Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Istituto San Leone Magno

Istituto San Leone Magno

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Istituto San Leone Magno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I did several searches prior to !voting and found very little. In books there are some passing references, and I found this news story about the school's 70th anniversary, though my Italian is weak so I can't read it entirely, but it appears to be the sort of local news to commemorate a school's anniversary. There are literally zero newspaper sources online. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Huh, I searched in Italian and found a lot more: [1] [2] including what I believe is a speech from the Pope: [3] [4] [5] Have to run, but there's more. SportingFlyer T·C 11:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't seriously tell me that your using the Pope writing them a letter as an indicator that they are notable -hysterical laughter emoji-. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's enough sources out there to make a WP:GNG pass, and since the discussion so far has been about how the article fails WP:GNG, and specifically about how "there are zero newspaper sources online," I'm demonstrating that the school has been discussed significantly. The fact the Pope has taken notice of the school isn't a notability determinant, but is certainly helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Your first reference seems to be a review of a novel of dairies that looks to be semi-fictional and that the review itself says is "exaggerated." The only one that seems to maybe work is the second reference. The others seem to be about the Pope writing them a letter on personal websites and similar. How is a review of an "exaggerated" book that's made up of children's high school diary entries usable for notability or meet WP:GNG? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's not the only source, and as I noted there's other coverage. The first article appears to be about an award winning fictional book/fictionalised memoir written about/set at the school which has been reviewed several times. The searches difficult to parse though because I don't speak Italian, but there are hits on Google Books. This looks to be a good source: [6] [7] and [8] which hints there's more of a history of the school that won't be easily accessible online - student protests in the late 1960s. The local paper reports on routine school events as well [9]. I think it's a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't ask you if you thought the article should be kept or not. I specifically wanted to know about the book review and how it pass the notability guidelines. Which you didn't answer. How does a review of a fictional book pass WP:GNG specifically in relation to this article? Or are you just posting sources in these AfDs that don't? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate if you stopped responding to every single comment I make on all of the AfDs you've nominated for deletion, but as I said, the articles were in Italian, the article is about how he wrote a book on the school, and Google Translate wasn't all that clear. It's also from a decent publication. In other sources I've found that I haven't posted, the book seemed to have won an award. The WP:THREE are probably the ones I've just posted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

And you know what, I would have appreciated it if you hadn't of reverted a bunch of my edits and then used them and these AfDs in an AN to argue that I should be blocked for being incompetent and making inaccurate edits. It's a pretty bad faith way to act. Especially when it comes to the list article. But I don't see you caring. So... If your going to use AfDs that haven't even been closed yet, and that you've posted a bunch of bad sources in, to try and argue someone should be blocked then don't get triggered just because they ask you about your sources. You don't want me asking you extremely basic questions about your sourcing, cool. Don't screw with me then dude and don't post a bunch of bad sources in my AfDs anymore. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not "triggered." I'm just exceptionally frustrated that you feel the need to respond to anyone who disagrees with you. I've posted sources. I don't speak Italian but I believe several of them meet WP:GNG, and several of them suggest there are other places where the school would have been mentioned. For instance this shows the Czechoslovakians were put up at the institute for the 1960 Olympics but refused to stay there - while it's not entirely clear this is the school from the English-language article, it does imply this would have been covered in Italian media. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think your suffering from self selection bias. I.E. "He's responded to me in a couple of AfDs that I was using to try and get him blocked. So, he must he respond to everyone who disagrees with him." That's simply not fact though. As is obvious by the many AfDs I've been involved in where I didn't respond to people who disagreed with me. Although, last time I checked I never said I disagree with people who vote keep. Let alone you. That your interpreting me asking about a source as being me just "responding to someone who doesn't agree with me" is simply you not AGF. In fact, in 99% of the cases where I have asked, it's because I think there's value in adding the sources we find in AfDs to the articles if they are kept. Least of which because it potentially helps avoid a second AfD later, but also because it just improves articles if they are better referenced. Which I would think you'd be all for. Apparently not though. Likely that's to innocuous of an explanation for you anyway.

More on topic, notability isn't determined by things "suggesting" where the school might have mentioned. While I'm fine with you posting a source like that if your clear that's why your posting it, I'm not fine with you saying something along the lines of "keep because this passes WP:GNG due to source A,B, and C" and then later on when the AfD is almost over, and other people have voted based on said sourcing clarifying, that the sources actually only hint at other sources that might discuss the school and really only when your asked. Because it's just miss-leading, intellectually dishonest (maybe not intentionally, but it still is) and not respectful to the process either IMO. Especially if it's at the same time that your using said AfDs as an example of why the nominator of them should be banned, but even if not. Which I would say even if I wasn't said nominator. Feel free to post sources that don't pass WP:GNG when your also clear about it that they don't though. I could really care less. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the thing about sourcing is 150% more important when it comes to articles related to Africa because the sources are so damn hard to find. Which even you agree with. It's highly likely that people won't be able to find sources later related to a lot of these AfDs. Providing them now while we can just saves a lot of hassle and reduces the risk of the articles being deleted later, because no one can find sources we could have just posted, but didn't because we were to busy taking innocuous questions personally and not AGF. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, it's really not hard to come up with examples where you've been responding to almost everyone who disagrees with you whenever you nominate an article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herschel Girls' School Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mater Spei College Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parktown Boys' High School Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 21 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escola Portuguesa de Luanda Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Boumerdès Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Delker Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwood Kaye Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Noor Hospitals Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Wendell Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson H. Barbour, which includes your recent reverting of users who removed your incorrect speedies/PRODs. I think you've responded to every single one of my recent keep !votes on schools. I will admit that this hasn't occurred with every AfD, but it's still a notable enough pattern. Second, I strongly object to your characterisation of how I've presented the sources. I disagree with you on whether this should be kept, and I disagree with your analysis of the sources. As I noted in my initial !vote, I found coverage on top of the coverage I was presenting. I'm the only keep !voter so far in an AfD where three of the delete !voters frequently vote to delete schools, so I'm also presenting sources since other users are having difficulty finding them. There's no "intellectual dishonesty" here, at no point have I tried to mislead, and in no way have I "disrespected the process." I ask you to please retract those statements. Also, I have no idea why you're bringing up African sourcing in an AfD related to an Italian school. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Did I say there wasn't examples? The point is there's plenty of contrary and your just to pick the negative ones. For instance just in the last few days, there was Hilton College (South Africa) where I corrected myself when I was wrong and there was no arguing. I thanked Ritchie333 on his talk page for improving an article that he removed a PROD from. I also thanked ToughPigs for providing sources in one of his keep votes without taking a swipe at me. Atlantic306 removed four of my PRODs on the 9th and I didn't say jack about it to him and there wasn't any edit warring. At least not that I remember. You know why? Because he didn't act petty about it. Same goes for AllyD, Dormskirk, and a bunch of other people who have removed my PRODs that I could really care less about. There's plenty more examples. If I just have a problem with people removing my PRODs and voting keep in my AfDs then why would have been civil in all those situations and why would have I have thanked ToughPigs for providing sources in an AfD? Which I do all the time when people provide sources BTW. 100% I responded to all your keep votes with school AfDs because you were using as examples of me being an competent editor in AN to try and get me banned and because you specifically said you where targeting me on your talk page. Period. Otherwise, I would have cared less. Take responsibility for your own part in this dude. I'll retract "disrespected the process" when you retract in the AN that my AfDs, a lot of which are likely going to close as keep, are examples of my incompetent editing. Although, really the damage is already done. Which I'm sure your totally fine with. I brought up Africa because that's where most of our issues come from and I don't feel like repeating myself about it everywhere. Plus, I think articles like Herschel Girls' School, where are a really good example of a ton of people voting keep based on sources that they found but didn't provide in the AfD, except for ToughPigs, where it's pretty unlikely people will be able to find the sources again in the future. Or if they do it will be an uphill battle when it shouldn't be. Plus, a pretty good article could have been written about the school in the meantime. Not so much now though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if you're admitting you're specifically targeting me because I discussed your disruptive deletionism on AN, which would constitute WP:HARASSment, oddly, that's not true - you actually responded to most of my keep !votes on 24 October before I made any report at all on AN. At no point during any of the AfDs did I specifically mention you in my initial !votes, they were all specifically on available sources. Also, the only "edit wars" we've had are because I reasonably applied a BRD and reasonably removed PRODs for notable schools. You reverted the removal of my PRODs, which is unacceptable in any circumstance. I also never said I was "targeting you." I said I was going to look at the lists where you had removed schools, because you removed a lot of information, some of which validly appeared in the list articles. I've already cleaned up some of the lists where you removed information. This isn't "targeting you," it's improving the encyclopaedia. But any attempt to say that I am the problem here is gaslighting, and it's NOT acceptable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said you specifically mentioned me. You did post sources that were clearly bad IMO though and I've clear that's what my issue was. Maybe I responded to you on a few of my AfDs on the 24th before you wrote the initial message in AN on the 25th, but your problem that started this whole discussion off was supposedly me "responding to every single comment you make on all of the AfDs." Which aside form just being wrong, would mean the vast majority of every single AfD comment you've made would have been on and after the 25th. Which was when we first got into it. So, like I said, outside of a few comments before that, I was responding to "every single comment you make on all of the AfDs" because of you saying you where going to review my edits and started using the AfDs in AN to attack me with. I wouldn't consider asking someone to provide sources in AfDs WP:HARASSment either. Because it's a discussion and people are allowed to ask for sources. Plus, I wasn't "targeting" you, because the questions where directly related to the AfDs and they where my AfDs. I wasn't just going to around to AfDs you have participated to "target" you. Like I said, if you hadn't of participated in my AfDs, and then used them later to me, I would have cared less about it and I could give a crap less about interacting with you outside of that. It wouldn't be harassment anymore then me responding to you on my talk page multiple times would be. Whereas, you "reviewing my edits" clearly was, because they had no relation to you and you had zero interest in the articles you "reviewed" beforehand. Whereas, I was fully interested in and had a relation to my AfDs before you came along. Also in no way is me saying "Can you provide the sources you say exist" threating or intimidating. Whereas, you saying your going to "review my edits" clearly was. I know you said the my edits to list, but they are still my edits. So, don't try and take it out of context as me misquoting you later. Anyway, last time I checked there's nothing wrong with, against the rules, or nefarious about people "removing information" from articles. Putting the information back just because you think a specific user "makes bad edits" is 100% targeting that user though. You weren't just "improving" random list articles or making random edits. You editing specific articles that I had edited to undo the edits I made because you thought they were wrong. Which is nothing other then targeting. If anything your the one doing the gas lighting by making your actions out to be anything else. You said you where going to "review my edits", you edited specific lists and only edited them in a way to undo my edits, and your acting like it was all random happenstance, good faith "improvements to Wikipedia", that weren't in any way at all related to me. 100% that's gas lighting. Your edits could be 100% improvements to Wikipedia, which there is zero evidence they were, but that has absolutely nothing to do with if you where targeting me or not. Hounding includes "inhibiting a users work." Which you've clearly done and "following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Which you've also clearly done. It also includes "making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor." Which you've clearly repeatedly done on AN. "Threatening another person is considered harassment." Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure you said something along the lines of "any edit you make to this article without my approval I'll revert." Which I'm pretty sure would be a an attempt "to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia." Etc. Etc. But sure, I'm gas lighting by saying you did anything. Right... --Adamant1 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as per GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I ended up doing an Italian newspaper archive search and while I don't understand it there's several articles. La Stampa is from Torino so this isn't even local coverage: [10] [11] I've left out additional stories such as a suicide and a road accident death which killed a teacher. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)