Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaimosi Friends Primary 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 07:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Kaimosi Friends Primary School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS  // Timothy ::  talk  08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  08:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: If this is a school from 1903, then there are going to be more citations available. Keep and search for resources. Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: A source that can act as a starting point As a Quaker school it would report to a yearly meeting and the minutes are normally preserved often not yet on line. Which? When we we go back to 1903, a the word primary can mean the first of many not a school for the under 13s. A cursory glance shows this school spawned three primary schools, two high schools and a teacher training college which is now a university college offering doctorates.We know the founders Clison Hopkins and Hole, and that they were spearheading vocational education. Clear WP:ORGSIG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete our longstanding understanding is that almost no primary schools are notable. we need truly exceptional coverage. There is no reason to think that all primary schools, even in 120 years, will receive that level of coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why we are here, John. The flaw in your argument is that this is a article about a 5-11 'Primary School', I explained in the post above, this is a far bigger topic- one about the Quaker Missionary work and the growth, from this first school into secondary education and tertiary- and primary education. The documentation on-line is poor but [|this source gives a flavour]--ClemRutter (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: One of the largest and oldest primary schools in the country, sources exist, so rather than deleting sources should be looked for.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You could have at least found a sources yourself before voting keep instead of just basing it on a presumption that they are out there. Adamant1 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , What do you think we’re doing? In Wikipedia we establish concensus not voting as far as i know. If a topic is notable i state my opinion (I haven’t stopped you from stating yours). Regards Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who's "we"? The question was pointed at you, not everyone that else who didn't vote the way you did. I know it's not a "vote", but your still suppose to support what your saying with some kind of evidence, and it's not just about sources existing. That's all. IMO you wait to comment, vote, or do whatever you feel like calling it until your sure there's actually sources out there that meet the notability guidelines. Otherwise, we could all just say whatever and that would be it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience and knowledge on kenyan articles and schools;especially missionary schools, i have found many sources from web archives especially in kenyan schools that have routine coverage from reliable sources based on things like national exam rankings, national non-academic competitions. The current sources have passive mentions of the school; point to existence of reliable sources from archives that can be found over time from things like books or archives of defunct news sites. Then again there are things like transition from a colonial government in kenya into a kenyan-only run government which points to sources from things like historical books of these activities including missionary work. It is an accurate judgement call to look for sources on this mainly because its a missionary school from 100 years ago.--waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This school doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to the barely existing sourcing and the fact that what is available seems like primary and not in-depth enough. If there was sources out there like the hand waving keep voters have claimed there was they would have probably materialized by now, but they haven't. So, unless something drastically changes I see zero guideline based reason to keep this article. "The school is old" isn't guideline based. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, and consider re-naming, perhaps to something that indicates the wider Friends' work in Kaimosi. There is an online source here discussing the setting up of the mission and the school. p46 describes the development of teacher training and the high school. In offline sources, it looks as if The Historical Dictionary of the Friends, The Southern Abaluyia, the Friends Africa Mission, and the Development of Education in Western Kenya, 1902-1965 and A History of the Quaker Movement in Africa all have info. Tacyarg (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the online and offline sources identified above that will enable the expansion of the article and its notability so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment For anyone voting based on the sources provided by Tacyarg, none of them are usable for notability. The first one is a college research paper (which doesn't work), the second one Just mentions "Kaimosi" a bunch of times in passing and not this school in particular, same goes for the third one (which just says "Kaimosi Boy's Secondary School." Last time I checked the article isn't about that school), and the last source literally just says "school at Kaimosi" and that's it. Which could literally be any damn school in Kaimosi. It's completely ridiculous that Tacyarg even cited such obviously garbage sources. It's even more so that voted keep because of them. You should really know better . BTW, the other source provided in this discussion doesn't even talk about the school either. So there's zero valid justification at all for keeping this article. This whole thing is just yet another example of people not reviewing sources they are posting or voting because of. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Have seen Google book snippets discussed with the concern that they are not an accurate reflection of the depth of coverage of the subject in question as they miss relevant passages, so those sources need to be studied in full not just a quick glance at google books, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Think the discussion was at WP:RSN but not positive, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as much I'd say it's wrong to assume in-depth coverage of the subject from a Google book snippet "because Google book snippet." Which is what it seems like your doing. That said, I think it's rather unrealistic to expect people to read a whole book (or chapter) to determine in-depthness of the coverage. If that's the standard, and I highly doubt it is, then Google books shouldn't be used as a source. Personally, I think you can tell perfectly fine a "snippet" if the topic is covered properly or not. Especially in cases where it's not even mentioned and it would be completely ridiculous to claim otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Adamant1 - yes, the Google books I linked to would need to be looked at offline (I specified these are offline sources). I don't have access to these, I'm afraid. Tacyarg (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If they need to be looked at offline and you don't have access to them then how do you know they even talk about the school in the first place? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 02:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the article makes an extraordinary claim "oldest formal school in Kenya" without any sourcing is not a good sign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment According to the person that posted the book references they have be read offline and he doesn't have access to them. Which if that's the case then the person (and anyone else) would have no way of knowing if the books actually talk about the school or not. Therefore, they should be discarded as possible reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been editing kenyan articles and existing passive mentions of this school point to existence of sources from archives such as books and defunct news sites in kenya. Most current news sites in kenya whose coverage can be relied in articles to pass WP:GNG only existed within the last 30 years. Outside that time Kenya transitioned from a colonial government whose coverage can be reliably sourced from books, archives of defunct websites and the likes. The main reason why this article can pass WP:GNG is because it constitues missionary work from over 100 years. And edits and reads i have made on similar schools in kenya have reliably sourced entries from books.It makes sense to keep this article while continuously looking for reliably sourced entries for reference. --waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, because I didn't know there was a "missionary work" clause in WP:GNG. I must have missed it or something. So, do you mind pointing where it says that articles involving "missionary work" don't need to cite multiple in-depth reliable sources? Also, it's kind of a coupe out to say there won't be sources for this because it's more then 30 years old. It's been around since then, plenty of other Kenyan articles are well sourced (if they are 30 years old or not), there's zero reason (except for your personal opinion. Which isn't a guideline) that this school shouldn't be also. Claiming otherwise is the soft bigotry of low exceptions. Kenyan and other African countries shouldn't get a special pass from the guidelines just because you (or anyone else) has a false believe that their journalism is crappy. Also, I never said I had a problem with books. I said I have a problem with someone claiming a topic is discussed in books when it clearly isn't discussed in one of them and the themselves says the other ones can't be checked to see if the topic is actually discussed in them. So, don't miss quote me. It would be complete garbage for us to go with books we don't talk about the subject and can't be verified to "because Kenya, missionary work, and age brah." I swear the amount of obfuscation and railroading in AfDs lately is becoming completely ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * sources such as 1, 2 discuss the school specifically to make the article pass WP:GNG.Missionary work in africa is documented in things like gazettes of colonial governments in africa, books of historical accounts because they were led by institutions that have publicly accessible records of these activities.The agenda of this discussion is to prevent deletion based on existent sources from sourced material we do not have access to or haven't updated. (which is not my personal opinion or bigotry as you claim). All articles on Wikipedia must meet WP:N which does not constitute obfuscation or garbage ideas; this article is no exception. I am arguing give the benefit of doubt to alleviate all obfuscation. This discussion can always be revisited later, and if it still doesn't pass WP:GNG why insist further? There are actvities such as this and this which are new government regulations directing government-related instituitions to make public, records of government actions such as gazettes all which existed outside the 30 year period explained in my previous comment. There is no special pass for kenya of African countries on WP:N. I am arguing that just give the article the benefit of time. If in 5 years(or any reasonable amount of time) its not passed WP:GNG why argue?, i will gladly support deletion. Journalism in Africa is not crappy and there is no such belief i harbour (just relying on specific facts that are reliably sourced), its just new and does not have records going back very many years because of colonial government transitions and political activity surrounding the aftermath. --waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've already said and you seem to be ignoring those sources don't make the article pass WP:GNG because they are the Friends missionary work. Not Kaimosi Friends Primary School. Which is what this article is about. If you want to make an article about the Friends and their missionary work, cool. Do it, but this isn't the place for trying to pass off stuff about the missionary organization that has nothing to do with the school as proof that it's notable. Frankly, I'm sick of saying it. Also, if we were giving this the benefit of the doubt, it would be the benefit of the doubt that it's not notable. Since that's how things currently appears. It's completely ridiculous and 100% obfuscation to say we should all vote keep now even though it isn't currently notable because we can revisit it in 5 years when it might, but probably won't be. That's not how AfDs work. Not to mention the exact same argument could be made to delete it now. Since it can just as easily be recreated when, or if, it ever becomes notable. But saying we should keep it now just because and revisit it in 5 instead of deleting it is totally a garbage idea. It's not based on policy, guideline, standard, precedent, or even common sense. That's all I really have to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that some of the sources such as those mentioned ;which i have a good reason to believe would make the article pass WP:GNG are not accessible; but from what i have mentioned they point to existence of notability that can be gotten specifically from books such as those mentioned over time. The 5 year thing is simple time allowance for sources to be got from such material. I am a firm believer in Inclusionism especially for arguments on articles that have lame assertions of lack of notability such as lack of sources which automatically does not invalidate article passing WP:GNG. if the word benefit of doubt is an issue, then just be tolerant of Inclusionism. Thats not obfuscation, a garbage idea, lack of policy, lack of standard or lack of common sense surely. Where is it written that in AFD we must insist on arguments until it works? Its a basic open ended argument that you don't have monopoly of knowledge on everything about this specific school. And when you can prove you do go ahead and delete.--waweruboyWaweruboy (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? You referenced two books that you claimed show the subject is notable. Both of which are searchable, every one can look at, and don't talk about the subject. Either there's sources out there and you can provide them or there isn't and you can't. Saying "here's some sources that don't discuss the subject, but these sources that don't talk about the subject show there might be sources about the subject." That's completely nonsensical and circular reasoning. Plus, the fact that there's sources that talk about the Friends missionary work disproves your whole claim that there's no sources that talk about stuff in Kenya. All that this school not being discussed in anything proves is that it's not notable, not that there's some long historical/whatever reason it isn't discussed in anything. Otherwise, the Friends missionary work wouldn't be either. You can't provide a bunch of sources on other things and then claim there's none on this because of some cultural/historical thing that kept stuff from being discussed though. 100% doing so is obfuscation. If you can't provide sources that discuss the subject right now, then the article should be deleted right now. Period. There is no amount of time to wait for some imagery sources to magically appear or not. The time for them to was the ten years this article has been in existence or during this AfD. Nothing stops someone from making the exact same argument in 5 years when no sources materialize either. And no this isn't open ended. There's a specific reason things go to AfD and specific guidelines that the article has to follow to be deleted. Someone can't just come along and be like "hey guys, I have a feeling there's sources out there. So why don't we just wait and do another AfD in 5 years for this." That's not how this works. I'm done with the conversation. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Waweruboy is a blocked sockpuppet of Radidoman. Graham 87 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Figures. It makes sense. Thanks to whoever figured it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The refs in the article are three links to blog posts, two of which are dead links. None of the sources in the comments above meet WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS. I'm sure this is a wonderful school, doing good work, but there are not sources showing this meets the guidelines for an article.  // Timothy ::  talk  01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete If you have to start gambling on potential existence of source. Even when assuming that Google misses 90% of the possible african sources, there are still not enough reliable sources. The Banner  talk 19:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many information can be extracted from George Busolo, Quakerism and education in Vihiga County, which is partly based on 'Friends Schools in Kenya from 1902 to independence in 1963'. A shorter read is Douglas Kiereini, Quakers who set up schools in Kaimosi. Those who question the minimal information given anyway, may want to give a critical view on Education in Kenya also, because it reflects the basic information in this article (and of course in the sources given). Eissink (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2020 (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.