Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excel Christian School

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 14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excel Christian School[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)

I did my due diligence regarding research and this school, but, I cannot figure out how it passes WP:GNG (let alone WP:ORG). Yes, there were some brief mentions about one event with a lawsuit, but, that doesn't even qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (events).

All the other sourcing I found were passing mentions about alumni (usually football players).

I'll gladly withdraw if we can prove notability here, but, at this time I believe Excel Christian School fails to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Missvain you are right, it looks like this article underwent massive deletions and WP:REVDEL for copyvio, leaving a skeleton that doesn't qualify for GNG. I did find 5 articles on newspapers.com and listed them at the bottom of the article's talk page. Those should help qualify the subject under ~~WP:EXIST~~WP:NEXIST to meet GNG, ~~as long as the school is not-for-profit, which I think most religious schools are.~~ because I just noticed the claim that it is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, so not required to qualify for NORG underWP:NSCHOOL. There is also statistical info on the NCES site that won't help the GNG argument, but which is useful to fill out somme infobox data. There were probably 5 more articles about the lawsuit involving international student athletes, already well-covered in the existing remains. There was also one on a special class offered at the school on forensic science which was probably a one-off, not a feature of the school's curricular approach. I apologize I haven't time this week to read and summarize and try for WP:HEY, but IRL I have grandkids arriving and need to batten down some hatches. I'll check back later this week if I have time. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added 7 sources that meet GNG requirements, and added other sources that are not in depth but do verify othr data mentioned in the article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N and has sufficient WP:RS. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient WP:RS in the article at this point to satisfy, gng, but in addition, being a secondary school existing for 18 years there are doubtless going to be many, many offline sources (see WP:NEXIST). There was a reason we used to consider mere verification sufficient for secondary schools: if you dig, they are almost always going to prove to be notable and so wasting a lot of time discussing their notability is a waste of time. There occasionally is a school that fails, but not often, and this is not one of them.Jacona (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article now clearly meets GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2021 (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.