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. Clear consensus in favor of keeping the article after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Academy[edit]

Hong Kong Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seemingly non-notable school. All the sources in the article are either primary, extremely trivial coverage, or otherwise not reliable. Also the article is largely promotional in tone and has been mainly edited by editors that seem to have COIs. Ultimately, there's nothing about this school that would pass WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Cheng, Margaret (2000-10-08). "KIDS: Dr Margaret Cheng discovers a new school of thought (Hong Kong Academy)". South China Morning Post.
  2. Davies, Kate (January 2017). "Community relations: Kate Davies finds out how Hong Kong Academy is keeping its students on their toes". Expat Parent. Hong Kong Living. pp. 44–47. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Issuu.
  3. Forestier, Katherine (2002-12-07). "Breaking down the barriers". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  4. Whitehead, Kate (2001-06-09). "Parents with mission to build new schools". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.

     This brief mention helps more with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than it helps with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  5. Chong, Dennis; Wong, Olga (2013-01-08). "Education experts angry at possible third school site turned into flats". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  6. Lau, Mimi (2008-11-15). "HK Academy 'frustrated' over school site offer in Chai Wan". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Cunard. Also, Wikipedia usually keeps schools in article for deletion nomination battles if they are bona fide schools.Knox490 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely, more trivial sources that don't pass WP:NORG and that most of seem to be on a single topic to. For about the hundredth time, Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources identified by Cunard. There are several articles from the South China Morning Post, which as far as I can tell looks like a reliable source. The Expat-Parent source looks especially good: a five-page magazine article specifically about the school. The nominator's argument that "Wikipedia isn't a news source" is odd. No, it's not a news site, but newspaper and magazine articles are absolutely appropriate for determining notability of a subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources except for like are to South China Morning Post. As far as my "Wikipedia isn't a news source" comment, it was in relation to the triviality of the topics being referenced. For instance stories like "HK Academy 'frustrated' over school site offer in Chai Wan" and "Tales of College Admissions Puffery" are more passing "special interest" news pieces then they are things that IMO would show the long-term or meaningful notability of something. Especially the first one about someone at the school being "frustrated" about something. That's not really an in-depth notable discussion of the school itself per say. Most schools and other organizations get coverage for that kind of thing. There's zero unique or notable about it and it's pretty WP:MILL IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out this discussion where Adamant1 was judged to lack competence in evaluating sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Feel free to point it out. Since in the discussion I pointed to two discussion in WP:RSN about the sources I supposedly had lack of competence evaluating where a bunch of people, including long standing administrators, agreed with me that the sources weren't reliable. Including the discussion I started about Wen Wei Po where the overwhelming consensus seems to be that it shouldn't be used for even basic facts and should probably be depreciated. Clearly the fact that I knew as much before starting the RfC must have been because of my "lack of competence in evaluating sources." You clearly have a lack of competence when it comes to following WP:NPA. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the sources above, I believe this would pass notability guidelines for a school. -- Dane ^talk 02:31, 9 August 2020 (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.