Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater Spei College


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Mater Spei College

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This secondary school (It's not a college despite the name) doesn't seem notable. As the only sources in the article are a basic listing and a couple of dead links to what looks like a primary source. Even if it's not they are still dead links though. I couldn't find multiple in reliable secondary sources about it in a BEFORE either. Plus, secondary schools are not automatically notable. So it doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Also, it's written like an advertisement and would essentially be blank or a basic directory listing if it wasn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment for anyone considering the second source (Community Financing of Schools in Botswana) as part of their vote, it's just contains a name drop of the school and doesn't actually talk about it at all. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It verifies when the school was founded and that it was the second Catholic secondary school in Botswana. That is not extensive coverage, but it is more than a name drop. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe. My opinion is that a name drop is anytime something is mentioned only by name in a single sentence without in-depth details. For instance "Mater Spei College exists" is still a name drop even with the "exists" in the sentence. Your never going to find just a name of a school in any article without any other words, because it's not a complete sentence. The point is, even "Mater Spei College was built in 1987" without anything else is still just a casual passing mention and therefore a name drop. At least IMO. Your mileage may vary though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass; the coverage is entirely routine Spiderone  15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per my standards; it a religious school for two grades and has no special coverage of its programs or alumni. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG fairly easily:     Article does need a bit of cleanup. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * All of those are extremely trivial or non-reliable. For instance there's nothing notable about them celebrating their 50 year anniversary. Litterally ever school on the planet it does and gets coverage for doing so. There's nothing notable their students wearing masks for COVID-19. Every school in the world is getting coverage for that right now. Including the ones in my local area. And I don't think they should have a Wikipedia article for it. Notability isn't about search results. Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They are in-depth articles from the largest Batswana newspapers, clearly demonstrating that the school has been taken notice of in secondary sources. I'm sorry you don't like them, but the school clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The good thing about this is that we can have different opinions, or at least I think we can. I'm not so sure with you though. Since apparently someone disagreeing with you is "gatekeeping." For whatever reason, it seems like keep voters are really against any kind of discussion. Go figure. I have my theories as to why, but this isn't the place to give them. Anymore then it is for you to make accusations about nominators "gatekeeping." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Also, if you do an academic search, the school comes up multiple times in multiple scholarly research articles, including a couple already in the document. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE were not WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth.  // Timothy ::  talk  18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is Mmegi unreliable? Daily News? The Botswana Gazette? SportingFlyer  T · C  21:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * keep - agree with SportinFlyer. Several instances of coverage in a national publications is "routine"?  Six pages of material consisting of more than 3000 words is "trivial"?  Was the top performing school in the country.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which source was six pages that consisted of more then 3000 words? There needs to be two in-depth sources anyway, but I'd still like to know. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be me taking the time to aggregate the sources, and doing a word count. How is that not significant coverage?  I suggest you look at the sources, and do a word count on them individually yourself.  I will say that of the five sources aggregated, only one was less than three paragraphs (it was two).   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't want to put the time into providing the source that you said had 3000 words directly about the school, but then I should have to spend my time sifting through a bunch of sources? Yeah right. Usually the way this works is if there usable sources out there then you should post them here or in the article. Not just say they exist and then refuse to provide them when people ask you. Otherwise, anyone could say there's sources and we would have to just take their word for it. See WP:GOOGLEHITS and similar things. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know what aggregated means? Did you look at the sources sportingflyer provided.  I aggregated those.  I copied them into a word processor and did a word and charachter count.  I so stated in my response.  But... your response seems to indicate you question my integrity.  As such, what difference does it make if I were to provide a word count for each article?  I invited you to check my results, but of course you don't have to.  Have a nice day.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with integrity. It's just a good thing usually if people provide sources they find so they can be added to the articles, because it helps there from being another AfD later and it just improves them in the meantime. Especially when your talking about Africa. Since the sources are so hard to find in the first place. My guess is that a lot of them won't be found in the future or at least it will be an uphill battle. So, might as well have access to them now. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've tidied it, expanded some of the information and added some additional references, ranging from official government publications to national media. There's an acceptable range of robust sources. And I repeat the point I make over and over about articles on topics in the developing world: you won't find the same range and volume of sources online in a poor country where only 20% of households have access to a laptop that you will in Europe or North America. Humansdorpie (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Government refereneces don't work for notability. No one is expecting the same range. Two independent reliable in-depth sources is a pretty low bar that even fairly remote places should be able to meet though. I mean, there's lots of places besides Africa where people don't have that great of access to technology and where the journalism isn't that great. the Apalachicola mountains, Indian reservations, some counties in California, a couple of smaller European countries, probably Siberia, a couple of Latin American countries, and the North and South pole. Maybe American Samoa to. Probably some of the Virgin Island also. Oh yeah, and likely a good portion of Oceania. Don't forget Antarctica. I mean, really, how many news outlets are there in Antarctica? According to Google like 2. Maybe they should all get a free pass, or at least we should majorly degrade the standards that we apply to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG--17jiangz1 (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is specific in-depth coverage by several national newspapers, as noted by SportingFlyer, including The Botswana Gazette, Mmegi,, and Botswana Daily News . Sufficient for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an fyi, Botswana Daily News seems to be government run and therefore isn't reliable/independent or able to be used for be used for WP:GNG/notability. Especially for things that it has a relationship with. Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a government newspaper but that does not rule it out as an independent WP:RS here. Newspapers and various other news sources set up by governments still have editors, editorial boards and generally follow standard journalistic practices and we don't rule them out as WP:RS unless there is a specific reason to do so. For example, BBC is government run, and we use it all the time as a WP:RS. In third-word countries in particular where the economies are weak and the infrastructure, including the information infrustruture, is underdeveloped and there are fewer newspapers and news sources of any kind, we need to make greater allowances in this regard to avoid systemic bias. Regarding the source being independent, we are talking about a private secondary Catholic school which receives some government funding. That's sufficiently far removed from the source for the source to count as independent in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's simply wrong. There have been multiple RfCs about government newspapers lately and the overwhelming consensus is that they are not reliable sources. Especially when they are talking about the government that they are owned by. While I agree that "third world countries" (the term is kind of a misnomer that doesn't help systemic bias at all) is an issue, it's not on us to use an unreliable, non-independent source just because of it. Again, the clear consensus is that we shouldn't. Maybe it's a "Catholic" school, but the article says they have "received considerable financial support from the Botswana government." So, 100% the government is not going to be neutral about them. No government is when it comes to things they make a "considerable" investment in. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some of those RfCs. And regarding financial support, even if the financial support was "massive" rather than "considerable", that still does not make a private Catholic school a part of the government. Most universities and colleges in the U.S. receive massive federal governnment support in the form of federal grants and yet we do not view these schools as a part of the federal government. If the article concerned a government official or a government ministry, I'd probably have said that the source was not independent. But arguing non-independence in this case, for a private Catholic school, just because the school received significant state funding, that really strains common sense, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO it strains common sense to say that a government isn't going to speak positively about a project that they spent a whole bunch of tax payer dollars on when (or if) it goes bad. Even if it doesn't though they will still be overly positive. That kind of thing happens all the time. Governments are obligated to make everything they do look fantastic. Especially in "third world countries" where the chance of a government overthrow is pretty high. Even in places like America where it's extremely small though governments spin the hell out of things. Also, they wouldn't run their own news organization unless it helped their bottom line somehow. Period. Outlets like the BBC aren't really comparably, because they are independent and their website isn't a sub domain of gov.uk. As far as the RfCs go, there's Xinhua News Agency, RT, Wen Wei Po. Just to name a few. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFCs you cite are from totalitarian/authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. Yeah, with RT I would not need an RfC to come to the conclusion that RT is not a WP:RS. I don't think that The Botswana Gazette belongs to the same category. As for the issue of the independence of the source, you made your position clear and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I think that in this specific case you are just plain wrong, and that the souce is far enough removed from the subject to count as independent. Let's just see what the other editors think about these issues as I think we have argued here long enough. Nsk92 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, not every discussion is arguing. I didn't feel that this one was. Like you said, we are both entitled to our opinions. I was just interested in what yours was and giving mine. In no way is that arguing. At least not on my end. It's important and helpful to hash these things out in AfDs sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: More than enough sources for GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As we're here to educate, let's start with the word "college". This essentially means a group of people (colleagues) organised for some purpose such as the electoral college which is in the news currently.  Then there's the word "notable".  This doesn't mean extraordinary or superlative; it just means worthy of note.  As we are an encyclopedia rather than a work such as Guinness or Ripley, we expect to cover everything rather than just the most exceptional items.  This school is worthy of note and we know this because it has been noticed and written about in works such as this.  That's significant coverage and so we're good. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure me and another user already "educated" you in another AfD about why the word college is being used here and there. You continuing to take jabs at me about it is just petty. Not that it wasn't in the first place. Sorry your little plan to get me blocked feel through dude, but you seriously need to stop badgering me about biennial nonsense and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as notability demonstrated by sources currently in the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to a list of schools or the page about the location or another appropriate page - it's not an institute of higher education even though it's called a "college". We don't judge GNG by combining all the sources together; rather, each one should be reliable, secondary, independent, and in depth. I don't see WP:THREE that are. We don't include everything just because we're not paper (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). More generally speaking, primary and secondary schools are rarely actually notable, almost never the subject of non-local coverage, and it doesn't improve the encyclopedia to cover them; they are, by their very nature, inherently routine and trivial topics, like gas stations or grocery stores or post offices (or train stations). They should be covered in lists of schools, not on their own page. Lev!vich 15:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but comparing secondary schools to "gas stations or grocery stores or post offices" is utterly ludicrous. As for railway stations, we do consider them to be notable! They're always kept at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it's a problem. #GNGorbust Lev!vich 16:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's no sort of problem whatsoever. It's called consensus. That's how we operate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are two more problems (that inherent notability of train stations has consensus, and that this how we operate). Back to schools, nationally-accredited universities that award PhDs might be inherently notable, but otherwise schools should meet GNG, and this one doesn't. My viewpoint -- that secondary schools must meet GNG -- has consensus, and that's how we operate. Lev!vich 17:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that there have been 5 sources presented with in-depth coverage of the topic, why do you believe GNG isn't met?  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because (obviously) I disagree with the "given" part; there are not 5 sources presented with in-depth coverage of the topic, and furthermore, in-depth coverage is not the only criteria. At best, there are two sources that might satisfy GNG: Feb 2019 by Mmegi and Sep 2013 by The Botswana Gazette. However, the Mmegi piece is an interview with the headmaster proclaiming the school to be the best in the country; that's not independent, it's very promotional. The Botswana Gazette piece is barely any better: it's just quotes from the headmaster and a gov't minister praising the school for its 50th anniversary. This is routine, and not independent or in-depth. Lev!vich 21:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We will disagree regarding the value of these sources, but that is helpful. Thank you.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Government publications should never be used as IS RS for government institutions. Even if you accept the questionable independence and reliability of one source, it still doesn't mean there is SIGCOV from multiple IS RS secondary sources.  // Timothy ::  talk  03:24, 7 November 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.