Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matriculation in South Africa

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to National Senior Certificate. Sandstein 08:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matriculation in South Africa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Matriculation in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a PROD on this that unfortunately was removed when it really shouldn't have been. Since the article is an un-needed content fork of Matriculation#South_Africa and another article that is about essentially the same subject. There's no evidence it passes WP:GNG enough (or at all) to warrant three separate articles on the same topic. Let alone two. So, it should just be deleted or redirected to Matriculation#South_Africa. I could really care which. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Q. What is the first thing to do before nominating?
A. Consider whether there is a valid reason for deletion. For articles, try alternatives to deletion like improving the page, merging or redirecting.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matriculation Examination Handbook is a primary source written by the African Joint Matriculation Board. Therefore, as you should know it does nothing for notability. That it's a "book" isn't really relevant. Nor is "other stuff exists." Which, again, you should know. As far as the PROD test goes, people like you would remove them anyway, because there's no bar, outside of keeping everything no matter what, that you'd be satified with and you'll just find some thing to your whole "anyone who wants delete anything is just incompetent at this and doesn't know what they are doing" schtik to justify (or deflect from) your clear lack of any standards or ethics about the process what-so-ever. Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a primary source. A primary source would be something like the actual exam papers. Notice that that bound set from 1918 is over 100 years old. This is a very well-established and respected qualification which goes back to the 19th century. But, in any case, it is easy to find more books which cover the topic such as this. Sorry, you haven't done your homework. You got an F. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be primary in the same way same any other government institution (or company for that matter) writing about itself and its precedures is, because its not a secondary scholarly (or media outlet, or acedemic author, or anything else) doing a synthesis of the material or anything else that would qualify as usable. As far as the other source goes, one paragraph that's barely about it isn't enough IMO. Its fine if you do, but even if it was there would have to be another source, because one paragraph in a single book isn't enough, obviously. Ultimately, two in-depth secondary sources is a pretty damn low bar of entry. To the point that its hilarious as hell how much capitulating and doublespeak you and other people do when articles can't meet it. Seriously, maybe just skip it for once and find a couple of more sources. Or just go obstruct another AfD. Adamant1 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More sources? Here's some more sources of the sort that a standard WP:BEFORE search would produce:
  1. A comparison of teacher stress and school climate across schools with different matric success rates
  2. Equating examinations as a prerequisite for ensuring standards in centralised Senior Certificate (Matric) examinations in South Africa
  3. Investigating the significance of the 2008 Matric curriculum on first-year Economics performance
  4. The Discursive Hold of the Matric: Is There Space for a New Vision for Secondary Education in South Africa?
  5. Incorporating multiliteracies into public examinations: the constraints and affordances of the Matric English language examination
  6. The impact of study guides on “matric” performance: Evidence from a randomised experiment
  7. Exploration of the levels of mathematical proficiency displayed by grade 12 learners in responses to matric examinations
  8. Matric results in mathematics and languages: A predictor of undergraduate and postgraduate success
  9. The matric results of 2002 and 2003: the uncomfortable truths of the Western Cape
  10. Steroid use in matric pupils (South Africa)
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure an article about steriod use in students is a deep dive on Matriculation. The one about Western Cape would probably be cool for an article on Western Cape. Even with the sources though, notability isn't the only arguement that can be made in AfS abd there's still zero reason have three articles about the exact same subject. Except that you just want to be petty about this and keep everything. If its helpful to or not. Which just shows in the fact that in your vote you critized the nomination for not suggesting alternatives like merging or directing, when I was clear id be fine either and then you shot them both down as possible options. You can't even keep things stright about it from message to the next, because your so busy attacking people and being a contrarian about this. Adamant1 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The starting point for this is that the nominator first proposed that this topic be deleted without discussion as uncontroversial. But WP:PROD says this "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." But the nominator has been trying to delete other education topics for South Africa and other African countries. And there has been opposition – see here or here for example. The nominator should please expect more opposition if they continue on this path. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Get real dude. There's nothing controversial about doing a PROD on an article that's a duplicate of two others. Nor is there a rule against nominating multiple articles about subjects from the same content. The only reason there is a "controversy" about it is because you and a few other users' go to strategy is to personally attack and target anyone who does AfDs, because you don't have jack else. Sorry, but I'm not going to be your bootlicker and I'm sure as hell not going to bow down to your self-entitlement complexes. Next time follow the guidelines and keep your vote comment about the article. It's not that difficult. Making off topic personal attacks in your vote comments never result in articles being kept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be the appropriate title for the article, per WP:COMMONNAME, and the topic clearly meets the GNG, as a reasonable WP:BEFORE would have disclosed. This is not the place to discuss meeting other articles into this one, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Hey, do me a favor and do a search for Matriculation in South Africa with the Google Search bar. Then click the Find Sources: Google link and tell me if the results are different. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hhhmmm, glad to know it's not just me. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Andrew. Then merge with National Senior Certificate and redirect here. --DSQ (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. and merge as suggested. A reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) �[reply]
  • Keep and merge/redirect as suggested by DSQ et al. Humansdorpie (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be totally fine with a merge. I figured it be a given that merging it would be a choice without me having to explicitly say it was. I assume everyone involved is pretty aware of what the possible options are without anyone having to list them all repeatedly in every AfD nomination. In this case, the important thing is just that there isn't three articles about essentially the same subject. I could care less how that happens though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matriculation_in_South_Africa&oldid=986349860"