- 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. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
St. Augustine's College (Malta)[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- St. Augustine's College (Malta) (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)
Issues with notability Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Historic secondary school. Easily enough sources available to satisfy WP:GNG. as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- He copies and pastes almost the same message into every AfD related to secondary schools in the western world, universities, really spin the wheel, and never provides the references he claims exists either. Even though there are supposedly easily enough of them to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid I don't copy and paste. And stop the suggestions that editors whose opinions differ from your own should be reported to ANI, which is arrogant in the extreme. As I have said before, Wikipedia is becoming a deeply unpleasant place. Try not to contribute to it. And, incidentally, how dare you suggest that I am a vandal or a troll per WP:DFTT! This is a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I would suggest you take a look at my contributions to this project. A vandal or troll I most certainly am not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I could quote at least a dozen times in the last couple of months where you've said almost the exact same thing in your "votes." I'm not going to bother though because they are pretty easy to find. In the meantime maybe you can tell me how the essay on your user page is a presumption of good faith, contributes to a pleasant environment, and doesn't come off as extremely arrogant. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's not copying and pasting. That's saying the same thing because that's my opinion, as I am entitled to do without being accused of being a vandal or a troll or it being suggested that I should be "reported" for daring to express an opinion that is different from yours. The essay on my userpage reflects how I feel about those who come here to delete rather than expand and the unpleasantness that results if they are challenged, and I stand by it. I have been here a long time; I have seen how AfD discussion has got nastier year on year and how those who want to delete react when their views are opposed. And I am not directing an attack at anyone in particular. You clearly are. Kindly desist and do not accuse me of things that are patently untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you equated me saying I hope someone reports you eventually for repeatedly making un-constructive comments in AfDs into me suggesting you should be reported for "daring to have opinions that are different then mine" but whatever. I could literally give a crap if you have different opinions then me. That's not my issue. Outside of that, it's kind of weird that on the one hand your being so adamant that I should respect your opinions and feelings, while on the other your insulting me over mine by calling me arrogant and making such a brew haha over this. Why not just respect my opinions and feelings about it instead of insulting me? If your so concerned with AfDs being civil, then don't call people names or make a massive issue out of nothing like your doing here. I was reading a guideline or something about trolling the other day, and it said something along the lines of "trolls make non-constructive edits because they are powerless to do anything else" or something like that. Which I think perfectly describes what your doing in AfDs about schools. Your free to disagree though. I could really care less. Obliviously the term troll is subjective and people are going to have differing ideas on what constitutes trolling. So maybe don't attack me for "daring to express an opinion that is different from yours" about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you genuininely can't understand why a long-serving and highly productive editor may not be particularly keen on a comment directed straight at him which says "Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT", then I have nothing further to say other than learn to moderate your language and reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't care about your "standing" or how productive of a user you are. This isn't an elite tennis club in the Hamptons or whatever. Being a longstanding, "highly productive" editor doesn't exempt you from the obligation to provide references in an AfD when you claim they exist. Nor does your "standing" justify the clearly insulting user page essay. Tone it down, support your claims of notability with some evidence, and I wouldn't have an issue with you. In the meantime it's hard to take your complaint about me saying your trolling seriously when your fine using the term on your user page. Which is literally the only reason I brought it up. If you think the term "troll" is a personal attack and bad faithed, cool, then don't use the term and I won't either. It's that simple. In the meantime though, I'm not to concerned about using a word to describe your behavior that you clearly have no issue with. WP:AGF and WP:NPA aren't one way streets. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly don't get the difference between a comment on an AfD page aimed squarely at an individual editor and an opinion essay on a userpage which mentions no particular editors. Never mind. I'm sure most other editors do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I get the idea that your are still in complete denial over the outcomes of the 2017 RFC about notability of schools. The Banner talk 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I get the idea that you didn't read my first comment and the comments of almost everyone else on this AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I must agree with @Necrothesp on this one. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever our personal opinions or the outcome of this particular AfD, there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever. Personally, I don't care that much about it, but the wider consensus is clearly against people writing two or three sentence votes that lack any sort of supporting evidence. Also, I think if people are going to participate in AfDs they should at least be willing to put the minuscule amount of effort into this that it takes to copy and paste a reference they say exists. Otherwise, leave it to other people who are willing to and work on other areas of Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever.
Really? Because I can't find a single ANI case like this "in the last couple of months". Care to provide us with a link to at least one of these "multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages" so we can see what you mean? I've never known an editor to be sanctioned for expressing their opinion at AfD so long as it was not attacking another editor. I've seen the occasional editor who doesn't like their views being challenged call for such sanctions (probably not at ANI, however), but I've also seen those calls dismissed out of hand as ludicrous. I would be extremely worried about the direction in which Wikipedia was heading if such sanctions or even warnings were imposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)- I've been accused of malicious intent recently because I almost always vote keep, but the editor never replied when I challenged their accusations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you have to get used to it (you shouldn't have to, but it's become the nature of "debate" here). It's been happening to me for several years now. I tend to have a live and let live policy. I'll vote keep if I have strong feelings that something is worth keeping, but won't usually bother voting delete if I don't because I don't think that AfDs where you don't really have strong feelings either way are worth the hassle. It really upsets deletionists, who seem to think it means I want to keep everything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I can't find the ANI complaint right now, but someone was topic banned from AfDs for three months a few days ago for repeatedly asserting things were notable without providing evidence, among other things. There was also the ARS members who were either blocked or warned for similar things. One of which was repeatedly asserting that things were notable and being unwilling to provide references when people asked for them. Personally, I'm not really upset about how you vote. Really, I just think that providing references when you say something is notable shows respect for the process and other users. Plus, I really hate to see things get deleted just because keep voters can't be bothered to click a mouse button. Really, if we are all in this to improve Wikipedia I don't see how not providing a reference does that. Wouldn't it be better to provide the references your able to find so they can be added to the article? I don't think that's such an unreasonable request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- So neither you nor I can find this or any other incident on ANI. How very odd! Especially given there are, according to you, "multiple" cases over the last couple of months. However, I suspect you may be referring to this. A case where an editor merely posted "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" on every AfD in which he participated. Which, as I'm sure you will appreciate if you read it, bears no resemblance to anything I have posted on AfDs. But, of course, that's just one of the "multiple" incidents you claim have occurred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your talking about when you just found one of the incidents and I was pretty clear about the other one involving ARS members, which is easy to find, but sure dude. Neither of us found anything. Right. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned there's only a superficial difference between repeatedly saying "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" and repeatedly saying "keep because clearly this is notable." To quote from ANI complaint about Davidgoodheart's behavior, "it casts serious doubt on this editor's review of the deletion discussion and source material," "clearly not at AfD to individually assess each article's merits," "Davidgoodheart clearly has difficulty understanding how to participate usefully in deletion discussions," "I have been discounting these comments due to their obvious pro forma nature once I noticed it was the same wording repeated in multiple AfDs...this approach to commenting is inappropriate and has gone on far too long." Literally all those quotes could apply to you. Especially the last one. Your literally repeating the same thing over and over. Nothing in how you vote shows that you are assessing articles on their own merits or reviewing the source material either. Let alone is your participation in AfDs discussions at all useful. You just get ignored and someone else provides the references. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- So neither you nor I can find this or any other incident on ANI. How very odd! Especially given there are, according to you, "multiple" cases over the last couple of months. However, I suspect you may be referring to this. A case where an editor merely posted "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" on every AfD in which he participated. Which, as I'm sure you will appreciate if you read it, bears no resemblance to anything I have posted on AfDs. But, of course, that's just one of the "multiple" incidents you claim have occurred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I can't find the ANI complaint right now, but someone was topic banned from AfDs for three months a few days ago for repeatedly asserting things were notable without providing evidence, among other things. There was also the ARS members who were either blocked or warned for similar things. One of which was repeatedly asserting that things were notable and being unwilling to provide references when people asked for them. Personally, I'm not really upset about how you vote. Really, I just think that providing references when you say something is notable shows respect for the process and other users. Plus, I really hate to see things get deleted just because keep voters can't be bothered to click a mouse button. Really, if we are all in this to improve Wikipedia I don't see how not providing a reference does that. Wouldn't it be better to provide the references your able to find so they can be added to the article? I don't think that's such an unreasonable request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you have to get used to it (you shouldn't have to, but it's become the nature of "debate" here). It's been happening to me for several years now. I tend to have a live and let live policy. I'll vote keep if I have strong feelings that something is worth keeping, but won't usually bother voting delete if I don't because I don't think that AfDs where you don't really have strong feelings either way are worth the hassle. It really upsets deletionists, who seem to think it means I want to keep everything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've been accused of malicious intent recently because I almost always vote keep, but the editor never replied when I challenged their accusations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever our personal opinions or the outcome of this particular AfD, there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever. Personally, I don't care that much about it, but the wider consensus is clearly against people writing two or three sentence votes that lack any sort of supporting evidence. Also, I think if people are going to participate in AfDs they should at least be willing to put the minuscule amount of effort into this that it takes to copy and paste a reference they say exists. Otherwise, leave it to other people who are willing to and work on other areas of Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I must agree with @Necrothesp on this one. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I get the idea that you didn't read my first comment and the comments of almost everyone else on this AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I get the idea that your are still in complete denial over the outcomes of the 2017 RFC about notability of schools. The Banner talk 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- You clearly don't get the difference between a comment on an AfD page aimed squarely at an individual editor and an opinion essay on a userpage which mentions no particular editors. Never mind. I'm sure most other editors do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't care about your "standing" or how productive of a user you are. This isn't an elite tennis club in the Hamptons or whatever. Being a longstanding, "highly productive" editor doesn't exempt you from the obligation to provide references in an AfD when you claim they exist. Nor does your "standing" justify the clearly insulting user page essay. Tone it down, support your claims of notability with some evidence, and I wouldn't have an issue with you. In the meantime it's hard to take your complaint about me saying your trolling seriously when your fine using the term on your user page. Which is literally the only reason I brought it up. If you think the term "troll" is a personal attack and bad faithed, cool, then don't use the term and I won't either. It's that simple. In the meantime though, I'm not to concerned about using a word to describe your behavior that you clearly have no issue with. WP:AGF and WP:NPA aren't one way streets. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you genuininely can't understand why a long-serving and highly productive editor may not be particularly keen on a comment directed straight at him which says "Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT", then I have nothing further to say other than learn to moderate your language and reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you equated me saying I hope someone reports you eventually for repeatedly making un-constructive comments in AfDs into me suggesting you should be reported for "daring to have opinions that are different then mine" but whatever. I could literally give a crap if you have different opinions then me. That's not my issue. Outside of that, it's kind of weird that on the one hand your being so adamant that I should respect your opinions and feelings, while on the other your insulting me over mine by calling me arrogant and making such a brew haha over this. Why not just respect my opinions and feelings about it instead of insulting me? If your so concerned with AfDs being civil, then don't call people names or make a massive issue out of nothing like your doing here. I was reading a guideline or something about trolling the other day, and it said something along the lines of "trolls make non-constructive edits because they are powerless to do anything else" or something like that. Which I think perfectly describes what your doing in AfDs about schools. Your free to disagree though. I could really care less. Obliviously the term troll is subjective and people are going to have differing ideas on what constitutes trolling. So maybe don't attack me for "daring to express an opinion that is different from yours" about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's not copying and pasting. That's saying the same thing because that's my opinion, as I am entitled to do without being accused of being a vandal or a troll or it being suggested that I should be "reported" for daring to express an opinion that is different from yours. The essay on my userpage reflects how I feel about those who come here to delete rather than expand and the unpleasantness that results if they are challenged, and I stand by it. I have been here a long time; I have seen how AfD discussion has got nastier year on year and how those who want to delete react when their views are opposed. And I am not directing an attack at anyone in particular. You clearly are. Kindly desist and do not accuse me of things that are patently untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I could quote at least a dozen times in the last couple of months where you've said almost the exact same thing in your "votes." I'm not going to bother though because they are pretty easy to find. In the meantime maybe you can tell me how the essay on your user page is a presumption of good faith, contributes to a pleasant environment, and doesn't come off as extremely arrogant. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid I don't copy and paste. And stop the suggestions that editors whose opinions differ from your own should be reported to ANI, which is arrogant in the extreme. As I have said before, Wikipedia is becoming a deeply unpleasant place. Try not to contribute to it. And, incidentally, how dare you suggest that I am a vandal or a troll per WP:DFTT! This is a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I would suggest you take a look at my contributions to this project. A vandal or troll I most certainly am not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- He copies and pastes almost the same message into every AfD related to secondary schools in the western world, universities, really spin the wheel, and never provides the references he claims exists either. Even though there are supposedly easily enough of them to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep quite a lot of sources available through a Google search, I've added some to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as has coverage in Times of Malta added to the article together with other reliable sources coverage so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Question -- Most of the article implies that it is only a primary school. If so, surely it is NN. Whatever it is, this is a poor stub of an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete from what I can tell the references are extremely trivial, passing mentions and related to mundane, non-notable facts. Outside of that there is nothing that would constitute the in-depth, direct coverage required by WP:GNG. Sorry, but there isn't really a scenario where a Wikipedia article about someone stealing a public address system from the school would work. let alone be encyclopedic. Same goes for them temporarily moving into a different school building, which three references in the article are about. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- The school has existed since 1848. Given the level of sourcing available online I think its highly likely newspaper sources exist from earlier as well. The problems with the premises are far from mundane and appear to have been controversial. There are several articles already cited that focus on the subject, which establishes notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your comment of the "controversy" relates to what I mentioned about someone stealing the PA system. I wouldn't exactly call that a controversy. Except maybe to a couple of mom's at a soccer game, but then anything would qualify as controversial. Personally I prefer standards of notability that don't include things a couple of mom's at a soccer practice would gossip about, which is literally everything. Really, the whole "controversy automatically equates to notability" thing is ridiculous in the first place. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. We aren't here to provide people the latest news on celebrity dating gossip or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was referring to the controversy surrounding the expansion of the school, which seems to have gone on for several years. I'm not aware of a PA system being stolen, perhaps you're thinking of the article where computers were stolen? NemesisAT (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy. Yes, computers, a PA system, and I think a few other things. In case your wondering, I singled out the PA system being stolen because computers and computer parts regularly get stolen from schools. PA systems though, not so much. So I think the PA system being stolen is slightly more notable then the computers. Although both are still extremely mundane and probably not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was referring to the controversy surrounding the expansion of the school, which seems to have gone on for several years. I'm not aware of a PA system being stolen, perhaps you're thinking of the article where computers were stolen? NemesisAT (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I assume your comment of the "controversy" relates to what I mentioned about someone stealing the PA system. I wouldn't exactly call that a controversy. Except maybe to a couple of mom's at a soccer game, but then anything would qualify as controversial. Personally I prefer standards of notability that don't include things a couple of mom's at a soccer practice would gossip about, which is literally everything. Really, the whole "controversy automatically equates to notability" thing is ridiculous in the first place. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. We aren't here to provide people the latest news on celebrity dating gossip or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please. Assertions and grandiose statements are as useful in determining a consensus as a bucket of warm spit would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Please see the source assessment table above. I was perhaps being a bit harsh on Newsbook, I have no reason to beleive it isn't reliable. Meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, as there is sufficient significant coverage to meet GNG; it does all come from a single source, when multiple sources are typically preferred, but I believe we need to take into account the size of Malta and the fact that there are less reliable sources there than there are for other countries. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per NemesisAT. Sourcing is sufficient to meet minimum requirements of GNG. --Jayron32 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep regardless of the endless swirl around schools/ORG and my personal feelings therein, it appears that this particular school meets the GNG. Beyond the ones IDed above, I found this, which provides some history worth adding/sourcing. Star Mississippi 18:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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.