Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch-Bishop Okoth Ojolla Girls 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. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Arch-Bishop Okoth Ojolla Girls School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

school with no references, no relevant information and, as far as I can see, no or hardly any relevant and reliable hits on Google. Night of the Big Wind talk  18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The consensus at hundreds of AFDs over recent years has been an assumption of notability for high schools (for which "Secondary school" is a synonym). Google Map shows the school's location, if you search for "Bishop Okoth Girls Secondary School" in Kenya.  It is on the Kisumu-Busia Road just West of Kisumu, Kenya. Under the title Bishop Okoth Girls Secondary School, Kisumu, Kenya references can be more easily found, so a move to a new title might be a good idea. There may be other similarly named schools in the country. Edison (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Even searching with alternative names, the sources on this institution are desperately thin. Agree that high schools are usually considered notable, but I can't see anything that gets anywhere near being "in-depth coverage".
 * Comment How many newspapers and magazines published in Kenya are covered by Google News archives? Zero? Until someone has checked Kenyan newspaper archives, I am unconvinced that no reliable sources have published articles about this (or other Kenyan) high schools. High schools typically get significant coverage from newspapers over a wide region, as their academic and athletic accomplishments are discussed and praised or criticized. That is why we have generally found high schools to be notable. Edison (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a number of Kenya newspapers, both covered in gnews and in a regular google search and on their own websites, as well as some Africa newspapers and other newspapers that cover Kenya. We do have a number of Kenya articles, with online sourcing to RSs.  I agree that all-English countries have better sourcing, but Kenya is a country in which English is more popular than many countries we cover.  I appreciate your points, but I'm not sure that we can assume the existence of RS coverage where we haven't seen it.  That would open up quite a large door, through which much non-RS-covered material and even hoaxes could wander in.  IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There seems to be a be a school of this name in Kenya. There are no reliable third-party sources with sufficient detail to establish notability. I have taken my time on this one. Maybe one day this will be a viable article. Not today. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - verifiable high school. No evidence of a local search for sources which experience shows are almost certainly available with sufficiently diligent hard-copy searching. TerriersFan (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have more sources to add, feel free to do so. But by now the article has no information and no sources. Maybe in your opinion enough to assume notability, but there is no proof of it. And as long as the "long standing consensus" tries to overrule WP:GNG, I can not adhere to it. Night of the Big Wind  talk  05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree that our general rule is to keep RS-supported, verifiable high schools, but am still uncertain whether we have the RS-verifiable support for this girls school.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would be worried about setting a precedent in which we assume that RS must exist, even if we havent seen any. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. While on the one hand, we generally keep high schools, that is subject to there being RS support for their existence.  I don't see that here.  There are in fact many articles of Kenyan newspapers and of African newspapers that cover Kenya that are accessible on gnews (as indicated above) and through a regular google search.  I don't think it appropriate to "assume" RSs exist where we can't see them.  I'm happy to change my !vote once/if RSs are presented, but I've not been able to find them and what is pointed to above falls short of RSs IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - per standard practice for secondary schools of confirmed existence. I've tried to put a little minimal information into the piece, just sort of goofing around this evening before bed. I've actually bumped into an interesting little history of the school in the process: Mary Gen Olin, Kenya – A Brief History, 1974," School Sisters of Notre Dame, 2001. More than I care to decode and write up this evening — the prose are challenged. Still, this goes to show there's content out there. Kisumu is the 3rd largest city in Kenya, incidentally, following the massive Nairobi and the really big Mombassa — 260,000-ish according to a source I spotted, bigger than that according to the WP article on the same. Carrite (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do note from the history that there is a connection between this school and the School Sisters of Notre Dame organization in Mankato, Minnesota. There might be American-based sources on the school relating to their efforts to establish the Kenyan school, for what it's worth. It's a small school in the developing world and the sources are sparse. The idea of stubs is setting a marker for an encyclopedic topic which needs to be expanded in the future, which is the case here. Carrite (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice source, too bad that it is a first party source as you can see in "In 1991 we turned Ojolla over to

the Sisters of Mary, an indigenous community, as was the mission philosophy of the Kenya Area before we began formation." Alas, no reliable source. Night of the Big Wind  talk  08:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just debate this matter for another six weeks and 14,000 words. Policy: WP:IAR — The encyclopedia is better with stubs of this sort than without them. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is enough to stick to WP:GNG. WikiProject Schools claims the exception far too often. Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article is of secondary school level which for now meets current guidelines for schools. Until Nights proposed RFA happens then its a keep for me.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have fun with it, but it was not my RfA. As long as NickCT does not officially starts his RfC, schools should just adhere to WP:GNG and not to some self-invented "long standing consensus" Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that we could streamline these discussions if our consensus -- whatever it is -- is embodied in our notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was your RFC regardless but I'm not getting into that but for now there is a longstanding consensus there so until your RfC changes that then the pre existing consensus remains which has been there for some time. It dosent change over night. Just because you don't agree with it and have challenged it dosent mean it should be ignored. The RFC may go either way and until then there is no reason to change the current way. The primary schools that have been nominated all should go but if it is secondary education involved for now it stays. Things don't change over night things will run its course and once happens a clear picture will emerge and we will have clear set down policy once that happens if it states they go then they go then.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting into this private convo -- but out of curiosity, where is this RFC?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is mixing up the discussionb started by me about the notability of schools and the RfC that NickCT proposed and will launch soon. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not live yet but will be soon i would imagine. It will probably change consensus on whether secondary schools are notable or not. As i say hasn't happened yet which is why we should go with existing guidelines until it does. There has been plenty of dissuasions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools and in the archive. Edinburgh  Wanderer  01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient sources have been shown to exist. African schools are desperately under-represented in Wikipedia. We should be making every effort to encourage African school articles not to delete them. Also the nominator has failed to advise WikiProject Africa of the AfD so the Afd should be relisted before any decision is made. Dahliarose (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing you comments days later is very unhandy. Indeed I did not contact WikiProject Africa. 1) I am not requiered to do so and 2) it is there own responsibility to follow articles that are of interest for them. So not having warned them is not an argument to prevent closure at this time. Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It exists, that is true. But is it notable? I do not see any sources that shows notability, ergo it still fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the sources shows that the school's two classrooms initially had no ceilings. The bishop had to provide some cement and the Belgian government eventually sent some aid. Such unusual circumstances are alone notable enough to justify an article. There would undoubtedly be French-language sources in Belgium for the funding if we only knew where to look. Dahliarose (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No sources to back up the story in Dutch, French or English. (Search term: "Bishop Okoth" and (Belgium OR Begië OR Belgique)). It is more then likely that the Belgian aid was send through a local partner, of which we do not have a name. A search on "Ojolla Girls School" AND cement also return no usefull links. Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are not necessarily online. There is also a dearth of African sources on the internet. Lack of internet sources is not a reason for deletion, especially for articles relating to countries which are under-represented on Wikipedia. Dahliarose (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree w/Dahlia that off-line sources -- where they exist and have been cited to -- of RSs are sufficient. At the same time, I think it a stretch that goes beyond our guidelines to suggest that we imagine such sources to exist, where the only reasons to conjure up their existence are: a) un-referenced text inserted into wikipedia; and b) the fact that the subject of the article is in a country that is under-represented on wikipedia, in Africa.  Not only is such an approach not, to my knowledge, supported by our verifiability policy, it would I imagine open up the floodgates for all manner of disruption -- imagine if one could insert whatever they wanted into text in an article on an African subject?  With no verfiability safeguard?  And if the shield of "this is an African country subject, under-represented on wp, so even though there is zero RS support for the statement, you must let it stand" were the result?  Not good.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that ultimately if no reliable sources can be found then the article should be merged or redirected but more leeway should be allowed for articles in countries where internet usage is low to counter the inherent Systemic bias on Wikipedia and allow more time for editors to address the concerns. It would be preferable to tag the article in the article in the first instance to indicate the problems, and especially where the sources that do exist suggest that the subject matter is potentially highly notable. I am particularly concerned that such a potentially important article has got mixed up in this disruptive mass deletion campaign where due procedures have not been followed and the sheer scale of the deletions has not allowed editors sufficient time to respond, particularly as much of it has taken place over the Christmas holidays. In this particular case the nominator has not even had the courtesy to notify all the relevant projects as Wikiproject Africa has not been informed. I've just amended my vote above to advise of this omission. Dahliarose (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice one, Dahlia. You keep inventing new irrelevant arguments to avoid the inevitable. As I stated above: I am not requiered to inform them and the project has its own responsibility to look after the articles that might be of their interest. And assuming good faith, I guess you have informed them by now? Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, nothing of mr. Dahlia to warn them. But I did find this: WikiProject Africa, an automatic alert. So without any effort of me or mr. Dahlia, they did get the warning... Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An automatic alert is not likely to be picked up by most editors. I'm not the nominator. It's the nominator's role to make all the necessary checks and tag articles before nominating. How do you propose that Wikipedia overcomes systemic bias if we do not allow some leeway for articles in third-world countries to develop? Dahliarose (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leeway? No thanks! Help? Always!
 * To my opinion leeway in the sense you mean, will send the project in a hopeless wrong direction. Then they learn that articles without proper sources are no problem, but in fact it is a problem. Unfortunately, later on is much to late to correct this. I prefer to give them help by writing articles. Wait a bit with nominating articles, show them what is expected of them, send Jimbo out to give lectures, and so on. But they should learn it the right way straight away! Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  14:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So how do we get African editors to contribute to Wikipedia? Their contribution is vital if we are to improve the coverage of African subjects but the cause is not going to be helped if we permit thousands of school articles with little claim to notability simply because lots of trivial sources exist but at the same time delete potentially interesting and notable school articles in Africa because we have no local editors who can work on the articles and access local sources. The sources that have been found can act as a lead to find out further information. Dahliarose (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit, on that point I am clueless. That is more a challenge for the Foundation. But for sure, learning them bad habits, will bite back later. Perhaps we should invite people to write about railway lines, cities, touristic and historic attractions, create a Wikiproject Kenya, create a userbox for Kenya-Wikipedians. There are so many option to reach out to them, physically (by the foundation) and socially (by helping and coaching individuals. But by God, don't send them straight into the swamp! Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per convention for verifiable high  schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer to just stick to WP:GNG instead of a self-invented convention/rule/long standing consensus. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please prove that this is a 'self-invented consensus' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me the proof that is established by a vote or a RfC and I will retrackt my comments about being self-invented. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  16:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we all agree that this school ought to be notable an should have an article. The problem some of us have is that the sources that have been found so far are very weak. And we have been trying to find some better ones. We seem to be heading for a "benefit of the doubt" keep. I do think however, that unless the article improves we may all be meeting up again a few months hence for an Arch-Bishop Okoth school reunion. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per longstanding consensus. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, I prefer to just stick to WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  02:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I am concerned when I see a facebook page in the top rank. But google is not perfect. Somethings are popular in Africa yet you will never see them on google. But they are real. The Kenyan paper should be okay in this case as a ref.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2012 (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.