Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instituto Salesiano

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Salesiano

[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)

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:Cunard added sources and expanded the article after the PROD, and before the article was listed for AFD. The articles from the Macau Post Daily should satisfy the Wikipedia:General notability guideline WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.

(added 12 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL. One of the sources is state-owned, which precludes the sources as WP:RS in principle, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.

In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.


Link	Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	Macau Daily	Yes	Yes	No, only reported on a single event, ~~potentially~~ based on a press release. Source is precluded per WP:ORGIND ("any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources")	No
2	People's Education	No, owned by the Chinese Ministry of Education	No, owned by the Chinese Ministry of Education	Potentially, but only seems to be a brief article introducing the school	No

33ABGirl (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The issue is that Cunard had added two other Macao Daily News articles while removing your PROD, but before the AFD. It's important to review those ones too.
2. As for the ones you evaluated: This article from the Macau Daily has a headline that Google translates to "Salesian organized multiple activities to raise funds for school expansion." This is not merely about WP:ROUTINE reporting about a single development, but it is about the ongoing evolution of the school. Articles about the expansions, renovations, and redevelopments of schools count towards WP:SIGCOV
3. As for the People's Education article, note that for WP:SIGCOV, the content must be more than a "trivial mention", but non-trivial mentions could be a long paragraph or so.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. The articles evaluated are the articles added by Cunard when removing my PROD.
2. For the Macau Daily source, my concern was that the article was potentially based on a press release. Upon reading the article further, I found that its is directly stated in the article "...held a press conference at the Music Kitchen Western Restaurant at 3:30 pm yesterday." ^(Translated). This precludes the source per WP:ORGIND ("any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)")
3. I would disregard the People's Education source entirely, as it is essentially a propaganda outlet owned by the PRC Government.
33ABGirl (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Macau Catholic Schools Association. No content worth keeping, almost all unsourced - just because it has some sources doesn't mean it is notable or deserves an article. It's a wonder this hasn't been nominated for deletion before now... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you feel the sources do not adequately provide notability, it may help to explain why, so people can find other sources. Macau media cover Chinese, Portuguese, and English, so if the sources we have are inadequate, I can look for more. Additionally, as the school was established in 1906, I can't imagine there aren't a treasure trove of significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable sources from Portuguese Macau. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sources have been added, and more are available at zh:慈幼中學. Seems to meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic school. Available sources sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources referenced in the article for a pass of WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2023 (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.