Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Grammar School (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Grammar School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Content of article has been significantly expanded since previous nom but no citations have been added that demonstrate WP:NSCHOOL has been met. Since the previous AfD closed as draftify the article creator has moved it to mainspace twice without addressing or discussing the notability issue. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Rich Smith, @FatCat96, @Aydoh8, @Indefensible and @GraziePrego who participated previously, and @Liz who draftified for the second time. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Delete: I Have added some sources but they are mostly either unreliable, or don't have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are interviews and not online sources. Thus, references were not attached. Samuel Ola (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiews are a primary source, in order for the article to be kept we need "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ There is a distinct lack of sourcing on the page, but we are told it was established in 1956 so this is a well established school, and this is born out by having an active old students association (WESGOSA) which helps verify several notable alumni already listed, including the first lady of Ghana [1]. So this is a school with significant notable alumni. It is also the case study school in this Ph.D. thesis [2] on learning styles and academic performance in Biology. This study [3] also uses the school as the experimental group in their study on teaching trigonometry. Although the secondary information about the schools in these studies is limited, they do add to the case that the school is significant, well established and of note within the community. There is also a lot of news paper coverage, as noted above. Those are primary sources. What remains lacking at this point is a good secondary source that verifies the information already on the page. If we had that, this would be a clear keep. I have not found that yet, but I think there is a suitable case, based on the notable alumni, the active old student association, and the academic references, to argue this crosses the line. (ETA: We do have this history, from a newspaper, written on the occasion of the school being 50 years old. [4] )Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - for me there just are not enough suitable sources for !keep. I agree one might think there are sources for a school of this age, however I do not think we can move from draft without suitable sourcing. Given that it has moved back and forth from draft to main, it seems like the best option is !delete until such time someone can rewrite with sufficient sources to satisfy the AfC process. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, I had not spotted that draft back-and-forth. Perhaps the performer of the move can comment. On the basis of the lack of in page sourcing yet repeat moving to mainspace (making draftify unavailable as an ATD) I would be inclined to move to delete pending some explanation on that. Is there a redirect ATD available? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Ola: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the history, I would like a stronger consensus. Should that end up in delete/draftify, a promise to respect consensus would also be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firming up my earlier comments. I note that we do not have the secondary sources, and the lack of comment from the nom. and my own failure to turn any up lead me to believe that we cannot write an encyclopaedic article here. Considering the history and the IAR aspect of my original argument, I believe delete is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2024 (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.