Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clare's Girls' School (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, no delete votes.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

St. Clare's Girls' School
AfDs for this article:


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

I nominated this article deletion for in 2020. At the time the consensus was to keep it due to some coverage it has received the South China Morning Post, a reference that was subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong where this school is located. Even if that wasn't the case the references are either on extremely trivial run of the mill topics, interviews, PR puff pieces, or otherwise not worth using for notability anyway. Which is probably why they weren't used by anyone in the article by anyone after the AfD. So I'm re-nominating this in the hopes of there being a more in-depth, thorough discussion of the sources and if they show notability or not then there was last time. As the keep votes in the first AfD amounted to "keep per the other person" and there wasn't really a discussion about it beyond that. Except to question my competence. Which I'd prefer to avoid this time around. Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is SCMP unreliable? I don't see the discussion saying that it's unreliable. According to WP:SCMP, SCMP is generally reliable and only when it covers topics including the Chinese Communist Party and Alibaba, additional considerations should be apply. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 11:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I said it's unreliable for things related to Hong Kong because that's what some people in the RfCs said. Obviously the summaries at WP:RSP don't cover every single comment made in the RfCs or the various nuances that they involve. Either way though, I was clear that it doesn't matter if it's reliable or not because the SCMP references are either on extremely trivial run of the mill topics, interviews, PR puff pieces, or otherwise not usable for notability. There isn't some magical thing that suddenly makes an interview usable for notability if SCMP is reliable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, some people might have said something but it was rejected by consensus, so you should not pretend in a deletion rationale that it was accepted. Can't you just treat deletion discussions as discussions, rather than battlegrounds where you have to support your predetermined position by peddling obvious lies? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the second RfC the third to last comment said " In case of contentious content about Hong Kong, it is recommended to also use alternative sources like HKFP", then the last commenter said "Usable in most situations, but exercise caution with political reporting and contentious topics." No one ever "rejected" what they said. Just because the first three RfCs were not official votes like the last one was doesn't mean the opinions stated by people in them aren't valid or not part of the general consensus. Even in the last RfC multiple people had civets about when the reference can be considered reliable and on what topics. Personally, I think their opinions are worth considering as one thing out of several. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been more then clear that the closing comment didn't include the covets people gave in the RfCs and that I don't really care if people disregard the RfCs altogether. So in no way I'm treating this like a battleground or "peddling obvious lies." If you or other people want to ignore the RfCs and judge this on other grounds, by all means do so. I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith and didn't insult me in the process though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is precisely because I would like to assume good faith that deletion rationales and anything else written on Wikipedia will not contain lies that I am asking you to stop peddling them. The source was simply not "subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong". Someone's opinion stated during an RFC is not determined to be true if it does not gain consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If this was someone else's AfD and there was multiple RfCs about one of the main references used in the article then I'd read over the RfCs and consider what people said in them about the source when I "vote" as one factor out of many. So I thought it was worth mentioning. That's it. I never claimed there was more to it then that or that a couple of opinions in an RfC are the single, only, best, def-cato, authoritative, what the hell ever view points and that everything else should be ignored. What part of that or me saying "I don't care about this and people can ignore my opinion about the RfCs if they want" multiple times are you having such a hard time with? Also, let me ask you this, if the opinions given by people in the first three RfCs are suppose to be ignored as "not consensus" or whatever then why does WP:SCMP include links to them, instead of just linking to the last "authoritative" RfC? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of that are we having a hard time with? The part where you're still arguing about it, with the frankly outrageous claim that the sentiment of some minority voters in a RfC establishes what consensus really means, in open defiance of the close.  If you believe that doing the decent thing and withdrawing your nomination is a humiliation you cannot bring yourself to initiate, then a dignified silence would be a good look.   Ravenswing      17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with withdrawing the nomination. I commented below this that it can be closed as procedural kept by anyone that feels like doing so. Frankly I'm pretty neutral on that being the outcome. It's slightly disappointing that the whole thing with the RfC came at the cost of allowing of something like an interview to be used for notability, but such is life. I could really give a crap about what the outcome of most of my nominations is. Including this one. This isn't a battleground and I'm learning as I go just like everyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep As other people said, there is absolutely no consensus that SCMP is unreliable for subjects related to Hong Kong. If the nominator truly believes the consensus should change, they are happy to open a new discussion in WP:RSN. In terms of notability, as a religious non-profit school, WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NRELORG both note that the less strict WP:GNG standard can be used, and the sources provided in the first AfD are sufficient for that. Jumpytoo Talk 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:NSCHOOL doesn't say that non-profit schools just have to pass WP:GNG. Since it says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools...must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. Nowhere there does it say "all schools except for non-profits." What it does say is "all schools" at the beginning of the sentence and non-profit schools are schools. Otherwise it would explicitly say non-profit schools just have to pass WP:GNG. WP:NRELORG says the exact same thing. There is no special exception for non-profits from having to meet the notability criteria for organizations in either guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The very wording that you quote says that non-profit schools only have to pass WP:GNG. Do you really not understand the word "or"? Or are you again simply saying rubbish to substantiate your pre-determined position rather than discussing in good faith? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote doesn't use the word "non-profit" anywhere in it. So I have zero clue what your talking about. That said, I started a discussion about this on WP:Notability (organizations and companies) because I figured you'd use my comment as yet another opportunity to insult me about my opinions and think it would be helpful if things in the guidelines are clarified. Since this keeps coming up. Your free to continue the badgering in the other discussion if you really feel the need to, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped bludgeoning this with your unsolicited personal attacks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not bludgeoning and not making personal attacks, but just pointing out clear flaws in your argument. One of which is that "all" very obviously includes "non-profit", so there is no need for that wording to say "non-profit" explicitly. I can't say why you could possibly have zero clue what I am talking about without insulting your intelligence, so I won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the sentence after the one you quoted which makes the "non-profit" relevant: For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. From my interpretation, for-profit schools must follow the strict sourcing guidelines of WP:NCORP, whereas all other schools (public, non-profit, religious...) only need to pass WP:GNG which does not have such strict sourcing requirements. Jumpytoo Talk 20:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)'
 * The fact that it says "those criteria" makes it sound like it's saying ""For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." Otherwise why would it use the plural "those" and not just say "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy WP:NCORP" instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources appear to be sufficient to show that this school passes notability requirements. Meters (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm failing to see why the South China Morning Post is unreliable in its coverage of Hong Kong topics. The wording quoted above clearly states passing GNG is enough, and I believe this article meets that guideline. NemesisAT (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> This brief article helps more with Verifiability more than it helps with Notability.</li> <li></li> <li></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) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The lead of Notability (organizations and companies) says: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." Notability (organizations and companies) says: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)" As a non-profit educational institution, St. Clare's Girls' School passes Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). WP:SCMP says: "The South China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMPs current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMPs coverage of such topics." The South China Morning Post sources cited here are not about the Chinese Communist Party or Alibaba. I consider the articles reliable for covering St. Clare's Girls' School. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The nomination challenged the use of SCMP as a source, but it has been established this was a clear misread of WP:SCMP by the nominator. Beyond that, it was established that the GNG was met in the initial AFD, and it's pretty clear that consensus is not changing here on that. The nominator has expressly requested that their competence not be questioned, so there is nothing more to do here that won't generate more heat than light. Martinp (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC). I have a very minor COI on this topic, in that I know an alumna. But neither I nor she has any particular interest as to whether this article exists.
 * Speedy Keep: Indeed, the nominator's expressly stated that they are neither lying nor incompetent, but it is not easy to take their bizarre claim about the text of WP:SCMP -- which is written in clear English -- any other way. It would be a stretch to consider this merely a fatally flawed nomination (rather than a bogus one), and if the nominator wants to assure us that they're acting in good faith, I anticipate the immediate withdrawal of this AfD.   Ravenswing      17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There's zero point in continuing the AfD if there isn't going to be any discussion of the references like I had originally hoped. Especially if a bunch of bad faithed, off topic personal comments are going to be about me in the interim. So I'm fine with anyone just closing this as keep (procedural, speedy, or whatever) if they want to. If an admins happens to read this and wants to close it then by all means do so. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (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.