Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholarism

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. Can be userfied if requested. Sandstein 07:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarism[edit]

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

A small, self-styled protest group that could probably be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Was previously speedy deleted but was recreated after participating in a protest a few days ago. To me, this smacks of recentism since the group hasn't had any major, lasting effect. Also fails WP:GNG - there are 3 sources in the article, but one is Chinese (google translate can't handle it and so I can't read it) and the other two are passing mentions in news articles which aren't available online (the author originally linked to the online version without realising they can only be viewed by paying subscribers, but the abstracts I could see, and they didn't mention the word "scholarism", so the articles certainly weren't primarily about them and so don't constitute non-trivial coverage). I can't find anything else on google, and since I don't live in Hong Kong it's difficult for me to check the news sources cited there. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am new to wikipedia, I appreciate your affords to state your reasons clearly as above, instead of hasty speedy deletion nominations, especially when many of your previous speedy deletion requests have been rejected by patrolling admins. To make things clear, you allege the article should be deleted as per WP:NOT#NEWS because it only covers recent events. As the group is active, ongoing events can be included. One of the significant effects as claimed by the group is the postponement of the curriculum, which is a major topic of the discussions around the curriculum.

In my understanding of WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" criterion is fulfilled because the Chinese language source "address[es] the subject directly in detail" (GNG also states that source can be in all forms and in any language); "Reliable" criterion is fulfilled as the sources are newspaper and VOA news report; "Independent of the subject" criterion is fulfilled as none of the sources are connected with "the subject or its creator"; "Presumed" is being discussed here; I am only not sure about the "Sources" criterion but I think newspaper can qualify as Secondary sources? Forgive me as a newbie, but the discussion would be easier if you could point out clearly which exact points of which policies are violated because the burden lies on you. Correct me if my understanding is incorrect.--Jabo-er (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, though I rarely respond to ad hominems, you might want to check your facts before attempting to undermine the credibility of a nominator. If you had, you may well have found my CSD log, which shows a deletion/redirect rate of over 90%.

Now to point out the specifics you're asking for:

The GNG states that "significant coverage" is required. The abstracts of the two newspaper pieces cited don't even mention the group, and the segment you quote is just a passing mention. This is trivial coverage. The GNG also sources are required. Specifically, it says "multiple sources are typically required". I don't know what the Chinese article says and so I can't judge it, but even if it is a fantastic source it's still only one. More than one is required, and I can't find any others.
The presumed paragraph talks about my primary concern - that this article serves as a page to actually facilitate the group's activity, not just document it. Even if it didn't, this group hasn't had any kind of lasting impact to document, and so it becomes just routine journalism. Your statement that the group is "active" and "ongoing events can be included" advocates exactly the kind of content WP:NOTNEWS discourages. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, it maybe WP:TOOSOON for this article to have passed WP:GNG. I found two news articles; both these articles talk about the actions of the group however I don't feel that either, at this time, add up to significant coverage. If this group continues its activities it may achieve notability, however I am of the opinion that it does not meet this requirement at this time. Therefore, I suggest that the article be userfied into the sandbox space of the primary editor, and when sufficient reliable sources are found that will support passage of WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG than the deletion can be reviewed, and it can return to the main article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article includes two sources with in-depth coverage and I think the "significant coverage" criteria is passed. The page WP:TOOSOON only tells which actors and films can be included, so I can't find how I can improve this organisation-related article. This article talks about an active group whose ongoing activities are significant, but that does not make the article a news report as described by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER; this article is updated less frequently than Libyan Civil War and Hurricane Katrina were when the two events were in the news. In fact, the page Wikipedia:Recentism does not describe "recentism" as a purely bad style.--Jabo-er (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Trusilver 19:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Scholarism" Page Fails in WP:NOTNEWS & WP:GNG.Anyway, please delete the SCHOLARISM Page as quick as possible !!!202.40.137.202 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The page may (and may not) fail the policies listed on those 2 pages, but 202.40.137.202 seems to exhibit extraordinary passion to have it deleted as soon as possible. For the record, even if the page finally gets deleted, 202.40.137.202 has vandalised [1] the page by removing references and categories, and adding false information. --Jabo-er (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2012 (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.