Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luanda 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luanda International 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)

This school doesn't seem notable. The article only cites a single primary source and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up anything that would pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added text and secondary sources and updated the U.S. Government public domain content to the 2019-2020 fact sheet. Since the fact sheet is provided under the imprimatur the U.S. Government, I believe it is also a secondary source. Thus, the school meets WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know WP:NOR says government fact sheets are primary sources because its data, that is obtained by them. Not a synthsis of the data by someone who isn't connected to the people that gathered it. Which is what a secondary source. Plus, one source isn't enough anyway and all the others seem to be primary and not in-depth either. It should be pretty obvious that sources like expat-qoutes.com are not legitimate. So, your vote is without merit and the sources you added are not helpful to this being notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not clear what part of WP:NOR you are referring to that "says government fact sheets are primary sources because its data, that is obtained by them." However, even if the fact sheet is a primary source, according to WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. It also says: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Given the above policy description, and assuming you are correct that the U.S. Gov't public domain doc is primary, I have left some of the text of that document, and deleted several sections for which I could find no verification in other sources. I've added citations to secondary sources that verify most of the facts that remain.

My !vote to keep, though, is also based on my belief that approvals by national accreditation agencies constitutes a significant and substantial "reliable, independent, and verifiable secondary source". Accreditation represents a rigorous process of ensuring quality of a school's programs, faculty, accountability, and support for students' education. That, and inherent difficulties finding indexed publications for international sources, lead me to rely upon of accreditation by IB, NEASC, and the Council of International Schools as evidence of notability. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems your conflating what can be used in an article to cite basic facts with what can be used to determine notability. They are two different standards. For instance you can cite Twitter for basic facts in an article, but you can't use a tweet an AfD discussion as way to claim something is notable. Same goes for government fact sheets. Its fine to cite them in articles, they don't for in AfDs for notability though. You don't even have to take it that level though. As they fail the whole "in-depth coverage" thing anyway. Although I will add that WP:Primary says "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources." In no can the things listed that make a secondary source secondary be applied to government fact sheets. Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I do understand the difference between standards required for notability and what is acceptable to verify facts in an article. We differ, however in whether a school's adoption of the IB curriculum and its accreditation by New England Association of Schools and Colleges are evidence of notability. In fact, it is the only school in Angola accredited by NEASC. That accreditation represents rigorous examination by a team of accreditors who visit the school and check adherence to standards of excellence in educational practices, including curriculum, finances, faculty credentials, facilities, governance, student activities, and institutional compliance with legal responsibilities. In short, the IB curriculum and the NEASC accreditation are notable, as I wrote above. I have served on accreditation team site visits. We didn't give anyone an "easy pass", and in one case withheld accreditation because faculty revealed the IT department had abruptly and intentionally censored information that could be accessed on the school's internet. The school was out of compliance with the standard ensuring freedom of inquiry. Faculty were hopping mad, and the president of the college claimed he didn't know about it. That's the kind of situation that accreditation is designed to remediate: accredition is not automatic. But I digress. I understand your position, I just disagree. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Obviously people will have their own interpretation of the notability guidelines sometimes. I only responded since this is suppose to be a discussion after all. Don't take it as me being argumentative or anything like that though, because I respect your opinion. Even if I disagree with you. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grand'mere Eugene has added sources that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Grand'mere Eugene's sources and improvement. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:53, 31 August 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.