Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montreal School for the Deaf

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. Sandstein 14:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal School for the Deaf

[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)

Simply not notable due to the lack of sufficient coverage in independent journalistic or academic sources Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a usually state-administered institution for a certain need, schools for the deaf or hard of hearing are usually notable. The largest SFTD in its province is definitely notable (though others should not confuse this with the closed Montreal Institute for the Deaf and Mute). Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrschimpf, is there a SNG I'm not aware of that declares a "usually state-administered institution for a certain need" is notable without any regard to sourcing? This one is actually a private school, not state run and no claim or evidence is presented that it's the biggest anything. Since the "downgrade" of SCHOOLOUTCOMES some time ago, all such subjects have to comply with WP:NORG afaik. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few passing mentions is scholarly papers concerning studies that were done there, but nothing that would get it past GNG. The only thing in any depth is a couple of news items concerning a sex abuse scandal there. I'm pretty sure the school would rather have the article deleted than see that go in which is about all that would justify keeping the article. SpinningSpark 02:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Spinningspark - The school has only gained notability because of that issue which is a shame .... The article cannot rely on those 3 "issue" stories - They could be used as an aside but not for the entire article, Would be better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on [1], this seems to be a pre-school/primary school with fewer than 50 students total. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 7 January 2019 (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.