Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abeokuta Girls Grammar 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 delete. Current community consensus about schools, as noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, is that: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist". The "keep" opinions here mostly assert the opposite, but they do not attempt to establish that the school is covered in reliable third-party sources in such a way that it would pass WP:GNG. These opinions must therefore be discounted as contrary to broader community consensus.  Sandstein  21:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Abeokuta Girls Grammar School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails NCORP and GNG. Only coverage is in list articles, PRIMARY sources, or brief mentions. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I checked and found most of the coverage mentioning the school is about the school's most famous alumna, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti. (She's not even mentioned in the article. Sad!) The articles are mere mentions of the school; not enough for notability. Coverage was otherwise not independent or not reliable. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't apply. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti attended the mixed school, not the girls only school. Darreg (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. The consensus for public secondary schools in countries such as Nigeria is that once verifiability can be established then the school should be kept. This is a girls-only secondary school established before Nigeria gained independence, and have produced notable activist as alumnus. I have seen a number references online, will add them here soon. They might not be substantial but they show that the school exist. Darreg (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , please make sure to read through all of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. The widely-attended "schools" RFC reaffirmed that "[s]econdary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." This had already been established by NSCOOLS (requiring significant coverage in independent, reliable sources) and ORGSIG ("No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools."). The RFC's closing panel went so far as to establish that votes using this rejected premise may be wholly disregarded by AfD closers. Rebb  ing  12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to point 2, that says Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.. I didn't know there was an RFC on this, the last time I visited WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME there was no RFC there. And I have created more than ten public secondary schools in Nigeria based on my previous understanding. I guess there is no need to add the references here since they are just mere mentions, the only place you will get comprehensive coverage of the school are in the website of the old student association. I don't agree with the decision of the RFC though, Nigerian secondary schools will suffer, notable media hardly ever reports on them significantly. Darreg (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The school hasn't been discussed in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Articles can't be kept simply because of the failure of coverage in local media. If this school was notable, it should have been discussed. Although Wikipedia prefers online sources, print sources can be cited as well., if you want this article kept, I suggest you invest some time in looking for offline sources.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 23:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding precedent and consensus. It seems clear from previous discussions that the RfC has not overturned this consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC is the consensus. You disagree with that outcome. Face facts. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your view of the RfC isn't generally accepted as consensus. Face facts! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The result of the RfC isn't driven by the result of that DRV or this AfD. The result of this AfC and that DRV are driven by the RfC. I am disappointed someone of your experience chooses to embrace inclusionism in defiance of the community. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am far from being an inclusionist. Interpretation of the RfC varies, as you know very well and as is attested by the number of editors who don't agree with your interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason, quite simply is to avoid these discussions--experience at present shows that every one of them will be carried to deletion review,and experience from the distant past before we had the practice showed that the number of them is capable of clogging AFD to an unmanageable number and preventing us from properly dealign with more important things. . In this case, there';s an additional reason, which is cultural bias--we can and should consider that any verifiable high school that has more than transient existence in a country where currently findable sources are difficult to find, may well have them. The rule is sourceable, not currently sourced.  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete (per DEL8) because the school hasn't received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources as required by the notability guideline for schools. This requirement exists so that we can write verifiable, balanced, useful articles; it is not merely unlikely, but actually impossible, to comply with our content policies when writing about a subject that hasn't received significant coverage in trusted, unrelated publications. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, a Web host, or a social justice project, our content policies must prevail and this article must be deleted. There are, however, alternative outlets that may gladly accept this work. Rebb  ing  17:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The RfC did not say that articles like this could not be kept, and I would argue that any one of any possible significance should be kept--it just invalidated the use of schooloutcomes as an automatic reason without further discussion.  It does not prevent our decided to keep despite failure of the gNG whenever we want to make an exceptions--it does not prevent us from always makign an exception for high schools, and I think we should continue to do so.
 * Comment: If this article is deleted, for consistency reasons, I am going to nominate Wesley College Ibadan, Abeokuta Grammar School and the 20+ secondary schools articles that I've created in the past one year. Infact, there is no single Nigerian secondary school that really passes GNG in thier present state. Please can someone give me a reason why I should not nominate all of them if this article is deleted? Darreg (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep if we keep "most secondary schools", this passes the bar. Otherwise there are literally thousands of articles that will show up here. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From the "schools" RFC: "Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument 'We should keep this school because we always keep schools.' This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed." Rebb  ing  09:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." without some claim that this school is *less* notable than the average secondary school, I can't support or encourage this type of AFD. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , you do realize we put that in there so one editor (or collective group) didn't mass-nominate thousands of articles, right? I've AFD'd maybe two schools since the RFC concluded, and that was purely because I came across them through other means. I'm not on the hunt for pages to AFD, so if you can't support a regular user coming across a page they feel doesn't meet the criteria and subsequently nominates it for deletion, then I'd be confused if you didn't vote keep on every AFD. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * supporting the idea that WP should be consistent is not a circular argument.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but that's why we have policies, guidelines, etc. Otherwise you're just dismissing what there is broad consensus for with your own opinion about what's notable and what's not based only on the subject, irrespective of the existence of sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Increasingly disappointed with this group of editors attending every school AfD, repeating the same "because it is so" arguments, dismissing established, broad consensus (WP:N, SNGs) and wikilawyering the recent RfC (hashtag #alternativeRfCs). And then another group, of which I seem to be part, engaging them in multiple venues, repeating the same "but... policies and guidelines? RfC? WP:LOCALCON? seriously?" pleas ad nauseum... If it's not given a free pass in one of our SNGs, and it doesn't pass GNG, it's not notable. I appreciate that notability, being based on existing publishing models, is one of the sources of systemic bias -- but the answer to notability's systemic bias isn't to just throw it out the window for some subjects but not others (unless, I suppose, there is broad consensus to do so in a way that reconciles it with core policies). I do wish this could be resolved in meta discussions rather than regarding several individual examples on top of meta discussions. Typically for this sort of thing, we'd hold an RfC to sort out differences and find consensus, but that just happened. If people simply refuse to acknowledge it, and the problem is widespread enough, is it possible the issue is enough in the space of behavior (as opposed to content) that it's something for ArbCom to weigh in on? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Inquiry Do any of the Delete voters have a "rule of thumb" for the types of secondary schools that are kept? Is there any guidance beyond GNG, even provisional? Power~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Blame the editors that pushed the circular logic of OUTCOMES for years creating this artificial bubble of poor content, not the editors who determined that OUTCOMES is no longer valid. If you don't want the bother of judging if the subject passes GNG, then don't visit these AfDs. Ultimately we have a group of longtime Wikipedians who want things their way against the consensus and I don't think that's wise. The RfC determined that only GNG applies' there is no SNG for schools. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , my rule of thumb is no different than any other org: are there sources? Do they talk about the school? Are they (reasonably) independent? If the sum total of information I can gather from available sources (online and on-wiki) is "this high school exists" then it fails GNG and thus I would nominate for deletion. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I do not want to enter into the arguments about the RfC, although I think the outcome is some what of a mess. Readers want to know about Secondary schools and whether famous people attended them. So, for me, the question is whether we can write a reasonably detailed account of the school from available sources. This school has produced three people who have articles. The sources are sufficient to write a decent article, even though one is not independent, and the current version is reasonable. I think it should be kept. Let us concentrate on articles that are much worse than this one. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Comment The RfC cannot be the consensus, because the rfc stated that there was basically no consensus for anything ,leaving the matter completely undetermined. Thes ituation was straightforward enough before the rfc made it confused beyond human understanding, thos I do think the closer honestly though they were making sense.  If we're not to descend into the earlier condition of random decisions, we needs to have some degree of consistency. Most schools of this type are notable, and when it's in a less developed country, the assumption is that itd just our inability to find sources. Thecriterion is sourceable, not immediately sourceable, and it would have to be proven that it is not ,wheich woudl require a competent search in the necessary language and in print publications. Noone here is asserting they've done that.  I've finally found a logical meaning for "presumed" notability--it means notability unless you can actually show otherwise. There will be some rare condition where you can, such as showing that all other schools of this type in that country have abundant findable sources.
 * I note an absurd statement by a ed above, whichI paraphrase as "if you don't accept my way of looking at the RfC, don't participate in the discussion". That's presuming a great deal upon one's similar understanding. Even when I am sure I'm right, I never say, if you don't agree with my premise, don't join the argument.  That's Ownership, and WP does not work that way.     DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC) �
 * That is simply not true. The RFC clearly found that "[s]econdary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" and reiterated that "[e]ditors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist." The RFC was closed by four respected, uninvolved editors. If you believe they were mistaken, ask for a review at AN; if you dislike the outcome, open a new RFC. Feigning incomprehension of the plain wording of the close is unacceptable. Rebb  ing  12:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * because the rfc stated that there was basically no consensus for anything you keep saying this. why? the close is pretty clear -- it even included a summary to make it clearer. If you have a problem with the close, the appropriate thing to do would be to challenge it, not to say it doesn't say what it clearly does or that it's not clear enough so you're going to ignore its existence.
 * The close said "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted." -- in other words, there is no broad consensus for the statement that secondary schools should be presumed notable if their existence is verified. This was then added to the summary as " Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist ."
 * It went on: "Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument 'We should keep this school because we always keep schools'. This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.
 * It goes on to say that they require a deep search for sources, saying that "Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them." And says AfD shouldn't be flooded with school nominations because of the RfC (the former, of course, is just "seriously, WP:BEFORE", and the latter is a behavioral issue that is only relevant if someone starts mass nominating).
 * How does the above amount to "basically no consensus for anything"? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.