Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Bocage International School
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Le Bocage International School[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Le Bocage International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:ORG, WP:NSCHOOL. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV regarding the said school.HiwilmsTalk 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 12:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This school clearly fails the notability guidelines. Since there's no in-depth secondary coverage about it anywhere. It's to bad the AfD was even necessary. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Really? What about the in-depth secondary coverage that I cited in the article before you commented here? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Inclusion in directories (CIS International Schools Directory 2009/10) is considered as trivial per WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:SIRS also mentions "multiple". HiwilmsTalk 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly this is not mere inclusion in a directory, but hundreds of words of prose and the equivalent of an infobox. And secondly, per WP:NSCHOOL, which is part of WP:ORG, schools do not have to pass WP:ORGDEPTH: WP:GNG is enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Inclusion in directories (CIS International Schools Directory 2009/10) is considered as trivial per WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:SIRS also mentions "multiple". HiwilmsTalk 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Really? What about the in-depth secondary coverage that I cited in the article before you commented here? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Here's a source assessment table. I'm also requesting others to review this and chime in by replying.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Hiwilms
| ||||
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| http://www.lebocage.net/index.php/about-us |  Self-published
|
Self-published
|
 Covers basic info
|
✘ No |
| CIS International Schools Directory 2009/10 | Not from the school itself
|
Published book
|
Directory
|
✘ No |
| https://www.lexpress.mu/article/368553/international-baccalaureate-955-taux-reussite-au-bocage | News
|
Published
|
Features achievement
|
✔ Yes |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Only one source qualifies. WP:SIRS/WP:MULTSOURCES explicitly mentions that multiple qualified sources are needed to establish notability. HiwilmsTalk 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I will chime in by replying that the book covering this school and cited in the article certainly has significant coverage, even more so than the newspaper article that you agree does so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to satisfy notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which ones? Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- GNG, obviously. Which ones were you thinking of? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Which ones? Spiderone 08:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Had difficulty finding sources until I searched specifically in French. [1] [2]. Passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll say the first source works. The second one though, not so much. Them having a debate (and getting coverage somewhere for it) are extrmely trivial. Most schools have debates. The article doesn't even talk about the school even in passing. Let alone is there anything in-depth on it. As should be obvious, name drops don't count for notability. Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've nominated quite a few African schools for deletion in a short time frame. While this one wasn't specifically your nomination, I stopped at the first two sources, since it is significantly more difficult to keep articles than it is to delete them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying my opinion about sourcing isn't valid because I've nominated articles related to Africa before? If so, it's a little mediocre of you to do so. Especially since I said the first source is fine. I would cite AGF, but I'm sure your already aware of it and are just choosing to ignore it. Although, I'd guess you'd be fine citing it when someone is saying something about another keep voter. Anyway, your assertion that it's significantly harder to keep articles is obvious bullshit. One, because there's millions of articles in Wikipedia that never go to AfD in the first place. Also though, the requirement of two in-depth sources is an extremely low bar that any notable subject able to easily pass. I find it pretty hilarious how much capitulating keep voters usually do even over that though. It's almost like everything has to be handed to them on a silver platter and that there shouldn't be any notability guidelines at all. BTW, this is called "articles for deletion" for a reason. I.E. there's going to be a major slant toward non-notable articles being posted here, because that's literally what it's for. It's not "articles for keeping" or "neutral articles that just exist and no one cares about." All the complaints about this by keep voters is like going to a waste compound place, complaining about all the garbage there, and then criticizing all the waste disposal people for doing their jobs. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have said nothing about you apart from the fact you have nominated several African schools for deletion in a short time frame. I contribute to African topics when I can and I'm pretty decent at finding local sources online. When someone nominates an article for deletion, the article is undersourced, but the article is notable, it's on keep !voters to demonstrate the article's notability. Given the fact there are a dozen similar articles all up for deletion simultaneously, all of them are from an undercovered area of Wikipedia, and most to all of them seem to have WP:GNG-qualifying coverage in local sources, it's quite a bit of work to do the research to demonstrate their notability. So it's not "obvious bullshit," and I please ask that you retract that statement. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I never claimed you said more then that. You don't have to though. It's an uncalled for and off topic comment, that you should have been more sensitive about making. Especially considering the current slandering campaign going on about me in relation to it. That your comment only feeds into. Which, I assume is why you made it. Anyway, your claim all the AfDs related to schools in Africa pass WP:GNG is simply wrong and other stuff existing isn't relevant to this anyway. Also, it's not on me that there's a lot of work involved in this. It's not like there isn't a lot of involved when nominating things to do the proper research behand. While keep voters just have to find two in-depth sources and then they can call it done, nominators have to exhaustively check everywhere to make sure there aren't any. Then they have to combat the endless barrage of personal attacks and clearly fraudulent votes. Neither of which is particularly easy. You can just post about an article on ARS to and have a bunch of people come to vote keep based on absolutely nothing so the article is kept. Nominators don't have that options. So, spare me the complaints about how hard this is. Neither side is great to be on, but it's much more harder and more mentally taxing to be a nominator. Period. Anyway, I think we should leave it at that so other people can have a chance to participate. AfDs aren't for personal discussions or grievances. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have said nothing about you apart from the fact you have nominated several African schools for deletion in a short time frame. I contribute to African topics when I can and I'm pretty decent at finding local sources online. When someone nominates an article for deletion, the article is undersourced, but the article is notable, it's on keep !voters to demonstrate the article's notability. Given the fact there are a dozen similar articles all up for deletion simultaneously, all of them are from an undercovered area of Wikipedia, and most to all of them seem to have WP:GNG-qualifying coverage in local sources, it's quite a bit of work to do the research to demonstrate their notability. So it's not "obvious bullshit," and I please ask that you retract that statement. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying my opinion about sourcing isn't valid because I've nominated articles related to Africa before? If so, it's a little mediocre of you to do so. Especially since I said the first source is fine. I would cite AGF, but I'm sure your already aware of it and are just choosing to ignore it. Although, I'd guess you'd be fine citing it when someone is saying something about another keep voter. Anyway, your assertion that it's significantly harder to keep articles is obvious bullshit. One, because there's millions of articles in Wikipedia that never go to AfD in the first place. Also though, the requirement of two in-depth sources is an extremely low bar that any notable subject able to easily pass. I find it pretty hilarious how much capitulating keep voters usually do even over that though. It's almost like everything has to be handed to them on a silver platter and that there shouldn't be any notability guidelines at all. BTW, this is called "articles for deletion" for a reason. I.E. there's going to be a major slant toward non-notable articles being posted here, because that's literally what it's for. It's not "articles for keeping" or "neutral articles that just exist and no one cares about." All the complaints about this by keep voters is like going to a waste compound place, complaining about all the garbage there, and then criticizing all the waste disposal people for doing their jobs. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- You've nominated quite a few African schools for deletion in a short time frame. While this one wasn't specifically your nomination, I stopped at the first two sources, since it is significantly more difficult to keep articles than it is to delete them. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll say the first source works. The second one though, not so much. Them having a debate (and getting coverage somewhere for it) are extrmely trivial. Most schools have debates. The article doesn't even talk about the school even in passing. Let alone is there anything in-depth on it. As should be obvious, name drops don't count for notability. Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree that the L'express article is a good source, and so is the article from Le Mauricien, "Le Bocage fête ses 25 ans : Une approche cosmopolite de l’éducation", presented by SportingFlyer. I believe that this demonstrates notability. I apologize if anyone finds this comment mentally taxing. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:NSCHOOL. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. None of the Keep votes has showed actual SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The article from Le Mauricien, and the book by Bingham cited in the page already provide significant and detailed coverage, enough to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (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.