Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 7

message: * User:Xoloz/Schools
* User:Silensor/Schools
* User:TerriersFan/Schools
* Wikipedia talk:Schools
* Wikipedia:Schools/Defunct
* Wikipedia:Schools/Old proposal
* Wikipedia:Schools/March 2007
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines 
* Wikipedia:Semi-notability
* WP:BIAS
* WP:CCC
* WP:OUTCOMES
* WP:POTENTIAL
* User:Noroton/opinions
===Notable Afds===
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School: a semi-random example of an afd that degenerates into a general debate about schools rather than instead of that particular one. Note: If I had been the closing admin, I'd called it "No consensus"  --victor falk 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School: a semi-random example of an afd that degenerates into a general debate about schools rather than instead of that particular one. Note: If I had been the closing admin, I'd called it "No consensus"  --victor falk 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Afds

message: *I think we should begin by identifying the reasons hindering a consensus. --05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to give some reasons, above. TerriersFan (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was essentially the same as this one with respect to high schools, and deferred the discussion of other schools. It came very near consensus. DGG (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: * Wikipedia talk:Schools Looks like it was here. DGG, you look like you worked on it? What happened? Was there opposition to this existing? • Lawrence Cohen 07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was essentially the same as this one with respect to high schools, and deferred the discussion of other schools. It came very near consensus. DGG (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous discussion

message: The following are considered inherently notable:
* School districts (US/Canada); Local Education Authorities (UK); regional schools' management bodies (other jurisdictions).
* High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions).
* Blue Ribbon schools (US); Beacon schools, Training schools, schools with a Grade 1 (outstanding) Ofsted overall assessment (UK); highest official assessment (other jurisdictions).
Schools not falling into one of the above categories will not be notable unless notability can be demonstrated by sufficient reliable secondary sources that meet WP:N. Such schools should normally be merged into the school district or locality as an editorial action without need for an AfD.''
Note: In all cases these guidelines assume that there is some encyclopaedic content; directory-only entries (only name, address, school type) will be subject to deletion under WP:CSD#A1.
*The problem with this criteria is that the awards are themselves not without issues.  Does receiving once make the school notable?  Why does a school that meets certain arbitrary criteria become notable?  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guidelines for notability 

message: To structure things a bit I propose:
* This page is moved to Wikipedia:School
* A Background section (that I am happy to draft for comment) synthesised from the Statements above together with Proposed guidelines for notability remain on this page.
* The other sections are moved to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine; the proposed guidelines do distinguish between the two but these can easily be organised into sections. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organising the debate 

message: The following are considered inherently notable:
# School districts (US/Canada); Local Education Authorities (UK); regional schools' management bodies (other jurisdictions).
# High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions).
# Blue Ribbon schools (US); Beacon schools, Training schools, schools with a Grade 1 (outstanding) Ofsted overall assessment (UK); highest official assessment (other jurisdictions).
Schools not falling into one of the above categories will not be notable unless notability can be demonstrated by sufficient reliable secondary sources that meet WP:N. Such schools should normally be merged into the school district or locality as an editorial action without need for an AfD.''
Note: In all cases these guidelines assume that there is some encyclopaedic content; directory-only entries (only name, address, school type) will be subject to deletion under WP:CSD#A1.
*I agree with 1. I disagree with 2 and 3.
For 2: while most high schools probably are notable, there is no a priori reason why this should be so. I would support the inclusion of a line discouraging the (nomintaion for) deletion of high school articles, but in the end, they would still have to prove their notability (per WP:NOTE) to be kept if someone feels the need to challenge them anyway.
For 3: no way. There are way too many schools that get these "awards" anyway, and it is not our place to include the "good" ones and dismiss the "bad" ones, just like we don't include only 5 star hotels. Being good is completely different from being notable. Being discussed in the media because you are good is of course a perfect way to meet WP:NOTE, but the  official rankings and inspection reports are not a notability guideline element. Fram (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, very few schools get these awards. Less than 5% of US schools have Blue Ribbon awards and the numbers are similar for the UK awards. Official awards are taken as a notability indicator in all articles and certainly, to use your example, would be relevant to hotels. TerriersFan (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But given the sheer number of schools getting these awards, they are not very selective.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason for allowing Blue Ribbon and similar schools is that these schools can be assumed to have sufficient sources, so being selective is irrelevant. There should be some news article or even a document from the awarding authority in existence if a school has won a Blue Ribbon award. We just might not be able to find it if that source isn't online and we don't have access to the local newspaper. Noroton (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know the old argument... WP is about verifiability, not truth. We shouldn't have to assume. Besides, I think the argument people here make is that absent significant coverage in secondary sources, a blue ribbon award itself does not justify a school article- rather, it justifies a list of schools that have received such awards. Epthorn (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason for inherent notability for high schools is well discussed above. Sufficient sources are always findable and they are never deleted in any case, so it is logical, and saves resources all round to make them notable. There are many other examples of this pragmatic approach as exemplified, also above. TerriersFan (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that High schools are never deleted? If so, that is not true, but I guess I'm just a bit confused by your explanation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The issues (as I understand them) are that WP:N's threshold for significant coverage is (deliberately) subjective.  So we can say "Forget this inherent notability nonsense, we need to evaluate these on a case-by-case basis," but that results in the same argument being had over and over again (since most secondary schools have approximately the same amount of coverage, this argument manifests itself as an argument over whether this relatively constant coverage is "significant".  It saves a lot of time to enact into policy that this baseline level of coverage either is or isn't significant.  So, I beg your pardon, part of the reason that all elements are notable is that it was decided that the minimum level of coverage had by any element is significant; the Wikipedia policy decision of the application of WP:N resulted in a policy decision that made elements notable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not agree with the proposal that all high schools/secondary schools in all jurisidictions (which presumably means in all countries of the world) should have an automatic entitlement to an article.  I agree that it is the availability of sources which should be the determining factor. Sources are generally available for secondary schools in English-speaking countries. I would very much like to see more articles on schools in non-English-speaking countries but the problem is that the sources to write such articles simply do not exist in the English language and these schools often get deleted. It is impossible to write such an article if you can't understand Chinese, Japanese, Spanish or whatever the language in question is. There are probably just as many secondary schools/high schools in China as there are in the US. Do we really want to encourage the creation of thousands and thousands of meaningless stubs? I also wonder if the age of the school should be considered. Ample sources will surely exist to write an article on any school over 100 years old. Dahliarose (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is any evidence that thousands and thousands of stubs will be written, and if they are meaningless then they will be speedied. TerriersFan (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at albums. Some type of "inherent notability" was proposed for those, and now there are thousands upon thousands of garbage articles on albums, many consisting of nothing more than a track list and a nonfree image, and it's impossible to merge the damn thing back into the parent article despite the fact that the album itself has no sourcing whatsoever regarding it. Let's not have the same thing with schools—they can always be at Somewhere School District#Schools administered by the district with an anchored redirect until there's enough well-sourced material there to justify a separate article. And if there never is enough, well, that's fine too! Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1: Proposed guidelines for notability 

message: ThisIsASecret (here) and DahliaRose (here) each make an interesting point: The current language of both Option 1 and Option 2 would allow for creation of numerous articles about secondary schools and school districts that have little or no English-language sourcing. TerriersFan has replied that there is no reason to believe this will happen. I'm not so sure. We've certainly had cases where numerous stub articles were created for, say, every school in a large city school district, resulting in stubs that add nothing to the encyclopedia but disappointment for readers who reach the article. We have no reason to believe that sufficient English-language sources will be available to editors for non-English-language schools and school districts any time soon. Therefore I propose changing the language of Option 1 to (changes in boldface):
====School management bodies====
School districts (US/Canada); Local Education Authorities (UK); regional schools' management bodies (other jurisdictions) that teach students primarily in the English language are considered inherently notable.
====Secondary education====
High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions)  that teach students primarily in the English language are considered inherently notable.
Non-English-language schools and school districts are not considered inherently notable because feewer English-language sources tend to be available to editors of the English Wikipedia. Notability guidelines for these schools and districts are covered by WP:N or WP:ORG guidelines. 
The boldface paragraph above establishes, I think, that we have a reasonable basis for discriminating against non-English entities, which would be treated the same as they are now. 
For Option 2, I would also add the boldface paragraph and add For schools that teach primarily in the English language, as the first words in the "Additional criteria" section. Noroton (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the concept of notability that requires English-language sources. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking that English-language sources be required, only that we assume for English-language high schools that sources will be added. We can't assume that for non-English-language sources because so few of us editors can access them. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree, it's lack of any source that is a problem with those articles This is a Secret account 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem differently: I think almost all high school articles have at least one source -- the Web site of the school itself. That source tends to be pretty reliable (but hardly ever includes negative information and there is often important information that the school Web site doesn't provide). Noroton (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Just to expand on my initial statement: notability is proven by the presence of coverage in reliable sources, but it is not determined by the availability of sources. Notability is a characteristic of topics, and the presence of coverage in reliable sources is a proxy measure for it. Also, the bolded paragraph seems to suggest that, because sources are harder to find for non-English-language schools, we should impose higher inclusion standards for them. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a practical standard. When sources are few, then not following a practical standard is impractical. (Obviously, if enough sourcing can be found, it doesn't matter what language the sources are in.) WP:N is meant to be a practical standard that favors subjects that can be sourced. All notability guidelines are meant to be practical. As I look over WP:N, I don't see that explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit. Noroton (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I cannot support this. My previous point was that English-language sources don't exist for many of these schools so it is difficult for English-language editors to work on such articles. Foreign-language sources are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia if there are no equivalent English ones. See: WP:EL A lot of the foreign-language schools which get deleted are quite probably more notable than many of the American high schools which get kept it's just that English-speaking editors can't find the sources to save the articles because they are unfamiliar with the language. This new wording now seems to imply that schools in English-speaking countries are somehow superior to those in other countries. It is best to avoid the word notability altogether and focus on sourcing. Dahliarose (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine any hope for this English-booster sort of approach gaining any support. If others come out to endorse it under policy I will be very surprised (sorry, Noroton). Probably best to just move past this idea onto other concerns and ideas. • Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor that maintains many of the articles on French-language schools and schools boards within Canada, I cannot support this for obvious reasons.  In B.C. where I live, there are more sources for the French school board and schools available in English than there are in French.  --Stéphane Charette (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Option #2 covers this. I still have a major problem with any suggestion that because something is in another language, it has less inherit merit or notability. Did you see on this page where it was demonstrated that sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable? There are articles on topics from, for example, China and India which may have no English-language sources. There is nothing wrong with that. • Lawrence Cohen 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will repeat myself yet again: This has nothing whatever to do with what sources are acceptable. It has everything to do with how likely we think it will be that a subject that we can't expect will be covered by English-language sources will get sourced. I've already said -- and how much more clear can I be? -- that actually sourcing something in any language is acceptable. I don't understand why you raise objections to what I have explicitly stated is not my position. Noroton (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do other notability guidelines take this view? Can you provide some examples of some and AfDs that reflect this? • Lawrence Cohen 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but the idea that notability guidelines discourage the creation of articles that are not likely to be more than stubs has certainly been around (UncleG's essay linked to in the list at the top of this page alludes to that idea). But this discussion is about making new policy. As for AfDs that may reflect this, I've always assumed that editors have taken into consideration whether or not they think an article proposed for deletion is likely to get improved over time. If primary school articles overwhelmingly tended to get improved over time, I'm sure we'd see a lot fewer nominations for deletion. Noroton (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ...if they don't have independent sources then they certainly should not be considered notable by encyclopedic standards. Epthorn (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is unlikely there will be consensus to put into policy that international schools are inherently notable. However, from experience I can say that most international school have a high level of potential notability. The problem is that due to systematic bias articles on them are often in a poor state, making them vulnerable to deletion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, bias is a huge issue with international schools. Its just difficult to find independant sources for them. Billscottbob (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different criteria for English-language/Non-English language schools & districts 

message: High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions)  that teach students primarily in the English language are considered inherently notable.
Non-English-language schools and school districts are not considered inherently notable because feewer English-language sources tend to be available to editors of the English Wikipedia. Notability guidelines for these schools and districts are covered by WP:N or WP:ORG guidelines. 
The boldface paragraph above establishes, I think, that we have a reasonable basis for discriminating against non-English entities, which would be treated the same as they are now. 
For Option 2, I would also add the boldface paragraph and add For schools that teach primarily in the English language, as the first words in the "Additional criteria" section. Noroton (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the concept of notability that requires English-language sources. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not asking that English-language sources be required, only that we assume for English-language high schools that sources will be added. We can't assume that for non-English-language sources because so few of us editors can access them. Noroton (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree, it's lack of any source that is a problem with those articles This is a Secret account 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem differently: I think almost all high school articles have at least one source -- the Web site of the school itself. That source tends to be pretty reliable (but hardly ever includes negative information and there is often important information that the school Web site doesn't provide). Noroton (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Just to expand on my initial statement: notability is proven by the presence of coverage in reliable sources, but it is not determined by the availability of sources. Notability is a characteristic of topics, and the presence of coverage in reliable sources is a proxy measure for it. Also, the bolded paragraph seems to suggest that, because sources are harder to find for non-English-language schools, we should impose higher inclusion standards for them. – Black Falcon (Talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a practical standard. When sources are few, then not following a practical standard is impractical. (Obviously, if enough sourcing can be found, it doesn't matter what language the sources are in.) WP:N is meant to be a practical standard that favors subjects that can be sourced. All notability guidelines are meant to be practical. As I look over WP:N, I don't see that explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit. Noroton (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I cannot support this. My previous point was that English-language sources don't exist for many of these schools so it is difficult for English-language editors to work on such articles. Foreign-language sources are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia if there are no equivalent English ones. See: WP:EL A lot of the foreign-language schools which get deleted are quite probably more notable than many of the American high schools which get kept it's just that English-speaking editors can't find the sources to save the articles because they are unfamiliar with the language. This new wording now seems to imply that schools in English-speaking countries are somehow superior to those in other countries. It is best to avoid the word notability altogether and focus on sourcing. Dahliarose (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine any hope for this English-booster sort of approach gaining any support. If others come out to endorse it under policy I will be very surprised (sorry, Noroton). Probably best to just move past this idea onto other concerns and ideas. • Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor that maintains many of the articles on French-language schools and schools boards within Canada, I cannot support this for obvious reasons.  In B.C. where I live, there are more sources for the French school board and schools available in English than there are in French.  --Stéphane Charette (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Option #2 covers this. I still have a major problem with any suggestion that because something is in another language, it has less inherit merit or notability. Did you see on this page where it was demonstrated that sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable? There are articles on topics from, for example, China and India which may have no English-language sources. There is nothing wrong with that. • Lawrence Cohen 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will repeat myself yet again: This has nothing whatever to do with what sources are acceptable. It has everything to do with how likely we think it will be that a subject that we can't expect will be covered by English-language sources will get sourced. I've already said -- and how much more clear can I be? -- that actually sourcing something in any language is acceptable. I don't understand why you raise objections to what I have explicitly stated is not my position. Noroton (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do other notability guidelines take this view? Can you provide some examples of some and AfDs that reflect this? • Lawrence Cohen 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but the idea that notability guidelines discourage the creation of articles that are not likely to be more than stubs has certainly been around (UncleG's essay linked to in the list at the top of this page alludes to that idea). But this discussion is about making new policy. As for AfDs that may reflect this, I've always assumed that editors have taken into consideration whether or not they think an article proposed for deletion is likely to get improved over time. If primary school articles overwhelmingly tended to get improved over time, I'm sure we'd see a lot fewer nominations for deletion. Noroton (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary education

message: Does anyone else support these ideas? • Lawrence Cohen 04:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support for Noroton's English-language proposals?

message: Sould International Schools be inherently notable? I think they should, there are few international schools and they usually don't have independant sources to prove notability. Billscottbob (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...if they don't have independent sources then they certainly should not be considered notable by encyclopedic standards. Epthorn (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is unlikely there will be consensus to put into policy that international schools are inherently notable. However, from experience I can say that most international school have a high level of potential notability. The problem is that due to systematic bias articles on them are often in a poor state, making them vulnerable to deletion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, bias is a huge issue with international schools. Its just difficult to find independant sources for them. Billscottbob (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: International Schools

message: I have moved the page to the current title to note that this is a notability proposal, consistent with the other notabilty pages. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was a good idea. • Lawrence Cohen 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved 

message: I think Options 1&2 both have good points and I'm interested in exploring compromises. Could we handle school notability with dated tags, similar to Template:Fact with its date parameter? Code the template to automatically add categories: i.e. "School articles without proven notability since November 2007".
Advantages
*Doesn't change/add to current notability standards
*Allows users to identify and find school articles that don't show notability
**Alternative to AfD nomination for articles that probably are notable (i.e. secondary schools)
**Gives WPSchools and other editors a more concrete target for random benevolent editing
Disadvantages / Extra Work
*Setup involved
**Create template and categories
**Probably need a bot to monitor and insert when editors forget to add the date parameter
*If nobody monitors the categories and works toward removing the tags, there's no benefit.
A little investigation leads me to believe it may be possible to just outline a specific usage of Template:Fix (since that's all that Template:Fact is). It almost seems too good to be true... --Hebisddave (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't this be handled with Template:Notability? Arthurrh (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It already exists, at :Category:School stubs.  The problem with this proposal is that if there is not notability the article should be deleted.   is added when it appears that there might be notabiltiy but the article does not make a strong case for it.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Notability and :Category:School stubs are good ideas, but not the same because they don't seem to have a date parameter.  Categories for months easily give the ability to point out articles that have had the tag for several months or a year, which would be much more likely to successfully pass AfD.  A new template could use some text from the Template:Notability, or maybe a date could be added to one of those two solutions. --Hebisddave (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Work to do < People available to do it -tagging all schools (except by using a bot) is out. There is too much work to tag everything in a clever way. For the same reason I go for "all secondary schools are notable" - its not true. But lets have some pragmatism. The AfD approach will not work if we look at them one by one. On the opposing view allowing sub-stubs for kindergartens is silly too. "Secondary schools are notable" should be a compromise solution that everyone who wants to improve the current situation should be able to support. Modifications can wait for version two. Victuallers (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be more work to do than people available to do it (when there isn't, WP will be 'completed'). Requiring each article to be individually examined, improved, tagged for its weaknesses, etc is unavoidable and shouldn't be a disadvantage of this suggestion more than any other.  --Hebisddave (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I see no merit in this suggestion. Why should schools articles be specially examined and tagged? Why not inhabited places, numbered highways, Pop CDs, and every other class of articles? TerriersFan (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that the point of a wikiproject? To do such things? places, highways, and CD's are covered already by other projects. The goal of the schools project should be to improve the school related articles. An assessment is a fine place to start such an effort. Arthurrh (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being made is that we already have appropriate tags etc available. What is needed are agreed notability guidelines against which  schools can be assessed in a consistent fashion; hence the point of the project page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And the exact purpose of AfD is to perform this individual examination. We should encourage article-by-article examination, not undermine it with "All X are notable/no X are notable" type garbage. If all X are notable they'll all get kept, if all are not they'll all get deleted, if (as is almost always the case) the answer lies somewhere in between, examine each one individually. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Characterising the generation of notability standards as "garbage" is both wrong and illogical. We have many notability standards for situations where there is a broad consensus that certain classes of articles are notable and, unless they are all going to be scrapped, there are no logical reasons to treat schools differently. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The original aim (for me at least) of this guideline was to try and move away from AFD a little. The current set-up at school article AFD is getting very repetitive with comments made often been more based on peoples interpretation of policies than the the article been nominated. Another problem is occasionally large numbers of schools are nominated for deletion; which means it is sometimes simply not possible to fix all the ones with notability potential to many AFD participant's standards in five days to avoid their deletion. While I see controversy in stating in a guideline how different article types fit into the notability spectrum, I see nothing wrong in itself with trying to work back-wards from school AFD results to help establish a consensus on what school article types are generally notable and which are not, as a precedent has emerged. Also note, many school articles can simply be re-directed or merged if they are established not to be notable, making AFDs unnecessary in the first place. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the current position is a defacto consensus.  It is kind of a position that everyone can live with.  So working backwards from AfD decisions is not without problems.  I think that the suggestions above about a fresh look at how notability for schools can be asserted is a wiser direction to take.  It avoids the past discussions that could not reach a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A successful guideline will probably have to make compromises, which will probably result in not everyone been 100% happy with it whatever happens realistically. Hence, avoiding the most controversial areas is sensible, and thats why I want to move away from AFD. However, everyone has different opinions on what needs to be done for a a school article to assert notability, so no direction is going to be problem free. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't controversial ones go to AfD? I guess I'm not understanding the massive fear of AfD here. Its sole purpose is to enable discussion of whether a questionable article should be retained, removed, or something else. As there's clearly not a consensus for any given set of guidelines, what's wrong with the status quo, e.g., let AfD decide? (As to "de facto" consensus, I've seen high schools deleted, even recently, or at the very least merged, and I've seen plenty of high school AfDs closed no consensus. "All high schools are notable" is no more a consensus position than "All schools are notable" ever was, those holding it are just very vocal.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no massive fear of AFD, just a desire to look for alternatives. There is nothing wrong with taking controversial cases to AFD, but since taking every school article created with questionable notability to AFD is impractical, in many cases looking at alternatives such as merging and re-directing first is reasonable. There has never really been a clear consensus on much related to school articles and "All high schools are notable" is no exception, however the majority are kept, and it has been argued before that more (if not all) could be kept if time constraints were less of an issue. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with AFD is that it can be arbitrary. There are clearly disagreements on what is and is not notable and these disagreements surpass any one article. Personally I am against any 'special status' for schools and believe they should fall under WP:CORP or have to meet regular notability requirements. That said, if the consensus is against me it would save everyone a lot of time to establish that here. I'm not optimistic...Epthorn (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date-tag school articles that need notability proven 

message: While maybe not the best article, :Clark County School District is an example of how you could lay out an article on the parent district to include information on the various schools without encouraging creation of articles on every school.  If a concept like this could become a guideline, it might reduce the creation of articles on non notable schools and drastically reduce the need to use AfDs. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree though if a school article is properly sourced, there is no reason not to leave it as an article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion. I've always seen redirecting to a list of schools administered by the district in the district article to be a good solution—the articles are not "deleted" per se, simply placed in a central location, and if a good deal of sourced information is added to a given school's entry while in that list, it can then be split out. There's nothing wrong with redirecting to a parent article for a non-notable subject, after all notability does not directly limit the content of articles which are on a notable subject, and the vast majority of school administration districts (or their local equivalent in any given country) will have enough sourcing for a full article. If for any given country that's not the case, we could even move up from there: School administration in Somecountry#Bodies which administer schools in Somecountry. There's no need for one-paragraph stubs when merging and redirecting can result in a single high-quality, comprehensive article, with a few notable examples split out once they're ready. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though "merging" is sometimes not done and simply leads to a de-facto deletion/redirect (v. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shapleigh Memorial School). A well-laid out district page should accomodate facts for schools to accumulate until ready for a break-out article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure school district articles to make them the repository for school information. 

message: I think it is really unfortunate that I have to oppose this.  I really see the need for this type of notability guideline, which is why I first brought it up at the VP this time.  There are a lot of great things here, and a lot of great discussion.  However, no matter how great the proposed guideline is, I cannot support it because of one sentence, which is that "all High Schools are considered inherently notable".  Sneaking this into a proposed guideline, prior to there being a consensus for it isn't a good idea, however it is precisely what has happened here.  I am sure that I am not the only one who believes this, and I am sure others will disagree.  I just strongly disagree with that, and I've stated my reasons above. - Rjd0060 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making snide comments is not helpful. There is no basis for saying "Sneaking this into a proposed guideline" - nothing was sneaked in - it is plainly there and the reasons for the option are clearly described in the preamble. Option 1 reflects the result of numerous AfDs - high schools that have been researched are never deleted. TerriersFan 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Only one of the two options has that sentence. Do you oppose option 2? • Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how it is possible that I missed that.  I didn't even know there was an option 2.  After reading that, yes, I strongly support option 2.  Thanks, User:Lawrence Cohen. - Rjd0060 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome, and it happens. I added a little box to the top of the proposal reminding people there are two options. • Lawrence Cohen 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks again. - Rjd0060 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Opposition (to proposal 1) 

message: Aside from suggestions or desires to redirect Wikipedia:Notability (schools) to another page, does anyone have a problem specifically with any aspects of Option 2? I just am curious where this stands, as most opposition seems to be to Option 1, rather than option 2. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too subjective, since it's not our place to determine "worthiness" of a school. Arbitrarily saying "two of these justify an article..." doesn't work. There's enough source material for a full article, and we write one, or there's not, and we write a short entry in a parent article. That's about as simple as you get. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like all the constant fighting about school notability means it needs to be semi-spelled out. I changed "at least two" to "several". Does that address your concerns? Lawrence Cohen 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know sometimes it seems that way, and I certainly think you have the best intentions, but really, all that a constant disagreement over something indicates is that there is nothing to spell out. Policies and guidelines are meant to reflect things that are already done and accepted, never to cause acceptance. If there's really a consensus to be formed here, it will make itself clear on its own, because the disagreements will largely turn to agreement. It's at that point that it's time to document what the agreements are that came around. Of course, it's also entirely possible that general agreement will never be reached. In that case, that's fine too, we just continue to evaluate case-by-case. That can be a frustrating experience, but sometimes it's necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 1 reflects the consensus that emerged from numerous AfDs. TerriersFan 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Make it simpler. Schools meeting WP:NOTE are notable. Other schools which verifiably exist should not be deleted but redirected (if necessary merged) to either a governing body (school district or similar), if this has an article, or to the locality (town, city, ...) of the school. Fram 20:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That applies to any article - what we are doing is applying that standard to schools. TerriersFan 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's just set up a guideline encouraging merger/redirection for schools which don't meet the primary criterion, and separate articles for those which do. It will still drastically reduce the need for school AfDs, and will provide a logical and consistent means of handling school articles, while not setting arbitrary criteria (has won an award, someone notable went there, whatever the case may be.) Call it option 3? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do that, it seems to me that you're only going to replace all the AfDs we currently have with a bunch of edit wars over merge/redirects.  At least with AfDs, there's an established process to determine consensus. Sarcasticidealist 07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In contentious cases, AfD can still be used. The possible outcomes will simply be "keep", "merge", and "redirect without merge", rather than those plus "delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point.  But what makes you think that there will be fewer contentious cases with the development of these merger guidelines than without them? Sarcasticidealist 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours is a fair point as well. However, I think if someone were to say "Look, I'm going to put the sourced material into the district list. It can always grow there, and hey, if over the course of development we find plenty of source material, we can always split back out, and in the meantime it'll be a redirect right to that section", that's a lot less contentious than "Sorry, this blue link needs to turn red." Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2 feeler 

message: Notability in Wikipedia is defined: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  That's notability, and issues with that (i.e.: what is "significant coverage"? What qualifies as an independent reliable source?") should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Notability.  There are two somewhat opposing problems people are actually trying to solve on this page: 
# there are lots of school articles that don't establish WP-notability
# there is lots of school information being deleted (or there may be, depending on outcome here)
Wikipedia guidelines on notability that we can not / should not circumvent say that #1 has to be solved (eventually, by AfD or bold editors) by removing the article, either by deleting it or merging & re-directing.  The concerns raised by #2 mean that we should probably cross out the idea of deleting those articles.  Therefore, we should re-direct and merge school articles that don't show notability-as-defined-by-Wikipedia. Support/don't support/comments? --Hebisddave 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. There are many, MANY places that exist yet are not and will never be considered notable. My apartment is one of them. There are even institutions that will never be notable enough to be encyclopedic. I would support a temporary hold on deletes if editors request it, but not an indefinite one. Epthorn (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-direct and Merge 

message: Hi, I'm one of the two primary editors of Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia), which is a Good Article with currently 116 references. Many times, myself and the other main editor have had issues with citations -- mainly that a very relevant piece of information can only be referenced to a yearbook. However, yearbooks are an unknown source of references as they are self published, and quality varies wildly. We have sought input from other admins and projects for guidance as to the acceptability of yearbooks, but no clear rules have been established. I would ask that Wikipedia:Notability (schools) discuss this, and if possible, make a final decision over yearbooks as a source of references. Thank you. Zidel333 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'm not sure that a precise, clear rule can be established. I would not normally consider a yearbook a good source for WP:V and WP:NPOV concerns since they are renowned for poor fact-checking and are closely associated with the subject. If the yearbook had some information of strong interest, however, it might be possible to include it with a sort of disclaimer that "according to the school yearbook" or some such wording to make it clear that it should be taken with a grain of salt. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A school year book is a primary source.  It is not useful in demonstrating notability, and may be a reliable source for something while simultaneously being unreliable for something else.  Year books are suitable to be referenced, but with care.  If anything is particularly remarkable, I would be uncomfortable about the year book being the only source.  Like any historical document, it may contain errors, exaggeration and biases.  Be especially concerned about any yearbook commentary that is not explicitly attributed to particular authors.  Note well, as you said:  “self published, and quality varies wildly”.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the editors here and would just like to remark that this school, owing to secondary external sources like Newsweek, is an excellent example of a high school that is notable in my view, unlike many others that exist. Epthorn (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. We've taken the NPOV issue into consideration. (I'm the other main editor that was referred to.) However, I'd like to pose a question regarding yearbooks that are critically reviewed and acclaimed by the National Scholastic Press Association and the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, as is the case for Westfield. They are reviewed for journalistic quality (though not necessarily accuracy, per se) and presentation. Will that criteria make a yearbook more acceptable as a source than yearbooks who have not received such awards? Arsonal (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability might be helpful. The section WP:SELFPUB implies to me that the nature of the content being cited to the yearbook matters when deciding if that citation is appropriate....so we can't universally state that yearbooks are good or bad sources because it depends on the yearbook AND on what information is attributed to that yearbook. --Hebisddave (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with References 

message: Option 1 cannot stand as you cannot have an essay or guideline that runs against Wiki policy. Option 1 is setting up schools to be above the requirement on WP:V for reliable sources. Option 2 is the wording that needs to be considered. Having read through the comments on this talkpage there are few people who are in support of Option 1. Leaving it in is distracting people from the focus of the creation of this guideline. I shall remove Option 1. Please let me know if you have an issue with my action. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, but with all respect, this move on this date could have the appearance of trying to slip this through on a holliday weekend when people are away from work and away from their computers,  If it were me i'd hold off till after the new years break to make this move.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very concerned at such a major subtraction when many of us are unable to debate it. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to deal with the reality that high schools are generally considered notable. I have added the phrase "There is a presumption that high schools/secondary schools are notable unless insufficient sourced material is available to produce an encyclopaedic article.". This reflects the tenor of the debate by avoiding the 'inherently notable' contentious wording and also dealing with the Chinese problem of thousands of unsourceable sub-stubs being produced and deals with the reality of AfD outcomes. TerriersFan (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is too early to make that change.  There may or may not be consensus to support it. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Option 1 should go back - an editor unilaterally removed Option 1. I think we should run with this which is a fair compromise and if we do run with this I withdraw my objection to the removal of Option 1. It reflects reality - no high school page that meets this criterion has been deleted in the last few months. TerriersFan (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1 removed 

message: I have changed the restriction on the page to direct editing. This is not an accepted guideline in which people are advised to take care before making changes. It is against the founding principles of Wikipedia to discourage people from editing, especially a work in progress in which involvement is encouraged. Build it and they will come! But don't piss them off when they arrive. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encouraging involvement 

message: Something rather annoying happens too often, in AFD debates about schools there will sometimes be people saying "Keep per WP:SCHOOLS". This is a problem since this is just a proposed policy and thus currently has no affect on articles. Should a warning be added to to the top of the page letting people know that this currently is not official? It would help a lot in AFD situations since too many people cite no other reason to keep a high school article other that this proposal. TJ Spyke 03:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There is the standard disclaimer at the top of the project page, though. I think that it is a matter of phrasing. Plainly, and you are right, meeting WP:SCL, as a non-agreed guideline, isn't a justification in itself for an AfD position but if an editor agrees with WP:SCL then citing it can be used as a shorthand for the editor's views. TerriersFan (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If people accept this proposal as policy in the AFD process, doesn't it reflect additional support for it, though? Written policy is just supposed to reflect accepted practice, isn't it? Lawrence Cohen 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a warning added 

message: There is already a project on this and no question that these buildings are notable.  Do we really need to say that here?  All listed historic buildings are notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but from previous AfDs some editors are not aware of this and its inclusion does no harm. TerriersFan (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All listed historic buildings wouldn't necessarily qualify for an individual article as sometimes every single house in a street is listed. However, school buildings tend to be larger than houses and I would have thought that schools in listed buildings should automatically qualify for an article. The pages on the Images of England website do not show up on Google searches - the database has to be searched separately. Many editors seem to be unaware of the website, and historic schools have been nominated for deletion in the past, though as far as I'm aware they have always been kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Munden Primary School. Dahliarose (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional criteria - historic buildings 

message: I'm now wondering if the way out is to simply have P1 plus the Failure to establish notability section. Any arguments about whether a school is notable or not would then be on its talk page and, in effect, create a to-do list for improving the article. Nominators bringing articles to AfD would have to explain why it should not be merged otherwise it could be speedy-closed as "Tag with ".
I still see school stubs as valuable articles. Stubs, though incomplete, still provide useful information and are ideal places to encourage contributions from editors. I recognise, however, that the current consensus seems to be against that. This is surely a reasonable compromise. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perspective, no. This would be little different from the present situation. A list of criteria proves very useful in allowing creating editors as well as assessing editors to see where the boundaries lie. Take WP:Music for a good example. I think that the A section is essential to prevent the time wasting process of arguing each page from first principles. TerriersFan (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that stubs are worse than nothing. They make all school articles look bad, and reduce the likelihood of survival of articles on notable schools. The Schools Project should oppose any mass stub-creation efforts, even of high schools. To put it another way, nothing succeeds like success. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't exactly mean to encourage creating stubs but I think keeping a good stub is better than deleting it in favour of nothing. I don't understand the horror some feel upon seeing a stub ready for expansion.  If I see a stub, then learn more upon further research, I am more likely to return to add to it. On the other hand, despite the disappointment I feel when I can't find an article on Wikipedia, I am unlikely to begin an entire article from scratch. This is one part of the beauty of a collaborative effort. At any rate, my only reason for stating above that I see stubs as valuable was to counter the implication that I am among the presumed majority who are anti-stubs when I counter-intuitively proposed to merge them. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable or merge