Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations engaged in STEM education across Africa

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. Sandstein 18:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations engaged in STEM education across Africa[edit]

[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)

This is a list of mostly external links in violation of WP:ELLIST, in addition the whole article is violating WP:NAD, there have been attempts to clean-up the article, and if cleaned-up now it would be pretty much an empty shell. VViking_TalkEdits 14:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Essentially this is a linkfarm whose rationale is way too vague. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability for this class of organizations as a whole, and any navigation purpose is better handled already by Category:Educational organizations based in Africa, which has many more relevant bluelinks than the three on the list, which appear to have been selected somewhat indiscriminately. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to STEM education in Africa and stubify. There is an article to be written about STEM education in Africa, but this is a long way from that article. LashandaWilhelm (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Not sure how how the list now is violating WP:NAD. Unfair to single out this list amidst many other lists with the same issues. i have removed the URL links that were problematic and have begun to add citations. With time, the large number of editors that have contributed to the list over the past 5 years will quickly add the needed citations so nuclear option is not necessary. Contreb19 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt "other lists have the same problem" will be a very persuasive argument to anybody; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Keep. got the ping that the list is being considered for deletion. already seeing editors making effort for clean up. i will contribute as well. vote to keep and switch tag to

This Wikipedia page may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: due to fixable issues. Please help improve this Wikipedia page if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions.

which makes way more sense. Fmuindi2016 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "fixable issues" is not very specific at all. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For this list to be wiki-notable, we need either evidence that the collection of organizations as a whole is noteworthy, or that the individual organizations are. In the latter case, we can have a list of blue links, i.e., a list that points to existing articles, while in the former, our standards can be more relaxed. But I'm not sure the former path is actually a good way to approach the topic of STEM education in Africa. I mean, it's obvious that STEM education in Africa is a noteworthy subject, and we can without doubt find sources about it (UNESCO reports, etc.), but what does a list of organizations tell us about the subject? Our priority should be explaining the history of STEM education in Africa, the challenges it faces, the variations across the continent, and so forth. A list that includes everything from national academies of engineers to weeklong coding camps does not actually inform the reader. Basically, the topic is important, but it needs a completely different article, and the process of getting from here to there would be about the same as writing a new page from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update. XOR'easter made many excellent points, and in the critique, actually ended up highlighting that the list can be turned into something that provides the necessary context to inform the reader. The raw materials are there and it's possible to get from "here to there". For example, one critical update would be to rearrange the list not by name or country but by different categories of STEM organizations along with the historical contexts behind each STEM organization category (e.g., coding camps, academies etc) given what others have discovered in their research. One can even turn the list into a table adding other details about each organization/initiative (e.g., founding year, stated mission, the audience they serve, outcome metrics etc). The article would then continue to provide, in a much more informative/structured way, the state of STEM organizations across Africa. It would provide any reader a strong place to start in their own reading and research. Deleting the current list and pulling it from circulation is a nuclear option which obliterates the current foundation (which i know is weak due to the articulated issues) for readers to do their own reading and research. Again, the issues are acknowledged and everyone is now aware of them via this discussion. Better yet, we can put an appropriate tag on the list to recruit folk to make the necessary changes. Why not build on the foundation and make the necessary updates that XOR'easter has so eloquently suggested? Again, its possible to to get there. Am happy to move the list back to draft mode to make the necessary upgrades. Fmuindi2016 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Fmuindi2016 has already voted in this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any other way to make this list better enough to pass WP:LISTN. Nearly every one of those list entries are not notable and there is almost nothing addition that is present that validates them notable as a set. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2021 (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.