Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Lourdes College Mankon

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes College Mankon[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 deleted this following a G11 SD tag from @Adamant1:. However, @SportingFlyer: had edited the article and decided in GF that it was no longer G11, so I've restored and brought it here, since it stills reads as poorly sourced promo imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG through press and a scholarly journal search and I've cleaned up the promotional material. Only the history section needs sourcing, will try to do that later. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: despite being on the stricter side of the old WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES debate, I'd argue this school appears to meet WP:NORG through the coverage found by SportingFlyer. There may need to be a look at potential conflicts of interest in the article history due to the promotionalism but in its current state it poses no WP:ADVERT problems. SITH (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage satisfies notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had added the G11 tag due to the promo, which has nothing to do with notability per say IMO (I've seen plenty of extremely promotional articles with two sources deleted for being clear promo), because I felt what would be left after the promo was removed wouldn't be "substantial." Which is mentioned in the speedy delete banner. Unfortunately, "substantial" seems to be a vague term that no one has a definition for or idea of what constitutes "substantial" content. At least not when it comes to admins that I've asked about it and non-admins have just deflected from answering what it means. So, given that, if this passes the notability guidelines (which again, wasn't why I did the G11) then I'm fine with it being retained. That said, I would like to see an actual discussion of the quality of the sources and how they meet the guidelines if they do before this is closed. Because looking over them, they aren't particularly great.

For instance, I would question the neutrality of the second source due to it saying things like that the schools is known for it's "moral rectitude." The forth reference is a dead link. The fifth one is a news aggregator, which I'm pretty sure isn't "primary", and doesn't discuss the school anyway. The sixth is a personal blog. The 7th is a dead link. And that's pretty much it. Except for the first, which is just a "ranking" that I'm pretty sure doesn't work for notability. Things like top lists rarely do. That only leaves "Linguistic Identity in Postcolonial Multilingual Spaces." Which might have in-depth coverage, but likely doesn't. If someone has access to it maybe they could cite a quote to show it does. Outside of that though, this hardly seems like a clear keep. Otherwise, I'd like to see some solid guideline based, sourcing based, arguments as to why it is. For instance just saying it passes the GNG without stating why doesn't cut it. How exactly does it and what sources is it being determined to pass due to? Things do not pass the GNG "through press and a scholarly journal searchs." Give some solid clear reasons why it does. Don't just reference everyone else's non-arguments to justify your own votes either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been frequently referenced in the media in Cameroon, including being noted as one of the best schools based on student results, and been discussed in multiple academic articles. Your continued opposition to clearly notable African school articles is exhausting, and I'm not going to go through a source review just to satisfy you. Vote delete if you must. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's usually how it is when you don't allow non-notable or promotional articles to be deleted through the simpler ways that Wikipedia gives us to delete them. Your the one that kept going off about how everything should go to AfD, no matter how mundane and clearly not notable it was, Because "consensus" or some crap. So, boohoo for you I guess? You really should have taken Steven's answer to your question in Wikiproject Schools about how much of a mess things are to heart by leaving the cleanup to people who actually know what they were doing. Like the admins. It's pretty mediocre for you to complain about a problem you caused. Honestly, I rather not spend my time on this either, but you and Necrothesp didn't really give me a choice about it. So cry me a river. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've searched for sources and there's nothing available that meets the criteria for establishing notability. There's some passing references, some articles written by ex-students or alumini and there's even an article that discusses the grades achieved by students in a survey, but these fall short of the criteria. I'm happy to revisit my !vote if any suitable references are linked to here but applying the relevant WP:NCORP guidelines, this topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what do you define the criteria to be? SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NCORP but there are two sections in that guideline in particular which (in my opinion) are the reasons for most failures to meet the criteria. A summary I sometimes post sums it up as follows.

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

So how to apply the guidelines? For example, this from Cameroon Post is written by three journalism students on internship and discusses a study on school rankings including this school. The article does not provide any in-depth information on the school, only on grades. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, the article is based on an analysis of the 2009 GCE results carried our by the Bakweri community in Great Britain. Looking for the source of this study is difficult but I believe the "study" is nothing more that this analysis posted on the "Fako News Centre" website and is unattributed with no methodology posted and is therefore unreliable. As such, that reference fails the criteria for establishing notability.

Another example. This reference from Dunia is written by Lilian Nukuna-Fomunung, a "contributor" to the magazine. It provides excellent detail of the school and the alumni organization (therefore would appear to meet CORPDEPTH) but towards the end, the contributor is identified as being of the "class of '83" and a member of LESA GA. This is also confirmed by the this magazine on page 32. The contributor is therefore a source affiliated with the subject, fails WP:ORGIND.

As I said, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't necessarily relevant to the discussion since WP:GNG is passed, but schools don't appear to be subject to WP:NORG: this was a unilateral change implemented here and edited. While there was discussion on the talk page, WP:NORG was not discussed in the applicable RfC on school notability. Instead, that close set out the rule to be: Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.. There's plenty of coverage in local sources (most of these are trivial but they reflect the local level of coverage): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. While those aren't great, the article passes WP:GNG as it stands, and along with various mentions in books and scholarly research articles, still seems to be a pretty clear keep to me. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schools not being covered by WP:NORG is directly contradicted by WP:NORG itself. Which says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." WP:ORG is a redirect to the exact same page. Just because a specific guideline isn't directly discussed in an RfC doesn't mean that it becomes void. Really, the opposite should be true. No guideline should be able to be over turned unless there is specifically an RfC about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. GNG is met. That's all you need. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N explicitly states in WP:SNG: "Note that in addition to providing criteria for establishing notability, some SNGs also add additional restrictions on what types of coverage can be considered for notability purposes. For example, the SNG for companies and organizations specifies a very strict set of criteria for sources being considered". NCORP doesn't "add" any extra requirements over and above GNG either, btw, but it does emphasise that references must be strictly examined to meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I was under the impression that the specific notability guidelines semi superseded the GNG. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point in them. Also, I'd assume that if something passed WP:NORG that it would also inherently also pass WP:GNG. Either way, WP:GNG still requires significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Which unless I'm mistaken was HighKing's point. Due to this lacking it. Unless you want to try and barnstorm this by nitpicking over what "significant coverage" means. I, and I'm sure everyone else here, rather you not though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing's assertion that an article isn't independent because the writer went to the school more than thirty years ago is not credible. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I do think he's stretching it a little bit maybe, but its not clear to me where WP:INDEPENDENT draws the line, unless I missed it, and it's always better to air on the side of caution. Since the author still technically has a vested interest in the school and likely isn't covering it from "a disinterested perspective." I know I wouldn't be able to write about the school I graduated from with a "disinterested perspective." Even thirty years later. School pride is deep man. Deep. Probably more importantly I don't think someone writing about their school shows that it is a notable topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have misrepresented what I said and omitted an important points. In my post above, I pointed out the contributor is identified as being of the "class of '83" *and* a member of LESA GA (and I even provided a link). It isn't just the fact that the contributor went to the school 37 years ago but coupled with the fact that the contributor is an active member of the alumni organization and actively promotes both the school and its values (for example by organizing events, fund raising, contributing glowing articles on the school, etc) demonstrates that the reference fails because it is not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked pretty extensively through the sources in the article and search for others. None of them worked for notability due to being trivial, primary, or having other problems. So, unless someone can find the multiple in-depth reliable sources about this that the guidelines require then it's a clear delete for me. Sometimes, things just aren't notable. It's possible that I missed something, but at it currently stands this isn't. Also, thanks to Jimfbleak for doing the AfD. Even if it wasn't my preferred way to go about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Two refs come close. // Timothy :: talk 22:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 5 November 2020 (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.