Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School (2nd nomination)


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails NSCHOOL. Over 14 years ago this article survived an AFD with an overwhelming majority !voting various wording of "Keep and cleanup". 424 revisions with 157 editors and the only reference is a dead link and apparently "External links" for sourcing. In 2017 it was determined that notability and ORG was a determining factor for an article as there is no inherent notability. The article has substantial size that is actually indicative that there could be a whole lot of WP:original research. This is hard to disprove because there are no references so no inline citations. Otr500 (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I have looked again at the guidelines, I have read the article and Googled the school. This AfD is just vexatious. Google provides 224,000 results. One of them, independant of the school could verify almost all of the article- a sort of HK-GIAS site. For notability we have to prove the information could be verified- not that someone has verified it. There is a dead link- just go to the site index. it is all still there. Note that is a primary source.ClemRutter (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim that because an article is long it must involve OR is ludicrous. I scan read the site I mentioned- and found no copyvios, before that is claimed. This is average length article for a B standard following WPSCH/AG.
 * That 159 editors (sorry 160) have contributed does prove some sort of notability in its self. It is the only Baptist School in Sha Tin with a unique spiritual offer. ClemRutter (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The site "SSP2018" contains "The school information is provided and vetted by schools.". This is absolutely not "independent of the school" so I am not sure why this would be stated as fact. Listing that "Google provides 224,000 results" does not prove anything. I searched a high school I am familiar with and it returned "About 2,610,000 results (0.61 seconds)". WP:WPSCH/AG (an essay) does state in the "Notability" section "Wikipedia decides whether a school is notable enough for a stand-alone article by assessing, if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". When something is challenged stating "For notability we have to prove the information could be verified- not that someone has verified it.", becomes a moot point. Verifiability is a policy and states All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. Further information on schools and notability can be found at WikiProject Schools. I am sure, since you are listed as a coordinator, you already know most of this though.
 * Here is a suggestion: Instead of becoming frustrated or asserting that comments on so much unsupported contented being possible OR is ludicrous, pick three of the "204,000" reported Google hits, that are actually reliable and independent sources, and add them to the article. Of course since there are the supposedly "204,000" sources there should be enough to provide ample references and lots of inline citations. Since I couldn't find them it would be a big help and certainly a Hey. Anything short of that would be paramount to just claiming but I like it! as it does currently fail WP:NSHOOL and\or Wikipedia:ORG.  Otr500 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Google result is nothing. Sometimes it just inflated by mirror site or junk or just plain wrong from their web API. If among "204,000" results there are some WP:RS that have in-depth coverage, it is worth to keep. If all the result are from facebook social network or content farm or just routine mention, it is not worth to keep it. Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    </li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * Comment Cunard, one source is an interview of the principal, which is between primary and secondary source? Another one is about a student of that school (and also an interview), which nothing in detail for that school. Another one is about an event related to the overseer of the school, Hong Kong Baptist Convention, fails to register the list of directors. So the school itself is routinely mentioned. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I added sources and content to the article. Cunard (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Based on no in-depth source. Unless people form a new consensus that wiki article about school can have full or routine information only. Matthew hk (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This school analysis site give adequate in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG. The bar is that we have to ascertain there exists two or possibly one in-depth source- this one goes into great depth. Pass. ClemRutter (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It clearly bigexam.hk not a reliable source. Any "metric" site for HK secondary schools were not reliable and dubious COI as possible ransom to the school by asking them to pay for a better scores. Matthew hk (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.