- 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 | [prattle] || 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Westwood International School
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Westwood International School ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article only cites two primary sources and all I could find in a WP:BEFORE was basic things like name drops in school directory listings. There isn't even the usual trivial news articles about it from what I can tell and secondary schools are not inherently notable per the RfC. Plus, it's mainly written like an advertisement. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to lacking multiple in-depth independent reliable sources about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a detailed news article about a court case regarding the school in Mmegi [1]. There is also a detailed one-page entry about the school in this book. Also, GoogleNews search returns 54 hits. Most of them appears to be regarding various events taking place at the Mantlwaneng Theatre at Westwood School. Apparently the facility is world class and many national level performaces take place there. Passes WP:GNG. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The first source doesn't even discuss the school and the second is extremely trivial coverage. For instance, stuff like "they have computers." So, how does a source that doesn't have any details of the school pass WP:GNG or one that says they have computers pass WP:NORG and the various trivial coverage clauses? If they have a "world class" theatre (which sounds a tad sensationalist) and that's what all the news coverage is about, then there should be an article about the theatre. Not that Google News hits matter anyway though. How many of them are actually in-depth and about the actual school? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Draftify to see if some of the mentioned additional information might help, for it isn't even hitned at in the present article. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Nsk92 and other additional sources: [2] [3] [4] There are over 184 hits for the school on Mmegi.bw alone, partially because its theatre gets used for a variety of productions, including a presidential debate. SportingFlyer T· C 12:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Government websites don't usually show notability for AfD purposes, or really otherwise. Nor do articles about transient court cases that never went anywhere or dont have sustained coverage. Wikipedia isn't a news source. If the only thing the school is notable for is the theater, make an article about that then. Adamant1 ( talk) 23:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that the school was established and is supported the Department of State is notable in its own right, and we have links to support that fact - and can add links to material from 2017 still listing the school at the State Department's Office of Overseas Schools. On a separate note, I am not a fan of the author of the AfD having nearly halved the size of the article by removing 'unreferenced' material before listing it at AfD - I would much prefer letting the community judge the article as it was a month ago.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 20:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can you point to a guideline that says the notability standard is something being "established." On me removing 'unrefrenced' material, I don't appreciate you putting it qoutes like I was lying about it being unreferenced. More importantly though AfDs and notability are about sourcing, not what particular words are in an article at any given time. Also, I wasn't planning on doing the AfD at that point. I had planned to rewrite the article with sources until I couldn't find any,but could find any. So I decided to do the AfD instead. Which is my prerogative. Last I checked we don't leave unrefrenced material in articles indefinitely just so someone won't get sore about it being removed later. Just like we don't do it for copyvio, vandalism, or anything else that doesn't belong in articles. Making about it seems more like trying to deflect from the fact that this isn't actually notable more then anything else. Sorry, but secondary schools are not inharently notable.
Adamant1 (
talk) 00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am firstly writing to apologize for the unintended slight of not explaining what I meant by the quotes. Allow me to start there. I would have much preferred to keep the unreferenced material there to give me, or others, a chance to hopefully find relevant sources - which we now don't have the opportunity to do, since the material is gone. So be it. It was not my intention to give any other impression, and for not making myself clear in the first place, I apologize.
- The rest of your post isn't much I'd like to get into. In general, it simply seems to me that too often editors find it much easier to list for AfD than to spend some time to see what can be done to save articles. I am NOT specifically accusing you of this - I am making a general statement. Again in general - I have said so before and will say it again and again - I find GNG to be a shield far too easy to hide behind, and I find it to be overused in too many instances. As you say, you have the prerogative to do what you did - so do I in trying to save as much material I find valuable as I can. I hope we can meet in the middle on occasion - I expect to lose more than I win, but if I think I am doing the right thing, I'll be happy to put in the effort. I expect to lose this one, to be quite honest, but I can live with that and will carry on to the next one. Most of the time, I am here defending knowledge for knowledge's sake - and I may at times not have any guidelines or other leg to stand on, but will still fight the fight. Thank you.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 02:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Can you point to a guideline that says the notability standard is something being "established." On me removing 'unrefrenced' material, I don't appreciate you putting it qoutes like I was lying about it being unreferenced. More importantly though AfDs and notability are about sourcing, not what particular words are in an article at any given time. Also, I wasn't planning on doing the AfD at that point. I had planned to rewrite the article with sources until I couldn't find any,but could find any. So I decided to do the AfD instead. Which is my prerogative. Last I checked we don't leave unrefrenced material in articles indefinitely just so someone won't get sore about it being removed later. Just like we don't do it for copyvio, vandalism, or anything else that doesn't belong in articles. Making about it seems more like trying to deflect from the fact that this isn't actually notable more then anything else. Sorry, but secondary schools are not inharently notable.
Adamant1 (
talk) 00:25, 25 November 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.