Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sifundzani 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sifundzani School[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)

The only source in the article is a government document and I was unable to find anything about the school in a WP:BEFORE except for a few name drops in school directories and a couple of articles about an employee who was arrested for rape. Which has nothing to do with the school. Let alone is any of it the in-depth coverage that would be needed for the article to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Schools are not inherently notable either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sources that are secondary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the US government should be a good source, and it's been mentioned in a couple academic articles: [1] [2] Should be enough to have an article on. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the sources mentioned by SportingFlyer, there are several others. This 1999 book contains a paragraph discussing the school in some substantive detail. This academic paper, see pp 313-315 in the pdf file contains detailed in-depth analysis of the Portuguese language instruction program at the school and some discussion of the student body there. Overall, passes WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As another example of detailed coverage, here is a link to a research study, published in an academic journal, evaluating the efficiency of science teaching methods at the Sifundzani High School.

Comment For whatever reason both of you seem to be ignoring the part in WP:GNG that about significant coverage that requires the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Because Sifundzani School is the topic here. Not "teaching methods." Which is what the sources you both claim pass "overall pass WP:GNG" are about. The only thing they contain are name drops. None of them address the school directly and detail. Not to mention the first "source" is a questionnaire about how interested the students were in lectures. In no way is a student questionnaire a reliable source for information on anything. Whatever the source. More importantly the second source provided by SportingFlyer, which again both of you claim makes this pass WP:GNG is about "The use of WhatsApp in the Certificate in Portuguese programme offered by the Institute of Distance Education of the University of Eswatini." Is this article about The University of Eswatini? No it's not.

Looking at Nsk92's supposedly "direct and in detail" sources, The book reference just says the they provide adequate services for boys. Which is hardly in-depth and is extremely trivial. According to Nsk92 page 313-315 of the second source, which is about the Portuguese language, covers the school directly and detail. It doesn't though. Taking a random paragraph out of page 313 it says "it obvious that or access that one face to the other only can be filtered through two sensory organs that receive unique forms of manifestation of conceptual movements of two motor organs and the results of these actions." Is any of that about the school, let alone is it discussing the school "directly and in detail? I'm pretty sure the answer is a solid no. The other source that was posted, Efficacy of teaching methods: an Evaluation by the Sifundzani High Learners, is more of the same. It's a student questioner, which again isn't a reliable source, that talks about their "views and suggestions of students about various aspects of the current Science Education" and again the topic of this article is not "science education." It's Sifundzani School. So, despite what SportingFlyer and Nsk92 claim this is not an "overall pass of WP:GNG" in any way shape or form, because none of the sources they have provided "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which is explicitly required by WP:GNG. A few of them, like the one about the Portuguese language, doesn't even appear to address it indirectly or at all. At least not from what I could find. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err, putting aside your other points for the moment, with respect to the pp 313-315 ref[3], you are looking at the wrong article in the pdf file I linked. The article I meant is "A brief history of the teaching and learning of Portuguese in the kingdom of Eswatini" on pp. 309-318 of the file (internal page numbering), or pp 318-327 in absolute page numbering. Please check again there. Nsk92 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are here to build an encyclopedia not to nitpick. ClemRutter (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion and analyzing the sources is sometimes a part of that. If you find people doing the AfD process "nitpicking" or otherwise offensive, maybe find another corner of Wikipedia to contribute to. Or at least don't contribute to my AfDs anymore. Since sometimes discussions happen in them, not just by me, and I don't really appreciate people who attempt to stifle said conversations. I rather the process be done fairly and thoroughly. Which sometimes takes discussion and following the guidelines isn't "nitpicking." Also, AfDs aren't to "build an encyclopedia." They are to decide if articles should be deleted. Period. Again, if you have a problem with that then feel free to contribute to something else. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, AfDs are part and parcel of building an encyclopedia. Also you do not WP:OWN AfDs - you are not allowed to tell someone "don't comment on my AfDs". Your entire comment is not in keeping with the civility policy as well, please moderate things in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your up in arms about, but AfDs being part and parcel of building an encyclopedia was exactly my point. Whereas, from this and other AfDs I've seen ClemRutter participate in it seem as though they think that they are or that they should be done at all. As far as my comment supposedly being "uncivil", There is nothing "civil" about calling someone's analysis of sources nitpicking and ClemRutter has made similarly negative, dismisses, or otherwise not contructive comments in my other AfDs. AfDs are a discussion, being critical of said discussion is not a civil thing to do and is disruptive to the normal AfD process (which is contigent on it), and the AfD guidelines state that people are disruptive in AfDs can be called out for it. So, there is nothing wrong with saying "if your unwilling to have constructive discussions in my AfDs or are againat them, then please participate in someone elses." Obviously, people should either be for discussing things, or not participate in said discussions if they find them distressing or otherwise bad as ClemRutter seems to. That has nothing to do with ownership. Its just common sense. Unless you think its OK for someone to participate in particular AfDs that they find offensive or otherwise don't like purely to be critical of them and the participents. Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 24 November 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.