Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kennedy 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy 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)

The article is extremely promotional and only referenced primary sources. Unfortunately when I looked for better ones all I could find was a 95 page book called "John Kennedy College : 30 years of purple magic : the Eagles 95," which was written by the school. So I'm nominating this for deletion since secondary schools are not inherently notable. That said, the rather ambiguous name probably doesn't help things so maybe someone can references that I couldn't. If anything does turn up at least make sure it's for the right place before posting it in the AfD. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~, minus the spam. It is a secondary school and we normally regard secondary schools as notable. This article is frequently prone to promotional additions and I see a big chunk of them have slipped in since I last looked. In the past the puffery has been quite laughably over the top. This seems more run of the mill but it is still unreferenced promotion. I'll clear that stuff out and then we can get a better view of what remains. Also, I think this did have some independent references in the past. I'll try to see what happened to those. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC a few years ago that determined secondary schools aren't inherently notable anymore and there's been plenty of AfDs for secondary school since then that resulted in delete. Per the RfC "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." So in no are they normally regarded as notable. They still have to pass WP:NORG like every other type of organization. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I looked at some old versions and it looks like I was wrong about there being independent refs in the past. There may be some hits in Google News to save it but I don't speak French. I'll switch to neutral for now. I've removed the puffery so at least that's something. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At least the puffery is dealt with now if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No RS here to substantiate this as notable. As noted, schools aren't inheritently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent sources. A few years ago we decided to go from allowing any article on a top level secondary school that we could be sure really existed to allowing only articles that could be sourced to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that RfC was 5 years ago. I had no idea it had been so long. Well in part because some people have claimed it includes a "do not proactively try to implement this" clause, so it has really had very little effect on either the level of secondary school articles we have, or the adequacy of the sourcing that they have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always refer to it as being a few years ago because that's when it seems like people started to follow it. There was a good three years there after the RfC where it was mostly being ignored though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may end up saying about the same thing about the RfC on Olympians not being default notable unless they won a medal. At least I am surprised we have not seen more deletion nominations on Olympians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NORG appears to be the threshold, and from the sources presented we're not there. Chumpih ^t 20:12, 20 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.