Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 7

message: It might be helpful if people could indicate what they think is wrong with this policy and what they would like changed. I'm only speaking from an English point of view but the policy does not seem unnecessarily restrictive to me. It would be quite possible to write a good article about virtually any English secondary school with multiple verifiable sources which satisfy the criteria listed. I would much rather people were encouraged to do a bit of digging to seek out some of the more interesting historical material and appropriate references rather than take the easy way out and recycle existing material which is already on the internet (eg from a school's website or OFSTED report)purely to get a Wikipedia listing.
Note 6 possibly needs re-wording. Books written about schools are rarely completely independent. Most such books take the form of school histories which are invariably written by someone who is closely connected with the school such as a teacher, an ex-pupil or an ex-teacher. There are a number of books written about Reading School for instance but they are all written by an ex-teacher. I would imagine the situation is the same with the example quoted for the King's School, Worcester (note that the book itself was published in Worcester which suggests that it was published by the school). However, the fact that someone has found sufficient material to publish a school history suggests that the school is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dahliarose 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Constructive suggestions

message: Could the third criteria be merged into the second? (which it seems to reinforce). Other than that I fully support these guidelines as a means of countering the proliferation of articles on non-notable schools. --Nick Dowling 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third criteria

message: It can be seen at any AfD debate on a high school, that there are those who think only selected high schools are notable, and some who thing that all are. In a debate on an elementary or intermediate school,  there are those who think that almost none are notable unless some major event has happened there (usually a disaster of some sort), and again, those who think them all notable.  
:Of schools I know, most established NYC high schools have articles; only 2 public elementary schools do. Seems reasonable. I suggest progress could be made by discussing high schools separately, and first. There is more likely to be some appearance of consensus. DGG
::Entirely disagree. A school is a school is a school. There may be more high schools which pass the requirements, and that's fine if so. However, even a university should be subject to the sourcing requirements. It's overwhelmingly likely such sources can be provided, but apparently, we need more of a nudge to tell people Don't just argue they can be provided, bother to provide them! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss high schools first, and by itself

message: Has anybody suggested creating a separate wiki for schools and letting them all be included there?  That way, Wikipedia could be more restrictive but there would be a place for an article on every school.
This approach has worked for many topics.  Wookieepedia has over 45,000 articles and is less than two years old.
Think about it for a minute -- 20 years ago, if you wanted information about a high school, would you reach for a general encyclopedia?  No, you'd grab a directory of high schools.
Butseriouslyfolks 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as for the hundreds of thousands of other articles that are less appropriate for WP than high school articles, I'll be starting on them next.  I can only tackle one major issue at a time.  ;-) Butseriouslyfolks 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Allow me to suggest that there is a distinction between a complex but self-contained fictional "universe" and the presence of schools in real communities. Research interest in specific topics in the Star Wars universe is always limited to that context. (Though one could distinguish fictional elements of Star Wars from real-world film-making and publication issues). Research interest in individual schools can come from many angles - geography, biography, history, pegagogy, sociology - which benefit from being able to freely interlink with the rest of the encyclopedia. I don't see any legitimate need for Wikipedia to be "more restrictive". 20 years ago the world of references was more limited to paper. --Dystopos 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your right, those make me feel more comfortable.  I'll note that the first three aren't compatable with wikipedia policies, and so are better suited in a spin-off wiki.  School articles are compatable with wikipedia.  Schools might be well compared with the fourth.  Maybe schools.wiki.com is an idea with merit, and I'll wish it well, but I don't agree with requiring a firm, unusually high, minimum threshold for schools in wikipedia.  SmokeyJoe 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The main issue at hand is whether school articles are permitted by Wikipedia's core policies (V, NOT). The existence of another wiki elsewhere is irrelevant to the main issue. So it's not clear how this will help us reach a workable consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Separate Place for Schools? 

message: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nebula_Room
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Senior_officer
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Renforra
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta-class_JV-7_escort_shuttle
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jay_David_Ramos
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/CT-8828
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/CT-8837
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sibisime
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Domain_Carr
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Infinities:_Return_of_the_Jedi_4
Based on my reading of the above ten random selections, Wookieepedia is a creative exercise of fantasy.  The amount of real-world context is negligible.  It is almost entirely unverified, making it subject to immediate removal from wikipedia.  The comparison with schools is absurd.  Schools (articles, or article sections, about schools) belong in wikipedia.  SmokeyJoe 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, those make me feel more comfortable.  I'll note that the first three aren't compatable with wikipedia policies, and so are better suited in a spin-off wiki.  School articles are compatable with wikipedia.  Schools might be well compared with the fourth.  Maybe schools.wiki.com is an idea with merit, and I'll wish it well, but I don't agree with requiring a firm, unusually high, minimum threshold for schools in wikipedia.  SmokeyJoe 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The main issue at hand is whether school articles are permitted by Wikipedia's core policies (V, NOT). The existence of another wiki elsewhere is irrelevant to the main issue. So it's not clear how this will help us reach a workable consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An absurd comparison

message: There is really little here that isn't already covered by Organizations.  There is no reason to add another set of criteria to what we already have.  With slight modification we can cut the clutter.  See WP:CREEP which discusses the danger of growing regulatory codes.  --Kevin Murray 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing at the organizations and companies page has anything to do with schools, aside from affirming that the primary notability criterion applies, which has never been the serious point of contention. So the value of the proposed merge seems pretty suspect. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with Organizations and Companies 

message: ::::Excuse me, but you said,"for most schools that I've seen, only a primary source is cited (usually the school's website), and that's good for nothing beyond a directory stub-ever. WP:V is pretty unambiguous-if you want to include information, it is your responsibility to find and cite sources."  You referred to WP:V to back your statment, not WP:N.  Neither policy supports your statement that a primary source can generate nothing more than a stub—ever.  In addition, WP:N is a Guideline, not Policy, and is subject to exception when warranted.  Including information about the educational system in any city is always warranted, including the high school(s) in a small or mid-sized town, and the school or district website might provide enough information by itself to produce a decent start class article, while it would overwhelm the locality article.  You could start an Education in Foo article, but the deletionists have not responded favorably toward separate articles or clusters about school districts either.  Finally, to go beyond what Jayron said, it is simply inconceivable that a high school in the U.S. could exist without being the subject of multiple, independent, verifiable publications.  Whether it's in a small town or a big city, the planning, financing, design, attendance area, educational philosophy, principal selection, school board elections, bond elections, decline, closing, surplus land sale--all are covered and hashed over.  You can't read daily and weekly newspapers for 40+ years without knowing this to be true.  I suspect that is true in all English-speaking nations and most others.  Only in states without a free pres would I expect otherwise.  The problem for us is that many of the small and mid-size papers are not online, which makes finding third-party coverage online difficult sometimes. Similarly, the newspapers of record in the very largest cities (e.g., New York and Chicago) may not cover their hundreds of numbered public schools in the detail that I'm familiar with in Caifornia, Minnesota, and the DC area, and their neighborhood media are almost certainly not online.  I do not think that either WP:V or WP:N is intended to strangle article creation when the creator does not have access to the local library in the locale of the article, as much as I wish that a local student would go to the damn library and fill out their articles.--Hjal 08:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's hard to find sources, but I'm sure they're out there" is not an argument to keep anything. Nor is that "occasional exception" clause in the guideline tag meant to mean "whenever I feel like it." The occasional exception would be an edge case. Let's say, for example, that a subject is covered by a single independent source of exceptional depth, and that source is universally considered to be extremely reliable on that subject, but no other secondary sources were available. Sure, in that case, any reasonable editor would argue to waive the "multiple" requirement for secondary sources, and accept the single secondary source. But "All schools are notable!" is not an occasional exception, especially given the state of most of the school articles I've run across. Once again-if you create an article, it is your responsibility to ensure that the article is properly sourced. If you can't do that yet, draft the article in userspace and put it up once adequate sources can be gained! Many community newspapers are coming online, so if what you say is true, that won't be a problem in a few years. I'm not really sure as to what you say though-the community I live in is only mid-sized, and has several schools, but I've seen very little in the paper about them, and I read it daily. There's the standard high school sports blurbs, but I saw no more then one short editorial about the recent bond issue, and a few brief pieces about an elementary school closing and moving to another location (these were more "status updates" then in-depth coverage, and were more about the move then the school in any case). Certainly nothing that would support an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I happen to think the street I live on is very important, but I don't feel that it deserves an article here.  Yet it serves the community, has been the subject of some local newspaper articles, but so what?  It's only of interest to the local population and STILL doesn't deserve to be here.I have to admit, I don't really understand why there is such a fuss about "schools" in particular.  Someone questioned why other municipal services don't deserve an exception also, so why not?  The only answer was "Don't bring that up, we're talking about schools here."  Well, what is it especially about schools that's so important?  Would the people arguing for the notability of schools in Indiana also feel the same about the inclusion of all schools in India, say?  Dare I say it, that people consider schools notable only because they go/went there?  I'm not trying to provoke anyone, but just trying to see it from the bigger picture and understand it. Icemuon 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what street you live on or why some people feel that schools are not as "important" as say, Pokemon cards or imaginary Star Wars planets. Where I live, our community spends about five times as much on its public schools as it does on either its police force or fire department. Any dozens of times more than any one street. Our society not only taxes us to pay for the schools, but it requires children to attend them, and the overwhelming majority do in almost all places worldwide. Thus, schools seem to have a far greater inherent notability than a police station, post office or street. I would certainly draw the line at nursery schools, but other than that most schools have an inherent claim of notability in and of themselves. Even more than Hayashigame or Ossus, neither of which have any non-trivial sources, which may come as a shock to some of our more anal-retentive, rules-obsessed deletionists. Alansohn 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alansohn, do be nice to the deletionists. No need for this to turn into a namecalling contest. I fail to see where in WP:N is the criteria for "Large amounts of money are spent on the subject", "Children are required to go here", or any of the like. (And if you'd like to put some Star Wars- or Pokecruft up for deletion, I'll be right behind you, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a keep rationale.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see "All Pokemon characters or Star Wars planets are notable" but deletionists seem to have no problem with those. Can you point me to any of your many AfDs on the matter? If you're arguing that schools are less important than "Pokecruft", let's hear your arguments, or at least an explanation in the hierarchy of the Universe why the fact that coverage for schools is being deemed "trivial" while elsewhere no sources are required. WP:HYPOCRISY is not a delete rationale. I think a general rule that states that "many schools are notable" -- or even "most schools are notable" -- would be accepted by most humans worldwide based on their inherent societal importance, though I'm sure that more than a few deletionists would object. Alansohn 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time I read a school article I see "Mr. Harris is the vice-principal" or "The bell rings at 9:20..." etc.  And how is that arguable as deserving inclusion in a global collection of amassed human knowledge?  I myself couldn't care less about Pokemon characters or Star Wars planets but millions of people DO care about them.  Can't say the same about your local schools.  By the way, I'm not some ANTI-SCHOOL fanatic, and I doubt most deletionists are.  I have seen good articles on schools (for example) that I think are worthy of articles.  But the majority don't.  Icemuon 13:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's the same feeling I get when I read "Hayashigame evolves from Turtwig at level 18, and into Dodaitose at level 32." or "Ossus was a rich, lush world with a Jedi training center and the Great Jedi Library which were established by Jedi Master Odan-Urr 4,996 BBY." Again, I will state that all schools have an inherent claim of notability bestowed by society, that no police precinct, post office or street has, let alone a Pokemon character or Star Wars planet. I see scholars here analyzing the relative triviality of articles and sources about schools, but who lack the intellectual consistency and rigor to apply the same standards anywhere else. The fact that Mr. Harris's existence or the 9:20 bell ringing time bother you is cause to improve the article not an excuse to delete it. Alansohn 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately most cannot be improved because there is nothing more about them that can be said. Icemuon 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've set the bar extremely low and still failed to clear it. When you make absolute statements you're almost always wrong, and statements of the ilk of "most article cannot be improved" fall into that category. I'll step up to the challenge: Show me one school article that demonstrates that it would be impossible to improve it through the addition of a single additional bit of information about the school. If I can modify the article in any way that improves it, your statement will be disproven, and your "I guess I'm a deletionist; I think there's too much cruft on Wikipedia — for example, I think most schools should not have articles of their own" approach along with it. Alansohn 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being pedantic.  You can "improve" an article all you like, but that still won't make the subject matter important.  Since I know you will automatically assume I've failed your challenge if I don't provide you with an article to improve, please take, say, this one. Icemuon 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you picked this school as an example of one that would be the poster child for your "most articles cannot be improved" philosophy. Take a look at Springfield Park Elementary School and tell me that it has not been improved in the past half hour by enhancing the description of the school, adding sources for the information provided, trimming out unnecessary details and adding details of championships won by its chess team. I do not claim that all schools are notable, particularly at the elementary school level. But I think I have shown a perfect example of an article slapped with CSD and notability tags that could have been improved and been brought up to even the most pedantic standards with a trivial amount of effort. Thanks for proving my point. Alansohn 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, improving an article does not automatically make its subject matter important.  You yourself claim that there are loads of "Star Wars- or Pokecruft" that are meticulously written and maintained.  However, if you say "I do not claim that all schools are notable" then why are we even having this dicussion? Icemuon 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize that there is a log of all of your statements being retained here before you start writing? Timestamped 13:45 today, you insisted that "Unfortunately most cannot be improved because there is nothing more about them that can be said." At 15:19, you offered Springfield Park Elementary School as your basket case of an unimprovable article. Has the article been improved? Yes or no? Your user page states that "I guess I'm a deletionist; I think there's too much cruft on Wikipedia — for example, I think most schools should not have articles of their own." It seems clear that your biases are distorting your ability to recognize that most schools, particularly at the secondary level, are more than sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own. I don't need to argue that "all schools are notable" to justify that Springfield Park Elementary School is a perfect example of an article that you would have given a knee-jerk delete, without lifting a finger to research the school or improve the article. Alansohn 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improved, yes, but is notability demonstrated?  All I see are some regional chess championship wins -- that satisfies half of one of the (rather less than strict) criteria.  Is there anything else?  We don't, after all, host biographies of people who win a state chess championship once...  Improvement is not the same as satisfying notability.  It would appear from this discussion and the article talk page that I am not alone in this opinion.  As another example, I could very easily write an autobiographical article, and I could improve it a great deal (certainly the sources I'd reference would be a great deal more independent of me than the Virginia DoE is of a Virginia school).  This would not make me notable, and an editor would be justified and, I'd say, correct in tagging my article for deletion, regardless of my mentions in the Wall Street Journal etc. Shimeru 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing to see here, move along ...