Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British International School Lagos

Add links
From 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British International School Lagos[edit]

British International School Lagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. Online search brings up only self published sources.. I have not been able to get a single reliable source discussing this topic in a significant detail. Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been expanded, but still fails to assert notability. "...the school had difficulty finding qualified German teachers, so the possibility that the school would have to cancel its German classes existed." is not encyclopedic content. Chrislk02</fnt> Chris Kreider 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep After getting some TLC, the article looks better. I still question the encyclopedic value of it, but it is now more than a 3 line article about a school that could not find a German teacher. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see the discussion Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Articles_on_Schools_exempt_from_WP:A7 which is challenging the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools Common outcome that presumes notability for all senior high schools/sixth form schools and schools with senior high/sixth form components. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the status quo does not change, Keep due to the common outcome of keeping senior high schools/schools with senior high components. Also keep because even though the content of the book Womanismus als Methode der Interpretation deutscher literarischer Texte (a quotation of an English-language report embedded within a German book, of a person who interviewed the principal of the British School) is referring to the German classes, the fact that the book and the reporter it quotes gave attention to the school adds to its notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not an appropriate rationale at WP:AFD, it ensures that the status-quo is kept, regardless of how it was achieved. No where is there a consensus that "notability is presumed", and "we have not deleted them in the past" does not prove this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in theory each article should be judged in its own merits, but precedent is a reality. WP:OTHERSTUFF explicitly says that one can compare this article to other articles in certain cases to say "this article did it, so this should too" - for example, if a similar article survived an AFD. If "commonoutcomes" wasn't an appropriate rationale for AFD there would be no point to its existence. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secondary school, and that is enough. (The article at present is actually fairly good, as they go.) Though worded merely as coon outcomes, this is actually one of the most stable guidelines we have--there have been no exceptions in at least the last 5 years, except for schools with a dubious physical existence--very few guidelines can claim as much practical consensus. The reason for not deleting articles on secondary schools is that most of them -- and this an example, can be shown to be notable with sufficient work. It's also part of a very important compromise. The other half of the compromise was not normally including articles on primary and intermediate schools. When I joined in 2006, we did not have this compromise, and the result was that dozens of articles on both appeared at AfD every day. The result depended on the relative energy of the two sides to the discussion. was possible to delete any non-famous school by saying the references were trivial; it was possible to keep almost any school by looking hard enough and saying the references were not trivial. As i showed at the time, the overall results was not better than random. This was a ridiculous misuse of the time of many good editors on both sides of the discussion. Since then, they've been out of the list of AfDs, and we are no worse off overall. I point out that a further reason for keeping these is that they are good articles for beginners, and in particular good projects for secondary school classes--we need to attract new people , especially at the age group, for they may stay with us for many years. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - according to WP:NSCHOOL, secondary schools are NOT inherently notability. Notability must be proven according to WP:ORG or WP:GNG and I don't see any such proof.--Rpclod (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Satisfies GNG: sources are cited . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secondary schools are not automatically notable, but there is a strong working consensus that they are presumed to be notable. As I said in another venue, two hours spent in a library in Lagos would almost certainly lead to the discovery of many new sources for this article. But what we have now is sufficient. As DGG notes, we have here an informal "grand compromise" regarding redirecting most articles about elementary schools (except those of historic or architectural significance) and keeping almost all articles about secondary schools, except cases of fraud and home schools. And it works. Trying to upset the apple cart is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, informal grand compromises that contradict the actual written guidelines? If the apples are rotten, the cart should be upset.--Rpclod (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:N guideline is very careful to say that the GNG is not applicable in all cases. Consensus is what makes a WP guideline, not formal status. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (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/British_International_School_Lagos&oldid=1068828047"