Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Istituto San Leone Magno: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:59, 21 October 2020

Istituto San Leone Magno

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This secondary school doesn't seem notable since the article only cites a single primary source and I was unable to find the multiple in-depth, non-trivial, reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE that it would need to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Plus, secondary schools are not inherently notable per the RfC about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that secondary schools are inherently notable, if their existence is substantiated. Also, only "unduly self-serving [or] an exceptional claim(s)" should have been deleted from the article, as per WP:SELFSOURCE Jzsj (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Otherwise I wouldn't have said they aren't. Read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Specifically bullet point 3 "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." I'm not sure what second point is in refrence to. As I didn't delete anything from the article, unduly self-serving or otherwise. I don't think my nomination comment had anything to do with the deletion of content in the article either. Adamant1 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. The single reference in the article does not meet WP:IS or WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 *My understanding is that secondary schools are inherently notable, if their existence is substantiated. Also, only "unduly self-serving [or] an exceptional claim(s)" should have been deleted from the article, as per [[WP:SELFSOURCE]] [[User:Jzsj|Jzsj]] ([[User talk:Jzsj|talk]]) 01:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 ::Nope. Otherwise I wouldn't have said they aren't. Read [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]]. Specifically bullet point 3 "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." I'm not sure what second point is in refrence to. As I didn't delete anything from the article, unduly self-serving or otherwise. I don't think my nomination comment had anything to do with the deletion of content in the article either. [[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|talk]]) 05:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''': The article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. The single reference in the article does not meet [[WP:IS]] or [[WP:SIGCOV]].  <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"><strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&nbsp;::&nbsp;</strong>[[User talk:TimothyBlue|<strong>talk</strong>]]&nbsp;</span> 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC) <!--VCB TimothyBlue-->