Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute


 * 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 delete. Consensus is to delete. Final comment wasn't followed up on, and at any rate the results from the Google Scholar search are less impressive in reality than in that list of search results. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Campbell Collegiate Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ORG, WP:NHS - No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:NHS. Notability is not a problem with several sources verifying its existence. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  08:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "verifying its existence" does that mean notability!?Serv181920 (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NHS. I'm not going to quote it to you. Actually read the lead. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NHS an old essay that was superseded by WP:NSCHOOL. — MarkH21talk 21:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously it does more than verify its existence.Smkolins (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability requires significant coverage by reliable sources. Trivial mentions are not enough. Check WP:TRIVIALMENTIONServ181920 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment "trivial" is different than "singular". If a source says, for example, a program was from x, mentions it once, the program still represents a major reference and it is improper to call it "trivial". Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you believe "one" news item as a "significant" coverage?Serv181920 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are misusing the framework of articles about schools marking them to be deleted rather than to actually spend the effort seeking sources as is plainly stated in the lead of WP:NHS. Don't try to obfuscate what I mean when I say "one" when it is not "trivial".Smkolins (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't bite. You have just given one source at the talk page and you think it is significant covrage?Serv181920 (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Verification of existence alone is insufficient for keeping the article per WP:NSCHOOL (cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Any explicit links to independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the school would be very helpful here. — MarkH21talk 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, I was going by WP:NHS because it was in the nomination. I found one non-trivial mention of the school:, covering a performance of the students. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , Thank you for the info. I don't know how one mention (not verified, it is behind paywall) makes the school notable. It is a Baha'i school thus I assume both the Baha'i editors (Cuñado & Smkolins) want to keep it.Serv181920 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you forgot to mention your role as a single-issue account that does nothing but promote negative views of the Baha'i Faith for the last six months. But since that doesn't affect the notability of an article I can see why you didn't mention it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , What negative views? There are POV issues with many Baha'i articles and you have yourself admitted that, I am just trying to touch those issues and I am using the same sources that you have been using since years! For now let's discuss the notability of this particular subject. If it's notable it should stay.Serv181920 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, let's focus on building an encyclopedia and not on the intentions of editors. Good idea. Cuñado ☼ - Talk  17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not persuaded by any of the current 'keep' arguments but there is currently no consensus to do anything.
 * Delete Entire article depends on two sources. Both sources are dead links. Might even fall under a G8 speedy deletion WP:SPEEDY Illuminator123 (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Both sources in article are dead, one does not appear to be about the school, probably a mention, the other is from the school. BEFORE showed nothing. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  20:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems like there's been a fair bit of academic study involving the school and/or citing its methods. / would this content help towards meeting WP:ORG? dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.