Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reykjavík International 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavík International 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)

I'm unable to locate any sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Iceland. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the article, the school existed for 3 years and only had about a dozen students each year. The only source that isn't their own website is a government statistical database. Search results generally are referring to International School of Iceland or are Wikipedia mirrors. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence about this one at the moment, which is not where I expected to be given the tiny number of children and short period the school was open. I have three additional sources, which I'm fairly sure are all about this specific school:

This is a passing mention of the school in a brief article about a child winning a prize. It does not add to notability and I'm mentioning it for completeness.

This, in Vísir, is significant coverage in a reliable, independent source.

This also looks like decent coverage in a reliable source, Morgunblaðið.

Even accepting both those, we only have the defunct school website, archive here, and the stats report - the former definitely being a primary source, the latter more of a grey area - so not reaching WP:THREE, but will see what others say. Tacyarg (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability requires more than passing mentions. The Iceland Review is a passing mention about a student coming second in a competition. This in Visir is a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the school and their principal, it has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject which is part of the criteria for "Independent Content". Finally this magazine article in Morgunblaðið suffers the same faults - a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the teachers/school and with no in-depth "Independent Content" from a source unaffiliated with the school. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Weak keep. The weekly paper Reykjavík had a couple of stories regarding the founding of the school (Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi and Tókst ekki hjá Reykjavík). This is another story from Morgunblaðið. Also seems to have been known as Alþjóðaskólinn í Reykjavík. Alvaldi (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topics require in-depth "Independent Content" to meet the criteria for establishing notability and we do not consider information regurgitated from company documents or interviews, etc. Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi simply repeats information from the founding docs files on incorporation (says it several times in the article). This story in Timarit is about the school (unsuccessfully to date) looking for a place from which to operate and yes, the school is mentioned, but it contains insufficient in-depth information about the school. This other story in Timarit is reporting on the signing of the contract for the school and reports on who attended, where it is based, the number of students and teachers, the canteen, the subjects and the length of contract - all information provided by the school during this event and no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three secondary sources cited offer some suggestion of notability, but it's just not enough to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:ORG. If there was something in this article demonstrating noteworthiness, I might give it the benefit of the doubt, but it was a short-lived small school that was visited by some minor dignitaries – so what? Ultimately, I don't see why this should be included in a global encyclopaedia, with at best borderline proof of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 21 August 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.