Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagos Preparatory 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  04:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Lagos Preparatory School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Primary schools are generally non-notable per wp standards, and subject to redirect. This seems to be one of those. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Obviously a unique school, and yes, there is puffery, but AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Un. I agree that afd is not for cleanup.  This school was nominated because of the aforementioned convention re such schools.  Furthermore, I was unable to find substantial RS coverage of a sort that would lead us to treat it differently than we treat all primary schools at AFD that lack independent substantial RS coverage that demonstrates why the school should be treated differently than the others.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're flat out wrong. There is no convention to delete primary/elementary schools, there is a common practice to merge non-notable primary/elementary schools to their localities. There is a clear claim to notability in this article. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Convention" means -- as used here -- "general practice". The convention referred to above was that such pages generally do not attract stand-alone wp pages if they lack independent substantial RS coverage that demonstrates why the school should be treated differently than others.  The consensus on this AfD, so far, is in line -- though editors who agree that it should not be a stand-alone article on the primary school are split as to whether it should be deleted, redirected, merged, or changed into a larger article that includes the school but is not a stand-alone article solely on the school.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article asserts the notability of the school with references as the only school in Africa to be accredited as part of COBIS and to have met the British DfE's standards for overseas schools. This clearly makes the case for WP:GNG. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What, precisely, is the language you read in that ref that supports that statement?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The school is the only British School in Africa to be a member of both the Independent Association of Prep Schools (IAPS) and an accredited member of the Council of British International Schools (COBIS). In February 2011 the school became the first British School in Africa to meet the DfE's new standards for British Overseas Schools following an inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI)
 * References removed, emphasis added.


 * This wording isn't very ambiguous. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not being clear. I didn't ask what you read in the text of the article.  I asked what you read in the ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reminder -- I didn't ask what you read in the text of the article. I asked what you read in the ref.  I'm curious as to your response.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion due to major copyvio concerns as stated here. Night of the Big Wind  talk  01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of that report is particularly damning in terms of a school article. There aren't many ways to paraphrase the content mentioned in that report. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 25, 14, 9, 8, 7, 5 and 5 words exactly the same, and no chance of rephrasing that? If the name of the school was involved in any of the 7 cases, I would have agreed, but that is not the case. At least it is too close paraphrasing! Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you're being overly sensitive, but fixed. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, just strict. (Ow, still cases left of 18, 8, 7 and 5 words.) Night of the Big Wind talk  00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely think that there are copyvio concerns, you could take this over to the relevant noticeboarsd. You're being pedantic, so I'll leave the article to whomever can write more expertly than I. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There was never any confirmation that there were copyvio issues, these were or are copyvio concerns.  What I've heard is that the copyright people are not strict about revdel of copyright issues, even when they are confirmed.  Meanwhile, AfD is not cleanup.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * keep/merge to new article even a preparatory schools can be notable, especially in the case of international schools, but in the absence of positive evidence it would be preferable to merge to a combination article on Nigerian international schools when one is written. The best way of doing this is to keep this and retitle it fas the first section, & then look for others.   As for copyvio, there is none at present. Copyvio is not a concern after if has been rewritten,   though we of course  wouldn't keep an article mainly consisting of copyvio unless we did rewrite it.   I agree it is not our practice to rev delete unless the copyright holder specifically asks for it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep An obviously notable school, known internationally, and there is only one requirement in WP:N, that topics be "worthy of notice".  Nomination fails many points, including that there is no argument for deletion, and no review of potential merge targets.  I'd also note that an 8th grade education in Africa means more than in developed countries.  Article has detailed references from Britain that are sufficient to write an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your remark about detailed references is interesting. When I looked upon them I got the following results:
 * Independent Association of Prep Schools (ref nr. 3): no details, school looks unknown
 * Department for Education (ref nr. 5): one blank page on the school. Inspection report only confirm that the school exist. Not an independent reliable source (I guess the Department for Education only inspects the school when she finances it)
 * Cobis (ref nr. 4): Only a short description. Note: I do not know the value of a Cobis accreditation and how independent she is.
 * ISE (ref nr. 6): School report. In effect the same source as nr. 2 (Departemnt of Education).
 * Lagos Preparatory School, Ikoyi (ref nr. 1 and 2): schoolwebsite. Not independent.
 * If and if the school is notable, it will be because of the Cobis accreditation. All other are in my opinion not the requiered reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind  talk  09:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I've done a nearly complete rewrite to incorporate, I believe, most of the concerns expressed on this AfD page. I've introduced an Infobox as well, and provided geographic coordinates. &mdash; Objectivesea (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article now reads like an advertisement... Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  03:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're being oversensitive and nitpicky. <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing to better to do then attacking me instead of my arguments...
 * Removed promo and irrelevant information. Article ius still in desperate need of truly independent sources, but It can get the benefit of the doubt now. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Did anyone of the defenders actually look for independent sources? I do not think so, because I could find some quite easily. But it made me change my mind. It is still weakly sourced, but I guess there will be more available on the internet. Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  05:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right! The nominator should have done an RS search per WP:BEFORE and/or WP:Guide to Deletion before nominating! Good point! After all, this is WP:RD, isn't it? <span style="font: Tahoma, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 8pt;">&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 09:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be so damning victorious, it was your failure too. If you had done your job properly, you had found the sources and added them. Epeefleche was right in his action to nominate it, because the burden of proving notability lies with the author, not with him. He did WP:BEFORE correctly when he had looked at the available sources and found them all unclear/not third party sources. Besides that, in general primary schools are considered not notable, unless proven otherwise. You failed to proof the notability of the school too, so stop cheering and to some selfreflection focused on the point how you could have handled this more efficient and friendlier! Night of the Big Wind  <sub style="color:maroon;">talk  11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sufficient sources to prove notability and Objectivesea has done an excellent job improving the article. Dahliarose (talk) 23:06, 10 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.