Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Portuguesa de Luanda


 * 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. I have already warned the nominator about personal attacks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Escola Portuguesa de Luanda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This school doesn't seem notable. The only sources in the article are primary. Except for a dead link. Plus, a BEFORE only turned up a few trivial (both in the subjects and depth of coverage) news articles about it. Secondary schools aren't inherently notable. So, this seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment., , , , , , , , and there are more, don't seem trivial (all in Portuguese). However, most of them arguably do fall under WP:1EVENT (assuming, for a moment, that 1EVENT can be about schools as opposed to people). Basically, there have been some financial irregularities at this (private) school, which have been the subject of substantial controversy. There were even protests at the Portuguese embassy in Luanda about it. I don't necessarily think this gets it past GNG, but it's not nothing. Perhaps those with better Portuguese than mine would be able to comment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since no one, including me, has yet !voted, I'll say weak keep based on the sources I've identified. Again, many are about a single event, hence the "weakness". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment, whatever the case is about it being a single event thing or not, all of the sources except for one are from two news outlets and sources from the same outlet only count as one source for the sake of notability. Also, interestingly two of the articles from Sapo were printed on the same day and one of them is anonymous for some reason. Which seems a little sketchy. The fifth source is about how schools in Portugal, including this one, are dealing with Chronovirus. Which I would call trivial. One the single event thing, for me it usually comes to if there is sustained coverage and if the coverage is not mainly sensationalism. It's hard to tell if either is true in this case. One article (and really the topic in general) is about how the parents are in dept to the school and I'd say that's sensationalism because it's about the parents complaining about tuition hikes, but there's evidence it ever went anywhere legal and people being upset about something isn't notable on it's own IMO. Plus, maybe they just don't manage their money well and want to blame the school for it because the news was doing an article about it. There's no way to tell, but "outrage" (transient or otherwise) doesn't qualify as notable as far as I see it. Especially when that's all there seems to be. I'm still open to this maybe being notable for what it's covered for in the articles though if something more substantial can be found about it, or things can be clarified. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have cited an acedemic book that is unrelated to the scandal mentioned in the news reports linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it weird that anyone would find this not notable. There are four foreign language secondary Category:Schools in Luanda, this one, Escola Português de Luanda, appears to be the oldest, and the largest. We don't have an article for the Colégio Português de Luanda, or the Colégio S. Francisco de Assis – Luanda Sul all of which are verified on Portuguese Education Ministry site. We do have one for the smaller Luanda International School. A notability test is about potential, it is not the same as a GA review. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Being the oldest X of whatever doesn't automatically make something notable. Also, notability isn't determined by the "potential" for something to be notable, whatever that means (everything could "potentially" be notable), its determined by the topic having multiple in-depth reliable sources that discuss it. That's it. Not how long its been around, it being the first of something, or anything else. Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources that discuss it with significant coverage, not necessarily cited currently in the article or available via a Google search. You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here. That an article is about an African subject, and Africa is not covered online as well as other continents, doesn't mean that a proper search for sources shouldn't be undertaken before deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I say they needed to be currently cited in the article or available via a Google search? Obviously their existence has to be variable outside of vague comments that there might be some "because it's an old school brah," because that's not how things in Wikipedia works. So, if you want to make vague comments without providing evidence as to their truthfulness this isn't the place to do it. I could really give a crap if your evidence if a Google search or not though. Same goes for your comment that I'm nominating "the top schools in Africa." There's zero indication from anywhere that they are (because there aren't any damn sources that say are or anything else about them for that matter) and I'm not going to just take some random persons word for it. Again, that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, your criticism that I'm ignoring "run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries" is obviously just more bullshit. Since I've done plenty of nominations for schools in "western Anglophone countries" (whatever the hell that means). It's not like I have to though. I can nominate whatever the hell I want, that's located wherever the hell I feel like it being located. That said, you'd have zero way of knowing what I've nominated or not unless you were looking through my edit history. If you were I'd 100% consider that WP:HARASS. Just like I consider your message attacking me for this nomination as harassment. If you think I'm specifically targeting African's with my AfDs though, feel free to report me for it. Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming what a nasty piece of work you are. I simply look at what has been proposed or nominated for deletion, which I do without regard to who has proposed or nominated deletion, but then find that a significant number are proposed or nominated by you. That is not harassment, but simply an observation that you are responsible. Just start looking for sources rather than assuming that everything is non-notable that doesn't currently cite sources that you would like. And if you really don't have the English comprehension to know what means then you are not qualified to be editing an English-language encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been an editor for like 5 years and have nominated a couple of thousand articles across many subjects during that time. Including plenty of articles about schools all over the world. The problem is that your cherry picking a few recent examples to attack my motivations instead of basing your argument on the notability of the subject. Which is what AfDs are about. Your the one being nasty by making this personal when there's zero reason to. That said, people nominate multiple articles having to do with the same subject all the time. That's just how things work. For instance there's been a bunch of AfDs about geographical locations in California the last month. The people doing the nominations aren't specifically "targeting California." The rules for the notability of secondary schools was changed recently so a lot aren't notable anymore. Which is why I'm doing a bunch of nominations. It's just easier to keep track of things by doing them based on their geographical location. That's it. I really give a crap about Africa or anything related to it outside of that though. Your complete ignorance about the process and how this works doesn't equate to me intentionally targeting none ""Western Anglophone countries."


 * As far as "Western Anglophone countries" goes, obviously I know what the term means. I just think it's a semi-racist, ethnocentric, and totally ignorant troupe to divide the world into "Anglophone Westerns" and none "Anglophones Westerns." Since it has zero basis in reality. Especially when it comes to Africa countries. For instance 10% of the population of South Africa is whites of Germanic decent. It would be a completely garbage argument to claim that someone is targeting anything specific if they nominate something related to Egypt and the Congo just because they aren't "Western Anglophone countries" to. Just because both are in Africa doesn't mean they have anything in common or that classifying them as none ""Western Anglophone countries" has any meaning or usefulness outside of Klan rally. Your the one being nasty by claiming it does or that I'm being motivated by it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by chalking the whole thing up to ignorance on your part though and end it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:31, 16 September 2020 (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.