Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Dom João Paulino


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Escola Dom João Paulino

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools,  and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here are some sources: . I suspect a more thorough search would find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.


 * (added 11 June) In general, most sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. Some of the sources are also state-owned or party-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.
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Link !Source !Independent? !Reliable? !Significant coverage? !Count source toward GNG?
 * 1
 * 澳門教育史
 * No, published by the People's Education Press, a publication owned by the Government of China.
 * No
 * No, seems to only be a brief mentions in three sections. Could not ascertain further as full text was not available.
 * No
 * 2
 * 同舟共進：澳門中華教育會史略
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No, seems to only be a brief mention in a single section. Could not ascertain further as full text was not available.
 * Partially
 * 3, 4, 5
 * 澳門日報
 * No, the publication is owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
 * No
 * No, brief press release format one-paragraph article on a event.
 * No
 * 6, 9
 * TDM
 * No, government owned broadcasting company
 * No
 * No, release of a government planning document
 * No
 * 7, 8
 * 正報
 * Yes
 * Partially, seems like a tabloid
 * No, only brief articles on events in a very promotional tone
 * No
 * 10
 * Tribuna de Macau
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No, article based on the release of a government planning document ( same  document as 6, 9)
 * No
 * 11
 * Hoje Macau
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No, article based on the release of a government planning document ( same  document as 6, 9)
 * No
 * 12
 * O Clarim
 * Yes
 * Yes
 * No, only a brief article on a event in a very promotional tone ( same  document as 8)
 * No
 * }
 * 33ABGirl (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, the news sources' indirect national government ownership should not affect their reliability or independence when reporting on a local high school for purposes of GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've replied elsewhere, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP, significantly more scrutiny is applied to state-owned and party-owned publications from China, with the general consensus being that such publications are unreliable. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the other AfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * No, only a brief article on a event in a very promotional tone ( same  document as 8)
 * No
 * }
 * 33ABGirl (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said elsewhere, the news sources' indirect national government ownership should not affect their reliability or independence when reporting on a local high school for purposes of GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've replied elsewhere, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP, significantly more scrutiny is applied to state-owned and party-owned publications from China, with the general consensus being that such publications are unreliable. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the other AfD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.