Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colégio Mateus Ricci

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. ✗plicit 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colégio Mateus Ricci

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

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – in addition to the sources cited in the article, other sources are not hard to find: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.

(added 11 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.

In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.


Link	Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	Hoje Macau	Yes	Yes	No, seems to only be brief mentions in three sections. Could not ascertains further as full text was not available.	Partially
2	Department of Education Taipei City	No, press release	No	No, only brief coverage of a event without further analysis.	No
3	Macau Cultural Affairs Bureau	No, government department	No	No, only brief coverage of the school building in the context of historical building in the city. No direct mention of the school (as its own entity) is made in the main text.	No
4	University of Macau	No, press release	No	No, only brief coverage of a event without further analysis.	No
5	Macau Sports Weekly	No, published by the Institute of Sports, a government agency	Yes	Partially, extended coverage, but tone is very promotional, without holistic analysis.	No
6	台灣好新聞	Partially, style make it potentially a tabloid	Partially	No, only brief coverage of a event without further analysis.	Partially

33ABGirl (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The former primary school facility is considered to be a historic site by the Cultural Affairs Bureau [zh]. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:INHERITORG, applies here, as the school (as an organization), and the building itself, are two separate entities, so the notability of the building should not be inherited by the school. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage referenced in the article and additional references listed by Mr Granger that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2023 (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.