Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Andrew's Secondary School, Adikpo

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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's Secondary School, Adikpo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and article lacks any references, like any at all, and lacks any credible claims of notability.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Secondary schools are typically considered notable if there is content for an article. I think, given how hard it is to find Nigerian sources, that these sources are enough - a reliable source calling the school prestigious, Gabriel Suswam is a notable alumni, and notable Nicholas Akise Ada is an alumni. I found that Ada is notable, but still needs an article. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to SL93 for conducting searches to establish notability. It now seems likely that the nom has failed to follow the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE, particularly Step D, which states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". I also question whether searches have been conducted in any of the 500+ Languages of Nigeria. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: Not up to me to establish notability, that should be left up to the article creator, I don't much care for your tone. Article lacks any references and lacks any credible claims of significance. If you want the article to be kept, you should clean it up.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't care much for your dismissive attitude towards our most basic of policies. As the nominator it absolutely is up to you to carry out the checks outlined at Step D of WP:BEFORE. We are here to build an encyclopedia not delete articles because of demarcation disputes. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @AusLondonder: You want the article to be kept, you clean it up.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please take the time to familiarise yourself with WP:BEFORE which is written for those nominating articles for deletion and states "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to....B. Carry out these checks...2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)...D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. 1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search" AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's all fine and good, but it doesn't say anything about the nominator having to be the one to add references and credible claims of notability to the article that's nominated ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discoveries by earlier editor. Beyond WP:BEFORE, the February 2017 RFC, while finding that "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," also found that "references to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD" (my emphasis). "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." This seems to put the responsibility on the AfD nominator to search for both online sources and offline sources prior to nominating. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above and GEOBIAS. The equivalent secondary school in North America would be kept. As such, I see no reason to delete this school. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like an advert for the school. Lacks references or any real notability of staff or students/alumni.Fatty wawa (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Its. A. School. Which is automatically notable. AfDs are not supposed to be used to bring attention to an article in need of cleanup. If that is what is wanted, it should be listed in the rationale. L3X1 (distant write) 01:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary school, but remove anything that cannot be sourced. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2017 (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.