Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zengeza High 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. Consensus is that this topic is notable. That said, AngusWOOF's point should probably be addressed. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Zengeza High School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable by any stretch of the imagination – not WP:NSCHOOL, WP:ORG or even WP:GNG. Originally PROD, was de-PRODed by on the assertion that all schools that have been mentioned in any reliable source are notable, which is blatantly not the case as per the above guidelines. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 03:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  talk  03:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WeAreAll Here  <sub style="color:blue">talk  03:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep because it is a high school and the article has a reference from a reliable source. <b style="font-family: Times;">Eastmain (talk • contribs)</b> 04:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But that isn't how notability works. Please could you read the notability criteria linked above and tell me where exactly they say that one reference from a reliable source is sufficient to establish a high school's notability?--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep - any diploma granting school that's existence can be verified to reliable secondary sources are generally kept based on the presumption of local off line sources. If you doubt this, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. John from Idegon (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is pretty much deprecated so that can safely be ignored, Anyway a simple search would've shown plenty of results, So per the sources in the article and per those on Google easy keep. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is that none of the sources that exist meet all of the criteria they need to meet. Bulawayo24, for instance, accepts undeclared sponsorship for articles, and can therefore not be considered reliable – which is presumably why it isn't being cited. Here's what is being cited:
 * 3 x "Zimbabwe Schools Guide" (incorrectly labelled as newsday.co.zw). Self-published hokum, fails "reliable source" criterion.
 * 1 x "The Herald". Yep, good source and significant coverage. Well done.
 * 1 x "Newsday". No idea what this is, looks bloggy, could be legit but might also not be, potentially fails "reliable source" criterion.
 * 1 x "ITS MY FOOTPRINT". More self-published hokum. Looks like a spam site, even. Fails "reliable source" criterion.
 * 1 x "My Zimbabwe News". This looks to be Zimbabwe's equivalent of a clickbait site. The article published immediately before the one cited is titled Sex duty roster turns nasty as first wife axes second wife over too many sex rounds, which reads like fake news. This website also links in its menu to another almost identical-looking website called "Facts University", where the current "trending article" is titled What every woman's VAG!NA shape and size tells you about her personality (WITH PICS). Clearly fails "reliable source" criterion.
 * 1 x "4-traders". There's nothing wrong with this source, but this literally just contains one passing mention of the word "Zengeza", and so obviously fails the "significant coverage" criterion.
 * 1 x "Pachikoro". This looks to be the best of a bad bunch (aside from the Herald), but still dubious. Sure it's curated, but curated by whom?
 * 1 x "The Zimbabwean". This thing claims to be "recognised worldwide as an authoritative and accurate publication of record and a reliable source of information"...except I can't find any references to it anywhere of note. So, dubious again.
 * Summa summarum, we have 1 reliable source with significant coverage, 1 reliable source with insignificant coverage, 3 unreliable sources, and 3 sources whose reliability can't be ascertained (nor indeed their independence). I'm sorry, but that isn't significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, it's significant coverage in one reliable secondary source, and then (to put it frankly) a whole heap o'crap.--<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-2deg);-moz-transform:rotate(-2deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-2deg);-o-transform:rotate(-2deg); font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Lucida Calligraphy, Bradley Hand ITC, cursive; font-size:90%;">Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it may have to explain what is the difference between this one and the Zengeza 1, Zengeza 2, Zengeza 3, and Zengeza 4 High schools. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of schools in Zimbabwe where they list multiple Zengeza high schools. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, makes sense, better than pure deletion.--<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-2deg);-moz-transform:rotate(-2deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-2deg);-o-transform:rotate(-2deg); font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Lucida Calligraphy, Bradley Hand ITC, cursive; font-size:90%;">Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Schooloutcomes is a bizarre claim that sources that we cannot find exist. It is time to scrap such appeals that violate the basic principals of verifiability and only keep articles where sources are actually shown to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The last RfC didn't do any better job of clarification about school notability than the last dozen did. Therefore, until a better crafted one emerges, we have the community consensus, ie precidence, which is expressed in SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The crux of the question is this: are schools ORGs or PLACEs? I'd argue PLACEs,and at least one major source, GNIS, agrees. The presumption that local, non netlinked, sources exist is not a stretch. Especially for "third-world" (apologies for lack of PC) locations. Simply, Google hasn't completed their work worldwide. Systematic bias is a real thing. US, European, Australian and Canadian secondary school articles seldom are deleted because Google has completed their work in those places. Asia, with some exceptions, and Africa...not so much. John from Idegon (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They're ORGs as schools can be relocated, so WP:ORGCRIT applies. The recently AFD-kept Holton High School is such an example. But if you're discussing the building or the physical location then they need to satisfy WP:NGEO AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 *  Keep - per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the sources found by Davey 2010 .  Consensus wisely decided long ago that secondary schools are considered notable as productivity would be severely wasted if we were to vet and scrutinize the value of the tens of thousands of such schools when time and energy of volunteer editors is better spent creating new articles and improving existing ones. --Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: It appears to be notable.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  20:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Schooloutcomes and also the sources noted above clearly establish WP:V and notability too. A reminder to editors that WP:AQU applies here. We don't delete articles just because they aren't perfect. Egaoblai (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: On the basis of the recent RfC on notability for organisations, the WP:NSCHOOL guideline was changed to deprecate WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so please disregard arguments based on the latter.--<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-2deg);-moz-transform:rotate(-2deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-2deg);-o-transform:rotate(-2deg); font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Lucida Calligraphy, Bradley Hand ITC, cursive; font-size:90%;">Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 02:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a valid reason to keep these article. It's existence is to be used as a guideline for AFD, as all the outcomes are. While it may be "deprecated", it has not been deleted, so remains a valid reason to keep the article. Even if it isn't WP:AQ, WP:BEFORE, and WP:BATHWATER also apply here. As does the need to reduce Systemic Bias; Sources for this school will take longer to find, but if we can prove WP:V, then courtesy and general consensus on reducing systemic bias says we at the very least post this school to the relevant wikiprojects and make sure that people from the area have had a chance to weigh in. Otherwise what we are left with is a wiki that heavily favors schools from western, English speaking countries, where sources are easily found via google. Egaoblai (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the recent trend of people highlighting their post with note to closing admin posts is silly and needs to be curbed. Every post here is a de facto note to the closing admin. Egaoblai (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pretty sure anyone who would take on the trauma of an RfA has the skills to close an AfD, and doesn't need the advice of an editor with 1600 whopping edits. John from Idegon (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.