Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clare's Girls' School


 * 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. North America1000 07:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

St. Clare's Girls' School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing seems notable about this school. The article doesn't cite any sources and I was unable to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP. It was also created by someone with a clear COI issue and is semi-promotional in tone. Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.     </li> <li></li> <li> This brief article helps more with Verifiability more than it helps with Notability.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow St. Clare's Girls' School to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> <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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the good work done by Cunard. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: According to Cunard's sources, the school has been covered by the South China Morning Post since the 1960s at least. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All the topics in the South China Morning Post are extremely trivial and don't pass WP:NORG though. For instance them cutting Chinese classes due to lack of interest and their education strategy is extremely trivial and WP:MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That demonstrates that the school is covered in great detail by reliable sources. I would also like to point out this discussion where Adamant1 was judged to lack competence in evaluating sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * maybe you could do everyone a favor for the sake of civility and to follow WP:NPA by not spamming the link everywhere now that I took the sources in question to RSN and other people agreed with me that they weren't reliable. I'm really sick of the personal attacks and the fact that your continuing to link to the discussion after I took the sources to RSN comes off a lot like WP:HOUNDING and WP:HA. Especially considering the past week of you repeatedly lying about what I said in AfDs and attacking me in your keep votes. In the least it defiantly doesn't add anything to the multiple AfDs you've posted about it in. So it should stop on that alone. If I'm wrong about something, just point how or don't comment. There's zero reason to make every damn AfD we are both involved in uber personal like your making it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2020 (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.