Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 3

message: Can we discuss expanding this criteria to include schools that hold (or once held) a record in the listed activities? Accurizer 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, I am posting the same question at WP:SCHOOLS with regard to its Criteria #3. Accurizer 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems more than reasonable to me. JoshuaZ 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, providing the record is reliably sourced.  "Firsts" and "bests" are encyclopedic material. Shimeru 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria #2 

message: Wikipedia standards in general at the highest level -- WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc. -- all reference the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard, which clearly specifies that this includes newspaper articles (other than those with "merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.") There is no discussion that local newspapers are verboten, or that it must come from peer-reviewed journals or from noted journalists or in book form or must have a minimum circulation. The discussion above regarding which articles meet Criterion 1 is set so arbitrarily high and is so far removed from general Wikipedia standards. Virtually every single one of the scenarios User:Jayron32 proposed above (with limited exceptions), that were almost all brushed off by Shimeru and others, would meet any reasonable interpretation of the "multiple non-trivial published works", provided they came from sources that met WP:RS and satisfied WP:V. The original WP:SCHOOL version of this Criterion narrows the general "multiple non-trivial published works" clause to a degree, and is far closer to the spirit and clear intent of the version used in WP:CORP and WP:BIO. While the threshold of "multiple" might need be more than the minimum two, the current WP:SCHOOLS3 version of Criterion 1 is so far out of line with the most-widely accepted Wikipedia standards as to be unjustifiable. Significant thought must be put in to dramatically expanding the scope of Criterion 1 if there is any prayer of obtaining consensus on this issue. Unless there is significant movement from the extreme positions taken here, WP:SCHOOL will be the only viable option for achieving consensus on judging school articles. Alansohn 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive narrowing in Criterion 1 of the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard

message: Trying to clarify a little what I look for in a school article.  Earlier, I did some work on Wyoming Seminary to bring it in line with what I consider an encyclopedic article.  (Not to suggest there's not still more that can be done -- just that I'd consider it an unambiguous "keep.")
I chose this article partly because it was my own high school, lo these many years ago.  Therefore it somewhat mirrors the often-cited example of a new user logging on, searching for his school, and writing an article when he finds it doesn't exist (or is a bare stub).
Before my edits, it was an article like many of our school articles, perhaps even a little more developed than the average.  We have a name, location, founding date, president (equivalent to the principal in many ways), and demographic info.  We also have a bit about the name "seminary" and a claim to notability via diversity of the student body.  (Note that this claim is not sourced -- one of those areas I mentioned that could still be improved.)  We have a link to the school website, and no other references.
If this had been brought to AfD, I think delete votes would have been absolutely appropriate.  As a graduate, I know that the school is noteworthy, but based on the article as it was, I couldn't point to a reason why.  If we imagine for a moment that no further research were done during the AfD (not likely, I know), then it should be deleted as unverified through independent RS and potentially NN.  (I also suspect it would have ended in a no-consensus, anyway, but that's neither here nor there.)  My say-so is not (or, at least, should not be) enough.
After my edits, it has a more developed history section, including several "firsts."  It has further claims to notability through both its history and its current activities.  All of these claims are cited.  It has references.
This school is noteworthy, but the "before" version of the article doesn't make that obvious.  It was little more than a directory entry.  The "after" version does, explicitly and with sources.  It reads more like an encyclopedia article.
This is the sort of content I'd like to see in all school articles.  What makes the school noteworthy?  What has it done?  What is it known for?  What sources say so?  If these questions cannot be answered, then I don't feel the school is worthy of its own encyclopedia article yet. Shimeru 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem some have-I'm not entirely sure why this school is noteworthy. While I imagine it'd survive an AfD (and so I'm not going to nominate it, someone else can), this indicates to me that the guidelines are too loose. It's just one more school, I don't find a thing about this to indicate that it's very notable. It's old. So are a lot of things. I don't see a single reason why this article should be here. (And yes, I'd say the same for the high school I attended-if I found that here one day I'd AfD it myself, it's just not notable). Seraphimblade 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd disagree, there seem to be some clear arguments in the article for notability- "The school's Madrigal Singers, a 28-voice choral group, have gained recognition for their proficiency. The group has toured worldwide — most recently touring Asia in 2006" and "in 1892, the Wyoming Seminary football team participated in the world's first nighttime football game" (the second doesn't seem to fall under any obvious inclusion category here but I would naively think that it should. It may make sense to add something for it). JoshuaZ 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the second not being included here.  But that fact would qualify the article as notable so it would be included, school or not.  Vegaswikian 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would fit under the expanded criterion 2, as suggested in an above section.  It's a record, of a sort.  (I also think being on the NRHP is a reasonably good claim — that means a little more than "it's old.") Shimeru 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The singers and NHRP listing might do it, upon reflection. Still, it seems way too many are getting listed (in my own generally-not-humble opinion, anyway!) Seraphimblade 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat.  But there are those who would include every school, golf course, shopping mall, and business office, and we're looking to find a reasonable middle ground.  I think it's inevitable that the criteria, when we're finished, will include a pretty large number of schools.  But they'll also exclude a pretty large number of schools.  As long as the ones that remain look something like this -- claims of notability, sourced and cited -- then I can live with it.  The articles I don't like are the ones that run along the lines of "X High School is a high school in X, Indiana.  It has 500 students and its principal is John Jacobjingleheimerschmidt.  Its student body is 53% white, 43% black, and 4% other.  It has a football team.  Its motto is Reductio ad absurdam.  Here is a link to its website."  This is all information, and it's usually verifiable, but it's not encyclopedically substantial.  If we can arrive at criteria that allow enough schools to keep inclusionists happy while demanding that articles show why they're a worthy encyclopedia topic to keep deletionists happy, we'll have achieved something. Shimeru 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An example of what I'm looking for... 

message: This one is much better than the "standard" one.  I support this over WP:SCHOOL.  Lankiveil 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good proposal 

message: Just last November, this very discussion took place in Wikipedia:Schools. I note that in the current debate, except for vegaswikian and Christopher Parham, none of the original participants is present. Therefore, I would recommend that those who are interested in learning some of the history of this debate read Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 4, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 5. It may be instructive to note that even though the suggested guidelines in this first lengthy debate were less restrictive than the current proposal, it still did not lead to any resolution, due in large part on the entrenched positions taken by many people in both camps. As a deletionist, I believe that notability is an essential criterion for the inclusion of any article on anything, and I support the idea that a fundamental determinant of notability is that, as per a comment made in that discussion, "multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it." However, in the spirit of compromise, I am willing to accept less than what I consider the ideal, and thus support what I see as being a fair middle ground in Wikipedia:Schools3. Denni talk 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous discussions 

message: There is some discussion now there about making some proposal that is midway between the two. I think one obvious issue that needs to be addressed is making criterion 1 here more explicit and possibly slightly broader. JoshuaZ 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[WP:SCHOOLS]] 

message: It occurred to me late last night that we may be writing the criterion and its related footnotes in such a way that the semantics are eclipsing the actual point.  The purpose of the criterion is to allow an editor to show that the school is noteworthy by pointing to independent sources that have "taken note" of it.  I believe the primary intent is to require sources that say enough about the school, and the impact of various events upon it, to allow for significant expansion of the article.  With this in mind, the "local news" issue is something of a red herring.  It applies to some extent, in that a secondary intent is to show that the school has some notability beyond the strictly local, but it's not meant to be a blanket denial of all local coverage -- only trivial local coverage.
Right now, the criterion reads:  The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself.  This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, television documentaries, and public reports by school inspection agencies and consumer watchdog organizations.
I suggest instead something along the lines of:  The school has been the primary focus of multiple published works, at least one of which is beyond purely local in scope, whose source is independent of the school itself.  This includes (etc.)
"Primary focus" helps to avoid arguments over trivial vs. non-trivial -- an article that names the school only in passing, or deals purely with a single student or teacher at the school, or offers routine coverage such as sports scores or announcements of drama club performances, cannot be said to focus primarily on the school.  The new criterion also allows for the use of local news, including historical and event articles, but insists on recognition above and beyond that level.  Along with the caveat that mandatory inspection reports and directory entries do not establish notability, I think that would suffice, even if it's looser than I frankly would like.
Alternatively, we could try to reword it to make it more explicit that the sources should contain encyclopedic information and allow for expansion of the article beyond the basic statistics, but I think that'd be another semantic minefield. Shimeru 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable to me. JoshuaZ 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought on criterion 1...