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. Source analysis refutes the only substantive keep vote. The other vote does not address The sources meeting GNG and is therefore insufficient to dispute the source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Mills Secondary School[edit]

Charles E. Mills Secondary School (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)

The article has four references. All of which are either primary, extremely trivial, dead links, blog posts, or some combination of the four. I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE either except a few extremely trivial name drops in school directories and an article about their sports team. None of which works for notability. Maybe someone can find references that do work for notability though. Otherwise, I think the article should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - School is the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in the St. Kitts and Nevis press (i.e., national-level coverage), see, e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Clear WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is extremely trivial, the second and third are blog posts, the forth is a statement from the school principle, the fifth is a blog post from the source as the other blog posts, the sixth is about their sports team and might work, but not on it's own, and the last reference is yet another blog post from the same source as the other ones. Not to mention it's about a couple of kids being wounded in a school yard. Which is extremely run of the mill. Wikipedia isn't a news source. So essentially we have one reference that is barely usable if at all and a bunch of WP:NOTNEWS articles from a blog that don't work for notability. Oh, and a statement from the principle that is primary and doesn't work for notability either. So in no way is this the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage or a "clear WP:GNG pass." The last reference in particular says literally nothing about the school except for name dropping it in the headline. So nothing is significant about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that is a "blog", it appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. Based on this article it does have an editorship structure and does issue corrections/apologies/retractions.

I also don't agree that coverage of the sports teams of CEMSS is trivial coverage, especially national-level coverage of multiple sports successes at the school. Sports education is clearly part of a school's remit and so coverage of sports is coverage of the school. CEMSS is one of only 6 high schools in St. Kitts and Nevis, which has no university, so it is not surprising that it (and its sports teams) should be treated as worth covering by the SKN press.

Searching the former name of the school also brings up references covering its 50th anniversary (e.g., 8 9) as well as a USAID report with coverage of the school. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs retract statements sometimes. That's not really what makes something a blog or not. Nor does someone retracting something once mean there's an "editorship structure." As far as what does make something a blog, according to WP:Blog "A blog (a truncation of "weblog") is a discussion or informational website published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete, often informal diary-style text entries (posts). Posts are typically displayed in reverse chronological order, so that the most recent post appears first, at the top of the web page." Which literally describes www.sknvibes.com. If we can't go with how Wikipedia defines a blog to determine if something is one or not then I'm not really sure why we are doing this.

As far as the the article on the sports team goes, 99% of it is an interview with the coach and he doesn't say anything about the school in the interview. Just to pick a random quote from the interview, he says "The group of coaches I spoke about earlier, their friends offer support, if one athlete in particular is late for training or don’t want to train, their friends would remind them that they have training as well as the fans we got who would offer them support.” Where is the school being talked about at all in that quote? Interviews aren't usable for notability anyway even if it did have anything to do with the school. If you disagree, then make an article about the sports team if that's what most of the coverage is about. The sports team isn't the school though. We can't have a blank article except for a section on their track and field team. It's undue weight and that's not the topic of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Blog" implies SKNVibes this is a self-published source. It clearly isn't since SKNVibes is an established company that e.g., sells advertising space and offers jobs-listings. Are you really using the fact that they published news stories in chronological order as a reason to call them a blog? Because literally every news website does that. Additionally, we can see reliable sources in the Caribbean region using them as a source (e.g., 10 11 ) That last source calls them a "news website", not a blog. Clearly a WP:NEWSORG. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the website? Go to https://www.sknvibes.com/news/, notice the last word in the URL is "news", click on some of the "news articles", and you'll find that a lot of them are press releases, "messages" (whatever that is), or other "not actually news article" things like flight schedules. Now tell me which one of those, press releases, "messages", or flight schedules do you think are actually "news" and (or) not self published? Also you'll notice on that on the bottom of most or all of their "news articles" that they have the following disclaimer "This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com." Where in that statement does it say that there's any editorial control of the "news articles" they publish? It literally says they don't do any editing of the content they receive. Let alone can anyone take away from that there is any kind of "editorship structure" involved in it like you've said there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such notice on their staff-reporter-provided articles, such as this one, this one, this one. ALL of the sources relied on above are from staff reporters. The very fact that they actively disclaim the ones that aren't (most of which come from SKNIS - the government media outlet) shows that they are doing their basic job as a media outlet. Of course there is an editorship structure if there is an editor-in-chief. We even have other sources talking about the "management" of SKNVibes over the CBI affair. FOARP (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - look at the online profiles of some of the bylines in the SKNVibes articles, e.g., Jermine Abel, Stanford Conway has credits for Reuters photos/articles. Why do you think these guys who are obviously professional journalists are working for a "blog"? FOARP (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that are supposedly written by staff reporters aren't really though. Which is why the ones you linked to are littered with phrases like "That announcement was made by Minister of Education Jonel Powell", "According to Powell", "Statistics from the Ministry of Health", "Minister Powell noted that his Ministry believes", "The announcement came days after Desmond Haynes was appointed", "CWI, in a media statement, said the Guyanese appointment was confirmed" Their literally just reposting almost verbatim what other people tell them and content from other news outlets. I could care less if a "staff reporter" is the one creating the blog post. It's not their work, research, or anything else of theirs and they aren't claiming it is. They are extremely clear that their content is from other people and outlets. Including press releases.

Maybe some of the staff writers are professional journalists, but it doesn't mean all of them are or that the cut and pasting work they do for sknvibes.com is in that capacity or automatically up to the same standards of the work they did for Reuters. I'm not going to say just because someone wrote an article for Reuters that everything they write is exactly the same. Let alone that every outlet they write for must have the quality control and oversight that Reuters does. Obviously different blogs and news outlets have varying degrees of review and editorial control over the work they publish, and writers will write definitely depending on where their work is being published. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very, very normal for reporters to quote officials, press-releases etc. in a story. That is just basic journalism. I don't even know why you're focused so much on trying to prove that this outlet (which is prominent enough to get into disputes with the government, has an editor-in-chief, staff reporters who work for other major news outlets, is quoted as a news outlet by other news outlets etc. etc.) is a "blog" when it is only one of about 4-5 sources here. Frankly I'm happy to leave this discussion here and see what other editors think. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but when it's 99% of the article and comes at the cost of the author doing actual journalism then that's an issue. Like WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors." If something is a 99% word for word copy of what someone else is saying then it's not the "analysis, views, and opinions of a reliable authors" at that point. I'd be totally fine with SKNVibes if they did actual analysis, but that's clearly not what they are doing. Instead their they are just parroting what other people say and slapping their name on the byline. You can't even call it a source at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThis High School provides a non-specialist education and so must adhere to the guideline requiring all universities and colleges providing mainstream education to satisfy the notability guidelines or GNG (per WP:NSCHOOL). WP:ORG guidelines require significant coverage which this college does not have. No independent significant coverage indicating notability. The coverage it has obtained is questionable and I am not satisfied of its reputability based on the discussion above. Hence also fails GNG and so is not fit for inclusion and ought be deleted.Such-change47 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I didn't want to do another relist, but while there's significant discussion there isn't consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After looking at the sources, it seems that while some of the language is certainly promotional, the factual evidence contained such as dates etc. is not, and can reliably be used. Ignore the fluff, include the substance. DiscantX 09:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Secondary schools are very rarely notable, and to be covered they need significant coverage in reliable sources, which the sources cited above fall far short of. Sandstein 12:01, 11 February 2022 (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.