Wikipedia talk:Schools/Old proposal

message: The main reason I believe Wikipedia needs a consensus on this issue is that many school entries are completed by new users who could be invaluable local sources of information, but who at the present are welcomed with the proverbial mugging of "delete, delete,". I would like to suggest the following "market based" proposal. I.e. a proposal intended to attract new users and contributors from schools:
#Almost all++ state funded secondary schools with a broad local intake (post 11years) should have their own entry so long as it provides a certain level of information including some information on their locale - the information on the locale being the rational for their inclusion because I see this as an invaluable source of local material which will get omitted if we don't encourage schools to enter the information. 
#Private schools, closed schools, i.e. non local schools - would need to prove notability as they don't in themselves provide any useful local information.
#Schools with intake up to about 11year should be listed by geographic area such that 10-30 are listed in each geographic area unless they are notable
Using this criteria, schools will only be listed if they provide a source of local information: "XXX Academy is situated in XXXX a small commuter village founded in 1830, built on the site of the old clay works, close to the river XXXX ....."
if they are notable, or otherwise as part of articles about a particular area.
++Almost all. I was going to say "except the very smallest", but a small school won't exist unless it covers a huge geographic area (ie an area so large the children can't get to another) so an area which is unlikely to be covered by anyone else unless WIkipedia starts paying staff. The only reason why a school wouldn't be suitable is if it is e.g. a closed religious sect in an area where there are much bigger public schools in which case, it is covered by 2.
--Mike 01:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets try this for consensus 

message: Hi,
My first post here; obviously I'm walking into the middle of an extended conversation. I agree with what one contributor said: once and for all, there is not and never will be any reconciliation between the postions of those who feel that no schools are notable unless a peace treaty was signed there (I am one such person), and those who feel that every school is notable.
I suggest that topic be shelved, permanently. By both sides. Call it a tie unresolvable and move on.
I suggest that principle, rather than opinion, should drive whatever initiative is taking place here.
I suggest focusing on what is and is not an acceptable secondary source. 
I liked the comment that the Courier Journal in L'ville might carry an entire story about a new school, but then that school fades into oblivion. The def of acceptable seconday source must somehow include some recognition of the fact that everyone gets ten minutes of fame.
Thanks.. hope what I said was appropriate. --Ling.Nut 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points- first, it isn't clear to me what a "tie" would mean. Second, I think it should be clear that there are many people who don't think that every school is notable and people who don't think the burdern should be as high as you would place it (your treaty example). This seems to keep being forgotten in these discussions. JoshuaZ 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, thanks for keeping me on my toes. You are right on both points. Strike the word "tie" (in fact, I will), and call it "unresolvable". And I did neglect to explore the fact that there may be a spectrum of opinions between the polar opposites. But the point I did make -- and still maintain -- is that the polar and near-polar opposites here are sufficiently numerous and vocal to make resolution (solely on the issue of whether schools are fundamentally notable) difficult if not impossible. I still say, that issue is unresolvable.  Therefore, let a standard be the guide. Let the discussion be driven by principle rather than opinion. Thanks again --Ling.Nut 04:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia works on consensus. We need to reach it for schools.  We need to find an acceptable middle ground.  You are correct in that some editors are not willing to reach a consensus unless it gives them everything they want. Vegaswikian 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we need to find consensus, and agree that we need to find middle ground. The idea that I am proposing here is that choose carefully which question we attempt to find middle ground on. I am saying, again, there are two questions, and we should choose which one top spend time answering. the two questions are:
# Are schools inherently notable? 
# Assuming that some schools are notable and others are not, then how much and what kind of secondary source data must be collected to show that a school is notable?
The first question cannot be meaured and therefore cannot be answered. It is intangible. I may as well ask you if strawberry ice cream tastes good. I say yes; you say no. There is no actual answer to the question whether a flavor of ice cream tastes good. There will never be a consensus -- never -- because there is no way to define the idea of tastes good. Consensus fails under two conditions:
# The answer is purely a matter of opinion.
# The group of participants is not fixed and composed of the entire (and I do mean entire) potential community. Today we may have a posse of deletionists; then next month a pride of inclusionists. If we vote today and get one outcome, then vote next month a get a different one, which vote is valid? Neither. 
The second question, while still involving opinion, is not wholly and constitutionally composed of opinion. There are measurable facts and countable documents and sources whose reliabilty can be gauged. Sure, the debate will take time. But the fact is this: The debate can actually proceed past subjective feelings and into objective facts.
Does that make sense? Thanks --Ling.Nut 05:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  one topic (school significance) unresolvable; one topic (secondary sources) less so 

message: Hey, I bet this page is just teeming with academics and administrators. Does anyone have expertise in the area of accreditation? I have a Kevin-Baconish idea for definining accredited, but my understanding of accreditation is murky. Are school often accredited by more than one body? Do accreditations overlap.. can the overlaps be followed, like a chain?
It's my understanding that there are bogus accreditation bodies out there, as well as diploma mills. Is that correct?
My idea for defining accredited is something like four steps from Harvard or more regionally, three steps from Tier 1. --Ling.Nut 03:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for your the question in your second paragraph, you are correct.  I don't really know the answer to your other questions though.  JYolkowski // talk 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Accredited'' 

message: I'd like to propose a straw poll, since this proposal seems to have stabilized of late. (Note: this straw poll is not binding, just a quick look at where things stand.) So, yea or nay? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind seeing this as a guideline right now.
*I think that the current wording reflects how things work right now reasonably well and people are using parts of it, which I think are criteria a guideline should meet.  That isn't to say that I wouldn't accept some changes to some of the criteria.  Some of the numbers ("50" years, "1" alumnus) are arbitrary, and I don't see the "series of articles" criteria as being necessary either.  JYolkowski // talk 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would accept this as a guideline right now, but ideally I'd like [such-and-such change].
* Generally good. Some of the criteria could use cleanup, I think the 50-year rule should go, and I think notable faculty, or staff make a school notable, but not notable alumni unless there are several. Vectro 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose because I have a problem with the way this is worded, one of the numbers used as a baseline, one of the conditions, etc.
*Right now, this is me. I'm unhappy with the "series of articles" part of Comprehensiveness #2. I like the idea of using WP:LOCAL for guidelines on disposing of unexpandable stubs, but I still don't like the idea of endorsing a series of unexpandable stubs just because they're "maintained", as this seems to be tailor-made to allow anyone who wants their school vanity kept as a standalone article to argue that it's part of a series and that they're maintaining it. Were this point to be dropped (or I to be convinced of its merit), I'd go to support with reservations. I'm kind of iffy on point #6; if it's truly an important architectural point certainly there's something other than an editor's say-so to show that it's important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose this on principle, as too inclusive/exclusive/instruction creep/I'm disagreeable/whatever, and would like to see this tagged as  and forgotten.
* I oppose on principle. Existing guidelines regarding verifiability and original research should suffice to deal with content problems. No article about a verifiable school should be deleted. Rather we should encourage merging and redirecting stubs to appropriate articles as well as inviting their expansion under current guidelines. --Dystopos 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **In principle, any school that has been constructed and admits students is verifiable enough to meet the criteria of Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, this policy should avoid trying to determine which schools are "notable" and provide instructions, such as the one to which you refer, on how to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. A redirect is better than a directory stub, a directory stub is better than nothing. I understand that many editors do not share this inclusionist view, but I simply find the deletion of school articles to be incompatible, at a very basic level, with the mission of the encyclopedia. ESPECIALLY while we have accepted entire corpi of knowledge about trivial subjects which pale in significance alongside the production of lasting social institutions. --Dystopos 01:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree with a number of points above. First note that directory stub is not better than nothing. Wikipedia is not a directory. Furthermore, many of these schools are not "lasting social institutions" but very new schools or schools that were only extant for a few years. Finally, the inclusion of other sort of junk like a separate article for every sinlge Cruftemon is not something everyone is happy with and is not something that many would want to see generalized. JoshuaZ 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ***I have heard these arguments, and I have especially considered the WP:NOT discussion on directories. I agree that a directory stub is not an ideal article. It *should* be merged with a redirect if it is not immediately expanded. But no purpose is served by merely removing it. I'm no fan of "Cruftemon", I'll help you go after it for all the good it will do. But schools are real things. Even if they were built a year ago, one expects they will survive a generation at least - more than can be said, even generously, about Dancing Baby or Episode 3 of the 3rd Season of Will & Grace. There is just no policy which makes "Dancing Baby" encyclopedic and "Shady Heights Elementary School" unencyclopedic -- unless you're arguing that Wikipedia should never aspire to becoming anything more than an encyclopedia with a special focus on post-1995 western pop-culture, bot-generated census data and pre-1911 historical events. --Dystopos 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  It is useless to have a standard which is set so low that nothing fails the standard.  That is why this proposal is far too soft. Johntex\talk 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they describe best practices that are going on now. Right now we generally don't delete schools on AfD unless they have problems meeting our core content policies.  So, a guideline that has a rather low bar for inclusion may well be appropriate if it also incorporates best practices for dealing with mediocre articles, which this one does (albeit at the end of the page) by suggesting merging.  While it may be true that almost all schools may meet the criteria outlined in the article, the onus is on the article creator (or other editors) to show that it does. This will require some looking for sources, adding them to the article, etc., which will improve the article quality. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick straw poll 

message: Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-02/More_CSD:
I'm sure that inclusionists will say that schools were not singled out, and this applies mainly to businesses and to other entities named therein... but do myriads of school pages fit the spirit of this post? The definition is "Pages that exist only to promote a company, person, product, service or group." --Ling.Nut 12:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It always sounds kinda snippy when people simply post "please define x." But I say with an open heart, "please define we'll clean that up."--Ling.Nut 12:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question; it'll either get cleaned up or it won't, to be honest, but it does't really meet the intent of the CSD nor is it likely to be deleted on AFD unless it's a hoax. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wanting to know what actions would take place when someone "cleans it up." Plus, why won't it be deleted on AFD? Enquiring minds want to know.--Ling.Nut 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  schools & the new speedy deletion criteria: relevant? 

message: Hi, others have suggested standards, so I will as well. If it seems there are important things missing it's 'cause I didn't have time t finsih. However, I'm afraid I have papers to write. I'm taking this page off my Watch List. As the Coffee Klatsch lady used to say, "Talk amongst yourselves." Good luck!
*Regardless of any standards outlined below, any school which makes no attempt to establish notability, and whose entire content consists of less than [250] words of meaningful text and less than [3] secondary sources is automatically considered a stub. All stubs can be nominated for [merge] to an unspecified larger article. After  a period of no less than two months from the date of being so nominated, all stubs are eligible for nomination for WP:AFD. This rule contravenes any other evidence of eligibility a school may have.
*No monkeying with the standards, once they're agreed on. Proposed changes should be announced publically (by listing on this page, on a special page in the project itself, and perhaps by a blurb on the Wikipedia Signpost or similar) and given a full period of public debate before being adopted.
# Accredited public colleges & universities at or above the level of Tier 4 on US News & World reports rankings are automatically eligible to create and maintain high quality articles on Wikipedia. [Note: Don't sweat the "high-quality." It's not defined & not enforced, at least not above whatever enforcement applies to any and all Wikipedia articles. It's just a subliminal message of sorts... lol.]
#All other schools, public or private, must establish notability by a 5-point system, as described below:
## Schools selected as Superior School Article of the Month (by a Cmte. of the Wikiproject; if you leave it open to popular voting you'll be flooded by votes biased in favor of their own school) ---- 2 points. [This is a door for "quality points" for superior articles for schools that almost-but-not-quite meet notability standards. A given article can win only once. Winners are selected only once per month.]
##Schools rec'ving at least one dedicated paragraph in any national or international news article. ----- 1 point per instance. [So you see that Columbine High School (again, tragically)  passes the threshold of acceptability from the very beginning.]
##Schools rec'ving at least one dedicated paragraph in any national or international academic journal article. ----- 1 point per instance. 
##Schools having faculty rec'ving national or international honors of any kind -- 1 point per instance, to a maximum of 2 points.
##Schools having one or more students rec'ving national or international honors of any kind -- 1 point total. [So you see, if a school has 100 National Merit students, plus 4 Nobel prize winners, it gets only 1 point total. The notability of alumni should not be the centerpiece of a school's notability, to avoid cases of historical accident.]
## The school has notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC). ---- 1 point.
## The school building or campus has notable architectural features that set it apart from others, or is officially designated as a site of Historical Interest or similar status -- 1 point.
::*Oops that's where I stopped. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial suggestion... and  good luck! 

message: This talk page (especially the straw poll above) seem to make it clear that this proposed guideline has failed to get a consensus. If no one has a compelling objection in the next 48 hours or so I will tag it as such. JoshuaZ 02:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorta like what Dystopos wrote immediately above (as far as it goes), but it makes no mention of  a desire to prevent stubcruft. I don't think there's any harmonious reconciliation between hard-core deletionists and hard-core inclusionists, but something resembling robust self-regulation regarding schoolstubcruft and perhaps a few other offenses (but which does not rule out the existence of High school pages per se.. fellow deletionists, we gotta sacrifice as well)  may -- just may -- be a conciliatory move that would help the situation. People-- somebody's gotta give up something they don't want to give up, or this effort is doomed... No sacrifices, no progress, period. But I can't discuss at length. Papers due, blah blah blah.--Ling.Nut 16:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've had similar experiences in some cases, but I have many school articles on my watchlist and many of them go in the other direction. There are (as I understand it) frequent OTRS complaints about long-term vandalism and related problems on school articles. JoshuaZ 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeated vandalism is not a reason to keep an article on an otherwise notable subject (school, or otherwise -- you might be amazed at how many times that vandalism to the rather noncontroversial article Nile has to be reverted but that doesn't mean it ought to be merged with something or deleted). What we have is a failure of consensus that all schools are inherently notable enough to have WP articles. I for one am of the opinion that lots of schools are so un-notable that were they all (must be more than 1,000,000 or more of them) made articles at WP, WP would be generally a school directory with some other articles besides. And were we to have adopted an "all schools are notable" position, then we have the debate over whether private schools, traffic schools, typing schools, correspondence schools, home schools, "alternative schools", prison reformatories, and anything else that may pass for education is notable: yes "all" means "all" in the same way as "all men were created equal" coexisted with slavery. So, where do we go from here? I think that schools that don't merit independent articles be descibed in their school district's article where there is one, and where there isn't one like the laugh-a-minute traffic school that should be a pretty big red flag that the school doesn't merit a mention anywhere at WP (we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, right). Carlossuarez46 23:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * I agree with your observation that many schools won't have worthwhile articles any time soon, and I agree that many of the ones we do have should be merged with articles on their school district or locality. I disagree with those who insist on deleting these articles, especially using "notability" as the measure. In my opinion most, if not all, schools have the potential to have worthwhile articles written - but that doesn't mean that they will. Until they do, a redirect is perfectly harmless. Even if Wikipedia did have 10 school articles for every other article, you'd never know unless you use the "random article" link for a while to get a sampling. I think it's better to have a functioning redirect than an invitation to create a new article. And for those that merit deletion, like Bob's Upstairs Typing School of East Podunk, the normal criteria will suffice on AfD without our efforts to pre-ordain the limits of notability. If someone writes a fantastic, neutral and comprehensive article on their elementary school I'd rather have that in our encyclopedia than another obsessive list of every pop-culture reference in a Simpsons episode. --Dystopos 07:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: **Are you saying that your objection to deletion is the lack of a redirect?  I would suspect that the vast majority of those some consider deletionists would strongly support leaving a redirect with a merge.  My feeling is that the deletionists don't object to the information, just to it being in an article until it becomes notable.  Vegaswikian 07:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **How is the continued effort to remove school information from Wikipedia congruent with the idea that most deletionists don't object to the information? Clearly someone objects to the information, because people keep taking the articles to AFD, and lots of people are "voting" delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ** The matter is slightly more complicated. I suspect many "deletionists" would not mind short summaries about the schools, but would in fact prefer that the majority of the information be removed. I don't think anyone would ever reject simple redirects ever. JoshuaZ 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Failed Consensus. While I respect all parties involved in this discussion, and am beginning to see some value in school articles, all the comments I see above seem to me at least to be offshoots from fixed positions, with respect to the issue at hand. I don't see any effort directed at  determining criteria for inclusion as an article. I don't see anyone's position moving toward any compromise. I hope my own position has not been expressed too harshly. In particular, by expressly using the terms deletionist and inclusionist, I fear I may have sidetracked the discussion onto fruitless debate. Cheers. --Ling.Nut 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * So you want to have completely different criteria for schools and for all other content?  Or do you think that every flash animation should be included as long as someone is willing to put it in? Guy 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed consensus 

message: I believe that any educational institution is notable as long as it is accredited. However, non-acredited educational institutions can also be notable if they have a notable history. --Ineffable3000 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reasoning 

message: Honestly, the fact that a school has existed for 500 years is still meaningless in Wikipedia terms if no one's ever written anything about it. I mean think about it, if it wasn't written down anywhere verifiable, you'd just be taking my word for it that the place was 500 years old.
Likewise with all of the other criteria after the first one. A school may have some awesome program, but if all we can cite about it is the personal knowledge of students of parents, that's not fair game for an encyclopedia article. None of those things existing guarantees that we'll be able to write a good article about them, it's not like the minute a school has a cool architectural feature that reporters show up to write a story on it, thus giving us information to use in an article of our own.
So I say that criteria 2 through 7 be instead classified as something along the lines of "Signs that a school probably has been the subject of non-trivial published works". --W.marsh 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well something could not meet WP:V but people would still vote keep because the school supposedly meet one of the other criteria listed on this page. --W.marsh 12:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: All schools are notable to the people who have attended them.  Just because I didn't attend a high school doesn't mean that others aren't looking for information about them.  --Alpharigel 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, my high school sucked. I only consider it "notable" because I was forced to go there for four years. My high school happens to be rather notable in the encyclopedic sense, but your first statement is completely untrue. Second of all, why isn't the hospital where one was born inherently notable? Why isn't a child's little league team (believe me, I learned more from playing team sports during second grade than I did in second grade) inherently notable? Why aren't many unaccredited diploma mill "colleges" inherently notable? They are to someone. Considering both of my parents and two of my aunts were teachers, I certainly have great respect for the school system as far as a child's development is concerned. However, they are not notable simply for existing. -- Kicking222 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversation exemplifies the reason we don't need to create a policy here on notability. It's subjective. We're better off enforcing Wikipedia's core policies instead of coming up with separate criteria on notability. A truly non-notable institution will be plainly unsuited for an encyclopedia article under existing criteria; and any other institution will be unlikely to command a consensus for deletion with or without a guideline. --Dystopos 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the way wikipedia works, if you get a group of core supporters you can cause articles on a subject to be deleted or kept.  Hence you can in fact have non notable articles kept and notable articles deleted.  Vegaswikian 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All houses are notable to the people who've lived in them, and the hospitals thing has been pointed out. Subjective "it's notable to me" notability criteria is what we're trying to avoid here, because it's pure bias. --W.marsh 13:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, that's exactly what I'm saying. We can avoid playing into bias and factionalism altogether by NOT creating a separate "notability test" for schools and instead applying the core policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view to school articles as they appear. Surely our time would be better spent fixing real problems instead of anticipating bogeymen. --Dystopos 13:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Absolutely.  The school sould be the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the school itself.  This would exclude directory entries, league tables and inspection reports, because those are not significanctly from the building regulations approval report for a new building; inspectons are required in some jurisdictions. My school is notable, most are not. Guy 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Are you suggesting that the results of government inspections are "trivial"? Kappa 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think the bigger point than the triviality (or non-triviality) of gov't inspections is that every school has one, so inspections don't confirm notability. -- Kicking222 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Correct.  It's as notable as a building inspection report.  The forms of words are settled in advance and the amount of non-boilerplate text in an individual inspection report is very small.  They are valuable to the school (or rather, the post-inspection wrap-up is valuable) but of remarkably little use to a parent.  The school's PANDA would be of much more use but this is confidential.  Guy 10:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All schools are notable 

message: To whom it may concern,
Coral Way K-8 Center is a VERY notable school. Principals accross the US visit there to dive in and investigate the bilingual program.
Chances are its due to recent vandalism. In that case, see the discussion page on Coral Way K-8 Center.
Once again, save this article.
--Hempfel 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROTECTION OF [[Coral Way K-8 Center]] 

message: Regarding these two criteria that help establish notability... I feel they are FAR too encompassing and virtually make the rest of the criteria useless.  Almost all high schools of any reasonable size are going to have some notable alumni, whether high schools or junior highs.  Also, a large number of the public schools in the US are more than 50 years old.  Take these two issues combined and you have a recipe for accepting virtually every high school in the United States.  Is that really what we want?  --The Way 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the alumni part, just about every decent size school will have notable alumni. TJ Spyke 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Criteria 2 and 6 

message: The proposed text only allows for "school board" or "district" as the framework for a comprehensive set of articles. That's specifying some kind of geographic/government boundary as the only option.  (There's an earlier discussion  about school districts.) Thinking of different structures or categories, and how editors might want to build up coverage, I suggest we ought to widen the definition to allow "other notable organization" too. OK? --Mereda 10:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems actually rejected at this point, are you trying to make it even more inclusive and thus even more likely to be rejected? This seems almost poison pillish in its absurdity. JoshuaZ 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that he is just proposing that the list of possible merge targets be expanded; this doesn't seem particularly inclusionist. Although I agree with you that it's probably time to call this rejected. It's obviously not gaining a lot of traction. The status quo will do for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not happy with the status quo and would prefer almost any guideline if it actually had some consensus behind it but this getting ridiculous. Also, unless I'm missing something abotu Mereda's comment that this seems to be not just about mergers but seems to be part of the comprehensive coverage section . JoshuaZ 07:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, have you read Rob's page on school districts? See User:Thivierr/school_district_myths. It seems that Mereda's edit it just trying to encompass other grouping scenarios with that wording.  I wonder if s/he has a specific example in mind when making that edit? David D. (Talk) 08:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is a fascinating essay. Its relevance to this point is not obvious to me. JoshuaZ 08:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry i was just looking at the edit more carefully and now note the comprehensive coverage location. i am jumping into a conversation cold here.  I was assuming this was criteria for a merge target and that would be reasonable.  Reading the page i can't figure out what comprehensive coverage is referring to on this page. What am I missing here? David D. (Talk) 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current wording is not as explicit as it was earlier. The comprehensive coverage clause asserted that if an editor or group of editors was systematically making articles about a specific set of schools of some type (such as in a school district) than they should all be kept. I and many editors find this to be an unacceptable loophole allowing absolutely all schools to be kept regardless  WP:N and Wikipedia is not a directory as long as an editor is being systematic. Mereda's edit widens that loophole. JoshuaZ 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no problem in keeping it as a redirect to the school district (or whatever) page. May be the wording needs to be more clear. David D. (Talk) 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive coverage - foundations too? 

message: The failed consensus tag has been removed because "rv. rejection. still under discussion. no concensus to reject has been formed"
You seem to be missing the point that those of the 'All Schools Are Notable" position -- refusing to compromise, refusing to negotiate, utterly willing to break two of Wikipedi'as Five Pillars in order to push that particular POV -- will never agree to a consensus to reject. --Ling.Nut 13:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To speak more clearly, the rationale for removing the Failed Consensus tag is untenable, because it sets a fundamentally unreachable standard for "Failed Consensus". The definition of "Failed Consensus" should be "Failure to Reach Consensus."--Ling.Nut 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced it. Read the darn tag, Dgies. "It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." That is the case. It has not gained anything close to acceptance, and is very unlikely to do so. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Certain aspects of this proposal, namely some positive criteria for notability, look like they have consensus.  Others, like what types of schools are automatically notable, seem unlikely to reach consensus.  This doesn't mean the whole proposal has to be junked, just that only parts of it should be used as a guideline.  Look for example at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Precedents: some rules are always applied, others require the subject to be judged on its own merits.  I don't think it's an impossible standard for "Failed Consensus" to require proposals with consensus on some criteria may be promoted separately from those criteria which do lack consensus. Dgies 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logical extension of this argument would be to take each and every line of the proposal on the project page (and sometimes perhaps clauses within lines!) and submit them separately to straw polls. You seriously wanna go that route? I suspect it would only result in adding another year to this discussion, and very little progress toward compromise. Thanks--Ling.Nut 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The guideline needs to be considered in its entirety.  While there may be consensus for parts of the proposal, even if those were removed and put up for a vote they might not reach consensus.  Why?  They don't form the basis of a complete guideline. It's what they ignore that still needs to be addressed.  Editors will support some portions of a guideline in an affort to achieve conseusus.  Removing the renaminder of the topic could well mean that the perceived consensus for parts of the guideline would also be lost.  Vegaswikian 19:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fundamental problem is that a guideline which does not say "all schools are inherently notable" will be vehemently opposed by a few, while one that includes such a statement will be equally vehemently opposed by the balanced.  There can never be consensus because one side refuses to countenance even the possibility of compromise.  Thus: it is rejected. Guy 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re:Failed consensus tag removed for  "rv. rejection. still under discussion. no concensus to reject has been formed.." 

message: I attended three schools: Maran School, Welwyn Garden City; How Wood School, Park Street and St Albans School, Hertfordshire.  One of these, Maran, is not only non-notable but pretty much unverifiable.  It existed, it was a state-maintained school, but I defy anybody to provide any credible proof of notability. Guy 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK, so don't create an article about Maran School. What's the problem? If someone else creates one and it doesn't have any content or sources you don't need a guideline about notability to get it deleted, and if they do have content and sources, what would be the gain in deleting it? --Dystopos 06:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A refutation of "all schools are notable" 

message: I wanna ask a question here in this public forum... It is a serious and genuine question. I'm not gonna reply or debate (well I may ask for clarification or extension). I hope others won't debate either...
With an open and honest heart, I ask:why not start a separate Wiki for schools? Why put schools in an encyclopedia?
Thanks--Ling.Nut 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate wiki for schools would either be an encylopedia of schools, which would make redundant with what wikipedia should be doing, or it would be something else, which is not what we are interested in building. Kappa 06:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you..--Ling.Nut 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you..--Ling.Nut 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Because when people want to know something about <topic>, they come to Wikipedia and look up <topic>.  It would become a nightmare issue to teach people that for biology topics they go to biowikipedia, while history topics historywikipedia, and for schools they go to schoolwikipedia.  One place to look up what you'd ever want to know.  --Stéphane Charette 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you..--Ling.Nut 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything encylopedic you'd ever want to know, hehe. Kappa 07:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! C'mon now... be nice :-)--Ling.Nut 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My goal in defending school articles is to make Wikipedia as comprehensive as it can possibly be while  maintaining its role as an encyclopedia. I would like for people to be able to find a neutral, well-cited article on a school instead of ad-supported "school info" sites with no actual info. I think that "acknowledging the existence" of things that actually exist is reasonable, and does not require an emotional or sociological justification. --Dystopos 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  <counting all the indent colons>: Thank you. --Ling.Nut 14:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At the risk of taking a tangent, perhaps the best fork would be a "Notablepedia" in which those with a penchant for exclusion could exercise their discretion. --Dystopos 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  public question 

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:School_articles_needing_evaluation
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/schools
These date to 2004 and 2003, and believe me, there was debate before these. Why on earth is everyone "thrown" that this is an Old Debate? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, over two years

message: * I went to AfD to see if there was anything I could use for an example of what I've been talking about. I found a boring, repetitive debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North View Primary School‎. Instead of rehashing old opinions, I took a look at the article. Almost completely worthless. Very likely to be deleted on the basis of having no encyclopedic information (with or without a "notability criteria"). So I looked around. There are a few other schools in Yishun which also have worthless articles (along with a couple of quite good ones). I started a new article, Schools in Yishun and collected the two or three bits of relevent information from the worthless articles - turned them into redirects, and established a category. In my opinion this establishes a better framework from which useful contributions might be cultivated. At least it may have curtailed three of four more pointless AfD debates, and all that under existing policies and guidelines. --Dystopos 22:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So you've merged the article with some others, which respects the prior contributors' efforts, while at the same time making Wikipedia cleaner and more useful.  All while leaving open the possibility that the merged topics can later be divided out if their content warrants.  Even while arguing in favor of keeping schools, I've always been in favor of this, as long as a "full content paste merge" is chosen to keep the full content readily available to future editors.  Congratulations, you've done good work.  Please continue.  <FONT COLOR="#66CCFF">Un</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">focused</FONT> 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks. It's really no big deal. Anyone can do it. One note... I did not merge entire articles, as about 90% of the article in question was completely unencyclopedic. (Now that you've brought my attention to WP:MERGE, I'll give that method more consideration).--Dystopos 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Great job Dystopos, this is exactly what people should be doing.  Why can't editors on both sides of the debate understand that this saves more time (no AfD) and improves wikipedia at the same time.  It is the no brainer course of action.  As far as i can tell the solution to the school debate is to persuade people that this really is a win-win solution. That might be easier said to done. David D. (Talk) 16:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the result of the AfD above (Afd for North View Primary School) was no consensus, and it took more than 2000 words of effort. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An example

message: Can we discuss expanding this criteria to include schools that hold (or once held) a record in the listed activities? Note, I posted the same question at Wikipedia talk:Schools3 with regard to its Criteria #2. Accurizer 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think as long as any criteria exists, in any inclusion guideline, it should be interpretted as timeless, meaning once an article qualifies, it always qualifies.  If it would have qualified 20 years ago, than it must still qualify today, even if the school totally changed, or even it closed.  So, I think we basically agree on a prinicipal, but I'm unclear on what you're talking about, as I don't see any mention of the word "record".  The only change I can see needed to make this criteria "timeless" is to change "The school participates in the highest..." to "The school has participated in the highest...".  Sorry if I misunderstood you.  --Rob 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for you point on the timelessness issue, I agree with your interpretation and it was a concern that I had. However, what I contemplated in this suggestion was to broaden the notability criteria so that a school that holds (or held) a record (e.g., for fastest 4 x 100 metres relay) need not also have "won at least two regional championships or one national championship" in order to satisfy the notability criteria. Hope this clarifies. Thanks. Accurizer 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria #3 

message: There is no need for an entirely new proposal when all that one wants is several modifications to existing criteria.  The objections seem to be to the "50 year" criterion and the "notable alumni" criterion.  This is not the first time that they have been objected to.To start this off by addressing the "50 year" criterion:  There are several objections from several editors above (JYolkowski, Vectro, et al.) to the 50 year criterion, and scant defence of it.  Its only justification seems to be laziness, an unwillingness to expend the effort of finding and citing sources to demonstrate that the first criterion is satisfied.  That effort is exactly what benefits Wikipedia, because its results can be used to improve artices.  Failing to expend it leads to exactly the sorts of schools articles that nobody wants: full of semi-libellous rubbish, things that happened in school one day, and no real information.  It's a bad shortcut, with an arbitrary cutoff that introduces systemic bias because it is always going to be inappropriate to one or more countries, that we don't need, and whose effects are counterproductive.  I suggest, therefore, that we simply remove it.  If we do, that is one of the objections settled. Uncle G 13:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for a new proposal 

message: I have a request: on the Australian noticeboard there have been quite a number of deletions in the past week or two, all based on different interpretations of the WP:SCHOOLS policy. As there has been   no consensus, can we please hold off all AfDs on schools (unless the article is deletable under a different guideline) until this is resolved? There are too many people taking advantage of the mishmash of policy at present to reopen old debates, delete other schools that they want to, and so on. This is wrong: deletions are going ahead to make a point, and many of them in bad faith. Can we please put a moratorium on these deletions until there is a WP:SCHOOLS consensus? JROBBO 04:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rarely if ever nominate schools for deletion but am one of the less inclusionist editors. That said regarding the above- absolutely not. As it is now there is little incentive for the more inclusionist editors to reach any consensus about schools. Making all schools get a free pass until consensus is reached will do even less to help that. I may be failing to WP:AGF(maybe I need a wiki break) but I find the timing of this comment interesting, just as a few schools have actually been deleted and even more controversial deletions were endorsed on DRV now we get a request to stop the AfDs? If anything we now have a breakthrough. If this continues we might a) give the more inclusionist editors some incentive to actually talk. You will note that on the talk page of WP:SCHOOLS3 at least one self-identifying (I think) inclusionist has stated outright that until schools are being deleted there will not be any cooperation from the school inclusionists in making a new guideline that allows for any deletion.  JoshuaZ 04:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am for the merge proposal but i came from a wish to prune schools back significantly. Clearly that was not going to happen so a merge proposal seemed to be a reachable goal. However, Joshua is correct that many inclusionists are not willing to meet in the middle (actually more in favor of inclusion) on this issue. So why would a moritorium solve anything? Another issue is that a lot of AfD's are brought by people who just can't stand to see a hopeless article and may not even know about a moritorium.  So unless there are a few users currently nominating schools such a moritorium would have little effect. David D. (Talk) 05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please hold off on AfDs on Schools? 

message: I will agree with Uncle G's raising an issue over criterian 2, the "50-year standard" as being a subject of question. Whether it should be an automatic standard for inclusion, should be raised (or lowered, or variable depending on region - new world vs. old world) is certainly a proper matter for discussion. However, I must steadfastly disagree with Uncle G's removal of the criterion based on his own personal views and the support of two other individuals. This is an effort to reach consensus, and arbitrarily chopping away at criteria one disagrees with is an effort to impose consensus, not reach it. AS WP:SCHOOL is not a consensus guideline at this point, I will restore that criterion while we discuss further and it can be removed or modified as necessary based on consensus of all participants.
As in so many debates, this one is being taken over by extremists on both ends of the spectrum. I don't think that all "schools are notable" can be justified, but I think that a "no schools are notable" approach makes no more sense.If we agree that there is a middle ground -- that "there are schools that are notable and reasonably objective criteria to determine them can be developed" -- thenwe have a prayer of reaching a consensus. WP:SCHOOLS3, which seems to be focused on sharply limiting the number of school articles in Wikipedia, does not seem to be a viable approach at reaching a middle ground.
I do not believe that all schools are notable. Yet many school articles are notable, and the fact that so few schools (especially existing U.S. high schools with any non-trivial content) seems to indicate that there is no consensus whatsoever for deleting most of these articles, despite the frequent AfDs and motivated advocates for deletion.
While WP:SCHOOLS3 seems to be a dead end, WP:SCHOOL has not reached consensus and the criteria that exist are at best a hodge-podge.
Right now we have a laundry list, where meeting any one qualification confers notability. Yet these criteria vary widely in significance. I would suggest a point system / Chinese menu, where there are some automatic qualifiers and others that require 2 or 3 lower level qualifications to be met to merit a claim of notability. I will review our existing criteria and rank as HIGH (likely that meeting criteria meets the notability standard by definition), LOW (confers notability in combination with other lower-level criteria) or MEDIUM (somewhere in between):
1) The cornerstone of a consensus must be an agreement on criterion 1 on "multiple, non-trivial coverage". Most schools do receive regular coverage in sources that are reliable and verifiable, and are valid regardless of the size or circulation of the publication in question. What is up for discussion is what is trivial? Sports scores and science fairs are in the trivial category, as would be a new principal. But a requirement on book-length analysis is over-reaching. HIGH
2) Criterion 2, the "50-year standard" needs revisiting. Adjusting the cutoff and/or having variable criteria in different areas of the world Europe vs. the Americas, vs. the rest of the world, in rough order of when school systems were created, might be in order. LOW
3) "The school participates in the highest grade of the state, province or regional competitions in at least three extracurricular activities and has won at least two regional championships or one national championship in any of these activities, or holds a verifiable record in such an activity." desparately needs to be reworded to clarify what is, and what is not included. LOW
4) "substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools" is usually an indication of notability. But we must differentiate between those that have developed a brand new technique or methodology and those that apply it in their own geographical area. MEDIUM
5) "Significant awards or commendations". There are some awards that are probably indications of notability, particularly those awarded at the national level (e.g., the Blue Ribbon Schools Program in the US). State / provincial level awards may not confer definitive notability, and may need to be evaluated on an award-by-award basis for selectivity. Multiple award recipients should be jusdged as a greater indication of notability. HIGH for national awards. LOW for regional.
6) "Notable alumni or staff (who would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)." Perhaps the school that a President or prime Minister attended might be inherently notable, but other than that  we need to evaluate that the school has multiple notable alumni who have independent Wikipedia articles. LOW
7) "school building or campus has notable architectural features" is another criteria that likely confers notability. Often, such a school will have non-trivial coverage of this fact. Medium
A point system (not unlike the document standards for obtaining a driver's license where a passport is "worth" more than a utility bill) might be a useful approach. A school must have ten points earned, with HIGH, MEDIUM and LOW rated accordingly and each notable additional alumnus or award above the minimum earning an extra point or two.
Other criteria can also be considered and added to this hierarchy. "Site of major event" has been discussed above, though there should be ample media coverage.
As discussed elsewhere, in most cases DELETE should be an extreme rarity and an article that does not meet these criteria should be a MERGE/REDIRECT. There are few cases where the information offered can not reside in the article for the district or municipality where the school is located.
There is a middle ground, I just don't know how to reach it, but hope that this may be a useful starting point.  Alansohn 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some agreement with the above. I think that a point system may be unnecessarily complicated. I would tentatively suggest modifying this slightly closer to the WP:SCHOOLS3. I think the main issue really is what criterion 1 has. I agree with the 50 year form being highly problematic (and would prefer to replace it with a note to the affect that schools which are old should be extensively researched before AfDing since the probability that good but obscure sources exist is high). As observed on the SCHOOLS3 page, it isn't clear how 7 could be plausibly made without it satisfying 1 anyways.  I also think we should emphasize that when redirects are formed (even when no merge occurs) we don't gain anything by deleting prior to redirecting. Indeed, on the chance that we do eventually get to have a real article on the topic having the prior history around would be helpful. In regard to alumni, I think it makes some sense to let there be some number of notable alumni where the school becomes notable, say 3 perhaps? I'll make a few more comments when I have some time. JoshuaZ 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you'd suggest modifying closer to SCHOOLS3, since it's clear you'd like to delete most school articles.  But that doesn't come closer to the goal of a large many of us, which is making Wikipedia inclusive of an "Encyclopedia of World Education".  Quite frankly, I think the only compromise possible already exists: WP:LOCAL, especially when done by full content paste merger from WP:MERGE.  Doing it this way preserves the content in the edit history, yet doesn't leave a bunch of stub articles around which you seem to so desperately hate.  <FONT COLOR="#66CCFF">Un</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">focused</FONT> 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Snort* And I'd like to modify WP:SCHOOLS3 closer to WP:SCHOOLS. This is called trying to make a compromise. And as I have explained on multiple occasions, merging often leaves the targets as blatant directories which is very problematic per WP:NOT. Also, I don't think terms like "desperately hate" are useful. I'm trying to construct a compromise here. Try to AGF a bit. (Also, I don't think an Encyclopedia of World Education would include all schools but that might just be me). JoshuaZ 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * I take issue with your misreading of WP:NOT#DIR. The policy clearly states that, "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted." I see no violation of that policy in a school district article composed mainly of short descriptions of the various schools under the district's jurisdiction. --Dystopos 22:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would disagree as to whether the descriptions given really fall under that category. Often the descriptions are nothing but the name, location and possibly the year of founding. This distinct from a "small article" JoshuaZ 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Articles can be deleted for lack of content, without bringing notabiity into question. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Incomplete articles are better candidates for expansion than they are for deletion. We have been referencing the policy on WP:NOT#DIR, but the type of "directory" discouraged by that policy is not at all what we're talking about with regard to school district articles. I suggest that anyone following this discussion, read the policy (it's not too long) and make a determination for themselves. --Dystopos 18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant lack of available verfiable content, precluding possible future expansion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You can add me to the opposition.  50 years is a laughable standard.  Would we allow every 50-year-old person to have an article on the grounds of a vague assertion that "there must be reliable sources somewhere, because he's so old"?  Of course not; we would require those reliable sources to be produced and cited.  So too with schools. Shimeru 20:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I strongly agree with Uncle G.  As someone who is edging in on 50 himself, I find the notion that something which is 50 years old is inherently notable somewhat flattering, but implausible.  Notability has to do with being notable (and noted), not with being old (which 50 years really isn't, for a school).  If the notion is (as it seems to be) that a 50-year-old school is likely to be able to meet the other notability criteria (and I doubt that, and suspect I can find counter-examples), then the criterion is redundant and pointless.  Find those other notability criteria!  (Aside to the comment that started this section: I think a "point system" would be insanely unwieldy.  Multiple non-trivial independent coverage by reliable sources is really the only criterion that matters.)  Xtifr tälk 00:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm completely with the above three editors (for some reason, I seem to frequently agree with Shimeru and Xtifr, no matter what the issue). If this proposal is going to have even a two percent chance of finding consensus, the "50 year" garbage should be flat out gone- not a criterion, not a footnote, not an "other factor," GONE. -- Kicking222 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the 50-year criteria and seeking middle ground

message: I have tagged this as rejected.  The tag reads It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so.  While there are a number of different viewpoints represented that all disagree with the proposal for different reasons, it is clear that one camp refuses to compromise.  Hence, it's safe to say that this proposal seems unlikely to gain consensus.  We need consensus to approve - we do not need consensus to reject.  Chris talk back 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|rejected}} 

message: I've proposed on that page some modifications to that proposed guideline which would make it (I hope) more palpable to inclusionist editors. Comments would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 02:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SCHOOLS3]](plug) 

message: I've attempted to reword the criteria to address some criteria that that people disputed, or that relied on arbitrary numbers of years, alumni, etc.  Since WP:RS has been rewritten, I've reworded this a bit to be more in line with that.  I've also changed "trivial" to "not of value in building an encyclopedia" to reduce ambiguity.  Comments are welcome.  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing "non-trivial" is a problem.  It helps define what we consider to be of value in building an encyclopedia.  Saying "...not of value in building an encyclopedia..." while accurate, is useless, as its circular reasoning.  We're trying to explain what does, and doesn't help build an encyclopedia.  Also, coverage in multiple independent non-trivial sources is a common uniting notability criteria for WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and others.  In fact "multiple independent non-trivial sources" could replace virtual all other criteria.  Whereas "...building an encyclopedia..." merely explains what we want to accomplish, without explaining how.  So, IMO your change increased ambiguity. --Rob 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed about "non-trivial," though that phrase still exists in the lead.  It would be beneficial to come to a solid definition of "trivial" works.  Also, I've edited the criteria to remove instances of phrases such as "is likely to receive press coverage" -- we can't be the judges of whether or not that's "likely," and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball in any case. Shimeru 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording of criteria 

message: Is this criterion a giant joke? “The school meets half of each of criteria #1 and #3.” So, in other words, the article must only contain one published work, and must be locally notable in only one category? Aside from the idiotic 50 year rule, this might be the worst rewrite yet. Kicking222
:It's been a full day, and there was no change to the criterion or addition to this discussion, so I was bold and flat-out deleted it. Let's face facts: criterion #4 was insane. -- Kicking222 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ludicrous current (14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)) criterion #4

message: Criterion 3 is much too broad. It will permit the inclusion of almost any school in a town  that has a local newspaper. 
    * Academics
    * Age
    * Alumni
    * Architecture
    * Awards
    * Events that have occurred at the school
    * Extracurricular activities, including sports
The single high school in a town will obviously be locally notable in all these categories: it will be unique--the best school in the locality for all of them (except possibly famous alumni). It is reasonable to want something narrower than "national", and I think you could rescue this  criterion by changing it to "state-wide"
DGG 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: criterion 3

message: (Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Schools3)  Been away a little while, so I'm wondering whether the following summary is accurate.  Is the main disagreement between these two proposals that the "inclusionist" side (sorry to use labels like that, but it's hard to come up with anything else) wants routine but useful coverage (e.g. OFSTED reports) and local news coverage to count towards "multiple non-trivial published works", while the "deletionist" side (again, sorry) doesn't?  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our differences 

message: Given that an article about a fictional species of Pokemon has not only gained widespread acceptance as an encyclopedic topic, but has become a featured article on the main page of this project, I will no longer, personally, entertain arguments about the non-notability of actual brick-and-mortar learning institutions. You may continue with your business without regard for my opinion, but if you ever want it, there it is. --Dystopos 07:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this general connection in people's minds between being fictional and somehow being less notable. Romeo is a fictional character but is obviously more notable than many "actual brick-and-mortar learning institutions"- whether something exists in reality or is a fictional construct should have nothing to do with whether or not it is notable. JoshuaZ 16:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with the first point, but I think the above response is oversimplifying.   All other things being equal, being concrete, not fictional, does make things more worthy of coverage.  We are actually a serious publication.  Generally, fictional items, like Romeo and Juliet, are only worthy of being in the encyclopedia, because they have a substantial real world impact.  An article about a real place, that does an excellent job of describing that place, may bo worthwhile (though improveable).  If I write an article about a real small town, I don't have to "prove" the town is special or important, as its accepted that if they exist they are important (this is one area of almost unanimous AFD consensus).  So, an article describing a ficitional place, with no real-world substance, would need to be deleted.  If the fictional world is under copyright (as all new ones are), going in excessive detail about the fictional world, is actually illegal.  Of course Romeo and Juliet (your example) is public domain, so our article is obviously legal.  But an equal article on a modern play, would be partly copvio.  Now, giving compareable detail about a "real-life" story of "doomed love", if the details were all widely reported in reliable sources, would be allowed (at least legally). --Rob 17:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Documenting the phenomenon of Pokemon in the context of contemporary pop culture on Wikipedia makes perfect sense. Documenting the metamorphic variegations of a fictional species within the context of its own fictional setting, however, is pretty much useless outside of a Pokemon-specific Wiki. But apparently that is now beyond arguing, since just such an article has gone through feature article review and graced the title page. --Dystopos 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The main problem with Rob's line of argument:  All other things are not equal.  A school is not the same as a town, nor is a person, a work of fiction, a planet, a church, a scientific theory, an imaginary animal, a museum, a river, a musical instrument, or a roll of paper towels.  In the ideal Wikipedia, all of these things would have to prove their notability.  (We messed up on towns, unfortunately, and that ship has probably sailed.  I don't see that as reason to repeat the mistake.)  And all of these articles would be of featured quality.  But the fact that one type of article exists does not imply that others automatically should (WP:INN).  The fact that one article of this type (actually, two -- Bulbasaur also) has reached FA is not an indication that something else entirely is somehow more notable.  It says only that the specific topic of the article is notable -- FAs don't become FAs without thorough citation, among other qualities, and it is being discussed in detail by independent parties that confers notability.  The attitude that "a Pokemon is less important than topic X, so X must be included" is elitist.  Is it correct?  Maybe -- but the constructive approach would then be to build the article about X with sources comparable to those of the article about Pokemon (which logically must exist, if X is even more important).  Hell, write it as well, too.  Then X can be a featured article, and we all want to see more quality articles.  There are plenty of notable people, planets, churches, theories, schools, etc.  But not all of them.  They need to be judged on their own merits, not in terms of anything else, even if something else is supposedly "less serious" a topic.  On a side note, writing about fiction does not in any way violate copyright, assuming no passages of the work are being copied (and even then, there are provisions for fair use for limited quoting). Shimeru 01:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Torchic

message: In England all state schools are subject to OFSTED inspections. These inspections are not just confined to secondary schools. Every single primary school and nursery school is also inspected. OFSTED is also responsible for inspecting every single childminder in England. These reports generate a huge amount of paperwork and I would suggest that they be regarded as trivial sources and removed as a primary source of published data about a school. If not you will open up the floodgates so that every single primary school and nursery school will be able to claim 'notability', and hence an entry in Wikipedia, simply because there is a published OFSTED report about them. Do other countries perhaps just publish inspection reports on notable schools? There certainly needs to be some form of clarification. Dahliarose 01:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: School inspection reports

message: With this policy rejected, what is the applicable notability policy for schools? — Swpb talk contribs 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicable policy

message: WP:Schools was relegated to an archive and was replaced with WP:Schools3.  I have copied from here the end of the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Schools.  I suggest that further discussion be conducted there. SmokeyJoe 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page got archived