Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Smith 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 delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Smith School

[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 article is about a non-profit primary and secondary school that lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it. Since all the references in the article are primary and all I was able to find in a WP:BEFORE was a single name drop in a school directory. Which is extremely trivial. So, there is nothing about that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The article is also promotional in tone, was a more so more before I removed a lot of un-referenced material, and I see no way that could be written not to be promotional without there being multiple reliable sources that discuss it in detail. So, WP:TNT likely also applies. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Phil Bridger added a reference for "The Alice Smith School started in 1946 as a stop-gap home school in Kuala Lumpur" — does the reference confirm this text or just the establishment year only? The text and the reference should be added to the Education section of the Kuala Lumpur article. Noting this article was created by someone who works at the school — see contribution history with edits to the page over the years since its creation in 2006, and this discussion. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a bit of a re-write and there are some COI concerns, but the topic appears notable as one of the oldest British international schools with plenty of coverage in English-language Malaysian sources and even some books: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trivialness of them aside, per the guidelines your "sources" only count as a single source because they aren't independent of each other. Also, I said in my nomination that there name were some name drops in books, but nothing in-depth. So do you have an example of in-depth coverage of the school in a book or are you asserting that name drops or otherwise extremely brief mentions are enough? I assume its the latter and you found nothing different in books then what I did given the briefness of coverage in the single reference you have provided already. Adamant1 (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources have you found, and why don't you think they pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your question about which "sources" I've found. Since I was referring to the ones you provided. As far as why they don't pass WP:GNG, I was pretty clear it is because they do not contain "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail. That aside though, I was asking what book you found that you claim passes WP:GNG and also stating that all your "sources" only count as one, because they are not independent of each other. So, what book did you find that has "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you specifically which books you looked at which you would consider "name-drops." SportingFlyer T·C 12:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is which book you looked at that contains "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail, or are you saying that you didn't look at any that do? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG not enough reliable resources to define any notability. Most of the citations are primary sources.Duncan079 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 23:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement in any policy or guideline that an article subject has to be abnormal to be an encyclopedic topic. This is not the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in support of the very lucid arguments made above by SportingFlyer.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - Kolma8 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not reveal enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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