Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FMC Electronic Technical 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FMC Electronic Technical 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)

A collection of fluff and promotion. Largely based on dead links and the school website. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the dead links have now been fixed, so the article seems to have enough references from reliable sources. (If you are considering deleting an article, always use the "fix dead links" link on the article's history page first.) Articles about non-profit schools are generally kept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy or guideline? The Banner talk 10:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in this case, the college clearly passes the general notability guideline so there's no need for you to make your usual snarky comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is asking for policies and guidelines a snarky comment? The Banner talk 11:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to search using the Portuguese name:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did my friend. In several variations. The Banner talk 11:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

If you did then why did you nominate the article for deletion? The books and academic papers found by those searches get this through the general notability guideline many times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not look at the present article? The Banner talk 07:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know that notability is an attribute of an article subject, not of the present state of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I know you are only interested in keeping an article, regardless of the state. And that you will never do a thing to improve an article. The Banner talk 08:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as that being a personal attack a quick look through my contributions shows that it is a lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a predictable snarky comment. The Banner talk 11:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing attention to a personal attack and blatant lie may be predictable, but it's certainly not "snarky". Look at the evidence, rather than live in your own universe where lies are truth. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Rita do Sapucaí. That article already covers this school to the extent it is covered in reliable sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the notability guidelines for schools and we gain nothing by removing informative articles like this. Jzsj (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We should keep Wikipedia free from advertising, and this thing is just that... The Banner talk 14:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC) and do not forget to state that you are the writer of this[reply]
  - We should distinguish between advertisement and accurate accounts of a good work and what it is achieving. (Please give a specific reference to where it says authors of articles must identify themselves when they argue against deletion. Does authoring an article necessarily indicate more bias than wanting to delete an article?) Jzsj (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a case of politeness and common sense to say that you are the author. It puts your reply into perspective...
    - And for an organisation doing good work, you should have more sources available than just their own website. The Banner talk 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - A quick search reveals this independent verification of their "Futurist Projects Fair". Jzsj (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        A quick look reveals that you used the own website 9 times. The Banner talk 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Is 9 out of 21 so bad for an area where a "common sense" approach might lead us to accept that the various media are not as prevalent as in the US? Jzsj (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        With a common sense approach you would have left out the info that you can not back up with independent sources. The Banner talk 20:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you admit to ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE ? Jzsj (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember this one: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Pre-_and_post-nominals_discussion_needs_reopening? The Banner talk 21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please someone explain why WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't contradict the statement above that you must leave out "info that you can not back up with independent sources". I have no desire to waste anyone's time, or my own time, but if one is so clearly in the right then let them come forth with specific reasons, to establish their credibility. @The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read that discussion of your topic ban again, especially the parts about poor selection of sources, promo and WP:IDHT. That is exact the same behaviour what you are doing here now. The Banner talk 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are answers that have helped me to learn proper policy and answers that are vague and unhelpful like the one you just gave here. Your record of nominating for deletion 68 of my articles that by consensus were not deleted, diminishes for me your reliability as an impartial adviser. As to the articles on development centres that were deleted, I regret having been misled by the ready acceptance of these without any tags by the reviewers. Jzsj (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The classic "I did not hear that". The Banner talk 22:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is satisfied by the sourcing and I don't think @Billhpike:'s reasoning (which is functionally WP:REDUNDANTFORK, I believe) is legitimate, given that there is far more sourced content here than there is in his suggest redirect target. Even filtering out anything selfsourced, that would hold true. I wouldn't say the "discussion" (to be generous) going on above is particularly helping this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2019 (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.