Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley College Australia

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley College Australia

[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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The vast majority of search results come up for a school in Queensland, which has the same name. The only search results that comes up for this school are primary sources, one of which is already used in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is referenced to 3 academic books including 2 published by Routledge that are used to verify 9 facts in the article so they are most likely to contain significant coverage, enabling a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have access to the books used as sources, and my only library options would be inter library loans so I did what I could with Google Books. I confirmed that the statements that these sources support are supported by them, but could not see that they provide much more coverage. They may, but at AfD it would be helpful to move beyond may, to establish GNG is met. These sources mostly meet WP:SIRS but significant coverage is note demonstrated without fuller access to the sources. However these are not the only mentions in books. A Google books search finds hundreds of mentions. Some are about the college, but this one [1] is typical of output by principals / former principals etc. That is, the book is not about the college at all, but points to its notabililty as a centre of learning and published output in the manner of Bible colleges. The books returned also contain many primary soucres, such as this mention in Hansard. [2] Primary sources do not count towards notability, yet the mention in parliament is not insignificant. All in all, while I cannot list three good sources that demonstrate SIRS and GNG are met beyond doubt, I think that the breadth of coverage and the clear evidence that it was a longstanding Bible college of some repute, takes this over the line. I also think it is likely that sources meeting SIRS do exist - I just don't have access to them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Swan505 (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nom. suggests that most hits are for Kingsley College Queensland, but this is not correct. The Queensland college is a Christian primary and secondary school, not a Bible college, so all the Bible college hits I discussed refer to this one. I think this is the more notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sirfurboy makes a compelling argument, but given there's an element of IAR-yness about it, relisting to allow others to challenge it if they wish to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 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.