Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 8

message: : per notability is not temporary. --slakr\ talk / 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ironically, if the awards at the time were notable, I'd say yes, they should still count, as they all become a part of the greater notability, history, and lore around a topic. It may be the most trivial of historical footnotes, but half the articles we have on dead people to 99% of our readers were just historical footnotes. Duke Vichy Viscount the 9th of Bellingham Upon Leeds, for example, may have been the most well known noble in all of Bellingham Upon Leeds once upon a 17th century, but today? It's the same idea. Notability, once established to a certain level, wouldn't expire. Notability does not degrade over time. Lawrence Cohen 15:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 year award cut-off 

message: Sorry, I don't find the award of a "Blue Ribbon" to a U.S. elementary school, by the U.S. Department of Education, to make the school notable in any way. I'm sure there would be a resulting round of local press coverage, basically rewriting the school district's press release and the award certificate, perhaps with a nice quote from a vice principal, but that's hardly the stuff that a useful article is built of. So we end up with an article that's never going to be expanded (or is expanded with stuff like the principal's name and the number of students, simply filler), and in ten years whatever program that justified the award is as likely as not to no longer be in place. And if 20 or 30 years, if the program continues, a large percentage of elementary schools will have won it, proving what?
In short, I think it should take something extraordinary - say, a gigantic meteor strike - to make an elementary school notable. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary school notabilty 

message: I sense that we are making good progress. The present state of the criteria accepts the likely notability of high schools whilst avoiding the controversial 'inherently notable' criterion. Further, the 'Additional criteria' section now contains a useful list of indicators whilst requiring that each are reliably sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can resolve the WP:ORG items above, then yes, there could be consensus to add those to WP:ORG and end this discussion.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to WP:ORG is, I suggest, a complication that we should avoid in the first instance. I think that it is better that we agree the guidelines first and then have a separate discussion as to whether they should stand alone or be added to WP:ORG (on which, I have absolutely no position) next. TerriersFan (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, I fully understand that viewpoint but the fact that we have got so far indicates, I think, that there is a consensus across the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum that guidelines would be helpful. Of course, we could sweep away all guidelines for all types of articles and simply rely on WP:N but that is a different debate. There are two, quite separate, reasons for the guidelines. The first is to structure AfDs and save discussions from debating the same ground each time. The second reason is to guide article creators to help improve the standard of articles, by indicating what is acceptable, and discourage the creation of hopeless stubs. If we were to agree the guidelines as they now stand I don't regard these as additional hoops for schools articles but that is, of course, a personal judgement. TerriersFan (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a new guideline will be helpful purely on the grounds that it will speed up AFD discussions. I think the current proposal, which I am quite happy with as an excellent compromise between option 1 and 2, generally hits the middle ground of the debate and will make it neither harder or easier  for x school article to be accepted into the encyclopedia. The proposal has to be accepted yet though, primary criteria 2 could get opposition, but the re-wording and removal of the word "inherently notable" should help. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The trouble is that the primary criterion is necessarily ambiguous.  People disagree as to what constitutes significant coverage, what is enough sources, where the line is drawn between "the subject of" and merely "mentioned in", and all manner of other things.  If, for example, a school is written up in major local newspapers for winning a major award, is that enough to have its own article?  It's certainly unclear from both WP:N and WP:ORG.  These guidelines would clarify the application of those to school articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the additional criteria section is intended to be examples of significant coverage, then? It's still unclear to me. DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I see it, the additional criteria is to help assess if the school will have significant coverage in secondary sources which are independent of the subject, a school meeting at least two of the additional criteria would very likely do so. If an article however strongly meets one or both of the primary criteria, it should be considered notable regardless of if it meets the additional criteria. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to be honest, and hope no offense is taken, but i see all the additional criteria as garbage,  A School is notable for being a notable school, not because a sports team is good or the building is really old.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some are recent additions and might need reviewing, but as stated in the "Background" section WP:N is not detailed enough, and I see nothing wrong with creating a criteria which can help users assess notability. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd suggest adding this.  "A school (verified by secindary sources) that's a signifigant secondary school in a notable town or city".  That's what makes a school notable in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would but thats pretty much already in there under the primary criteria - which basically means under the current proposal the alternate criteria does not apply to secondary/high schools unless encyclopedic material is not available. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess i'm a little confused then, so what's the difference between verified primary criteria information and verified secondary criteria information?  If it's verified info, but n the additional category, doesen't it also apply to the primary criteria?  My concern is the secondary criteria will turn into the standard of acceptance.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only real difference between the primary criteria and the alternate criteria is that the former is fundamental. Primary criteria clause 1 basically says a school is ultimately notable if it meets WP:N, and primary criteria clause 2 goes beyond this by saying high schools, if encyclopedic information is available, are notable. The alternate criteria is not fundamental, and a school article needs to meet at least two of the alternate criteria to be considered notable, while if a school article meets just 1 of the primary criteria it can be considered notable. The alternate criteria is only supposed to be used for school articles that don't meet the primary criteria - if a school article meets the primary criteria, it is considered notable regardless of what the alternate criteria says. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So hypothetical, main High School in Town X in Kansas, Sourced paper showing Mr. X was hired as superintendant and another aritcle about the most recent graduation.  But the sports team hasn't won state champs and no-one from the school has gone on to be a pop star.  What happens at afd.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is kept as it meets primary criteria 2: High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopedic material is not available. ...which there is in this case. There are few (if any) high schools that don't at least have the potential to meet at least two of the alternate criteria, listing it under primary criteria effectively just aims to speed things up at AFD by reflecting the reality of the situation. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case i'm not too uncomfortable with the idea.  I think high schools are notable not because of some mystic quality, but because they'se important and therefore will have been noted in some sort of reference.  If we're restricting it to schools that have won awards or sports titles, there's where i disagree strongly.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We seem to be making progress 

message: To be fair this sentence could just be an attempt to clearly reword the primary criteria, but it reads like a statement which is edging into implying that secondary schools don't need to follow WP:N. As a summary of the primary criteria it is misleading and avoids the careful wording that has passed through much consensual discussion. No topic with "sufficient sourced material" as the sole criteria is considered notable - there are other criteria that the topic needs to match. We can't do short-cuts! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The outcome of numerous AfDs is that schools meeting this criterion are kept.This wording is a compromise to replace the inherent notability clause that you removed and reflects the reality. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but it does not really get us anywhere--this is true of all subjects whatsoever. It is after all just a restatement of WP:N. If you think more should be required, the VP is available.  DGG (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to address SilkyTalk's point; guidelines provided specific criteria instead of the generality of WP:N. Whether this is short-cutting is a matter of viewpoint. It is not a question of not following WP:N rather that meeting P2 is deemed to meet WP:N. In practice all secondary schools in the Anglosphere meet WP:N and we are reflecting that. There are numerous precedents, see WP:MUSIC, for example. If, as DGG says, P2 doesn't take us beyond WP:N then it may need beefing up, perhaps reinserting the 'inherent notability' point. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that here's the rub of the whole debate.  Some people (myself included) think High Schools are notable.  They're talked about in newspapers.  They're important to the community, therefore they're notable per WP:N without the need for additional hoops to jump through.  Articles that are sourced, or as per AFD guidelines can be sourced are valid notable articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  High schools/secondary schools with sufficient sourced material to produce an encyclopaedic article are considered notable. 

message: Have you all seen this?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008266.html
? Lawrence Cohen 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I interpret that as saying he thinks people should relax and let people write verifiable and NPOV articles on schools. I also think his comments on the discussion on a "Fame and Importance" requirement that was discarded are of great interest Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance#No. This led to the Notability guideline developed following that to simply focus on ensuring articles are verifiable and NPOV by having enough reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting poll. He was on the minority side in that one. DGG (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per Jimbo, schools are notable? 

message: And in this case what I propose isn't so much being bold as engaging in some good old-fashioned common sense.  Merge those sub-stubs into articles for the school district.  Doesn't even require going through any deletion process.  What is does require in some cases is writing the district article.  I'm afraid I'm one of those poor souls who finds that for the United States at least, all public high schools are worth having an article about, even if for now it's just a redirect to a section in a larger article.  Upmerging into broader articles is one perfectly valid option for dealing with stubs, but it's one that people don't often bother with because it takes some work to find the appropriate parent. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BE BOLD! 

message: Hello, fellow editor ... 
Please allow me to introduce myself ... for the past six months, I have been working on some four-step Protocols for deletion warnings like Warn-inc ... I'm contacting you today because I have  on my watchlist, and noticed a recent contribution on the discussion page (which pinged me about this forgotten article) ... I am not considering the article for possible deletion, but I watchlisted it several months ago in order to identify Some Other Editor who had both (a) an interest in Wikipedia:Notability (schools) and (b) more knowledge about the subject than myself.
I was wondering if you think that there might be some utility to adding a Warn-school protocol cloned from Warn-academic (see Warn-templates for what I'm talking about) ... WP:SCL not a A7 speedy delete candidate, but neither is WP:PROF or WP:FICTION ... still, this could be handy for a , a , or an AfD of a non-notable school, just like with "Academics" and "Fiction" ... I could easily add "School" as one of the notability guidelines recognized by the  and  templates to generate the WP:SCL shortcut.
BTW, I had created one for WP:PORNBIO, but deleted it, and removed the selection from the templates, when it was deprecated a few months ago ... I have delayed creating one for WP:SCL because it is still just "a proposal under creation".
Please respond on this talk page, since there is no place else to discuss it ... I guess my question boils down to, "If I made it, would you use it?" :-) Happy Editing! — 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is something that I'd use. I use Twinkle to "tag" articles with notability maintenance tags but the drop down list doesn't give me a specific selection for schools. So I just tag with the generic notability so hopefully referencing issues are addressed. If that template was created would it be tweaked into the Twinkle script? Just handy to have it in that format. Sting_au  Talk 01:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry the function I'm talking about is in the "Friendly" script not Twinkle. Sting_au  Talk 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thnx ... if Some Other Editor also indicates their willingness to use it, then I will make the changes. — 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just go ahead and build the template (be bold). I think it will be a useful addition. I was even thinking of building the template myself, but since it's your baby? If you build it they will come ;-) Sting_au  Talk 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but I was after more of a schools specific notability (maintenance) tag. I managed to peice one together using existing notability tag template code. It goes like this:  That gives me a template that I can tag school article pages with and it also informs editors that the guideline is a "proposed" policy. So it basically generates the following text in a neat box that can be placed at the top of articles in need of notability maintenance.
"This article may not meet a proposed guideline for notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (schools)). If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion."
Once tagged as such. If nothing is done to cause the tag to be removed i.e. no sources found. Then after six month the article will wind up with a prod. Then it's gone after five days if not fixed. Sting_au  Talk 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Reply: Uhhh ... I don't think we're on the Same Page ... this is for trying to address the issues Real Soon Now (not in "six months") on freshly created articles, mostly by nuggets, when you think that a PROD or CSD may be Too Hasty, or possibly premature ... please see  Protocols for deletion warnings to see where I'm coming from with this. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no we are not on the same page but I do see what you are telling me. A notability tag can/may  actually get "issues" addressed quicker than the warn templates. For starters if you're warning a newbie editor they are not always the person best able to fix the problems. A notability tag puts articles into categories such as :Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from January 2008 where editors see them and can then work on them if they so desire. Don't get me wrong I like your deletion warnings and can see a use for them but I also like using the notability tags so as to alert editors of articles needing maintenance re notability. My comments re articles getting the chop after six months is only fair enough really. If an article hasn't had the necessary work done in that time it deserves to cop a prod. I am against prodding school articles as or soon after they have been created unless they are an obvious speedy candidate. Sting_au  Talk 12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding  and other tags (like  is discussed in the longer version ... I've been working on this for almost a year now, but it's kind of overwhelming on first read, so I made the "condensed" version as an introduction. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No way. I just asked the editor who tagged the project page for a link to the discussion they were involved in (see my talk page). No link given. That user just came along and tagged the page as rejected. I don't know about you but I see it as not a fair thing to do without at first discussing doing so on this talk page. I think removing the tag is in order? Sting au Buzz Me... 10:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the wake of this AfD, I no longer care one way or the other. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you have to admit that was a pretty good save :-) Having a clear notability (schools) guidelines will stop a lot of these school article getting to AfD (which is getting bogged down) in the first place. I believe the project is still ongoing and as such I'm going to be bold and remove the rejected tag. It was placed there on the strength of one users opinion anyhow. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocol for [[WP:SCL]] deletion warnings 

message: OK, I have created Warn-school, and updated  and  to recognize "Schools" as a Guideline ... it's also listed on  now ... Happy Editing! — 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I was after more of a schools specific notability (maintenance) tag. I managed to peice one together using existing notability tag template code. It goes like this:  That gives me a template that I can tag school article pages with and it also informs editors that the guideline is a "proposed" policy. So it basically generates the following text in a neat box that can be placed at the top of articles in need of notability maintenance.
"This article may not meet a proposed guideline for notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (schools)). If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion."
Once tagged as such. If nothing is done to cause the tag to be removed i.e. no sources found. Then after six month the article will wind up with a prod. Then it's gone after five days if not fixed. Sting_au  Talk 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Reply: Uhhh ... I don't think we're on the Same Page ... this is for trying to address the issues Real Soon Now (not in "six months") on freshly created articles, mostly by nuggets, when you think that a PROD or CSD may be Too Hasty, or possibly premature ... please see  Protocols for deletion warnings to see where I'm coming from with this. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no we are not on the same page but I do see what you are telling me. A notability tag can/may  actually get "issues" addressed quicker than the warn templates. For starters if you're warning a newbie editor they are not always the person best able to fix the problems. A notability tag puts articles into categories such as :Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from January 2008 where editors see them and can then work on them if they so desire. Don't get me wrong I like your deletion warnings and can see a use for them but I also like using the notability tags so as to alert editors of articles needing maintenance re notability. My comments re articles getting the chop after six months is only fair enough really. If an article hasn't had the necessary work done in that time it deserves to cop a prod. I am against prodding school articles as or soon after they have been created unless they are an obvious speedy candidate. Sting_au  Talk 12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding  and other tags (like  is discussed in the longer version ... I've been working on this for almost a year now, but it's kind of overwhelming on first read, so I made the "condensed" version as an introduction. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Well, since this guideline has been , I guess my Warn-school protocol might as well be deprecated, too. <Sigh!> — 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. I just asked the editor who tagged the project page for a link to the discussion they were involved in (see my talk page). No link given. That user just came along and tagged the page as rejected. I don't know about you but I see it as not a fair thing to do without at first discussing doing so on this talk page. I think removing the tag is in order? Sting au Buzz Me... 10:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the wake of this AfD, I no longer care one way or the other. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you have to admit that was a pretty good save :-) Having a clear notability (schools) guidelines will stop a lot of these school article getting to AfD (which is getting bogged down) in the first place. I believe the project is still ongoing and as such I'm going to be bold and remove the rejected tag. It was placed there on the strength of one users opinion anyhow. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Epilogue

message: Would a school offering an IB program be considered automatically notable? --Hdt83    Chat 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, see Rotterdam_International_Secondary_School. It has an IB program and was up for afd. I think there should be some mention that an IB program makes a school notable. --Hdt83    Chat 05:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was straight kept. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Baccalaureate 

message: Isn't it time this talk-page was archived? Billscottbob (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I disagree with the alternative criteria #10. Many schools have been the subject of an official visit but this should not qualify them for notability. For example, a Governor's activities for the day are often posted in a state newspaper. It might read that the Governor visited XYZ School today and XYZ School might not be really too notable. I know there is a two criteria minimum, but there could be some notable alumni who went to the school and if it was a primary (elementary) school it would probably be non-notable. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The operative word is "national" perhaps "Governor" ought to be removed in favor of a better term. As it stands, I don't see that this makes a school particularly notable anyway. At least in the US, a Presidential visit does not establish any long-term significance. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative criteria 10 

message: I would like to add the following statement under the second primary criterion:
#* This is not to say that every such school must have its own article, only that every such school should have some amount of coverage
I think this could help cover us as far as the question of schools being "inherently notable." When it comes down to it, High schools don't exist very long without becoming notable so perhaps moderating the statement will help WP:COOL tensions concerning the policy. Just my $.02 though. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inherent Notability of High Schools 

message: I am protesting the fact that middle school pages are being redirected back to their school system page, under the reasoning that "they are not notable enough". I believe that middle schools have just as much right to be on wikipedia as high schools. I demand that this policy be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somekofootball (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a school satisfies WP:N or our criteria it will not be deleted. Our policy is not "delete middle schools" and plenty of Middle schools (though far short of all) are considered notable by the community. Please understand that wikipedia is WP:NOT and all-inclusive compendium. Not everything is notable. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest 

message: I know that we can't just mark this as being accepted but it is being used in a lot of AfD debates and is not being questioned. I know, we need consensus, but if it's not being debated except for it's lack of being policy why isn't it policy? Anyhow, just my two cents. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the disputes above.  Most of this page has failed to gain consensus because a significant number of the people who've taken time to comment think that as written it's worse than having nothing.  Rossami (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anywhere that claims that having this guideline is "worse than nothing" and I see a lot of support outside of the direct discussion. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that sections of the proposed guideline contradict WP:N (eg, the 'Alternative criteria' which argue that notability is inherited from other things) there's no chance of this being adopted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  See the unresolved issues (some of which were incorrectly moved to the archives before the discussions were finished) here, here and here for a few of the disputed points.  Rossami (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: The latest amendments have produced alternative criteria that would be virtually impossible to achieve. As a compromise, I have eliminated 'proving a negative' from secondary schools and if the so-called inheritance criteria are to be eliminated them we should go back to requiring one, criterion, only. Let me stress that even on this basis, few elementary/middle schools will meet it which I accept. TerriersFan (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: few elementary/middle schools will meet it ... Yes.  Up to mid - 2007, that was exactly the consensus on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate list of every school: thus the notability guidelines are supposed to be a real barrier. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise proposal 

message: Yesterday, this criterion was removed (apparently without discussion) from the guideline:
* High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless verifiable, encyclopaedic material is not available.
For the past several months, high school articles have been accepted as-is, without having to demonstrate independent notability. Removing this criterion creates a major inconsistency, and should force us to review every high school article and delete those that don't demonstrate notability. That would be a major effort and potentially not justifiable. I am therefore restoring this criterion to the project page, at least until discussion and consensus is reached. Truthanado (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the clause that requires the community to prove a negative which is an impossible standard. Everything is not worthy of inclusion. Do you seriously not understand the WP:Notability guideline? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The problems with that clause were raised back in February and were never successfully adderssed.  As Wassup said, they required the community to prove a negative.  If you can find better wording which does not include that logical fallacy, I'm certainly open to a proposal.  On the other hand, if a topic can not meet the requirements for independent and verifiable sourcing, then it ought to be deleted from the encyclopedia regardless of how much "effort" is involved.  High schools are not somehow specially exempted from our policies on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc.  Rossami (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise I am unhappy with the way the editing was done - without discussion and in the early hours here in the UK. Having said that, to move things on, I have a rewording for high schools. High schools are invariably kept because for public schools in the anglophone world sources are invariably available. I also agree we should avoid the negative. The wording that seems to fit the bill is: "State (public in the US) high/secondary schools meet notability requirements provided that verifiable and sourced encyclopaedic material is available". TerriersFan (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the new formulation of the sentence. The problem here is that schools are like professors, journalist, authors, actors, musicians and anyone / anything that is commonly known. All of these have some sort of press coverage. But does that make them notable? No. Remember notability is 'worthy of note' and not popular. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, on WP, many things by their nature are accepted as being important enough for a page  - settlements, numbered highways, super regional malls etc To this list can be added high schools. If you look back over countless AfDs you will see that public high schools are invariably kept, for this reason. If you can come up with a better wording fine, but this wording meets Rossami's objection. TerriersFan (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was discussed in February without resolution, the criterion should remain if we are to be consistent with other Wikipedia actions (like AfD discussions). I believe that TerriersFan has offered a reasonable compromise and I can fully support it. It is a statement that is easily understood, is consistent with previous Wikipedia actions, and one that can be demonstrated (which satisfies Rossami's objection). Truthanado (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised wording is a big improvement, but it's also unnessessary - you can write an article about anything which "verifiable and sourced encyclopaedic material" is available for. This is just re-stating WP:N. On the other hand, the "encyclopaedic material" is a very welcome distinction which I strongly support, as it will end the silly AfD outcomes where adding a pile of trivial and indiscriminate information about the school found using Google news search somehow establishes notability (eg, stories about traffic problems near the school, minor vandalism and teachers winning prizes). --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Local notability is a big issue with anything of local or regional interest.  The local eatery may be famous for 3 counties around, but nobody's heard of it outside your state.  Every school is locally notable, most are or at one time were regionally notable ("1950 District Champions!"), but few are nationally or internationally notable.  Where a given editor wants to draw the line is evidence of where he falls on the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  TerriersFan's revised wording appears to me to be redundant with the first primary criterion.  If "verifiable and sourced encyclopaedic material is available" then the topic is appropriate for inclusion regardless of whether the topic is a high school or not.  (The key judgment call, of course, is whether the material is "encyclopedic".)  I do not yet see that clause adding anything to the decision-making process.  Rossami (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  High school/secondary school notability 

message: According to this FAQ, there are currently 230 Training schools out of an eligible population of around 2500 (not "all schools in the UK" as was alleged in a recent edit summary).  I do not consider a funding designation granted to 10% of the population to be a useful filter for Wikipedia.  Furthermore, the standard appears to be applied each year so after a time the percent of schools will inevitably rise, further diluting the designation as a useful filter.  I believe the "Training schools" example should be removed from the list of examples in the first alternative criterion.  Rossami (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply wrong - the 2,500 figure applies to specialist schools a very different animal. All UK schools are eligible to become training schools and the standard to become a training school is extremely high. TerriersFan (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not according to the FAQ published by the Department of Children, Schools and Families itself.  The FAQ quite clearly says that only the Specialist schools are eligible to become Training schools.  Do you have a better source to support the claim that any school can be eligible?  Rossami (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'specialist school' is being used in two senses. The 2,500 population to which you refer are Specialist schools which are only secondary schools. In the FAQ specialist school is a different animal. However, some training schools are primary schools see here for example. The fact remains that there are only 230 training schools in the UK - highly notable. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are [[Training school]]s inherently notable? 

message: A few hours ago I added Governor's Schools to the proposal as inherently notable schools, and a short while later my edits were deleted as the schools were claimed to be a regional term for Virginia schools only per the article. The term Governor's Schools is used by many various states as seen in this list by The National Conference of Governor's Schools. While it is not a term used by all 50 states, it is used enough that it could warrant being added into the proposal. 
An issue is that the specific definition of Governor's Schools differs state by state, and within reason, even within states. For example, in Virginia the term can refer to all year flagship magnet schools, summer programs, or certain regional schools. The fact remains however is that these schools are noted for their awards, and usually have more state funds, and special programs that make this distinct from  the local systems they are physically located in. Also the fact that there are so few of them certainly makes them even more notable; there are only 18 high schools, with 2 being of distinction in the entire commonwealth of Virginia. 
Any thoughts? I'd appreciate anyone would be willing to look into The National Conference of Governor's Schools, and other similar information so we can determine whether or nor it is worthy of being included. Zidel333 (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly not - notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources which cover the topic in detail, and not individual editors' views on what's important. Do these schools always receive extensive and in-depth coverage in books, newspapers and the like? This applies to the threads above as well. It needs to be remembered that the topics which have been judged to be automatically notable (eg, commissioned warships, politicians elected to a national or state legislature, etc) only have this status because it is reasonable to assume that there are lots of in-depth reliable sources about them, and not because they're considered to be important or unusual. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly:  See my comment on small towns and rural counties.  Some of them receive less reliable, verifiable press coverage than the local non-notable elementary school.  If Wikipedia is to be self-consistent, schools and political subdivisions should be judged on the same standards.  I'll accept some level of inconsistency, as I think all cities and counties should be listed but not all elementary schools should be, but I think all catchment-area diploma-granting high schools should be.  If someone called me on it for being a hypocrite, I would say "ok, fine, include all the schools" rather than exclude those high schools.  However, I think including all the schools would be unwieldy and would lead to a raft of either AfD'ing or stubbification of school articles that became "christmas trees" for unencyclopedic information.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I follow. Because they are more state run, local jurisdictions sometimes don't apply in the strictest case (e.g. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology accepts mostly Fairfax county students, but also accepts students from outside its county's borders]]. What do the above comments have to do with my suggestion at all? It sounds like you two are articulating random assertations about the proposal in general. The list I linked to above has been deemed important by legislatures, and educators in many different US states, and not just by one editor. Have you even looked into it? Or, as I suspect, just reading my comments without investigating the source? Zidel333 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, my apologies, my comments probably should have been placed elsewhere, not under Governor's Schools.  I am commenting about the overall discussion of which schools belong in Wikipedia.  On the topic of Governor's schools automatically qualifying for Wikipedia:  It almost always a non-issue:  I suspect that most award-winning or other specially-recognized schools would meet WP:VERIFYABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY without anyone contesting them.  The test of course comes when the article is created:  Unless these schools are green-lighted to be created as stubs, like say small towns or living species are, the article creator will/must add verifiable references that support notability.  Unless someone is adding such schools en masse, they probably won't have any problem meeting this requirement.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor's Schools as Inherently Notable 

message: This heading is something of a misnomer. It seems to suggest that these are alternative ways in which schools can prove their notability from outside the standard notability criterion. These are in fact just examples of types of schools which are already accepted as notable based on AfD discussions. Can we not rephrase this and call the section Examples. Dahliarose (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct that these are types of schools which are already accepted as notable based on AfD discussions. However, they are not examples; what we are doing is codifying the consensus that has emerged from the AfDs. I think the title is OK. TerriersFan (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative criteria 

message: These two things together should make a school notable even absent all other criteria:  A compulsory-attendance zone or catchment area, where students who do not attend school elsewhere are required by law to attend, and the granting of state-recognized diplomas.
In the United States, all diploma-granting public high schools that have a local compulsory-attendance zone are notable simply because they exist.  Let me clarify that:  If the same standards were applied to cities and counties as we are proposing for schools, many small towns and rural counties would fail the notability criteria.  Yes, you could apply the same logic to junior high schools and elementary schools, but the fact high schools grant diplomas and lower schools do not sets them apart.
As for private high schools, pure-magnet high schools, and others that do not have an attendance zone, they do not have the geographic boundary that a city does so they should establish their own notability before being listed independently.  For magnet schools this will usually be easy to do, as they typically get press coverage for things that are not typical for most high schools.
Now, is it acceptable or preferable to merge notable high schools into school districts?  I would say that depends on how much material there is.  If the school is a stub, then keep the content with the school district or city.  When it grows, split it off.  Do the same thing with truly notable lower schools.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that in some cities, like NYC, the trend for high schools is away from catchment zones, and i think the pattern is gradually getting even more complex. I think it has to be the ones that a part of a regular system with an overall geographic boundary.  DGG (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As information relative to davidwr's comments, I have a diploma from my elementary school that verifies I completed the 8th grade with an acceptable grade average. Is that school important enough to have a Wikipedia article? I think not. Truthanado (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposes of this discussion, a diploma means an official document that is accepted as a useful credential.  In the USA at least, it's very rare that an 8th-grade diploma means anything as a credential.  In 50 years it will be that way for a HS diploma but this is 2008 not 2058.  Hmm, time to add "High school diploma will be meaningless as a useful credential" to the "predicted events" section of that article.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting future comment. For the record, my elementary diploma was certified by the school district, contains signatures and a raised seal. In fact, it looks more official than my college diploma. Truthanado (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but is it accepted as a credential by anyone other than a high school, and is it accepted as a significantly stronger credential than an official transcript, grade report, or a copy of your "permanent record"?  In both cases, I doubt it.  100-150 years ago, when an 8th-grade education was considered the norm or beyond the norm, such a credential would be meaningful and institutions granting such diplomas would be the equivalent of today's high schools.  In another 50 years or maybe sooner, a high school diploma may be just as unrecognized and most high schools will be considered not notable.  By the way, most employers don't care about the actual high school or college diploma per se, they want to see something, be it a diploma, transcript, or letter that says "diploma awarded" or "completed requirements for graduation." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why diploma-granting schools are usually notable 

message: Recently, the  "notability" speedy delete tag was changed to read "Note that books, albums, software etc.; and potentially controversial topics such as schools (my italics), are not eligible for this criterion. See CSD A7." This is an interesting change. It demonstrates an Inclusionist philosophy and implicitly asserts that any school is important enough to be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia; to exclude a school requires discussion and consensus. I support this change. Truthanado (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it merely clarifies that speedy-deletions are narrowly written to only apply to those situations where every reasonable editor would, on first reading, agree that the project is better off without the page - vandalism, new user tests, etc.  WP:SD was a time-saving measure instituted when people started noticing that certain deletion discussions invariably received unanimous consent to delete.  Schools have never had clear consensus either way and have never been eligible for speedy-deletion.  Someone finally got a little instruction creepish and wrote down what has always been the rule.  It was not a change in philosophy in either direction.  Rossami (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must respectfully disagree with Rossami. I have been a patroller for several months and have seen numerous instances where school stub articles were nominated for speedy delete and were promptly deleted by admins. I think it is a positive step to clearly state that schools are not candidates for a speedy delete and that they deserve further consideration. Truthanado (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sadly, the inappropriate stretching of the speedy-deletion criteria is also not new.  The speedy-deletions of those school stubs were out-of-process deletions (unless the edit was part of a pattern of vandalism by the contributing editor) and should have been immediately overturned and sent to AFD for discussion.  Rossami (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A7 is a bad criterion for deleting school articles since many editors sincerely and in good faith believe that schools are important public institutions and, as such, individually notable. Occasionally school articles can be speedy deleted due to other criteria. "Montgomery Middle School is a middle school in Montgomery" gives no info beyond what could be inferred from the title, and generally A1/A3 speedy deletions of that kind are endorsed. If the article is written by disgruntled students who got an "F" and avenge themselves by attacking the teachers, then the speedy deleting as an attack page is quite appropriate. Still, nonsense school articles have sometimes lasted online a bit too long and gone through the full AFD machinery in order to get deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Bay Southwest High School). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delete no longer applies to schools 

message: *There are many specific criticisms that remain unanswered.  They haven’t gone away just because they have been auto-archived.  (This is a real problem with auto-archiving)
*The effect of this notability guideline is to create more notability loopholes, authorising content based on sources not about the subject, authorising the inheritance of notability in specific cases.  This may facilitate your position in many AfD debates, but in the end, it undermines the reliability of wikipedia, as content is no longer based on suitable sources.
*There is plenty of good stuff on the page, but it is all redundant with WP:N.  This is creep.
*Normally, you can easily write a new guideline, but notability and notability subguidelines are pseudopolicy by virtue of their explicit reference in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, especially WP:DEL#REASON.  So keep in mind that you are trying to write policy.  As before, I suggest that you write your guideline, but don’t try to sell it as a notability guideline.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much like I figured? It was never about my opinion that the guideline was ready. It was all about your opposition to any other notabilty guidelines other than WP:N. So you basically have nothing to improve it you just want it canned.--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Having said all that (maybe you got my back up), I will admit that the page is currently in better shape than any previous version proposal has ever been.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems:

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Notability states "All colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia." What if we did a similar thing for schools? What would it be? Let me suggest something:
"All high secondary schools are notable and should be included on Wikipedia."
Please excuse my lack of knowledge of other educational systems. Of course the above statement would need to be phrased to include them.
What justification would there be for such a bold statement? Bear with me please. The educational system is, in most countries, 16 years long. In the US, that's 5 years of elementary school (grades 1-5; Kindergarten is not universally applied so it is not included), 3 years of middle school (grades 6-8), 4 years of high school (grades 9-12) and 4 years of college/university. Our sister Universities project has decided that the upper 4 years are inherently notable (above). I suggest that most would agree that the first few years of elementary school are not inherently notable. Therefore, where should the line be drawn between being inherently notable and not inherently notable? How about the middle? That would be between grades 8 and 9, which just happens to include high schools and exclude middle schools. It would be an easy guideline to apply. It would also provide an easy-to-understand guideline that supports the generic Wikipedia:Notability guideline because most high schools satisfy that guideline anyway; it is fairly easy to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for most high schools. Comments? Truthanado (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been there already, and there was quite a discussion.  Check out the archives, especially /Archive 8#Inherent notability for Secondary schools.  RossPatterson (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting discussion. Thanks for the reference. It would be interesting to find out how/why the WikiProject:Universities reached the conclusion that universities are inherently notable. Several of the arguments re:schools could easily be applied to colleges and universities. What makes them notable that does not make secondary schools notable? Truthanado (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To paraphrase General Buck Turgidson, "And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, WikiProject Universities exceeded its authority."  Seriously, it appears that the participants in writing that guideline assumed notability from the start and avoided the introspection and debate that occurred over this guideline.  Interestingly enough, the assertion is immediately contradicted in the current draft: "All colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia. ... This notability guideline is an application of the general notability policy to the articles this project covers, not a replacement of said policy. (emphasis mine).  No reasonable application of Wikipedia:Notability could possibly start with "All X are notable", so long as becoming an "X" doesn't require a notable act of itself (e.g., becoming a Nobel laureate).  RossPatterson (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that gaining accreditation to grant degrees then actually granting one is notable, particularly doctorate-level degrees.  Personally, I think the same thing is true for granting an accredited high-school diploma, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus about that among Wikipedia editors.  I do draw the line somewhere though:  I do not think the same is true for granting 8th-grade or kindergarten diplomas.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not confuse Notability with Importance. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability using WikiProject Universities as a benchmark 

message: As, of 00:54 UTC 2008-04-14, Indicators of probable notability is overly restrictive and may scare off authors whose articles don't meet the criteria listed.  Yes, I know the first sentence is supposed to appear "soft" but the rest has a read-between-the-lines look of "if you don't have something at least this strong, your article is not notable so don't waste your time."
Both this change and this one were reverted.
*Does anyone have comments on these two edits?
*Does anyone have a better idea on how to avoid scaring people off?
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Our goal should be to encourage articles, not scare them off. I have expanded the list with some items that are consistent with recent discussions about notability with that goal in mind. Truthanado (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to allow for things we haven't thought of yet.  We really need two categories:  A few examples of "very likely" thing which should be an almost-automatic claim of notability, and another list of "somewhat likely" things which individually may not prove notability but in combination might.  For example, winning a small-school state sports championship one time might be in the 2nd list, but a combination of several state sports championships, especially if they were part of an era of sports greatness for the school, would be clearly notable.  We can't possibly list all combinations, so instead we should list a few examples of each category, with the hopes that people will use common sense in determining if an article's claims to fame are sufficient to meet WP:NOTABILITY.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure it's a bad thing to be discouraging people from creating articles about schools that don't clearly meet the criteria.  Because if the article can't be pretty clearly substantiated in very short order, someone will nominate the page for deletion.  Whether the article is ultimately deleted or not, the deletion debate itself does far more to discourage new editors than a rather mild precautionary note here.  Remember that the "alternative" criteria are mere proxies for the assumption that sufficient independent sources exist to verify the article's contents.  They are not proof.  I particularly disagree with any claim that implies that notability can be inherited.  Winning a sports championship is evidence that a student or team did something newsworthy.  It is not evidence that the school the students happen to attend is notable.  Rossami (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is that we cannot determine in advance what is and is not clearly notable.  Does 20 years of being a football powerhouse, generating 10 Heisman-trophy nominees, but never winning a state title or actually having an alumni win the trophy count?  I would say this is more notable than a single state championship.  We need to give people guidance, not hard and fast rules.  We need to get people to think before they start the article:  Just how notable is the school?  The lower on the notability score, the harder they will have to work to get past a possible AfD.  A very notable school like Little Rock Central High School could exist as a stub with just a single citation to the integration crisis of 1957, and nobody would delete it.  A less-notable school with no single highly-notable criteria would have to be much better researched to convince people that the underlying claims to notability were collectively sufficient enough to pass muster.  For example, a 100-year-old junior high school with a handful of notable but not famous alumni, a state-recognized historic building, a mention in several different speeches by different state-level elected officials for different reasons at different periods in history, and whose building was the location of a semi-notable event would probably qualify as notable even though individually none of those items give it automatic notability.  By having tough "you must have at least one of these or something equally strong" criteria, it discourages people from writing articles about such "jack of all trades, notable for none" schools.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Additional comments:  You said Remember that the "alternative" criteria are mere proxies for the assumption that sufficient independent sources exist to verify the article's contents.  They are not proof.  These are not and should not be called "alternative criteria."  Even though "proof must surely exist" if an article claims the school is on the National Register of Historic Places, without a citation the article will be quickly tagged "citation needed" then the claim will soon be substantiated or edited out.  If the claim is edited out for lack of a citation, the article will be tagged for notability then go down to AfD.  Writing any article about anything without proper citations is just begging for someone to either improve the article or tag it, gut it, and Prod or AfD it.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to User talk:Rossami's comment. Am I missing something? This section clearly states "They do not themselves prove notability, but indicate that suitable sources surely exist for building the article." Any argument that a criterion does not prove notability is meaningless ... it's not intended to prove notability, rather to provide evidence that there may be "sufficient coverage" for keeping the article. The two criteria that were just reverted did just that. A sports championship demonstrates coverage; it may indicate, for example, a string of championships that might be considered notable. As does a unique program. The revert edit summary "Many schools have cooperative programs with industry" f seems to be original research. In any case, the point is that the school has a unique program, there are several other examples. Rather than just delete the criterion because the example may be poor, why not use a better example, say the school has a radio telescope. I dislike edit wars so I will not revert the revert; however, I will support anyone who chooses to do that. Truthanado (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope Rossami reverts the revert himself, changing the example if necessary.  See also my comments on his talk page.  To avoid further confusion over "alternate criteria" I renamed "Primary Criteria" to simply "Criteria."  At one time, there was a section called "Alternate Criteria."  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicators of probable notability - too restrictive 

message: What are you trying to say in the "significant coverage" note?  I think ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly, and no original research is needed to extract the content." is very clear, but the following "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." leaves me scratching my head.  RossPatterson (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording about "significant coverage" was first used over at WP:CORP where it has since been very successful at filtering out the minor filler stories and press release reprints put in the business section of a purely local paper on a slow news day.  It also filters out the articles which are substantial in their coverage but only mention the subject of the Wikipedia page in passing (for example, an article about the loss of jobs to globalization that includes a single short quote that XYZ company also sent 100 jobs overseas).  I believe the intent here would be the same.  An article about a rock band's tour would not be evidence of a school's notability just because the band played one gig at the school's stadium.  Likewise, a press release by the school about their recent Physics Nobel Laureate would not be supporting evidence for the school (though it could be for the physicist).  Rossami (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CORP's notability is a good model for us to work with and is already partly incorporated into the current version.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Significant coverage"? 

message: All of this discussion about notability of schools may be moot, at least for high schools in the USA. The Wikipedia community has already defined a list of just about every high school in the country as being encyclopedic in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools. The assumption is that creating one of the missing articles in the list is automatically worthy of being included in Wikipedia; otherwise, why would it be in the list? It would be a very interesting discussion if someone created such an article and then it was tagged for AfD. Truthanado (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about USA high schools.  However, I am unaware of any consensus regarding schools below the high school level and outside the United States.  By the way, High School articles which are extremely poorly written may be PRODded or AfD'd away without prejudice against re-creation.  Sometimes a red-link really is better than a poorly-written article.  CSD-eligible articles about high schools such as copyright violations will of course continue to be speedily deleted.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not yet a moot discussion.  The project you cite is still controversial with many in the community thinking that its goals are misplaced.  Note:  That's true of many wikiprojects.  The mere existance of a project does not mean that its goals are accepted by the community.  In my opinion, the current state remains unchanged from the status quo settled upon back in 2004 - universities are almost certainly notable, elementary schools are almost certainly not and we're too tired to keep fighting over high schools.  There is no clear consensus supporting articles on high schools, merely a lack of consensus to remove them.  Rossami (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure there ever will be.  Come to think of it, any guideline on writing school articles should take this into account and discourage but not prohibit new articles about high schools that are not clearly notable, with an explanation that articles that do not clearly establish notability will be targets for PRODs and AfDs, which at a minimum will waste people's time.  Personally, I'm an inclusionist when it comes to accredited, diploma-granting high schools but a deletionist when it comes to not-clearly-notable lower schools.   However, that's just me.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you. My personal opinion: Universities are inherently notable;elementary and middle schools are not inherently notable; secondary schools (aka high schools) are usually notable, although there are exceptions. Your proposal below is a good one.Truthanado (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this notability discussion moot? 

message: I think more thought needs to be put into the shortcuts both here and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. For now I'm going to be bold and direct WP:WPSCHOOLS and WP:WPSCH to the wikiproject, and direct WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCH here. Otherwise I think that it's getting confusing. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's nearly heretical, but I have to ask: Why does this page need a shortcut at all?  "WP:SCH" is hardly mnemonic, and could just as easily "belong" to a Wikipedia:Schlocky articles should be deleted on sight guideline.  "WP:SCHOOL" is only slightly easier to type than "Wikipedia:Notability (schools)" and hardly suggestive of what this proposed guideline is about.  How about we delete both shortcuts? RossPatterson (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At worst they should all go to the wikiproject, and none of them here but as they are used in an increasing number of places (Several thousand last Time I looked), they probable shouldn't be blindly axed. Is there some good reason that they should be deleted and cause thousands of redlinks in ongoing policy discussions? I for one don't see that that would benefit the encyclopedia very much. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: See my comments on this at WT:WPSCH. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects/Disambiguation 

message: This guideline says "... a school article failing to [satisfy these notability guidelines] is not a criterion for speedy deletion.", but according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy_deletion#Non-criteria, notability isn't a CSD criterion.  I don't think this guideline should re-iterate CSD. RossPatterson (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a fair compromise.  It is just s little bit of redundancy, and CSD is pretty complicated for beginners.  "Notability" has been used in the past in the wording of CSD criteria.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I put this in when re-writing the introduction as it was included with WP:Notability (films) and WP:Notability (music) which are accepted guidelines and what the current introduction is based on - I assumed this redundancy of an important point was ok. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD and notability 

message: Has there been any discussion concerning when school districts are notable? Often, when a school is found to be non-notable, it's suggested that it be merged into its district article, suggesting that they're usually considered notable. Are there ever conditions where they aren't? As one example, there is an extremely small K-8 district consisting of only one school and serving only about 100 students in my county. Not sure where we'd cover it if not in its own article, but I'm concerned it won't convince people of its notability. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are cases where school info is included in city or county articles.  This would (I assume) be appropriate when the school districts, if any, weren't particularly notable.  The case you cite might reasonably fall into that sort of grouping. Loren.wilton (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Most school districts should be notable as a government agency.  In your case, what does the district do after 8th grade?  Do the students actually become residents in another district or does your district contract with another district.  That is what happens in Nevada and would clearly improve notability.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The area I live in does not (I believe) have districts per se for pre-kindergarden.  For K-6 there is a school district that runs several schools.  Historically it ran a single school (even though it was a district) that educated K-8, but in 1962 grades 7-8 were split into a new school and corresponding new junior high district.  Grades 9-12 then went to the separate highschool district.  So around here a student will traverse three completely separate districts in K-12.  I can see where the OP may have a non-notable K-8 district that feeds other districts. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: the usual times a school district would not be notable is if there were no actual schools there, or if the district was so small it should be merged into a higher unit. There are some small districts with a small number of schools coterminous with towns or counties, in which case there is not necessarily a reason not to enter these as a section of the political subdivision. There are also some with only one or two schools, especially in the US West, and there perhaps they should be grouped under something suitable--but this may be difficult, because some US counties are also very small & there may be nothing higher until one come to the state level. DGG (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, of course, part of the problem is that those small districts tend to be in unincorporated rural areas, which are less likely to have articles than actual cities are. In the case I'm thinking of, there's no article about the community in which the district is located, making it harder to find a place to include it. I don't plan to make an article about the district in question at this time, anyway, but thought it would be good to discuss this. Oh, and Vegaswikian: The district I'm thinking of is a feeder district. Its territory is covered both by it and a high school district (the latter also covers six other K-8 districts). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: [edit conflict--sorry if this is confusing]  There is no independent school district in the U.S. that is not "notable," IMHO.  They have elected boards of directors, some of which are the only elected officials in their unincorporated communities.  They have bond elections, tax elections, disputes over money paid to administrators, and all kinds of other activities that get coverage in local weekly papers and in the nearest daily.  School systems that are subsidiary to some other local government might not be as certain of notability--I'm not as familiar with them--but I suspect that they are.  They are certaily encyclopedic.  When I first got involved trying to save school articles from deletionists, it seemed to me that they did not fit into city and county articles well except as a brief list.  With any reasonable amount of detail about individual schools, the education section of an article about a small city would throw the article out of balance.  I created two district articles as demonstration projects, to show what could be done using national or state sources, whether or not the local news media were on line.  I picked the district in my home town and another one that fed my high school, and got  too involved in the subjects, so they are expanded past the point where the universal sources would get them.  See Bolinas-Stinson Union School District and the earlier version at .  See also Sausalito Marin City School District and .  The latter is based entirely on data from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is available for every school and district in the U.S.  I recently did one medium-sized district that I have no personal interest in or knowledge of, so it's still based on pure NCES and California data, pretty much.  (I could have done it all with NDES data, but California has the same information for a more recent year.)  See San Leandro Unified School District.  I would like to see a bot set up a page like this for every district in the country (and any other English-speaking country with suitable data sources).  Then, when people start up poor stubs about individual schools, there would be a place to merge any encyclopedic information.--Hjal (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: when there is non-directory information about the individual schools, it should go in individual articles. There have been several example ere where this is a town, a high school district with one high school, and an elementary school district with one elementary school. assumming we could write articles about each of those two schools, does this make 5 articles?  DGG (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: In countless AfDs it has been agreed that school districts are inherently notable, as government bodies, and that seems right. Apart from providing a repository for school information they are essential components in the way that states manage their education. Deleting any school districts would blow holes in our coverage for no benefit. TerriersFan (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School districts 

message: A little suggestion - Westbourne Sports College. It has various trophys and teached the famous Kerion (i can't spell) Dyer 
Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion for one of the first schools 

message: The following, though somewhat off topic, definately relates to the subject at hand.
===Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)===
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) is a guideline for standardizing the naming syntax for schools which is currently stalled due to international issues. As a result a temporary sub guideline has been proposed.
====Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)====
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) has been proposed as a temporary guideline to deal with the group of schools that has the greatest need for the guideline, U.S schools. It should be incorporated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) when it can finally be resolved.
: Time stamping this so it is eventually archived, and in addition leaving a note that both these proposals have long since being marked as failed - agreement could not be reached on either pages. Perhaps sometime in the future a new proposal could be launched. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guidelines for naming format for schools 

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) is a guideline for standardizing the naming syntax for schools which is currently stalled due to international issues. As a result a temporary sub guideline has been proposed.
====Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)====
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) has been proposed as a temporary guideline to deal with the group of schools that has the greatest need for the guideline, U.S schools. It should be incorporated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) when it can finally be resolved.
: Time stamping this so it is eventually archived, and in addition leaving a note that both these proposals have long since being marked as failed - agreement could not be reached on either pages. Perhaps sometime in the future a new proposal could be launched. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)

message: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) has been proposed as a temporary guideline to deal with the group of schools that has the greatest need for the guideline, U.S schools. It should be incorporated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) when it can finally be resolved.
: Time stamping this so it is eventually archived, and in addition leaving a note that both these proposals have long since being marked as failed - agreement could not be reached on either pages. Perhaps sometime in the future a new proposal could be launched. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)

message: No revisions to the proposal since May 20. Everyone must be happy with the content? So does that mean we can accept the Guideline?--Sting Buzz Me... 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a comment on a talk page. That's a minor edit in my opinion.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be true, but minor edits are usually those which are not likely to be debated, questioned, or replied to. So it's usually best not to mark actual comments as minor (fixing typos is minor, comments aren't). It's mostly a courtesy to the rest of us. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Who said this proposal was being voted on? Don't worry about it eh? Just go with consensus at individual AfD's on school articles. That's what happens now and that fact completely escapes a lot of people. The idea was to help cut the number of unnecessary AfD's but probably better to just keep wasting everyones time, because there will always be editors who will never allow this proposal to be accepted.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *Comment Thanks for that advice. This guideline has been unilaterally adopted at least twice now, only for this to be reverted both times due to a lack of external notifications. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The current state of consensus appears to be against this guideline, hence per the above conditions I am effectively opposing, and I am personally happy to see further work take place on it as although I accept it, this is not my proffered version. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: those are articles on elementary schools and intermediate schools; the consensus on these is that unless they are blue ribbon school or equivalent notavbility in some way, they are indeed merged and redirected--and a good thing, too, in my opinion. For secondary schools, its been a good while since any were even nominated for deletion, so I'm still looking. Almost nobody nominates them except newcomers, because they are now never deleted. DGG (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on high schools are still frequently nominated, though I agree that the frequency is declining sharply. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks DGG for the answer.  I agree that merging and redirecting is preferable to deletion for any real school, that every school deserves at least a redirect, and that little good comes out of nominating schools at AfD.  I think that the question for this guideline should be whether a School should have a standalone article, or should be limited to a section/entry in some wider article (distict, town, education department, whatever), which I believe will always exist.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The rationale for making the primary/secondary distinction includes the following factors: The general amount of information usually available--local news sources usually pay much more attention to secondary schools, the usual relative size, the relative importance in the community, the likelihood of significant sports and academic awards--these exist in greater number  for secondary schools, especially at a regional & national level, the greater likelihood of identifying notable alumni--articles here & other sources are much more likely to give the secondary school, & active alumni associations are much more likely to exist for them. there is also some likelihood of a better article being written, but this is not invariably the case. I have seen some remarkably skilled efforts at primary schools, even where there is nothing to say but a description of the layout and the curriculum. DGG (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accept Guideline? 

message: Given that the above discussion ended with another consensus to not endorse this proposal and there have been few changes to the draft since then, would it now be correct to tag this as an unsuccessful proposal rather than a proposed one? - it seems missleading to say that this is 'proposed' given that it's been voted down several times now. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marking it as failed makes sense to me, it can always be resurrected if someone, or a group of people, think it is necessary. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with that, and the proposal that there be a guideline which asserts that high schools are automatically notable was rejected some months ago, which is why the latest version of this guideline made no mention of this. The current wording is hopelessly vauge given that senior high schools in the US and grammar schools in each of the different specified countries appear to be different things. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: These discussions always go round in circles. I can't see agreement ever being reached. Would it not be easier to include a brief summary of the key points (eg, schools must satisfy WP:N; the majority of primary/elementary and middle schools are not normally considered notable; redirect rather than delete) in the guide to writing school articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools in the General Tips section? Dahliarose (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a in house WikiProject Schools guide on inclusion is the most viable option, there was something like that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines - it could always be re-started if necessary. If the proposal that high schools are generally notable has been rejected, then so has the version commented on above in the "Accept guideline?" section. The community is divided on what a guideline on schools should contain, and to be frank, there is little chance at present consensus will be reached. There is not even consensus that there should be a guideline for schools, with the argument that WP:ORG covers them and another one that WP:N is enough. In particular it can be argued that the original point of the guideline has been lost through being watered down to be within any kind of striking distance of consensus. I am beginning to believe the current situation of AFD, although far from perfect for use of time and resources and given the amount of school articles, works fine with high schools being generally kept, and others merged. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: the guideline that they are notable was rejected last time around due to the stubborn opposition of one or two people, and it is well acknowledge that Wikipedia has no real mechanism for dealing with this--that such opposition can prevent the acknowledgment of consensus. That this is in fact consensus that they are notable is shown every time it comes up at afd, so trying to not say so here is unrealistic and actually a failed attempt to change the consensus. I see in practice no way to force it but to keep trying. Camaron, however, is wrong in what he thinks is the current situation--junior high schools and elementary schools are merged at AfD--or have I been missing something--I cannot think of an actual article about a secondary school that has been merged rather than kept there in the last nne months or so. (there have been of course articles deleted as copyvio and attack and empty, but I think not otherwise). Exqmples, please? DGG (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is at least one High school that was deleted but it was a speedy. Leeming Senior High School was deleted on A1 though it definitely exists and could have been fleshed out, but that was seven nine months ago... The argument seems to be that this is only because this guideline isn't decided and that if it is rejected this result will change. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm wrong it was october which is closer to 9 months, wow where does the time go. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on what you mean by a high school. Secondary-level schools in English-speaking countries don't normally get deleted, but secondary schools/high schools in non-English-speaking countries do sometimes get deleted because of a lack of online English-language sources. However, these schools don't all get to AfD but sometimes disappear via a PROD.  Having observed many school AfDs it seems to me that the presence or absence of a guideline seems to have no effect on the AfD process whatsoever. It is a question of sources. If suitable references can be found the school is kept; if not it gets deleted. Dahliarose (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you are trying to say DGG. I never said secondary/high schools are merged at AFD, as far as I can see they are usually kept. Primary schools which I have seen are usually merged, junior high/middle schools can swing in either direction. Note however that I used the word generally - there are exceptions to these, such as primary schools being kept, as can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive. Also, as Dahliarose has said, it often depends on where the school is located and definitions. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The recent rewrite is a significant step backwards.  I was not perfectly happy with the prior version but I could find a way to live with it.  This version, however, has my active opposition.  I do not accept the premise that all high schools are automatically "considered notable by virtue of such factors as notable alumni, community importance, notable athletic and scholastic successes."  While that may be true of many or even most such schools, each school's article should demonstrate it individually.  There is not need for this shortcut and no value to the project.  Rossami (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the previous version wasn't needed (as it was basically the same as WP:ORG) but this is a step backwards, especially as it's been rejected previously. If I remember correctly, the reason similar text was rejected a few months ago was that it's basically an assertion that notability is inherited, which goes against the grain of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and is highly unlikely to ever be agreed to. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT , WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N are enough, the rest are common sense and wisdom. We don't need this guideline. --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There is an RFC soon to be launched on WP:N to decide if subject-specific guidelines can only extend the general notability criteria, not weaken it (specifically, should all articles having significant coverage in reliable sources).  Considering that most school districts have their own articles, I really don't understand why some want to have individual articles on minorly notable lower-level schools.  If all you can say from reliable sources is that a school won an award, why not redirect the school name to the next level up and mention the award there?  Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but what is a minorly notable lower-level school. If that means primary and middle schools then that is already happening - most of such articles are merged. If you mean the average high school or similar then no - an article is either notable or it isn't in my opinion. If it is established as notable there is usually a lot more than can be said than awards as set out at WP:WPSCH/AG, furthermore if an article is notable, primary sources can be used to add context. Merging school articles to districts can work, but in many cases there is no school district for a school and the content has to go to a local area article. In either case domination of the article by one particular school should be avoided, and for very large districts the article getting to long, that is why I am against over merging as clarified in WP:POTENTIAL. The results of the RfC will be interesting, though the result will not be policy nor binding, and school articles have a history of being treated differently with things such as WP:CSD#A7, regardless of if there is a guideline for it or not. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark as unsuccessful? 

message: Given that this proposal has been rejected multiple times, and there is no apparent enthusiasm for the most recent revision, I have just marked it as failed. This has been prompted by seeing the guideline being cited in a couple of recent AfDs as a reason to speedy keep the article (given that all proposals to  date have been rejected this seems inappropriate), the lack of activity on this page and the lack of support for the most recent proposal (which is similar to wording rejected a few months ago and is much stronger than the wording which was most recently rejected above). As this proposed guideline have now been rejected multiple times I would suggest that it only be re-proposed after a discussion here and/or at the Village Pump. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am undoing this - the revised wording well reflects community consensus as reflected in AfDs over many months. TerriersFan (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The version before [this rewrite could arguably be considered to have had at least emerging support.  Since that change, the consensus shifted away and the tagging as "failed" is appropriate.  If you want to reopen the discussion, revert that change and you might find support.  Rossami (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Neither version ever had consensus as far as I'm concerned, even if the current version reflects AfD results, codifying into a guideline is more controversial. I am quite happy to accept marking this guideline as failed and moving on, it has long been argued that WP:N is sufficient, and the current practice works OK though it is not perfect. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If we exclude secondary schools, I believe that there is a strong consensus to support.  I would hate to through away consensus for other school types.  I would like to see it changed to exclude secondary schools for the time being.  This way there is a stake in the ground and the only issue would be secondary schools.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to the conversation, but I'm not entirely happy with the second paragraph of Indicators of probable notability.  It essentially says that winning an award justifies a separate article for an elementary school, but I strongly believe that if that is the only information you can find in an independent reliable source about the school, it's not enough to justify a separate article.  Do we really want to encourage perma-stubs when the information can (and often already is) included in parent articles? Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me help. Contrary to what may be implied by others, the guidelines do not state that compliance confers notability - they don't - they are Indicators of probable notability. This is a subtle but important distinction. In the case of Blue Ribbon schools, invariably the award generates coverage in reliable sources. Not all those source may be on Google if the award was some years ago which is why articles  need to be given time for additional sources to be added after local searches. TerriersFan (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Like I've said in the past. Take it to AfD if you want to get rid of it.--Sting Buzz Me... 21:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that this guideline has been rejected every time it has been proposed for adoption it's clearly a failed proposal in my view. The situation at AfD is that a small number of editors vote on most schools articles and there's no wider consensus on their definition of school notability. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what's your point? Is it about being able to delete articles? WP:N = guideline, WP:RS = guideline and WP:V = policy. The thing I like about guidelines is the bit everyone misses at the top. This, "it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Oh, and you didn't discuss first on the talk page. You marked it as failed and then mentioned it on the talk page. Now why do we bother having those tags if nobody bothers to read them.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I started a discussion about this about a month ago in the topic above this one. From my reading of it, there was a consensus that the proposal had not been successful to date, and the version which was posted after I started that discussion recieved very little support. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked as failed