Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Science Senior Secondary School, Makurdi, Benue State


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Special Science Senior Secondary School, Makurdi, Benue State

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is largely a procedural nomination due to a contested deletion. This article was originally marked for deletion under CSD A7 by User:Abutorsam007; User:Dpmuk removed the CSD notice on the grounds that schools do not qualify under A7. Abu then came to the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC and spoke to myself and several other users about how to proceed with the article. We came to an agreement that the article needed to go (I'll explain my reasoning in a moment), but while it was borderline for several, we could not find that it fit squarely within a single speedy deletion crtieria. In the end, I deleted the article with the reasoning "single sentence provides no encyclopedic value", as while no CSD applied, I felt that PROD'ing or AfD'ing the article would be an unnecessary waste of the community's time, and the narrow definitions of the criteria were in this case preventing efforts to improve the project - or perhaps more appropriately, preventing the community from focusing time on improving the project elsewhere.

Dpmuk has now contested the deletion (discussion here), and so we're back to what I'd tried to avoid. I still strongly feel as though this article, such as it is, still needs to be deleted. It does not justify the notability of the school in any way; it provides absolutely no encyclopedic content beyond the founding date of the school and its rough location; due to chronic grammatical errors, what little content it has is difficult to read; it is so short it nearly qualifies for speedy deletion under A1 or A3; and anyone wishing to write a proper article would need to start from scratch with a more proper title for the page in any event. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence lacks WP:GNG, Also its a one line statement with no encyclopedic content.(   Abu Torsam    18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
 * But aren't all high schools considered inherently notable because sources will be there. We can't apply one rule for US high schools and another for Nigerian high schools as that's extremely biased.  If we assume the sources are there for US high schools then we have to assume they're there for this school, just harder to find. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "inherently notable" - see WP:INHERITED Codf1977 (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, if we're going to be pedantic, nothing is de jure inherently notable but de facto they pretty much are as has been demonstrated by numerous AfDs. Doesn't alter the fact that we could be showing bias, because as mainly English speaking editors in a limited number of countries we'd stuggle to find sources in Nigeria.  Tikiwont below has shown that it is possible to find some sources.  I was mainly asking to explain a bit more the justification for your !vote given past precedence (this could be as simple as I disagree with the precedent).  Your second point I agree with, but it's not currently a speedy delete criteria, and see my comment below on why I think it's important to have discussion on the issue - hopefully by having them now we'll make things easier in future - think of this as a bit of a test case.  If consensus is very clear here then I may well use it as the reason to start an RfC on extending the speedy delete criteria. Dpmuk (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as bias, but understand how some might see it that way, I tend not to be governed by precedent, but what is there in frount of me at the time. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG - agree with nom this is a waste of the community's time - is it getting cold ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to the above !vote. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think I'll explain my reasoning more for asking for this to be brought to AfD.  Secondary schools have repeatedly held to be inherently notable and at the same time one-line stubs are often held to be viable stubs, hence I think it's a stretch to think that a one-line stub on a secondary school will inevitably be deleted.  As the speedy deleting admin stated this article met no speedy delete criteria and consensus is far from clear when IAR speedys should be allowed but most people seem to think it should only be in very clear cut cases, which I've just explained I don't think this is.  Additionally, unless an article is unsalvageable it is unusual for an article to be deleted because of the state it's in.  A few minutes work by me has made the article I think in a much better state.   In many ways I hope that this is a very clear cut decision so that we can start forming consensus that articles such as this can be speedy deleted but until such time as a consensus is clear (on wikipedia, allowing all wikipedians, including those that don't use IRC, to take part) that they can be, speedy deletions like this are out of line and could be harming the project in two ways.  Firstly and most importantly by hindering consensus building that such articles should be speedy deleted and secondly by possibly discouraging new users who see their new article deleted for no allowable reason. Dpmuk (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seems that one of their teachers developed a "Multipurpose Solar Energy Device". . It has recently been renovated and there should be other more positive news that this stabbing. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tikiwont has already found some sources, and there's coverage in these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added some sourced content to the article. This is a good demonstration of why admins should not be speedy deleting articles against the consensus-agreed criteria. The waste of time has been caused here by the rush to delete an article rather than making any effort to improve it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In Nigerian terms this school is more important than most US High Schools. It should have been pretty obvious that with time and effort, sources would be found, as they have been. English is one of the languages of Nigeria. We should cover it as well as we cover the US, UK, Australia etc. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable school. Verifiable information. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable. WikiManOne (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The existence of this school is confirmed, and its status as a secondary school is confirmed, per links provided at the article. According to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, the consensus has been to keep secondary schools unless they fail verifiability. Thus, this is a keeper. I hope we are not trying to apply some kind of First World prejudice against Third World schools that may not have a website or a plethora of web-listed newspapers to prove notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is firmly established that all secondary schools with a genuine existence are considered notable  for Wikipedia purposes.-- and, as expected, sources have been found, which is why we have that general practice. We also have a general practice of making decisions about articles in open discussions on Wikipedia, not on irc.   The article cannot be judged on the basis of prior discussion there, which should not even have been mentioned here.   The nom's speedy was totally out of place, as he seems not to understand the basic speedy criterion that a short article with identifying information is not empty. He is welcome to his own view at AfD of course, but he has given no reason for not following our usual criteria. Indeed, the result of investigation further supports them. I additionally mention cultural bias, with respect to the area of the world about which we have the most disproportionately scarce information here.    DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the nomination of the article the source situation hos improved dramatically. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2010 (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.