primary one places available every year, and an average of 27 people compete for one place. The competition is very fierce. This Saturday (13th) is the registration date for Primary One students in 2024/25. When responding to reporters’ inquiries, Principal Chen Weijie shared the school’s teaching style, interview tips and models. One of the reasons why Youcai is most attractive to parents is that it is a one-stop school, with more than 90% of students going directly to Form 1. The secondary school also offers dual-track courses of Diploma of Secondary Education (DSE) and International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB), so primary school students do not have to face Under the pressure of choosing a school for high school, you can fully enjoy campus study life."
4. Chan, Yik-chiu 陳奕釗. "香港學校｜優才(楊殷有娣)書院壓縮正統課程特色教學培育優秀學生" [Hong Kong School｜G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College compresses the orthodox curriculum and cultivates outstanding students with unique teaching]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "優才(楊殷有娣)書院特別注重兩文三語、語文能力及溝通技巧。學校不單實行普教中，更讓學生學習法文、韓文、日文、意大利文及西班牙文等第三語言。... 成績方面，學校前年出了3位IB狀元，在全球3,500所IB高中學校中名列第11，香港則排名第3。2023年該校學生IB成績亦不俗：有一個45分狀元、兩個44分榜眼。而本屆69位畢業生中，該校有86%同學在Jupas獲得好成績，能入讀心儀大學及課程，"
  From Google Translate: "G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College pays special attention to biliteracy, trilingualism, language proficiency and communication skills. The school not only provides general education, but also allows students to learn third languages such as French, Korean, Japanese, Italian and Spanish. ... In terms of results, the school produced three IB top scorers the year before last, ranking 11th among 3,500 IB high schools in the world, and Hong Kong ranked third. The IB results of the school's students in 2023 are also good: there is one top scorer with a score of 45, two top scorers Second place with 44 points. Among the 69 graduates this year, 86% of the school’s students obtained good results in Jupas and were able to enter the university and course of their choice."
5. "Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools". South China Morning Post. 2009-06-13. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "Founded in 1997 as a private school and turned DSS in 2002. Merged with Chi Kit School in 2004. Multiple intelligence approach emphasising creativity, self-esteem and social responsibility. Class size: Primary 24; Secondary 24-26. School-based and activity-based curriculum. Over 50 talent classes, run by part-time tutors in small groups, offered twice a week as part of the curriculum. Regular visits to museums and other places of interest. Enhancement for gifted children. Secondary curriculum will lead to HKCEE, HKALE, and other public benchmark tests, IB Diploma may be offered in 2009. Medium of instruction: Primary: Cantonese, with English taught by native speakers. Secondary: English, except Chinese and Chinese history."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College (traditional Chinese: 優才（楊殷有娣）書院; simplified Chinese: 优才（杨殷有娣）书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like G.T. (Ellen Yeung) College needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Chinese Christian Union Logos Academy

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Lin, Zhong 林钟; Deng, Shaobing 邓少冰 (2014). "走进香港真道书院小学" [Visit Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy]. 七彩语文（习作） [Colourful Language (Exercises)] (in Chinese). No. 10. East China Normal University. ISSN 1673-4998. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via CQVIP [zh].
  Colourful Language (Exercises) is a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. According to this description from Google Translate, "Colourful Language (Exercises) was officially launched in January 2015, with academic guidance provided by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University. The magazine is closely linked to the reform of basic education curriculum and strives to provide suitable resources and platforms for middle school Chinese teachers to meet the needs of teachers for daily teaching and improvement of professional qualities."
  The abstract notes: "本期的＂大眼睛看世界＂,小编将和大家一起走进香港一所名校——香港华人基督教联会真道书院。真道书院位于香港调景岭湾畔,学校分小学和中学部,与其他学校不同,真道书院学生没有统一的校服。小学部学生在中文课上使用的是内地出版的小学语文课本,他们觉得教材文字优美,内容包含了古今中外的文化特色,和浓厚的道德教育元素，很符合小学语文教育的需要。"
  From Google Translate: "In this issue of "Seeing the World with Big Eyes", the editor will go with you to a famous school in Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Union Logos Academy is located on the shores of Tiu Keng Ling Bay in Hong Kong. The school is divided into primary and secondary schools. Unlike other schools, students at Union Logos Academy do not have uniforms. Students in the primary school use primary school Chinese textbooks published in the Mainland in their Chinese classes. They feel that the textbooks are beautifully written, contain cultural characteristics of ancient and modern times, Chinese and foreign cultures, and have strong moral education elements, which are in line with the needs of primary school Chinese education. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing a school-based curriculum and uses some Chinese and art textbooks from the Mainland."
2. Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資香港華人基督教聯會真道書院中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  Lok, Irene (2015-05-11). "將軍澳一條龍直資香港華人基督教聯會真道書院中小學" [Tseung Kwan O One-stop Direct Subsidy Scheme. Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy. Primary and Secondary Schools]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "2002年創校的真道年資較其他直資學校淺，被定為新派直資學校，卻是全港唯一採用「十一年一貫」課程模式的學校，分兩年基礎階段、五年拓展階段及四年通達階段，以十一年完成小學及中學課程。 ... 在小學首兩年基礎階段，真道期望學生打穩知識基礎，學好自理、自學及自省能力。學校着力建構校本課程，採用部分內地中文及美術科教材"
  From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy has a younger school years than other DSS schools and is designated as a new DSS school. However, it is the only school in Hong Kong that adopts the "11-year consistent" curriculum model, which is divided into two years of basic stage and five years of expansion stage. and the four-year mastery stage, which takes eleven years to complete the primary and secondary school courses. ... In the first two years of elementary school, Union Logos Academy expects students to lay a solid foundation of knowledge and learn self-care, self-study and self-reflection skills. The school focuses on constructing school-based curriculum and adopts some mainland Chinese and art textbooks."
3. A, Yin 阿言 (2024-02-01). "專訪｜香港華人基督教聯會真道書院多元體驗式學習培育未來領袖" [Exclusive Interview｜Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy's diversified experiential learning cultivates future leaders] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "學校著重學生全方位發展，學生從小學便培育體、美特質，提供多項興趣班予學生選擇，如跳繩、跆拳道、琵琶及烏克麗麗等。另外，為培養學生閱讀習慣，自小學階段設有閱讀時間，同學在操場集合一同閱讀，從小學階段養成自己探索知識的習慣。中學則設有 DEAR Time（Drop Everything And Read），讓學生暫時放下功課及其他事務，專心閱讀。學校更會舉辦不同活動，如閱讀馬拉松、圖書日、書展等讓同學接觸不同類型的書籍，鼓勵學生閱讀。"
  From Google Translate: "The school focuses on the all-round development of students. Students develop physical and aesthetic qualities from elementary school, and provides students with a variety of interest classes to choose from, such as rope skipping, taekwondo, pipa and ukulele. In addition, in order to cultivate students' reading habits, reading time is set up from the primary school level. Students gather in the playground to read together, and develop the habit of exploring knowledge by themselves from the primary school level. Middle schools have DEAR Time (Drop Everything And Read), which allows students to temporarily put aside their homework and other matters and concentrate on reading. The school also organizes different activities, such as reading marathons, book days, book fairs, etc., to expose students to different types of books and encourage students to read."
4. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2021-06-02). "【直資中學】一條龍11年完成小學中學課程　真道書院雙軌制曾出產IB狀元" [[Direct Subsidy Scheme Secondary School] One-stop primary school and middle school courses completed in 11 years. Union Logos Academy’s dual-track system has produced IB top scorers]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院屬中小學直資一條龍學校，也是全港唯一以11年完成小學及中學課程的學校。真道書院既提供中學文憑試課程（DSE），同時開辦國際文憑課程（IB），學生在公開試成績優異，過去亦曾誕生IB狀元。"
  From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a one-stop school under direct subsidy for primary and secondary schools. It is also the only school in Hong Kong that completes primary and secondary school courses in 11 years. Union Logos Academy not only provides the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE) course, but also offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) course. Students have achieved excellent results in public examinations, and IB top scorers have also been born in the past."
5. Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  Wong, Ming-fong 王明芳 (2023-10-10). "直私面試丨直資真道書院2023年小一面試題目老師話+傳豆袋考小朋友反應" [Direct Private Interview丨Direct Subscription Union Logos Academy Primary One Interview Questions 2023 Teacher’s Words + Bean Bag Test Children's Responses]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.
  The article notes: "位於將軍澳區直資學校的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，即提供本地文憑試（DSE）課程，同時開辦國際文憑（IB）課程，多年來深受家長歡迎。真道書院小一面試有兩輪，第一輪是小朋友自行面試，若成功通過會進入第二輪面試，家長也會獲邀出席，TOPick邀請了為女兒報考7間直私小學的港媽梁太，拆解真道書院小一面試第一階段考核的内容。"
  From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, located in the direct subsidy school in Tseung Kwan O District, provides local Diploma Examination (DSE) courses and also offers International Baccalaureate (IB) courses. It has been popular among parents for many years. There are two rounds of primary one interviews at Union Logos Academy. The first round is for children to interview on their own. If they successfully pass, they will enter the second round of interviews. Parents will also be invited to attend. TOPick invited Mrs. Leung, a mother from Hong Kong who applied for her daughter to seven direct private primary schools to dismante the contents of the first stage of the primary school interview at Union Logos Academy."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (traditional Chinese: 香港華人基督教聯會真道書院; simplified Chinese: 香港华人基督教联会真道书院)) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be renamed to Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy (add the word "Churches" after "Christian" and before "Union") to match the name on the website. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, promo, interviews, all obviously based on the same info/source, nothing above show WP:SIRS or notability, they just show marketing at work. Nothing wrong with promotion, but it doesn't equal notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find any evidence of the sources being "based on the same info/source" since they discuss different aspects of the school. WP:SIRS is part of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, a non-profit educational institution like Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy needs to meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which this school does. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources aren't doing what they're purported to be. Source 1 appears to be the equivalent of a WP:TRADES publication. Sources 2, 4 and 5 are brief listings of multiple school options, no significant coverage. (Moreover, 4 and 5 are on the Hong Kong Economic Times' "TOPick" subsite, which appears to be a advertorial Daily Mail-style infotainment site, not a reliable source.) Source 3 is described as an "interview," which is a primary source and thus not eligible to validate notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source, a magazine published by the Chinese Education Research Center of East China Normal University, is not equivalent to a WP:TRADES publication. It is an academic magazine, not a trade magazine. For the second source, I linked to the wrong article because when scrolling to the bottom of the article, the website changes the URL to the next article. I've fixed the link. The incorrect link did not mention the school. The updated link is a full article about the school.
The third source contains sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. The fourth source discusses other schools but provides significant coverage of this school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
For the fifth source, I linked to the wrong article for the same reason discussed above. I've fixed the link. The fifth article is about the school's interview process and is significant coverage.
I consider TOPick to be a reliable source. According to this information from a Telum panel discussion with the Hong Kong Economic Times Group about TOPick:
Editorial team
Around 30 journalists and editors, each contributing five stories daily.
An independent editorial and video team oversees each sector.
Editorial focus
80 per cent on parenting and health, 20 per cent on entertainment, celebrity and lifestyle.
Parenting: general parenting news and education information through a section called 「Band 1 學堂」, which features information on kindergarten, primary and secondary school, elite education and overseas study.
The publication has journalists, editors, and an independent editorial team. It is not an "advertorial" site. It aims to inform its readers about parenting and education topics. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my comments on the sources above; I do not believe they are sufficiently reliable nor offer enough significant coverage to meet GNG or NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All five sources provide significant coverage. For two of the sources, I linked to the wrong pages owing to how the website changes the URL to the next article when scrolling to the bottom of the current article. I've fixed the links. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I reviewed the new links and stand by my assessment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dclemens1971 assessment. I don't believe the additional sources found help with notability. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am surprised that reliable sources from a Chinese academic journal and Hong Kong newspapers are considered insufficient to establish notability. Sources likely these previously have been sufficient to establish notability for schools, which must meet only Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and not Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which "establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article".
An alternative to deletion is to merge to Tiu Keng Leng#Education, where this school is located. School articles should be merged, not deleted, when there is a suitable alternative to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you now !voting for merge not keep? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first choice is a keep. My second choice is a merge if consensus is against a standalone article. The five sources I've listed were found through a Google search. Since editors consider them insufficient to establish notability, I will do a more exhaustive search for print sources. These are sources that cannot be found in a Google search. It takes a lot more time to do this exhaustive search, so I usually do the Google search approach first.
The first source I found casts an unflattering light on the school as it says that 20% of the teachers resigned owing to being overworked. Here is the source:
"真道書院9教師呈辭" [9 teachers from Union Logos Academy resign]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2005-08-04. p. A12.
The article notes: "在電視節目《殘酷一叮》三連霸的「莫生」莫凱謙現正就讀的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，今年將有五分一教師共九人離職，有教師指離職原因是因為工作辛苦。"
From Google Translate: "One-fifth of the teachers from Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, where Mok Kai-him, who won three consecutive championships in the TV program "Cruel One", is currently studying, will resign this year. Some teachers said that the reason for resigning was because of the hard work."
The article notes: "○二年創校的真道書院是一間直資一條龍學校，中小學共用約五十名教師，當中有近兩成共九名教師，在今學年完結後離任。"
From Google Translate: "Founded in 2002, Union Logos Academy is a direct subsidy one-stop school with a total of about 50 teachers in primary and secondary schools. Among them, nearly 20%, a total of nine teachers, resigned after the end of this school year."
I will keep searching for sources and when I'm done, I will post the rest of the sources here. I will do this within the next few hours. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I explained above why I didn't search for these sources earlier. I have found numerous additional sources about the school. I omitted the numerous positive articles and have focused on the negative articles since there were concerns earlier about the sources being "marketing" or "promotion". I think these sources should be sufficient to establish notability. If they are not, I could continue my search for sources since these are only some of the hundreds of results about the school that I found. Here are the additional sources.

The Sun article about 20% of the school's teachers resigning for being overworked 2005

Articles about the school's primary school students being disallowed in 2008 from participating in a competition because of how its academic system is different from other schools':

Sources

Chen, Qiuxia 陳秋霞 (2008-02-25). "真道小六生列學生參賽學體會評級方式惹非議" [Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy Primary 6 students participate in the competition, and the learning experience grading method has attracted criticism]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). p. A9.
The article notes: "西貢區的香港華人基督教聯會真道學院第六年辦學，一直採用「兩年基礎階段+五年拓展階段+四年通達階段」的十一年中小學一條龍教學制度，不同於現行「六年小學+五年中學”十一年中小學教育。若依年齡劃分，現時真道二百二十一位就讀「拓階四」的學生是傳統的「小六生」，不過該階段學生接受政府中學資助，○七/○八年中學概覽內也劃分他們為「中一生」。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Council Zhendao College in Sai Kung District is in its sixth year of operation. It has been using an eleven-year one-stop teaching system for primary and secondary schools of "two years of basic stage + five years of expansion stage + four years of mastery stage", which is different from the current "six-year" "Primary school + five years of secondary school" eleven years of primary and secondary education. If divided by age, the current 221 students of Zhendao who are studying in "Top Level 4" are traditional "Primary 6 students". However, students at this stage receive government secondary school subsidies and are also classified in the 2007/08 Secondary School Profile. They are "middle life"."
"真道「小學生」被禁參賽風波" [Controversy over Logos Academy's "primary school students" being banned from participating in the competition]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-26. p. F1.
The article notes: "以十一年中小學學制為賣點的將軍澳香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，想不到其與別不同的學制，引起一場小學生停賽風波。第六年在該校就讀的拓展階段四年級(DS4)學生，尷尬地處於中小學的中間點，學界體育聯會西貢區小學分會認為，DS4學生既接受中學資助，應被界定為中學生，故此禁止參加本學年剩餘的小學際與區際比賽。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O, which sells its eleven-year primary and secondary education system, unexpectedly caused a controversy among primary school students due to its different academic system. The expansion stage fourth grade (DS4) students who study in the school for the sixth year are awkwardly in the middle point between primary and secondary schools. The Sai Kung District Primary School Branch of the School Sports Federation believes that DS4 students should be defined as secondary school students since they receive secondary school subsidies. They are prohibited from participating in inter-elementary and inter-district competitions for the remainder of the school year."
"直資校參加學界賽腰斬" [DSS schools lose half of their participation in school competition]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2008-02-25. p. A20.
The article notes: "本港學制日益多元化，不再局限於傳統中小學之分，惟學界體育比賽制度僵化，繼續以中小學劃分，令到一間直資名校的近百名十一歲學生，因其所讀的課程等同於中學課程，被拒與傳統學制同樣十一歲的小六學生比賽，學生參賽資格即時被腰斬，學子無辜，慘成官僚制度下，政治鬥爭的犧牲品。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong’s academic system is increasingly diversified and is no longer limited to traditional primary and secondary schools. However, the school sports competition system is rigid and continues to be divided into primary and secondary schools. This has caused nearly a hundred 11-year-old students from a prestigious direct subsidy school to be divided. The courses he studied were equivalent to middle school courses, and he was refused to compete with the 11-year-old Primary 6 students in the traditional school system. The student's qualifications were immediately cut in half. The innocent student became a victim of political struggles under the bureaucracy."

The school was harshly criticised in 2010 by Hong Kong's Audit Commission for administrative misconduct regarding property purchases and tuition fees. This led to hearings by the Legislative Council Accounts Committee. It led to at least one hundred articles covering the fallout which spanned at least several months. Here are a few of those sources:

Sources

"德信售校章利潤1.5倍教局六方面跟進監察直資校" [Dexin's profit from selling school seals is 1.5 times. Education Bureau follows up on six aspects to monitor DSS schools]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-21. p. A7.
The article notes: "立法會帳目委員會昨天就直資學校的監管舉行最後一場聆訊，重點討論三所直資學校的違規行徑，包括運用七千萬元投資的德望學校、用一千萬元購買三個該物業的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，"
From Google Translate: "The Legislative Council Accounts Committee held the last hearing on the supervision of DSS schools yesterday, focusing on the irregularities of three DSS schools, including the Good Hope School, which used HK$70 million of investment, the Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which used HK$10 million to purchase three properties ..."
The article notes: "議員何秀蘭質疑，真道書院有否將盈餘儲備作投資或購買物業，減少學校現金流，以用作申請加學費理由。教育局首席助理秘書長李煜輝表示，該校○八╱○九及○九╱一○兩學年均有加費，但局方發現於○九年八月三十一日的現金流有七千多萬元，連同物業和基金股票等，已超過局方規定的儲備上限，由於盈餘過高，局方已拒絕其一○╱一一學年加學費的申請。局方稱，核准學校加費不單是考慮學校現金流，亦有其他因素。局長孫明揚補充，校方加費須得到家長同意，校方亦要遞交發展計劃，由局方釐定學校是否可以存有大量盈餘。"
From Google Translate: "Councillor Cyd Ho questioned whether Logos Academy had used its surplus reserves for investment or property purchases to reduce the school’s cash flow, which could be used as a reason to apply for a tuition increase. Li Yuhui, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Education Bureau, said that the school had increased fees in both the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 academic years, but the bureau found that the cash flow on August 31, 2009 was more than 70 million yuan, together with properties and fund stocks, which exceeded the reserve limit stipulated by the bureau. Due to the excessive surplus, the bureau has rejected its application for a tuition increase in the 2010/2011 academic year. The bureau said that approving a school to increase fees is not only based on the school's cash flow, but also on other factors. Secretary Sun Mingyang added that the school must obtain the consent of parents to increase fees, and the school must also submit a development plan, and the bureau will determine whether the school can have a large surplus."
"真道放寬學費減免收入限制" [Logos Academy relaxes income limit for tuition exemption]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A12.
The article notes: "上月審計報告重點審查的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，被揭發擁有1900 萬盈餘但學費減免條件嚴苛，又以個人名義購置單位作教師宿舍。真道學院近日已作多方改善，昨日3 名校董連同校長，與400 名家長會面，提出5項措施回應，包括放寬申請家庭的學費減免收入限制，鼓勵清貧學生報讀。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of last month’s audit report, was revealed to have a surplus of HK$19 million but had strict conditions for tuition exemptions and purchased units in individual names as teachers’ dormitories. Logos Academy has made many improvements in recent days. Yesterday, three school directors and the principal met with 400 parents and proposed five measures in response, including relaxing the income limit for tuition exemptions for applying families and encouraging poor students to apply."
"真道書院開家長會跟進審計報告指控" [Logos Academy held a parent meeting to follow up on the accusations in the audit report]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A26.
The article notes: "遭審計報告羅列多宗「罪行」的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨天下午舉行家長會。該校多名校董出席，與約400名家長會面。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was hit with numerous “crimes” in the audit report, held a parents’ meeting yesterday afternoon. Many school directors attended and met with about 400 parents."
"真道書院聘會計師核賬" [Logos Academy hires accountants to audit accounts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-12-20. p. A14.
The article notes: "於直資審計風暴中屢被批評多項行政失當的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，昨日再召開家長會，安排校董會向家長講解事件最新進展。校監陸幸泉提出多項措施「補鑊」，包括聘請羅兵咸會計師重新檢視學校帳目、釐定學校採購政策競價投標準則等，以個人名義購買的一間村屋及居屋亦將作物業轉名事宜。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which has been repeatedly criticised for multiple administrative misconducts during the direct subsidy audit storm, held another parent meeting yesterday and arranged for the school board to explain the latest developments of the incident to parents. School Superintendent Luk Xingquan proposed a number of measures to "make up for the wok", including hiring accountants Luo Bingham to re-examine the school's accounts, determining the school's procurement policy and bidding criteria, etc."
"真道近2000萬助學金未批出教局反對用作添設備必要時接管學校" [Logos Academy's nearly 20 million scholarships have not been approved. The Education Bureau objects to using them to add equipment and take over the school if necessary.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2010-12-01. p. A4.
The article notes: "於直資學校「審計風暴」中被重點查帳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，已被教育局書面警告須及時糾正違規買物業及助學金儲備使用率低等問題。... 接近政府的消息稱，教育局認為學費減免是為有經濟需要的學生而設，不認同用作添置設備；局方會留意校方最終如何落實改善違規工作，若成效不彰，便會由教育局常任秘書長派員進駐學校管理委員會接手校政。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was the focus of audits in the "audit storm" of direct subsidy school schools, has been given a written warning by the Education Bureau to promptly correct problems such as illegal property purchases and low utilisation of bursary reserves. ... Sources close to the government said that the Education Bureau believes that the tuition fee reduction is for students with financial needs and does not agree that it will be used to purchase equipment. The Bureau will pay attention to how the school ultimately implements the improvement of violations. If the results are not effective, the Education Bureau's permanent secretary-general will dispatch personnel to the school management committee to take over school administration."
Ni, Qingjiang 倪清江; Xia, Zhili 夏志禮 (2010-11-27). "最後通牒即將到期校監校長拒轉業權　教局擬進駐真道校董會" [The ultimatum is about to expire. The school supervisor and principal refuse to transfer ownership. The Education Bureau plans to join the Logos Academy Board of Directors.]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A5.
The article notes: "被審計署揭23宗罪的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，挪用1,000萬元非政府資金購置3項物業，業權卻是校監和校長。教育局原來早已知悉，多番促請他們將業權轉回校方，但不獲理會，早前發出最後通牒，日內到期。若真道繼續當教育局無到，局方將派人進駐該校校董會，情形有如去年撤銷辦學權的臻美黃幹亨小學暨國中學校的翻版。"
From Google Translate: "Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy, which was exposed by the Audit Office for 23 crimes, misappropriated HK$10 million of non-governmental funds to purchase three properties, but the ownership was owned by the school supervisor and principal. It turned out that the Education Bureau had known about it for a long time and had repeatedly urged them to transfer the ownership back to the school, but was ignored. It had earlier issued an ultimatum that would expire within a few days. If Logos Academy continues to be in charge of the Education Bureau and there is no one, the Bureau will send people to the school board of directors, and the situation will be a replica of the Zhenmei Huangqianheng Primary School and Junior High School that revoked its schooling rights last year."

"自辦刊物" [Self-organised publications]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2010-07-06. p. E6.
The column says at the bottom that it was written by the Sing Tao Daily editor-in-chief.
The column notes: "位於將軍澳的香港華人基督教聯會真道書院，是近年區內成立的直資中學，該校就辦了一本名為《真道人》(見圖)的刊物，介紹學校的理念和發展，至今已經出版了兩期。真道書院出版這本《真道人》，以一本機構刊物來說，可以說不簡單，新一期的內容除了由校長講解學校取得的國際認證AdvancED外，還有其他親子專題、閱讀版等，從內容、版面設計到紙質，都顯示投入了相當的資源。從刊物的製作班底看，除了校內老師班底，還有資深教育新聞從業員郭玉蘭參與，難怪專題報道形式和深度相當接近傳媒。"
From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong Chinese Christian Churches Union Logos Academy in Tseung Kwan O is a direct subsidy secondary school established in the district in recent years. The school has published a publication called "Logos People" (see picture) to introduce the school's philosophy and development. So far, it has two issues were published. Logos Academy publishes "Logos People", which is not simple for an institutional publication. In addition to the principal explaining the international certification AdvanceED obtained by the school, the new issue also includes other parent-child topics, reading editions, etc. From the content, layout design to paper quality, it shows that considerable resources have been invested. Judging from the publication's production team, in addition to the school's teacher team, Guo Yulan, a senior education news practitioner, is also involved. No wonder the format and depth of the special report are quite similar to those of the media."

Cunard (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The additional sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet NSCHOOL, in addition there is more coverage where the school involved in a scandal where a member of leadership made a controversial statement regarding the 2019 protests, example article: [45]. Jumpytoo Talk 09:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article about another controversy involving the school is a good find, thank you, Jumpytoo (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet GNG per the many sources above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Noordheuwel

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD in October 2023; insufficient improvement in sourcing to meet N:SCHOOL. Sources are to hyperlocal news sources that read like user-submitted or sponsored copy ("Die kersie op die koek: Hoërskool Noordheuwel is die TOP AKADEMIESE SKOOL in Gauteng-Wes en bekleë ook die nr 5 posisie in Gauteng waarop ons baie trots is"... "The icing on the cake: Noordheuwel High School is the TOP ACADEMIC SCHOOL in Gauteng West and also holds the No. 5 position in Gauteng, which we are very proud of.") or a news site comprising regional high school sport news, not clearing the bar for NORG or GNG. A BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and colleges

School or university organisations proposed for deletion

To check articles which are being proposed for deletion search by date at Category:Proposed deletion or see the summary of PRODs at User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary. It is common to find schools of all types on this list.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ==Education==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revera (event)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arkadia_Joint_Lyceum}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Compugoal_College}}

Revision as of 16:01, 14 May 2024

Education

Education Proposed deletions

Education categories

Primary and secondary schools

Universities and colleges

Other school or university articles

School or university organisations proposed for deletion