Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)

message: Given in this page and its talk page as 'failed to meet community consensus' and 'unsuccessful', should it be just speedily deleted? It's hard to make an article about a 'non-notable' school and seeing in a recent AfD, this policy has backfired and used in vain, and many of the 'delete' reasons for it have been strongly slammed by a lot of others. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this fits into any of the speedy deletion categories, but I do agree that deletion or some form of archiving would be in order given that this page is achieving nothing but confusing people - I've seen it cited on both sides of AfDs, and this is inappropriate given that the guideline was never accepted, and the current text in particular gained little support. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Even a regular deletion nomination of this page would be summarily closed under the speedy keep rules.  Policy pages, even failed ones, are kept as historical references for the project.  This page is already tagged with the  template, clearly marking that the current form does not have consensus and can not be relied upon when making decisions.  That said, the dicussion above makes clear that prior versions of this page had at least the potential to finally reach consensus.  Those earlier drafts could either be reopened or used as the basis for a new proposal someday.  Either way, they have value to the project.  Deletion of the page and its history is inappropriate.  Rossami (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that every proposal failed to win consensus when it was proposed for adoption, I don't agree that earlier versions of the proposal could have attained consensus - they plainly did not when this was tried. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: We don't delete failed policy proposals and absolutely no reason to delete this one. TerriersFan (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think deletion in this case would be helpful, this page has a lot of history behind it which I think should be preserved. One idea could be to alter the page to summaries all the options considered for this proposed guideline to make the history more clear. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delete? 

message: I will agree that this policy, as written, will still not get a consensus of people to sign on to it, today or in the immediate future. However, if you look at all of the school-related AfDs in the past year or so (if not longer) you will see that the participants in these deletion discussions are essentially following the recommendations of this proposal and that the results of these AfDs -- in which nearly all high schools are kept and most elementary schools are merged -- basically operate as if this proposal was in effect as policy. While this may bode well for establishing consensus in the future, another alternative is to create a results / precedent-based attempt at policy that uses these AfD results to show what the characteristics are of articles that are kept vs. those of ones that are deleted / merged. We can then use these experiential distinctions as the basis of a guideline that can be formalized into policy later down the road. My proposed guideline would enumerate the characteristics of articles that have been retained at AfD and would allow a future AfD participant to argue that the article under consideration should be kept because it matches the characteristics of those kept in the past per precedent, or be merged / deleted because it doesn't. Regardless of the next steps with this proposal here and irrespective of the fact that this is not de jure policy or if this essay is marked as historical, we are essentially observing this as policy on a de facto basis. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes? - I think that it covers the same turf as what you're proposing, and is already a widely accepted point of reference for AfDs. From my observations, the results of AfDs are somewhat skewed by the group of editors who participate in a high proportion of school-related AfDs and argue that high schools are automatically notable.  As efforts to have this principle more widely accepted have been unsuccessful (rightly in my view) it's going a bit far to say that its a de-facto policy. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that school AfD results belong in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.  There is no need to complicate the question of what should be done with school articles and the wikipedia concept of "notability", which is foreign to most contributors of new school articles.  There is no need for this guideline, it would even make matters worse in some ways.  The same results can be accomplished by other means.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is policy on a de facto basis 

message: Change shortcuts to point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education instead of this page.--RadioFan (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rossami - this is a failed proposal, and didn't lead to any changes to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. It's well worth keeping this for historical reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal 

message: has written a useful essay giving his 7 out of ten approach for assessing school notability.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bearian standards