Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Christian Academy (Kankakee, Illinois)

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 no consensus. The Daily Journal sources in the article have been presented as sufficient to prove notability. This has been rejected by some, but in the discussion there is more assertions than arguments concerning them. I am unable to review those sources (due to geographical restrictions) but the news articles seem to be local in nature. That is an unsettled area, and for purposes of this discussion I cannot read any consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Christian Academy (Kankakee, Illinois)

[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)

Non-notable religious school; the sources cited are insufficient, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media mentions etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. ~~Has been previously deleted and rejected at AfC, so salting might be in order.~~ -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where is the previous deletion discussion? StAnselm (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, has not been deleted previously, don't know what I was thinking of. Thanks for pointing that out. Striking my comment. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in the Daily Journal.[1][2] It is also the top rated private school in its county. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "top rated private school in its county" is a notability criterion under WP:ORG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somewhere there is a publication detailing its rating, but I don't have access to it. Another example of significant coverage presuming to exist. But it passes GNG through the Daily Journal articles, anyway. St Anselm (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Clearly enough" — would you like to point to some, or are we simply to take that at face value? Also, are you suggesting that American high schools are somehow inherently notable (when those of any other country aren't)? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm suggesting that secondary schools in the USA (and also the whole developed world - I'm not American myself) almost invariably have enough sourcing to show notability and that nominating them for deletion is unhelpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The coverage here is pretty trivial, and per the RFC ruling as detailed in criteria 3 in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are no longer presumed notable without significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources shared above are just related to school name change or similar. There is no indepth independent coverage. 1друг (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am going to have to choose keep based on sports coverage. The school seems to get a lot of coverage in Mattoon, Illinois. Here is one of many stories [3]. I am going to assume that more thorough coverage exists, but I understand that the burden of proof is on me. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, because the school is so small, it is unlikely that this school is notable even with the athletic coverage. I have not !voted delete just yet. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of notability other than short trivial coverage. Also, the Daily Journal article is NOT sufficieny Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a private school. So it has to pass WP:NORG like any other type of private organization. Which it clearly doesn't. Since all the references are a combination of trivial, WP:MILL, coverage and (or) primary. Otherwise, someone should provide WP:THREE in-depth, non-mill, secondary sources, one of which should be regional or national to show the school is notable. I'm more then happy to change my vote to keep if such sources exist and someone can provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three Daily Journal articles cited are substantial. The guideline says that the notability requirement for schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and for-profit educational institutions are required to satisfy WP:ORG as commercial organizations. Grace Christian's status as a private school is NOT the same as being "for profit". It is a religious non-profit, and it clearly meets GNG. Plus, I really like Bearian's standards (above), which Grace Christian Academy also meets. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:59, 7 July 021 (UTC)

But it's not a Catholic school and according to @Extraordinary Writ: most non-Catholic schools aren't notable...So, really, it should be deleted on that alone. Or should Extraordinary Writ's opinions only be followed when they result in articles being kept, but be tossed out when they don't? Also, I love how you've repeatedly given me crap for the whole private/profit thing not being guideline based, but then your willing to go with some random person's personal notability standards that have zero to do with the guidelines. Way to be consistent. Things like that are exactly why I told @Extraordinary Writ: it's a complete waste of time and utterly worthless for people like to make personal comments about other users in your votes, because you don't even care about or follow the things you give other crap about. It's nothing but massive projection. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking and demeaning other editors (Extraordinary Writ, Bearian, me). Maybe you don't know how to make reasoned arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but that's no excuse for incivility. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to point out where I've attacked and demeaned Bearian. Let alone you or Extraordinary Writ. Also, from what I can tell out of the four of us I'm the only that is making guideline based arguements. There's nothing guideline based about keeping an article based on a personal essay. Not that I'm the one commenting about guidelines not being followed. You are and only to me. Nice try though. That's where the projection comes in. Me supposedly not following the guidelines bad, Bearian not following them, not a peep out of you except approval. That's just a fact. How many AfDs have you called out Necrowhatever for voting keep because he thinks schools are inharently notable? How many notability talk page discussions have you or Wit started over it? Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And for the record, I have never in my life made any such statement that "most non-Catholic schools aren't notable". If you have the diff, I would very much like to see it. If we're really making "personal comments about other users" and "giving people crap", ANI is thataway. But until then, I must insist that you refrain from sullying this discussion with straw men, ad hominem attacks, and aspersions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't agree with John on the notability talk page that most notable schools are Cathlic? Weird. Why did you even being it up or cite him saying it to make your point then? Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No answer from either of you huh? Go figure. It's odd how willing both of you are to fly off the handle at a moments notice, but then are completely unwilling to provide evidence for your spurious, nonsensical accusations. The same thing happened on the notability talk page. It was all good when you could gang up on me and go off, but then you both dodged out as soon as I asked you a few basic questions and other people who disagreed with you got involved. Lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too short. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. It was already to short a few weeks ago when both of you instigated things. Yet it never seems to be when your making the original comments and accusations in the first place. Just when you get called out over them. Then your suddenly so above it all. By all means though, stop wasting all our time with it all. I definitely have better things to do. Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.