Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assumption College, Kilmore

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after a little clean up has been done by the nominator and discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption College, Kilmore

[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)

Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Cassiopeia talk 22:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject fails GNG to meet significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in dept and not passing mentioned or verification.

Most of the sources are primary (assumption college or its founder Marist Brothers). Sources are not from Assumption College or Marist Brothers are the "Notable alumni " section where by - source -1, - source 2 and source-3 only mentioned the alumni members and not mentioned about Assumption college in length or in depth and info are part interview pieces which makes it not independent. source-4 is football club which is not reliable source. source-5 is football organization which is not a reliable source. Section on "Assumption College VCE results 2012-2020" - source -5 is from private company which makes it not reliable. Section on "Sporting achievements" which does not mention Assumption college and the the article is partially interview piece which makes it not independent.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the face of it this is a significant sized school and at the older end of all Australian schools. Not the oldest but a venerable institution. It has significant web presence, but like the concerns about sourcing on the page, much of that is not independent. There are three books about the school on the page that are not discussed above. However, one of these is published by the school, and the other two by a Kilmore publisher so independence is questionable. Yet a school that is publishing volumes about its history is still unusual in itself. Add to that very considerable sustained newspaper coverage, including a lot in The Age. The Age is an Australian newspaper of record, and a reliable source. Much of the coverage is primary, but again, 125 years of coverage is certainly not to be sniffed at. Then it gets mentioned in multiple books that are independent. E.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Although passing mentions don't help much, there is more significant coverage in some of these, and again, the very fact it gets mentioned so much indicates a level of significance. This looks like a GNG pass to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, This is Wikipedia and an article needs to pass the notability requirements to have a page in Wikipedia and it is NOT about how old and institution it has been operation or the unusual the history of the school. Primary sources can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Your sources [5], [6] - is a primary source; [7] is about the owners of the school and not about the school and it is just a book cover which does not indicated it cover the school in detail or in length; [8] is about Research Methodology and Research Results in Catholic Schools in Victoria, Australia and not about the school itself and lastly [9] is about Two Centuries of Surgery in Papua New Guinea not about the school itself. As you have mentioned, they are all passing mentioned which do not pass the notability requirements of Wikpedia. Cassiopeia talk 02:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in my nature to draw attention to the weaknesses of the sources I present at AfD as part of a rounded argument. My drawing attention to the fact that many sources are primary therefore is a demonstration of familiarity with the guidelines, not unfamiliarity. But I note that your nom. statement only discusses the sources in the article (and misses the three books) and does not take into account the huge number of sources shown up in the linked searches (Google/books/news/scholar) and in newspaper archives. Looking at that, and at the detail here, that this is a very large and very old school, with sustained coverage and an actual history book written about it that has been accessioned by the National Library of Australia [10] - which book is already linked on the page, and which tells us it is noted for academic and sporting prowess and was one of the largest country boarding schools in Australia - I personally would not even have considered nominating this article after a WP:BEFORE. It does need cleanup, but AfD is not for that. Very clearly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last source is good but not the last 4 including the 3 books where the books are not talking about the subject but part of it, further more, you provide the book name and not the info of the book about the subject. If you can point to the page where we can read the info and verify significant coverage is in place then that is the different story but not because the old established of the subject as the means to pass the notability. To say this, it is unfortunate many colleges/educational institute or in the matter of the fact academics do not have a page in Wikipedia because of only primary sources covered them. Cassiopeia talk 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So again, I already highlighted the issue with passing mentions in the 4 books I highlighted (but remember that a book or article does not have to be about the subject to count towards notability). The point was not to say that those themselves were the best sources - the point is that on the face of it, there is not a snowball's chance that a school with this level of attention, coverage and mentions will fail to meet GNG. And I didn't just provide the name of that book, I provided its full bibliographic record at the National Library of Australia, which also includes an ISBN number. Not that this is strictly necessary, because that book is already listed on the page. I don't need to provide a page number - the whole book is a history of the school. I don't have it. It was published in 1976, and I do not think there is an electronic copy. Recall that sources do not need to be on the page, nor do they need to be available electronically to count towards notability. They merely must exist, and this book exists). However the information I was able to ascertain about the book can be seen on this ebay listing: [11] Very handy that they show us the synopsis and the contents pages. And it doesn't stop there. I made the case I did to save the necessity to trawl through 2,481 newspaper articles mentioning the school. But if you were to search Newspapers.com in the Wikipedia library, the very first page of hits would show up this thorough article[12] which would count as reliable (the Age is a reliable paper of record) with independent secondary coverage, a full page spread certainly being significant. There are other papers too that discuss the school [13], but more significantly, articles in The Age about their sporting prowess, this being just one example.[14] This school is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do agree the article in its current state is promotional and relies mostly on primary sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. On Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore, I've listed four RS (and two more passing mentions from alums that might help balance the tone of the article). The subject meets WP:GNG, even though the article needs an overhaul. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the article substantially to remove the promotional language and reorganize the "team of the century" table but did not have time to add the potential sources listed on the talk page. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Sirfurboy for sources added to Talk:Assumption College, Kilmore. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2024 (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.