Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOS Sheikh Secondary 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. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

SOS Sheikh Secondary School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article doesn't cite any references and I was unable to any in a WP:BEFORE. that would pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Likely if there any out there that I missed they are extremely trivial anyway. As this school is extremely small and what is included in the article is pretty WP:MILL. As secondary schools are not inherently notable anymore per the RfC in 2017, the discussion should be about the quality of sourcing and notability guidelines. Not rehashing SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet GNG or NSCHOOL. No sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV directly and in depth.   // Timothy ::  talk  17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I could not find any coverage in a BEFORE search Spiderone  14:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Its historically known as the 'Sheikh Secondary School' or 'Sheekh Secondary School' without the SOS, and was considered the best English language school in a country where an African language was the official language, not a European one, which made this school stand out and attract students from as far as Ethiopia. - GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks to meet WP:GNG after a BEFORE search thanks to GoldenDragonHorn's suggestion. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can either of you provide links to multiple in-depth sources under that name then? Bevause when I looked all I could find was two book name drops. There was nothing that actually discussed it though and notability isn't about the number of Google search results. Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't hit the same search as earlier today but there are several easily found in English.   SportingFlyer  T · C  17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like Google Et al. can give pretty different results depending on the person, where they are located, and a myriad of other factors. Unfortunately, it is what is. Although it does make this whole thing little more cumbersome. Especially with how badly nominators tend to be treated the second someone finds a sources they weren't able to for whatever reason. That said, the first two sources you provided are rather mediocre name drops. For instance the first one is about two of the teachers being shot. Which has nothing to do with the school. Whereas, the second one is about the school winning an award. Which WP:NORG clearly says is trivial coverage. I wouldn't have to bludgeon the process (your words) if people took the time to make sure their sources were relevant and usable, because it's not the nominators job and I sure has hell rather not waste my time doing things other people should. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a lot of historical sources that go more in-depth are only available in huge public libraries, with little snippets on Google books. I think what qualifies it as notable is that its the birth-place of Somalia's National Anthem according to Hsinhua Weekly - Issues 26-52 - Page 21: "to declare independence we young teachers of the Sheikh Secondary School composed the song “Wake Up Somalia". It was also the first English language school in what would become the Somali Republic. I don't know if that automatically makes it inherently notable because of its historic status. I'm still getting used to the guidelines. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that personally. Except clearly something isn't automatically notable just by virtue of being "historical" (whatever that means) and there's no way to tell if we can't find sources because they are offline in library books, or if we can't because they just don't exist in the first place. Although, I agree it's likely some do exist in libraries where we can't access them. But saying so is not a guideline based notability argument. Maybe the guidelines should be more lenient about it and other systemic bias issues. Personally I think they probably should be, but my opinion doesn't ultimately matter and AfDs aren't the place to hash those things out either. I do know there though that there has to be a balance between not creating a bunch of content lacking, un-referenced stub articles while also considering systemic bias. Which I do, but there just isn't a cut and dry, simple solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * AfD aside, could you add that to the article? SportingFlyer  T · C  18:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, done! -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided by SportingFlyer. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep As sources now added and notability requirements met Jacob300 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 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.