Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Euphemia College

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. While secondary schools are not inherently notable, the addition of reliable, independent sources helps this come close to satisfying the general notability guidelines. After relisting, there is a slight edge in the arguments for keeping the article, but consensus has not been reached. Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Euphemia College[edit]

[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)

Secondary schools aren't inherently notable. Especially independently funded ones. So this needs to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't since the article only has a single primary reference and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work for notability. Just a couple of trivial name drops in articles about other things. Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference cited in this article, other than a link to the school's own website, is to this page which pertains to a completely unrelated school, Alphacrucis, and has no mention of this school. Apparently a bot tried to rescue an orphaned reference nine years ago, and nobody seems to have noticed this for nine years, except that another bot supplied an Internet Archive link for the same irrelevant source three years ago. With no independent sources provided, this article doesn't pass WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Delete~~ There are some references available, for example here, but no where near enough substance for GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the SMH references I found above, and these Greek Herald references, and the work done by Grand'mere Eugene, I am prepared to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Aoziwe (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a major contributor to the article, and have no vested interest, other than I've been working on all schools' Wikipages across Australia. I have today added more references to the article, including content from the respected My School/ACARA website. While there is much content that needs citations, the content that is there is relevant in that it is an independent school in SW Sydney. Rangasyd (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the one extra ref adds to N. It is a routine ref for any school? Aoziwe (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "My School" website is hosted by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, which is on parity with Ofsted in the UK, or regional Pre-tertiary-education accreditation commissions in the U.S. All these agencies examine the quality of schools, and provide reports of their findings, and schools are required to address any recommendations made for improvement. It's not a "routine" reference, but a reliable source that provides info unique to the school. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we go with it being independent it's still a primary source and essentially a database at that. Since they examine most (or all) the schools in Australia. The reference doesn't even say anything either. It's literally just a couple of info graphic and articles need to be more then trivial, basic facts. So in no way is it usable for notability or anything else really. Except maybe to fill in an infobox, but that's about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are few schools that are notable and this one does not come close. --Bduke (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sourcing available to meet GNG as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NORG 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. St Euphemia College is a registered charity for tax purposes, a non-profit, and WP:GNG is the required notability standard. It meets GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we go with that, what references are you basing it passing WP:GNG on? Because none of the sources in the article pass it from what I can tell and no one here has provided any that do either. Not even Necrothesp, despite their claim that there's enough sources available for it to easily be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability found by any of the "keep" voters or present in the article. Fram (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added 4 citations to articles in the The Greek Herald, 2 citations in The Daily Telegraph and one from NEOS KOSMOS. Here's the WP:GNG description of the notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Any of thes 7 citations meet that standard, and they are all independent secondary RS. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In need of citations. Relevant as an independent school in NSW. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of added reliable sources such as Greek Herald and Daily Telegraph for WP:GNG as it is a charity so not applicable to WP:NORG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's borderline, but prepared to give this the benefit of the doubt on the basis of the SMH and Greek Herald citations. Deus et lex (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2022 (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.