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. ✗plicit 14:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Macau Anglican College[edit]

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

Macau Anglican College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for directing me to the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources in the current article below per WP:SIRS.
(added 11 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.
In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 Macau Lifestyle Partial, seems to be advertising Partial, potentially sponsored content No, only a brief introduction No
2, 9 Macau Anglican College No, owned by the article subject No, owned by the article subject Yes No
3 Macau’s Languages in Society and Education Yes Yes No, only a single mention/data point in a study No
4 AAMacau Media Yes Partial, seems to be a online tabloid No, only reported on a single event, potentially WP:ILLCON falling under WP:INHERITORG. No
5 The Macau News Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event, potentially WP:ILLCON falling under WP:INHERITORG. (Same event as No.4) No
6 Macau Business.com Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event, potentially based on a press release No
7 Jornal Tribuna de Macau Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event, potentially based on a press release No
8 Jornal Cheng Pou Yes Yes No, only reported on a single event , potentially based on a press release. (Same event as No.7) No
33ABGirl (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Macau Lifestyle source is clearly significant coverage (two paragraphs of fairly detailed information about the school). I don't see any evidence that it's not independent, but am open to being proven wrong. The news sources and Andrew Moody's book are more borderline, but some of them do give some background information about the school in addition to the events they're reporting. WP:ILLCON doesn't seem to apply to the asbestos situation as it was caused by someone else's illegal conduct, not the school's. In any case I've added two more sources with somewhat more detailed coverage[1][2]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please find my response to your points below.
  • I note that the tone for the Macau Lifestyle source is entirely promotional. No objective analysis or neutrally written content is presented in the article.
  • I agree that I misunderstood the event in Source 4 & 5, which do not fall under WP:ILLCON. However, as the event is primarily related to another entity, it falls under WP:INHERITORG.
For your two new sources, please find my assessment per WP:SIRS. In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
Link Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 Macau News Agency Yes Yes No, only a brief mention as part of a bigger event. Falls under WP:INHERITORG. No
2 Macau Sports Weekly Partially, owned by CTM, a government-owned utilities company. Partially Partially, as the report is on a routine sports event. No
33ABGirl (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessments. The asbestos-related sources are primarily about the school, the Macau Lifestyle source contains a number of objective facts, and the two sources in the second table contain significant coverage of the school. If Macau Sports Weekly is owned by a government-owned utility company, this doesn't affect its independence in reporting on a private school. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additionally, I found an interview from a principal which includes journalists' statements on the school itself WhisperToMe (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding the source. In my opinion, this source does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV. The article is an account of an interview with the principle of the school, without any analysis of the content, so should be considered to be primary research. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. The criteria for SIGCOV is very simple: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So long as the journalist writes about the school himself to some degree, at least say a paragraph or two, the aritcle fulfills SIGCOV. The text "The institution was termed as such because[...]Michelangelo’s famous painting, ‘The Creation of God’, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel." is written by the journalist, not Mr. Brown. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2023 (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.
More