Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

20 year award cut-off

 Unlikely per notability is not temporary. --slakr^\ talk / 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we have more views, please, on the suggestion that awards should 'expire' after 20 years for notability purposes? TerriersFan (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Personally, I like the idea, as some of the older schools who have been awarded have no other notability. However, for the simple reason that Notability does not expire, I'd have to oppose this suggestion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can see the grounds for such an idea, but I am concerned it will be to much at odds with WP:N. It is ultimately going to have to be agreed if x award(s) makes a school notable for its own article or it does not make a school notable for its own article, I do think think making a compromise by using time will work in this case. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• I don't get this suggestion at all, note most of these comments should be moved to the talk page, and the notabilty proposal only should be here, and the page moved. This is a Secret ^account 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm still looking for the best place to discuss the above 'proposed guideline', which has some very dubious line, but whatever is decided can't be time dependent. Once notable, always notable. Even a no longer existing school is notable if it meets the (non-temporal) guideline. Fram (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Do Academy Awards expire after 20 years? Nobel Prizes? Bad idea. Also, notability doesn't degrade over time. If anything, the exact opposite happens generally. It grows. • Lawrence Cohen 23:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Notability is about sourcing, and sources don’t expire. Also oppose because expiring tests contradict Wikipedia is not NEWS, and indeed, the more historical something is, the more it belongs in wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Opposed, I'm not in favor of setting arbitrary dates just to try and reach an accord here... notability shouldn't expire (even though I don't think awards should be able to establish notability absent secondary sources). Epthorn (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Ambivalent - The fact is that things that were notable twenty or thrity years ago are often not cared about at all today. Does a national award for best A-bomb emergency procedure, or national penmanship champ count as notable still? I agree that arbitrary dates are a problem, Little Rock High School is still notable for what happened 40 years. - Jvv62 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Strong Oppose An award is an award. We don't delete any other award in any other articles once they've hit the two decade mark, nor is there any reason to do so. Such a policy would seem to violate WP:N's dictate that "a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence." If an award was notable in 1987, and that award was what tipped the balance in establishing notability, dropping the award in 2008 would seem to violate this basic dictum. Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - notablity does not expire --T-rex 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I know that "All glory is fleeting", but what we're talking about here (WP:Notability, e.g. "having once achieved glory") isn't in the same league … or even the same sport! :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Inherent notability for Secondary schools

I'm proposing to remove, and / or significantly change the following:

High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable.

• Support: A lot of people already think that all high schools are automatically notable, which is a root of a lot of school-notability problems. That blanket "acceptance" is not a good idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it a good idea? • Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is in some cases, but for the school issue, I say it isn't. I strongly disagree with saying "Anything with the words "High School" in it are acceptable". There have to be specific criteria to which these "High Schools" must meet, especially given the lack of context in some articles. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case there should be a simple notability guideline for all schools. • Lawrence Cohen 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everybody who has commented on this page agrees with that fact. It might be the only thing that everybody will agree on, but its a start. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is. I'd be quite happy to abandon my support of the current proposal if an alternative simple and fairly unambiguous set of criteria was proposed (provided that this alternative approximately emulated the results we're getting from high school AfDs anyway). Unfortunately, I cannot personally think of one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We should worry about the discussion here instead of mirroring the result of AFDs which are ad-hoc flawed policy discussions that depend on who happens to look at them at a given time in my view...Epthorn (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: That a lot of people already think that all high schools are automatically notable, and that high schools almost invariably survive AfDs, is exactly why we should extend this inherent notability, to prevent the same arguments from being had over and over again in high school AfDs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, when High Schools are brought to AfD (and it does happen, at least a couple each week), people's only reason to keep is "High schools are inherently notable", and that is just unacceptable. A lot of high school AfD's actually reach "no consensus", which is important to note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that a lot of high schools show up at AfD. And I also realize that they almost always survive these AfDs, after lengthy debates. So now we have the choice of whether to let these lengthy debates over high school notability to continue or whether to make a blanked generalization which will, in practice, have the same end result (high schools being kept). If high schools almost always survive AfDs on the strength of editors claiming that they're inherently notable, then by declaring them to be inherently notable, we're enacting descriptive (rather than prescriptive) policy - which is exactly how Wikipedia policy is supposed to work.

Do you call "no consensus" surviving the debate? While technically, after reaching no consensus, the article does stay, but that doesn't mean it survived the debate, as without improvement, it is likely to be re-nominated a month or two down the line. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. I appreciate that there's a significant difference between a consensus of keep and a lack of consensus, but in a broad category like this in which results are so relatively consistent across the board, a no consensus has the same effect as a keep consensus, since if the article's renominated a month or two down the line it's almost certainly going to survive that nomination too. In practical terms, there's very little difference between a consistent keep result and a consistent lack of consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd have to disagree that "no consensus" and "keep" are the same, as Keep would mean that the majority of the (commenting) community thinks the article is acceptable, while no consensus means that...well, there is no consensus, and arguments to delete and keep are equally relevant. I appreciate your view on this! - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just want to italicize a couple of nuances in my position: I think that, in practical terms, a consistent "no consensus" is indistinguishable from a keep since, in each case, the article stays. I certainly realize the difference between keep and no consensus as you explain it; I just don't think that that distinction has any practical effect (assuming, as I italicize, a consistent no consensus). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: If the high school is newly constructed (say, within the past 10-20 years) there will be likely news archives related at the least to the construction of the school. Go to any town or city where a new school is built--it will be in the papers every week until you get sick of reading about it. Even in major cities, where there may be a dozen high schools, they are centers of the community: news sources always exist. High schools are, in effect, a place, and notable. I'd wager that any high school AfD, if someone had access to local news archives, could trivially fill out 100+ sources over time. The real question is, why make everyone jump through pointless AfD hoops? All high schools are inherently notable. Whether someone has had time to transcribe all the various sources into this website yet doesn't make them more or less notable. So, strong support--for high schools, colleges, et al. Elementary schools and middle schools are often a different story. • Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support would be in support of removing the guideline, and your comments suggest opposition. You probably want to change that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I think this is an argument for the inherent notability of coffee before internet. • Lawrence Cohen 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not a vote, but as below, inherent notability can't be granted if it is not already there, nor may it be denied if it is. The reason that every US President and every chemical element are notable is not because anyone at Wikipedia said so, it is because there is enough sourcing on even the most obscure member of those categories to write a full article. So we don't ever need to discuss "inherent notability". An assertion that something is notable, just like any other assertion at all, is subject to challenge if it is not verified by reliable sources. The burden is then, as always, on the person who wishes to retain the material to actually provide those sources. Saying "Eh, we'll just presume the sources are out there" only encourages laziness and lack of citation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Under this reasoning we should delete many of the U.S. locality articles because no one has added to many of them since they were created by a bot using census information. But what's happened in most cases is that someone has added a bit here and there. I've added old postcard pictures to some locality articles, a few of which have had nothing else added to them since creation. In most cases, the articles slowly grow. I think there's a "Stone Soup" effect in which, like the fable, one person after another agrees to add an ingredient until we have soup. It takes a bit of time, but it happens, and I've seen it happen with high school articles.Noroton (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose It's in the nature of high schools and their importance to local communities that multiple, reliable, independent sources providing more than trivial coverage exist for every single one of them. No locality would build a high school without local newspaper articles being written about it, for instance. The Internet is expanding all the time, with new resources popping up like Google Archives and NewsBank.com. Everybody should check the Web site of the public library where they have a library card to see what subscription-only Web sites they have access to. Over time it becomes increasingly difficult to find schools where we have no online sources. Noroton (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we have articles written that cover all of the 10 or more schools we build each year. So reliable sources are available. However there is generally no articles with the school as the primary topic. We include the schools in the discussions about selecting a name, which schools will be built this year, schools over budget, schools that will not open on time, changes to the school zones and a ton of other things. However none of this makes a school notable! Also schools are not important to the entire community. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Bleh some schools don't have that type of sources, mainly private schools and international schools, also I don't consider a source like nn person shot and killed in front of xxx high school, or student won local science fair as it's only news, and that covered by policy WP:NOT#NEWS. I rather prefer substancial coverage to the school articles. This is a Secret ^account 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support High Schools are everywhere, this does not add to their notability, it has in fact the opposite effect. High schools should use reliable sources to verify their claims to notability. Arthurrh (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support: Automatic notability is a very strong position to take. Personally I think only a minority are notable, so of course I think the statement should be weakened. If there was a way out (limited duration for awards, etc.) then this would still be wrong but not so onerous, and I could perhaps support it for the sake of compromise; but without that protection I must oppose strenuously the idea of inherent notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• This is the crux of the debate, of course, as it has been all along and why school notability has defied consensus. Of course not all high schools are notable - what an absurd idea. Or so say I. But many others - the latest crop have weighed in above, but there have been many before them - consider that something as important to the local community as a high school is so blindingly obviously notable, who even needs to argue it. And on and on it goes. Also, the fact that a high school is mentioned in a newspaper somewhere is a deliberate misreading of our third party sources policy, much the same misreading which led to the spelling out in large capital letters of WP:NOT#NEWS. This use of minor news coverage to "prove" notability is the weasel use of 3rd party sources to finesse notability for what are usually totally run of the mill, eminently delete-worthy institutions. This is an encyclopedia, not a gussied-up yellow pages with extended entries for team colours and Mr. Johnson's Science Fair Project. So count that as I support removing the claim. Eusebeus (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Does existence define notability? Perhaps this is true for a chemical element, but so far there are not even 150 of them. Planets are notable ... there are only 8. If planets are notable, then certainly stars must be, but I would suspect that no one would argue in favor of every star in the galaxy getting its own article. This is arguing by analogy, and far from the strongest argument, but I cannot believe that every high school is notable simply because it exists. Notability is something that is earned by a distinction. This goes for most individuals (some children of famous people are notable for their existence, but even this is rare), this goes for buildings (building earn notability based on their architect, height, historic event, etc). Why should high schools be an exception? LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I think I am coming to the reality of the situation when I say consensus is unlikely to form for marking high schools as inherently notable in a Wikipedia guideline. Perhaps it would be better if we stuck to the core aim of the guideline, which is to create a simple compromise criteria on what makes schools notable for their own article, as option 2 proposes. This will resolve the core problem of people using just WP:N, which while a good guideline is generalised and can interpreted very differently, resulting in generally unfounded accusations of people deliberately misreading policy. I think this kind of guidance could have a place at WP:SCH/AG which is generally there to provide non-policy advice to what happens to categories of school articles, and is still work in progress. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support (that is, I oppose inherent notability)- even though this is not a vote (for organizational purposes). I also oppose any “inherent” notability. In my view, for an encyclopedia, not even the president of a country should be 'inherently notable'. Do we have articles on every U.S. president? Of course, because they are notable aside from any magical 'inherent' categorization; they all have plenty of secondary sources about them (and we're talking about major secondary works, not just some blurb in a local paper). Same thing with planets, actually. Neither primary nor secondary should have some magical notability just because they exist as such. As to WP:OUTCOMES, I also agree that the survival of an article at AFD does NOT somehow establish its notability. That's like saying someone on trial is "innocent" because they're found "not guilty" (sorry, U.S. law-centric example). To me talking about 'inherent' notability is simply avoiding the debate and using a really circular argument. It's the exact opposite of what we need to be doing for an encyclopedia.Epthorn (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support on two bases - firstly, I think blanket anything is a bad idea as there will always be exceptions; secondly, not every high school is notable (I'd argue probably all or most state high schools in metropolitan areas, and cornerstone private schools are, but a large class of private schools are not and can never meet Wikipedia's guidelines, especially with regards to WP:RS). Orderinchaos 10:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - this reflects the reality of the situation as determined by numerous AfDs - high schools are not deleted so it is sensible to accept this in the standard. TerriersFan (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • But how much of an effect does the above statement have on the outcome of those discussions? If that statement was not in there and if secondary schools were regularly deleted, would you have a different view. This statement causes the results that you are using to support your position. So I don't see how that logic is really a good reason for retaining the statement in question. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Based on the solicitation of opinion above, it is clear that the phrase High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable remains unacceptable to a significant number of editors. This page cannot become an accepted guideline until this issue is tackled. I appreciate that various editors (TerriersFan, Alansohn and so on) feel strongly that all secondary schools are inherently notable, but there is simply no sitewide consensus for this so far. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - My opposition comes largely from the significance of high school athletics, which certainly may not be everyone's focus on here. But given that continual rising importance, certainly in the rationale of why people would be looking up schools on here (Oh, we just played them, I wonder about what exactly that school is, etc.) I think it's important that high schools continue to be inherently notable. matt91486 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It is not clear that all secondary schools are notable. Much of the support is based on the WP:ILIKEIT logic. Just because you want to find out something about a school does not make it an encyclopedic topic. I do agree that it is much easier for these schools to establish notability then lower grade level schools. For those that support this, how can you compare a 3,000 student school with a 300 student school or maybe a 30 student secondary school? Are they all equal? In the real world, how many people actually talk about their secondary school? If they do, it is mostly after the graduate. By the time they are in the work place, that school is ancient history for almost everyone. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is already a rule that "places", no matter how insignificant or being the primary topic of a reliable secondary source, are inherently notable. Same for national-level politicians. This is just an application of the same principle where inherent notability is just a short hand way of saying that secondary sources likely exist for the vast majority of high schools so it is far easier to start from the basis that a typical high school is notable in order to avoid pointless debates at AFD that almost always end up as keep. This is the same principle again for why U.S. place names are pre-disambiguated -- since the vast majority requires disambiguation, we just apply it to all for simplicity. --Polaron | Talk 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Agreed with most of the other Oppose !votes above. I disagree with the contention that WP is not about what people want to read, that it's about what we want them to read. We absolutely should cater to the wants of our readers, and it seems clear that many readers are using WP to look up things about their own schools or other schools. GlassCobra 21:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with the other oppose voters' opinions. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - If things are notable let them prove they are notable. If the logic is that they are inherently notable because it would take 2 seconds to get references, how about people acctually spend the 2 seconds and then we won't have to spend all the time prancing about? I don't see why a school should be inherently notable when other things that impact more people than a single school have to prove their notability. I am not sure all secondary schools would be notable, if people care about the schools as much as they do, just pop in the refs and everyone is happy without the need for people to have a policy to hide behind. Narson (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

From experience in working to source difficult articles, proper sourcing of a school article with locally published sources in the pre-internet era takes more than 2 seconds. assuming I were in a major public or university library in the state where the school is located, and was very experienced in how that library handled older material, I'd allow most of a day for it. Even for just limiting oneself to common internet sources, screening the material can take more like an hour or two. It's not the sort of article where a quick superficial look at Google News reveals the necessary material. DGG (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Not a directory. No inherent Notability. Springnuts (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support the removal of that clause. A blanket assertion that all are inherently notable implies that we will be essentially guaranteed that we can find the independent, neutral and reliable sources needed to create a proper encyclopedia article. That may be true for some schools but is clearly not true for others - even at the secondary level. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary school notabilty

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)

• Concur. Allowing a good report card one year to make a school notable will mean one source will be appended to thousands of articles. A one sentence mention on the district's page should suffice. AnteaterZot 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Agree... the blue ribbon award is used as an excuse for an article, rather than the subject. It's like writing an article about someone who died famously and then most of the article is about their background, education, etc. (wow, Broughton, even I would find notability in a school short of a 'gigantic meteor strike'!)Epthorn (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Concur, the award is too common, and the information would be better on the district page. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. It is a trivial "award" and does not demonstrate an encyclopedic distinction. Rossami (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be making progress

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)

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)

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)

I have to state that I still think this whole thing is a waste of time and instruction creep. I don't think there is any reason why school articles cannot be judged according to the general inclusion policies of WP:NPOV, V and OR but if it is decided that a notability guideline would be helpful to interpret those policies, then they should not be making special higher, narrower hoops to jump through. The WP:N guidelines are perfectly clear for schools: "notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

What is the purpose of the additional criteria section? If it doesn't meet primary criteria, then meeting enough additional criteria presumes that it is notable anyway? Or that additional criteria are needed "above and beyond" the primary criteria? It's not clear to me. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

High schools/secondary schools with sufficient sourced material to produce an encyclopaedic article are considered notable.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per Jimbo, schools are notable?

Have you all seen this?

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008266.html

? Lawrence Cohen 17:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Interesting poll. He was on the minority side in that one. DGG (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

BE BOLD!

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)

Statements

victor falk When one feels it is almost necessary to have pre-prepared CSD/A7 arguments in a copypaste clipset, one feels there's something clearly wrong somewhere. If I had an AfD wiki-ideology, it would be "m:sofixitism" (motto: you don't delete, you edit). My concern here is arbitrariness, in the vein that all US high schools are inherently notable while those in Outer Mongolia aren't, and that debates tend to have arguments about the notability of schools in general and are distracted from the particular reasons of including the nominated one in Wikipedia or not. --victor falk 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

the proposal that all of the high schools (secondary schools) should be considered as notable was intended to include schools outside the United States -- the first step was suggested as dealing with at least the US, only because the great majority of the conflicts were over these schools. My view of this is simply that as many commonly occurring cases as possible should be solved by bright-line rules. Regardless of the general topic, some examples of almost anything will be notable for some special reason, but there are a number of topics where so many of the class are in fact notable, or can be found to be so after a proper work-up, that the simplest thing is to accept the notability of all of them. Some of these are fairly obvious: heads of state or government, academy award winners. Some others have long been accepted as a matter of convenience; inhabited places, railroad stations, members of state or provincial legislatures, athletes competing in the Olympics. The convenience comes from from not having to consider each of them separately for thousands of articles deciding just how many inhabitants a town must have,and so forth. Better to simply take them all, as appropriate to an encyclopedia with space limits.

colleges of higher education have in practice long been accepted as in this class also: sources can always be found, and the user of the encyclopedia is served best by our presenting whatever verifiable information there is, however little it may be. The argument is that this goes for secondary education also--that high schools in the US, and their equivalents in other countries, will always on investigation be found to have sufficient information about awards, alumni, standing, construction, and role in their locality to make them notable, and that therefore we should accept any of them as WP articles with verifiable information of existence and location, even if nothing more is immediately at hand. The articles can be improved later. There is no risk of diluting the significance of the encyclopedia by including things of totally no importance--any user will understand he inclusion of such classes. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we should do so, not debate endlessly on hundreds of high schools trying to remove the 5 or 10% that may be of very little importance. DGG (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

At present schools do not have agreed WP guidelines. This is because several attempts at producing a schools policy have failed. The problem with past proposals is that they have been voted down by editors at opposite ends of the debate - the proposals were unacceptable to the 'all schools are notable' lobby because they accepted that some schools are not notable whilst they were also unacceptable to the 'no schools are notable' brigade for the converse reason.

The result of this impasse is that every school AfD has to be argued from first principles against WP:N. This is proving time consuming, not to say boring, as the same people rehearse the same arguments over and over again. In order to move forward we need guidelines and that will require concessions on both sides. The proposed guidelines are not based on inherent properties but pragmatically on an emergent consensus from what does and does not survive an AfD. For instance, some editors will still not be happy that Blue Ribbon schools are notable but they are asked to accept that Blue Ribbon schools don't get deleted, probably because a very good school tends to attract multiple awards and mentions. In other word, we shall say that Blue Ribbon schools are inherently notable not because they are wonderful but because they won't be deleted anyway so why waste our time on them? TerriersFan (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job TerriersFan. I definitely agree with you in saying that the reason that proposals have been rejected is because we need to make both sides of the argument happy here, just like with any other notability guidelines. Obviously there are some people who think all schools are notable, but I think a lot of people do confuse "notability" and "importance", thus they use "of course it is important" as their reason to keen in an AfD. This guideline (and it is important to remember it is just that, a guideline, not a policy), is long overdue, and we need to meet the Pro-all schools getting an article people half way here if we are ever going to get this to work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. High schools don't need to meet any criteria (not even WP:ORG) and all primary schools which have ever been given a Blue Ribbon are kept? That strikes me as a fairly extreme pro-keep standard already. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. We have moved away from pro-keep or pro-delete stances. What we are doing is finding a sensible way forward. Experience has shown that high schools are kept because sufficient sources are always available to meet WP:N. OTOH experience shows that elementary/middle schools are mostly deleted because such sources are usually not available. Blue Ribbon schools are in the top 5% and again none, in the last year or so, have been deleted both because the award brings with it media coverage and such schools tend to scoop up other awards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still somewhat concerned about the eternal nature of the policy on Blue Ribbon schools. What about this: Blue Ribbon schools (and schools with other awards from our list, to support non-US schools of course) from the past 20 years are considered notable. Considering that the Blue Ribbon program's only been around for about 25 years that's not asking too much, is it? I mean, over 20 years a primary school will probably change principals and half its teachers, so it's really not the same place anymore. If a school which is truly notable has its last BR fall off the 20-year mark, it should have already had plenty of time to show that with verifiable sources. If it's not truly notable, then this shouldn't be a problem. What do you think? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The strict policy argument against it is that notability doesn't expire. However, we all need to make compromises to get this thing through, so if it gets your support for the guidelines, and other editors think on balance it's a good thing, I'm happy to go with it. TerriersFan (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would notability of the Blue Ribbon Award expire after 20 years? Do we delete articles for school's that have won the award 21 years ago? Given that notability is permanent, and given that there seems to be no rational reason to establish this cutoff, I would strongly suggest leaving this threshold out. Alansohn (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your concern is that a good, notable school article will be deleted the moment its newest award turns 21. My concern is that a school which is in no way notable, but by some fluke won an award 20 years ago, will have a wretched stub added, further decreasing the quality of school articles here. Truly, I'm not interested in deleting good articles for schools. There have been times that I've commented on an AfD rather than vote delete, just to protect what looks like a good article, even though the school didn't appear notable to me.

The idea that a school need not meet standards to be kept (I usually consider WP:ORG) is difficult for me. Having some kind of duration for awards helps that -- a school that's notable will continue to be notable, and there should be plenty of sources to support that. The problem with the idea that notability is permanent is that winning awards is just a proxy measure for notability. If a school won once, but hasn't kept up since, was probably never notable in the first place. The deletionists will essentially be ceding the ability to weed out those cases until 20 years have passed -- this gives the notable but otherwise awardless schools a good amount of time to defend themselves. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist - I'm a newcomer to this debate so, while I've read a good deal of the previous debate and a few of the longer AfDs, I could well be missing something. That said, this proposal seems likely to more or less emulate the situation we have now (with high schools and more prominent primary schools kept) with much less fuss.M My personal preference would probably be towards something still more inclusionist than this, but insofar as Wikipedia policy is supposed to be dictated by community decisions more than community decisions are dictated by Wikipedia policy, what is being proposed seems to be the best solution to move forward on this. I endorse it completely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Twenty Years My views have been summed up well by other users; high schools are notable, primary schools are generally not. My experience with primary school afd's is that the article will survive for a number of reaons; environmental programs, age of school or for its planning (in the context of the region). Id like to see high schools just be known as inherenty notable, and primary schools judged on their own merits (i cant see any way of getting people to agree on a primary schools guideline). Cheers. Twenty Years 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn I think the best approach is to work backwards from the results of school AfDs, to isolate those characteristics that typify notable vs. non-notable schools. There seems to be a broad consensus that high schools (and their equivalents) in other countries, given the breadth and scope of sources that are available. I'm hard pressed to think of the last high school article up for deletion -- even those that were one-sentence stubs when nominated -- that could not be expanded into a well-sourced notable article. For elementary and middle schools, notability is the exception. This does not mean that all schools below the high school level are not notable, but that there is a general lack of claims of notability for such schools; the alumni connection is hard to establish and justify as contributing to notability, there are fewer award programs, and state/provincial-level sports competitions are much less common. My conclusion largely matches those listed above, that high schools are inherently notable, while primary schools are far less commonly notable. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe I agree with DGG: For most schools (real schools that actually held classes): sources can always be found, and the user of the encyclopaedia is served best by our presenting whatever verifiable information there is, however little it may be.

What’s been the problem in the past? I think it has been the high number of very poor school articles written as first articles by school students. These articles have been deleted because they were very badly written, not because the school wasn’t notable. I don’t think the answer is to further explore the idea of “school notability”. WP:N and WP:ORG do this OK already, noting however that the criteria should be one whether sources exist, not whether they have been already located and added to the article. Instead, I suggest a guideline aimed at the newbie contributor, to help them write a good article on a school. Don’t transcribe the school song, staff list or school list. Do write about the history of the school. Don’t write from the perspective of a current student. Do write from a perspective external to the school. Don’t write about internal school competitions. Do write about the school’s relationship with its community (who does it serve, who did it originally serve, why was it created, who funds it?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Camaron1 - I agree with the idea of working with AFD results to make a guideline, WP:OUTCOMES is controversial but it shows that the precedent is to keep high/secondary schools and delete or merge and re-direct middle/elementary/primary school articles, which I think is a good way to go and a fair compromise between pro-deletion and pro-inclusion. I have said before that the current set up at AFD is unworkable - it is both repetitive and boring, and I think Wikipedia would benefit if space at AFD was left to more original deletion debates.

The other issue is the now or potential debate. A lot of articles on potentially notable school articles are nominated at AFD due there state. The common result is people having to fix school articles overnight to make them longer than a stub and fully pass all guidelines, which with the large number of school articles been nominated can become a difficult task. This situation inspired me to write Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. The way this proposal seems to be going, which I think is good, is down the article potential route, by saying that high/secondary school are nearly always notable and deletion of their articles is usually unnecessary. Note that, most of these articles usually pass WP:CSD#A1 and many can quickly indicate (that does not equal passing WP:V and WP:N) their significance so pass WP:CSD#A7. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Noroton — Like just about all the editors above, I agree with DGG's and TerriersFan's initial statements. We can justify the idea that high schools should be considered notable because in almost all cases we can assume that significant coverage from multiple, independent, reliable (SCMIR) sources exists, even if we can't find those sources. In the few cases where we can't do so with online sources, we can easily surmise that a high school would have such sources — if for no other reason than that local news organizations almost always cover high schools. I'm less certain about using U.S. "Blue Ribbon Schools" designations or similar awards in other countries, but I'll go along with any consensus that develops on that. This proposal should apply to schools that don't otherwise meet WP:ORG criteria — in other words, we should keep certain schools whether or not we have demonstrated that there are SCMIR sources. Noroton (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hebisddave — Seems like the choice is between following WP-wide policy to the letter (Option 2, the way things are now) and relaxing existing/creating new policy to try to reduce repeated discussion (Option 1). I understand both and can't decide. I'm more interested in brainstorming new middle grounds. (How about we tag school articles that need notability proven with the date they are discovered?) --Hebisddave (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading a lot, I think that setting these guidelines for school notability is an entirely separate debate from handling/reducing AfDs of school articles. I think Option 2 is very clear and in-line with current WP-wide Notability standards, and helps by providing examples of things which positively affect school article notability. Regarding reducing/handling AfDs of school articles, I'm reading Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines as this:

1. Article doesn't currently prove notability
2. Look for sources to add
3. Once sources have been sought but were not found, merge or nominate for deletion.

Seems like school articles (and any articles) should be speedy keep if no one has tagged them like {{notability|proposed|[[Wikipedia:Notability (schools)]]|date=November 2007}} and no one has looked for sources. I guess I'm siding towards proving the article should be deleted, rather than proving it should be kept. --Hebisddave (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen — I think the best middle ground that would actually have a chance of being accepted is to simply use the default notability style requirements. Multiple sources, non-trivial, from independent reliable sources. The Option #2 then provides alternate means to demonstrate notability, if easily accessible sources aren't directly accessible. Schools are generally the center of a given community, so are notable in general, but this lets it be demonstrated easily. In fact, digging up sources for the "alternate" methods in Option #2 will probably lead to finding more RS. Every school, at least in the United States, will have tons of local coverage and sources over time. Anyone who lives in the United States knows this, its just a question of is it something that can be found easily. Was a school built in your town? At the least, its a safe bet the local press never shut up about it, and it's construction and costs, if not other facts about the school as well. There is your baseline RS if nothing else. The clause in Option #2 that no verifiably existing school doesn't get deleted, but just gets redirected to the right district article, allows for the school inclusion people to always expand out the articles later when they do get their hands on the sources. This will probably end half of the school AfDs that everyone complains about, since everyone wins, including Wikipedia, since we'll have a searchable entry for all notable/semi-notable schools then. • Lawrence Cohen 20:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. My concern is that it doesn't seem to be acceptable to the editors for whom any subject-specific elaboration, specification, or clarification of WP:N is unacceptable. I'm also a little bit concerned that this discussion doesn't seemed to have involved many of the editors who subscribe to a deletionist philosophy regarding schools, deeming local coverage of their constructions/openings/school plays/sports teams to be insufficient. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that "local" coverage was perfectly acceptable for sourcing. Why would it be different for schools? And how many people are are in this "get rid of all schools" deletionist camp? I can't imagine a small number (if that is the case) being allowed to filibuster. • Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WP:N as it applies to secondary schools is that despite the fact that secondary schools get so much local attention and are so important to communities, the sources (I'm thinking mostly local newspapers) sometimes are not online, particularly in poorer and more rural areas where small, independent, low-revenue newspapers are covering them. We've come across a number of instances of this in the AfDs. Also, for older schools, the contemporary articles about the proposing/construction/opening of the schools are rarely online. Noroton (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be online to be valid, but they can be hard to find if they're not. As for the legitimacy of local sources, there's a pretty heavy contingent (I'd go so far as to call it a consensus) of editors who believe that purely local coverage of a person doesn't meet the standard required by WP:N (which is why articles about municipal councillors rarely survive AfDs, even if they've received extensive local coverage as most have); I'm not an expert at how this applies to schools, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AnteaterZot — I think a comparison between high schools and colleges might be instructive: I doubt that anyone would advocate the deletion of even the most obscure community college article. Yet some colleges may not be all that notable. Why then do so few colleges came up for AfD? I posit that it is because people know in their hearts that Wikipedia users expect an article on them, even if such an article is a bare-bones stub. There are something like 5,000 colleges and universities in the US, and only about four times as many high schools. But there are something like 92,000 elementary schools. — Let me also say that we all know from experience that the high school(s) that we attended shaped us. In my home city, people can know a lot about you just from what high school you went to. In contrast, nobody cares what grade school anybody went to. There is a strong interest from users and editors of Wikipedia in listing the notable people who attended a high school, but the most attention elemantary schools get is from little vandals. — So, it seems clear to me that high schools deserve the benefit of the doubt on notability, and Wikipedia is richer for their presence. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So there are 4-5 times as many high schools as colleges and 4-5 times as many elementary schools as high schools. How does that show that high schools are automatically notable? Around here I never hear people asking about what high school someone goes to (unless the person is currently in high school, of course), but colleges often come up if the person's a grad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't show that they are notable, I'm just pointing out that users and editors expect Wikipedia to have an article on every college and university in the world, and some of that expectation extends down to the high school level. At the very least, every high school should at least redirect to its school district or town. Elementary schools, since they are so numerous, and usually uninteresting, should not have an article at all. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Slakr — A couple things:

1. Notability is not temporary; therefore, I'm not a huge fan of the arbitrary time limits imposed on school notability that others have suggested. That said, I do not personally believe that an arbitrary award of excellence given by its city, state, or other locale should be sufficient enough criteria for notability. It should, like WP:BIO, be covered by— above all— multiple, verifiable, independent secondary sources. After all, a school receiving an award by the district or the state is analogous to a worker receiving an award by his corporation, so there definitely needs to be sufficient statement and establishment of independent notability of the school. If it can't be cited that it fits those criteria, it should be deleted. The main reason for this is that schools are in no way current events that might have few sources to cite.
2. Compromise: most schools do not need and cannot fill their own articles. This is pretty simple, because there tend to be a pyramid-shaped number of schools in a locale. There are many localized primary schools (which rarely, if ever, need their own articles), a small amount of middle schools, and a very few number of high schools. As it stands, primary schools might be able to generate a stub-quality article, but practically cannot generate a full, encyclopedic article, because there simply is not enough encyclopedic information available on them. At best, primary school articles tend to be almanac or atlas entries. There are obvious exceptions, but overall, there tends to be little, if any, information on them other than the occasional award. As a general guideline, however, I believe that by default, a list style would be better with small summaries. E.g., "Schools in Plano, Texas" then have {{main}} on the schools that match general notability and have substantial content.

I envision something similar to an article series in that notable schools in that district (or locale) would have a dedicated article listing them with small descriptions of their notability assertions/awards (if they have them) plus {{main}} if it's substantial enough of content to warrant a new article; however, unless notability can be asserted in the stub, it should not be stubbed.

Of course, this is just a brainstorm, and I'm tossing it out there to see what everyone else thinks, but I figure it's a fair compromise between one extreme of outright deleting quasi-notable school articles and the other extreme of always keeping them (and making countless stubs). That is, the issue of notability moves from delete or keep the article itself to add to/remove from/edit info on the list of schools. We'll let the residents of a particular town joust over the merits of their schools so that we can focus on more important issues. The only thing we'll have to be concerned about is whether a particular school has enough information to warrant a split into its own article for practical reasons, or if it can simply be merged with and redirected to its parent list.

Therefore, under this compromise, unless the school demonstrates the same general notability of articles/people/organizations/etc, it would not have its own article but instead have its own entry in a table of basic information (recent awards, geographic info, recent sports accomplishments, etc) until it can sufficiently assert general notability.

Anyway, that's basically just food for thought to play around with another idea. Talk amongst yourselves :P --slakr^\ talk / 21:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Esskater11

Personally, though this debate is a lil old(please point me in the right direction if theres a more relevant discussion) but i personally think that Collages should be the only ones inherently notable. High schools arnt notable very often outside of there respective communities. Personally high schools should only be kept if there is some notability established outside of thier communities. Obviously the school were the columbine shooting happened is notable due to the fact all of the controversy and gun control debates after it happened. Well back to my main point, Collages are inherently notable because heck you know what Harvard is if your from California or Ohio. I highly dought that any person in California or ohio has ever herd of(made up school name) "east side Boston high school". well anyway thats my opinion. Esskater11 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Jerry Let me start cleanly by stating that I am deep in the all schools are notable camp. You may have seen me vote on AfD's with just a keep followed by that exact tagline. It usually ruffles feathers and does get me more attention that I want at times. But this is my honest opinion. My thinking about notability guidelines is what would the reader want to find here? I never look at notability as a series of mazes that articles have to go through to find a home here. We really are the small part of this thing... it is the reader who truly counts. Having said that, my belief is that schools are a critical part of every community. The very value of a community is gauged by its schools. Go to any real estate website and lookup properties, what will you always see? A statement about the schools. Why? Because people care about schools. Our readers are people, and they really care about schools. But as I alluded-to above, being in the all schools are notable camp has not proven to do much good for the encyclopedia. It fosters long fruitless debates where we generate megs of dialogue about how we don't have room for the tiny stubs. So I would be willing to vote in favor of almost any guidleine right now. Just tell me what I voted for later, and I will follow the leader. We need bright lines. Putting primary schools in the district articles works for me. Including all high schools works for me. I hope all the far end editors can compromise so we can get a guideline approved. Lets all give up a little in the interest of the greater good, so we can get back to work on behalf of that very important person, our reader. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your position amounts to welcoming content no matter how low the standard. Your criterion “what would the reader want to find here?” is not well defined in terms of what type of reader. Is the reader reading for pleasure, or for reference? If it is for reference, then reliability is important. If reliability is not important, then you may be interested in myschool.wikia.com where anything is acceptable. The strength of WP:N as the sole test for notability is that it encourages good sourcing, which leads to reliable articles. Defining notability without reference to suitable sources is directly contrary to this.

If I can any scope for an advance for a modification in favour of school articles, it would be an exception to WP:N’s requirement that the secondary sources demonstrating notability be independent of the subject. This exception would allow for school articles to be built entirely from the school website and school publications (who else publishes a history of a school other than the school or its associates?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Markb Like others, I sit in the "every school is notable" camp. I have an issue with the proposal that secondary schools are habitually notable, whereas primary schools are habitually un-notable (with a few exceptions). Why is this? Is it because of the number of pupils/teachers/desks - if so, can someone tell me what the magic number is? Is it because there are more of one than the other - if so can someone tell me what the correct ratio would be for them all to be notable? I believe that all schools are notable because they can have such a profound affect on their pupils, not just because they are the place that most people acquire literacy and numeracy skills, but also because it's where the basic rules of socialising are learnt; we only have to look how extremist governments of the past and present pay so much attention to school curriculums to understand that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markb (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• jvv62 I probably lean more to the "everything is notable" side than not, but I am more than willing to acknowledge that not every school meets WP:N. In fact, I suspect that most schools, including most high schools and many colleges don't really meet WP:N. The problem with WP:N as aplied to schools is that it really says the school has to be really good, really bad, just built, or really old. Regularly getting beaten by the state champion school in football would probably get a mention in a newspaper - does that make the school notable? [Diderot] was trying to gather all the information that a well educated person could know into his encyclopedia. if that goal was impossible 300 years ago, it certainly is now. Most people consult WP as their first step to learning about subjects they don't know much about. While I agree with the "no list of links" rule, I think we need to think more about actual users of the information rather than some abstract ideal that has never been possible. My personal view is that most school articles should get merged into district or geographically organized articles with very few schools getting their own articles. I come down on the less notable side in the end, but I think we need to start with the 5 and 10 line articles first - that whole grass-roots, bottom-up development thing, you know. -- Jvv62 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Protocol for WP:SCL deletion warnings

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 Burnaby North Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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 {{Db-reason}}, a {{Prod}}, 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 {{Warn-article}} and {{Warn-editor}} 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! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sorry the function I'm talking about is in the "Friendly" script not Twinkle. Sting_au Talk 01:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thnx ... if Some Other Editor also indicates their willingness to use it, then I will make the changes. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Update

OK, I have created Warn-school, and updated {{Warn-article}} and {{Warn-editor}} to recognize "Schools" as a Guideline ... it's also listed on {{Warn-templates}} now ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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: {{notability|Proposed|[[Wikipedia:Notability (schools)]]}} 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)

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)

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)

Adding {{Notability}} and other tags (like {{Articleissues}} 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)

Epilogue

Well, since this guideline has been {{Rejected}}, I guess my Warn-school protocol might as well be deprecated, too. <Sigh!> —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 17:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

International Baccalaureate

Would a school offering an IB program be considered automatically notable? --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I hope that nothing becomes automatically notable, but in practice it has always conferred notability. Has somebody tried to delete a school that has an IB? AnteaterZot (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well, it was straight kept. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are IB programs all over the place, and I dont think an encyclopedia should rely on a certain high school testing system for notability. Thats like saying we should keep all schools which prove they have a shop program, as long as it goes along with tests. --DerRichter (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

These criteria don't seem consistent

The current proposed criteria seem to me to be contradictory and don't fit in with the general Wikipedia notability criteria. The current primary criteria 1 is perfectly in line with WP:NOTE. However, this is undone by criteria 2 which is confusingly worded, and seems to mean that every high school in the world (of which there must be millions) is automatically notable. The alternate criteria are even more inconsistent as they currently seem to be an open invitation for editors to design their own benchmarks for notability - I doubt that there's a school in the world that hasn't won some kind of competition/comparison (which would let it meet some combination of criteria 1,2 and 3) and politicians are forever visiting schools so meeting #10 is easy as well as all it takes is for a VIP to have ever walked into the school (this criteria also seems to run against the long-established guidline that notability isn't inherited). All of the totally average public schools I attended in suburban Canberra would pass those criteria easily, despite none of them being at all special.

As such, I'd suggest that the current primary criteria 1 be used and the rest be dropped. Very few schools are actually notable enough to belong in an encyclopaedia and most of those which don't in Western countries now have their own websites which people can Google if they're interested in the school. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, high schools almost invariably survive WP:AFDs. As I understand it, the primary motivation behind developing this additional notability guideline is come up with a guideline that reflects practice, thereby saving a lot of time at AfDs. It doesn't look like that effort's going to be successful, though, which likely means

• high schools will continue to get and keep articles, and
• there will continue to be enormous amounts of time occupied in AfD debates for high schools. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that that indicates that there's no consensus among Wikipedia editors over the notability of high schools. Perhaps it's best to argue every case on its merits? Just as most companies aren't notable, most schools aren't notable either (it's notable that the guidelines for corporate notability are much tighter than the proposed school guidelines, which is a bit ironic given that a high proportion of schools are also businesses) --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to create a new notability guideline at all, which is why I've more or less stopped participating in the effort. But, while you're certainly entitled to think that most high schools aren't notable, the results of AfDs have pretty consistently decided otherwise. It's just too bad we've failed at codifying that, since it would save a lot of time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as articles on schools goes. AfD's will continue to rely on Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline if the article is referenced sufficient to pass criteria mentioned in that section then it has found a home at Wikipedia. how about consensus for an archive bot to start archiving some of the older comments on this page? Sting_au Talk 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is consensus--at AfD, every college article not objectionable on other grounds has been closed as a keep for many months now, and that is pretty solid consensus. For about a month, the same is true of high schools, as long as there is some minimal content and not other reason to object. The middle schools and lower schools brought there have not usually passed, and a great many have been merged or deleted at PROD without opposition. That is certainly consensus for colleges and middle/lower schools, and a tentative consensus for high schools as well. That';s what the wider community thinks, and its the overall community that makes consensus not just us here. We do get the job of trying to put in a guideline, what in practice is the guideline.

That people challenge high schools doesn't show there is not consensus--people challenge everything. That they always or almost always now s fail to convince and the article is kept is consensus. DGG (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is consensus at AfD. I too have noted school articles are mainly kept. I think the good thing about AfD is it prompts people into action to actually supply references and sources. I've also noticed on occasion users being chastised for bringing articles to AfD before actually trying to fix said article. In a perfect world every article would be created from first edit fully referenced, wikified etc. Then there would be no need for an AfD process. But you can bet that if we didn't have AfD that a lot of editors just wouldn't bother. It gets used like a big stick at times but that's not entirely a bad thing. So just back to your "people challenge everything" comment. That is true that does happen, but they learn in the process and the article challenged benefits by many editors being made aware of it (a notability tag would also help) and it gets the necessary work done to it. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

but there are too many articles at AfD to be discussed intelligently, and the more we can keep from getting there , the better, so we can properly discuss the real issues. I found that when I was properly haying attention to afd i wasn't having time to do anything else, and I am now much more selective--as do others, with the result that many articles dont get adequate discussion there at all. Of course we need it often--there will always be borderline schools of various sorts for various reasons, but we should define as many as we can so they dont need it. DGG (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary criterion 2 must go. We don't do "all X are notable" rules. We don't have an article on George W. Bush purely because he is the current POTUS - we have an article on him because he is a high-profile politician, who has been elected to the highest office in his country's government, and happens to have had tons of information written about him which can be reliably verified. Primary criterion 2 is not in fact a "primary criterion", but rather an "alternative indicator" that the primary criterion (i.e. #1) might be met. Even then, it's not even a good indicator. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

sure we do; all railroad stations are notable, to pick one of the longest-standing examples. Or all inhabited places. This is a little less obvious, but if you want to reword it as a presumption that they are all notable, that's OK also. DGG (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's right and wrong. There are a number of topics which are assumed to be notable - commissioned warships are another example. However, the rationale for this isn't that these topics are particularly important, but that there is always going to be enough reliable sources on the topic to satisfy WP:NOTE. For instance, even the smallest ship in a 3rd World Navy will be covered in sufficient depth in very reliable independent sources such as Jane's All the World's Ships - from personal experiance, it's really easy to find excellent sources about even the most obscure warships. The editors who argue that high schools are automatically notable believe that there will also always be enough reliable sources on high schools to meet WP:NOTE. Other editors, such as myself, disagree with this as in many cases the only sources which can be dug up are routine lists of schools, the school's website and trivial coverage of routine activities in the local media which we don't feel are enough to establish notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We almost agree. It turned out that in fact about 80% of the HS articles proposed at afd could be found notable by the conventional criteria if enough work were done on them. This typically involved being able to get local print sources, and to work with sources in the language of the country. Obviously, this is hard to do in 5 days as a matter of routine, but when someone took on the job, almost always they succeeded. The failure to find sources is never definitive; finding sources is. Now, this isnt always, but in the great majority of cases. So we have a practical choice: we can accept them all, and know that when people work on them, as they will, we will have a type I error of 20% being in WP under the assumption of notability but that really aren't, and a type II error of zero, because we won't be missing any of the notable ones. Or we can debate each of them--our reproducibility of decision when we did decide them all at AfD is about 75% at the most optimistic, as shown by results of repeated afds. So if we debate them all we will have a type I error of about 25% of ones that are found notable by discussion that aren't , and a type II error of 25% that would be notable, but are rejected. So by doing all the work, we can get an inferior result to that of accepting them all without the work. If there were a really major cost of accepting too many, we might want to restrict to the obviously notable: this might be the case for a printed book with a fixed page budget.

for contrast, consider elementary schools. I think there's a likelihood that about 40% are notable at most, even if the most exhaustive work were done on them. So accepting them all gives a 60% type I error of ones that are incorrectly considered encyclopedic. Deciding individually gives 25% type I and 25% type II. Merging them all (the assumption that none are notable enough for an article) gives a 0% type I error, but a 40% type II error. So the best result is gotten by merging them all.

What I am basically saying is that the quality of decision for these articles at AfD is so poor that we might as well be arbitrary and save ourselves the trouble. We could of course improve the quality of the AfD, by having someone really do a full scale investigation of each article. there are so few people here to do that sort of work that the result would be nobody left to write good articles--we would spend all our time deciding the afds. School articles aren't worth that sort of trouble. DGG (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to "improve the quality of the AfD" is to just go with what is currently stated on the proposed policy. It says in the "Primary criteria" section: "2.High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available." Then under the "Failure to establish notability" section: "A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist." it then goes on to suggest a redirect back to relevant locality or school district. That way the history is still preserved at the redirect page should enough material be found to satisfy WP:V. It's pretty simple for an AfD result to be worked out for any High School. If no WP:RS (if yes then keep) to satisfy WP:V then redirect article. Bottom line is no High school article should be deleted if that proposed policy is being followed. I'd still be directing people to the policy when in an active AfD discussion. Even though the policy is still at proposal stage (Should just go with it) it is still relevant to any AfD affecting a school article. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"The debates when that policy is used is exactly what the problems are for high schools "encyclopedic" is not capable of non-circular definition.DGG (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed something? So how are you saying the "Primary criteria" section should read? Sting au Buzz Me... 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

""2.High schools/secondary schools are regarded as notable unless encyclopaedic material is not available. It will be assumed that such information is available unless shown otherwise"DGG (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Anyone else? Sting au Buzz Me... 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It contradicts itself - it states that high schools are automatically notable unless it can be proved that no reliable sources exist but that it will be assumed that such material does in fact exist until someone somehow proves that it doesn't (how can you prove that no offline sources exist, and who has the time to do so?). This also isn't consistent with WP:N which requires that reliable sources first be available before something is deemed notable. The small number of things which are ruled to be automatically notable (eg, commissioned warships) only have this status because its accepted that there are existing reliable sources which cover everything within the topic so there can never be any question of WP:N not being satisfied (Eg, the annual editions of Jane's Fighting Ships, which together have fairly in-depth information on every warship commissioned since about 1900 and similar reference books are available for ships commissioned before this). If there are some high schools which aren't notable (which this proposed guideline seems to acknowledge) then they all shouldn't be considered automatically notable. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I love Jane's, for ships and other things, and it would be good if there were more books like that. As for high schools, better to let them pass as notable than waste time arguing over them. One of the reasons we had such inconsistent AfDs is the arguments were too tedious and repetitive to attract thoughtful attention. I agree unnotable articles of some types detract from the notable ones in the category but I dont really think that's the case here--it's just more or less information. As for showing them to be unnotable, "a reasonable search" is understood. The difficulty is that for these articles a reasonable search that would find what material there is is quite difficult. DGG (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposed guideline takes the burden of evidence in proving notability off the article's creator and contributors and places it on other editors. That doesn't seem consistent with WP:N and WP:V and the general trend towards better referencing of articles. Given that high school articles attract vandals and spammers (many school articles look like they were written by the school - which probably isn't suprising given that many are businesses), I think that a very good reason needs to be provided to keep them if they can't meet the basic notability policies. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed here. Find and cite your sources before you write. If you don't, and someone challenges you, the article will and should be deleted; come back with them later and recreate the article. The burden is on the challenged, not the challenger. If you didn't find your sources in the first place, you did it wrong anyway. This proposal effectively places the burden of proving a negative. The onus for proving a positive is on those who add material, by actually providing sources (rather than just handwaving that they're probably out there somewhere). I'd rather have a "type II failure rate" of any amount than one more damn sourceless (or secondary-sourceless) article. It's well past time to focus on quality rather than quantity. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here! Here! I have seen many one and two sentence stubs with three, four, five or more references from reliable sources that are not challenged with deletion. So getting those references up front is generally one way of saving everyones times and keeping articles away from AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that is very sensible advise, but unfortunately many many schools articles are still been created that are either A) Not notable B) Notable but do not establish notability. Even if an article is A a re-direct (and frequently a merge as local area articles often don't even mention education, and WP:N only applies to articles as a whole) is better than deletion to maintain the edit history as required in a merge, and also allow the article to be easily re-created if the school becomes notable. The only exception I think is if it cannot be confirmed that the school exists and/or there is no where to merge/re-direct to.

As for schools that are clearly found to be B, well encyclopedic stubs are better than nothing. Spam and vandalism can be dealt with pretty easily just by removing the offending content. While I think putting pressure on the authors to provide sources is reasonable - there is no deadline. At worse articles that are B (or ones that it is not clear through searching are B or not) should be merged/re-directed to the relevant local area article, to allow easy re-creation later, again deletion should hardly ever be necessary. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So is this trending towards saying that secondary schools don't get an article without meeting WP:RS? Or to put it another way, they are not notable by default, only if supported by reliable sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think that's the case. While I agree with the importance of WP:RS for the majority of articles. I tend towards inclusion-ism with school articles. At the very least I think secondary schools should assume notability if they can be shown to exist. Cameron's comment to merge to district article goes with what is being asked for now in the proposed guideline. Each district or town/suburb can have a "Education" section added and the info merged there in AfD's were the community has decided that no seperate article is justified. That way the materials available for expansion when decent refs found. I've been following a lot of the school related AfD's lately and most of them result in "keep". I think we should just go with the guideline and remove the "proposed" from it. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The high schools which survive AfDs generally only do so after WP:RS is met - the argument that high schools are automatically notable is regularly contested. It's pretty clear from this talk page that there isn't a consensus to adopt these guidelines yet so I don't think that they have any role in AfD debates at present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but they are used as reasons to keep schools. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen them used - and editors who cite WP:SCHOOL in AfDs tend to be reminded that this is only a proposal. My point is that as there is clearly no consensus on this issue the proposal shouldn't be considered a guideline. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Every previous proposal on this has gotten rejected, it looks like this one is headed the same way. I don't think we're ever going to see a schools sub-guideline. This does not hurt my feelings. I would prefer to see everything redirected to N, which would say "If a subject has not been the subject of multiple reliable nontrivial sources independent of it, it is not appropriate for an article", and we'd have ourselves an end to cruft and a tremendous increase in quality. So as one might imagine I'm not heartbroken to not be seeing any additions to the parenthetical after "Keep, WP:KEEPGARBAGEARTICLES says we have to keep it if it (played for a pro sports team|is some barely notable band's album|went on a tour|won some award|starred in some arbitrary number of porn films|you get the idea), and this one-liner trivial mention says it's so!" Let sources decide. If you haven't found the sources yet, go get them and start again later, you weren't really ready yet. Sandbox it. Sources are due at the very first edit that creates an article, not some other time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Schools are routinely kept at AfD. Yes, that seems to be the case, but not because of the people claiming that schools meet a special guideline, but because during the AfDs the school article gets improved such that it meets WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to Vegaswikian's question, the answer is yes and no. I remain open minded on high school notability; high schools are generally notable in practise in my view, but I do not consider it a hard and fast rule; whatever the case I think it is unlikely there will be consensus anytime soon to make high school articles inherently notable. The problem is that this debate has always been based on two sides that can never come to a agreement: inclusionism, and deletionism. I want to try and think outside the box a bit and recognise that individual schools articles are not a closed system - the bigger picture needs be looked at, in other words through Structrism.

For example in the case of Pinnaroo Primary School there were three options: keep the article, delete the article, or merge the article. Keeping the article would have left a isolated stub that could never really meet WP:N, deleting the article would just have wiped out plenty of encyclopedic information. What was done was to merge the article into Pinnaroo, South Australia which had no mention of the primary school at all, despite the fact some encyclopedic information on it could be thrown in. In the case of high schools I think it is important that we continue to aim for the articles to meet guidelines such as WP:N, WP:REF - and keep this in mind when keeping them. However, en masse deletion only based on a face value look at the articles is not helpful either - if a case with evidence can be made that a encyclopedic stub on a secondary school can grow into a encyclopedic article, then it is reasonable to keep the article. Even if an a school appears non-notable, the bigger picture is worth looking at first to see if local area/district articles can be improved through a merge. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Use criteria from WP:ORG

• WP:ORG has additional criteria for inclusion of non-commercial organisations. Shouldn't this be the starting point. Organizations can be considered on the basis of their "longevity, size of membership, or major achievements". How about simply starting the criteria for high schools on two grounds only:

1) A high school that has been in existence for at least 10 years or

2) A high school that has at least 500 students enrolled at any one time.

The rationale for this is that these types of schools are likely to have newspaper articles or other secondary sources about them. That would keep it simple and allow for debate later on whether to include primary schools and other types of schools at a later time. Assize (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I think that you intent that these at least would be assumed to have sufficient notable alumni, etc. for notability, not that newer or smaller ones might not be notable. Many new schools will have good sources about their construction, and many excellent non-urban high schools and most private schools are smaller than 500 students. Interesting idea; we have long used longevity as a factor in school discussions. DGG (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Definitely. I would very surprised that a school of that size or duration would not be covered in local papers. This is much the rationale for including politicans in WP:BIO. At the moment, if your school is in a News Limited local paper area, then mentions can be found by various online means. Otherwise, you have to trawl through hard copy versions, which AfD'ers are not going to do. This criteria is not intended to make schools that don't come within the additional criteria as non-notable. If those schools have proper secondary sources, then WP:N kicks in and WP:ORG becomes irrelevant. It would be nice to get some consensus on some very basic criteria to start with. I've picked high numbers so that there is some discrimination and that every school does not automatically become notable. We can worry about critria for awards, famous students, etc, later on. I guess the management buzzword would be to "chunk it down"...Assize (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Is this an attempt to declare almost all high schools automatically notable by setting low thresholds? The majority of high schools in Australia and similar countries have more than 500 students and very few schools last less than 10 years. I don't see how meeting these arbitary benchmarks somehow guarantees notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think they are just trying to draw a comparison to WP:ORG. What would you consider reasonable thresholds in relation to number of students and age of school in relation to alternate criteria as far as schools are concerned? Sting au Buzz Me... 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that any arbitrary levels are appropriate. Notability is related to the availability of significant reliable sources which demonstrate that something is notable, and not just editors' views of the importance of that thing. It's quite possible for a large and long established school to have never received any in-depth coverage and for a brand new and tiny school to have attracted in-depth coverage at the national level. I agree that WP:ORG is highly relevant to schools, but the most relevant bit of it seems to be that "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". As almost all schools only operate in their local community the benchmark for notability needs to be higher than trivial or routine mentions in the local media. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

the practical choice we have here is between a low threshold, a zero threshold where they are all notable, and continued fights over every high school in the world, one at a time. The low threshold is a compromise intended to keep from automatic inclusion the schools about which there will probably not be any significant alumni or championships--the sort of things that make schools notable. As for size, there are national differences. Most of the discussion has been based on the US system, ,which is where the bulk of the articles are at this time. Obviously there will be differences. But there are between different parts of a single country also, and educational fashions. Many of the US urban high schools are being deliberated reorganized as very small units, and the traditional rural high school in the US is also quite small. But my own urban HS had 5000 students--twice as many as my first college.

There's only three ways to decide things in WP: compromise, steamroll the opposition, or quarrel continuously. Me, I'm not going to let any one steamroll me, but I'd rather compromise than quarrel--on almost anything but NPOV. DGG (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was left up to me, I would remove WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and all the other exceptions and only leave WP:N. However these additional criteria categories are well accepted whether for good or bad. The debates over schools are endless and it would nice if we could agree on something so we can move on to something else. Small towns of 50 people seem to be regarded as notable, yet a school of 500 isn't. If the standard is set at 50 years or 10000 students, at least that is a simple start. On the local issue, my reading of it is that schools that have verifiable sources would be considered notable under WP:ORG, although primary schools just get deleted anyway at AfDs. Assize (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

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

• Yea, I'll set it up for the bot. Probably leave discussions about for 21 days after the last comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. I'll let you handle it. Billscottbob (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

Please put me down as sharing all the concerns about primary criterion #2. It requires someone arguing for deletion to prove the negative. That's an impossible standard. There is nothing inherent about being a high school that should lead us to void all our other policies about verifiability and independence..

In the alternate criteria, I have concerns about the following:

• Bullet one says "winning a notable sporting or academic event" without defining what such an event might be. It implies that because a single student won the 1996 Delaware Chess championship that the entire school is suddenly and permanently notable. For one thing, that is too low a bar to support an encyclopedia article. For another, it exemplifies inherited notability - a concept that has been routinely rejected in essentially all other circumstances.
• Bullet two says "significant record holder". I can live with that but would be much happier if the examples were clearer about the scope. My concern is that with vague wording, partisans would parse the situation down until it fit. "X had the largest graduating class for specialty arts schools in the state of Rhode Island between 1980 and 1990."
• I can't speak to the examples posed in bullet three but I clearly remember commenting recently on an equivalent proposal about US awards. The awards must be reasonably exclusive to qualify. An award that more than a small minority earn over time is not "notable".
• I like the wording of bullet 4.
• I strongly dislike bullet 6. It confuses the distinction between news and encyclopedic content. Merely being the location where a newsworthy event took place does not automatically mean that the location inherits notability.
• As with bullet two, the examples in bullet seven are not sufficiently exclusive to support an encyclopedia article in my opinion.
• I can't think of an example of bullet 9 ever applying. Or why that would suddenly trump the primary criterion. If the legislature discussed a particular school in detail, there will be multiple sources about the school. If they only mentioned it in passing, it's not useful as a guideline.
• I can not accept bullet 10 as useful. A political leader's photo op is not a sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article.

With editing, this might become a useful guideline. But I'll also admit that I think schools could be adequately covered by WP:ORG with the addition of the qualifiers that are currently noted in the Failure to establish notability section. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. One or two thoughts in return. None of the criteria require a deletion proposer to prove a negative. P2, as with the others, must be justified by those defending the page. A6 has been rewritten to make it clear that the newsworthy event must involve the school or its people; merely being the location is not enough. Of course we could live without all notability guidelines eg WP:MUSIC and many others and rely on WP:N. However, the key benefit is that it provides a guide for article writers, avoiding some of the hopeless pages that appear and also provides a guide for deletion proposals saving work all round. In practice, schools that meet these guidelines are not deleted so codifying accepted practice seems sensible. TerriersFan (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, my comment on bullet 6 is based on the latest version and in my opinion, it still inappropriately blurs the line between news and encyclopedic content. It might be better than the earlier drafts but it's still not workable for Wikipedia.
I've re-read the second primary criterion yet again and I can't find any interpretation other than the need to prove a negative. Please give me an example how you think the conversation would go between two people disagreeing about the facts that would apply in a case hinging in this clause? Rossami (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary criteria #1: This is a good summary the core of WP:N.
Primary criteria #2: is not really helpful. It effectively says that “notable” is defined by the existence of “encyclopaedic material”. Anyone who already knows what constitutes “encyclopaedic material” doesn’t need to read this guideline. However, the presence of PC#2 doesn’t actually offend me.

Alternate criteria: It is good that the header bolds “reliably sourced”. These criteria are alternatives, not alternates. Please use standard formal English, not street English.
AC#1. Maybe, but such material would better belong in the article about the sporting/academic event.
AC#2. Content about regional records belongs in regional articles.
AC#3. Content covering winners of notable awards belongs in articles about the awards (you did say the award was notable).
AC#4. Notable distinctions deserve their own articles if they are notable, and those articles should list the schools achieving them. The first desegregated school in Mississippi should be discussed in an article on Desegregation in Mississippi.
AC#5. I’d prefer this criteria to require the pre-existence of articles on notable staff/alumni, meeting WP:BIO. I would then like to see what material really belongs in the school article as opposed to belonging in the biography.
AC#6. Newsworthy incidents should be covered as newsworthy incidents.
AC#7. Record achievements in official assessments should be covered in the articles about these official assessments, articles which should exist if these assessments are really notable.
AC#8. If the building is special, the article should be about the building.
AC#9. Mere mentions by verbose institutions is too far below WP:N standards to be considered an alternative criterion.
AC#10. If an official visit is notable, then coverage belongs in an article about the visit.

I find these alternative criteria unimpressive. Schools should aim to meet WP:N. An article about a school is appropriate if sufficient coverage of the school can be found in suitable sources. If any change is warranted, it is that some non-independent sources should be allowed, such as books about the school/town history possibly authored by staff of the school, or financed by the school or its alumni. With regard to the high number of ill-conceived school AfDs: Too often people are nominating school articles for deletion due to lack of sourcing, but sources are indeed available. More weight should be given to the policy WP:EP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SJ, this logically to extreme would remove all articles about all prize winners in anything--the award of an Academy Award should be covered in the article on the prize, the winning of a baseball world series in the article on the series, amd we'd need no articles on actors on or sports teams. It is winning such awards are contests that make the people notable. Same with schools. DGG (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn’t remove all prize winners. There are prize winners for whom sources exist that cover the person beyond the awarding a the prize. There is plenty of coverage of actors and sports teams out there. If the only source is only covering the awarding of a prize, then it is not really covering the school, and it is not really the basis of an article about the school. If winning awards makes something notable, then surely there will be sources covering the thing more roundly. Does a school you have in mind repeatedly win prestigious awards? Surely, this has been noticed and independently written about?

I didn’t mean to suggested that prize information shouldn’t be in school articles, that it shouldn’t be present in more than one place. I mean that if the information more logically belongs elsewhere, then that information on its own doesn’t mean that the school deserves its own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite! If someone was interested in an award winning school under SJ's proposals they would have to trawl through perhaps hundreds of articles to see if the school was there. Hardly a logical or user friendly approach. TerriersFan (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many awards. Anyone can create an award. A local business may sponsor and award for the cutest kid. A local politician may award a prize for the best charity work. The winning of awards per se doesn’t verifiably demonstrate notability. Third party reliable sources do, preferably when they are independent secondary sources.

If someone were interested in finding an award winning school, then that person would best use an appropriate directory. Perhaps a directory of schools. Perhaps a directory of awards. Trying to be user friendly to this person would seem to clash with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. If you want to push back the boundaries, to go beyond what others have already written about, how are you to decide how far you should go. Should every award every given be recorded? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those criticisms. The 'Alternative criteria' rely on a great extent on notability being transferred to schools from other things. This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines and practices. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed this section:

General advice

Find and cite your sources before you write. Independent secondary sources are strongly preferred. If you don’t have sources at hand, what are you doing? Original Research? See WP:NOR. Contributing off the top of your head? See WP:V

The material below is in response to cases where this advice is not followed.

It seems to me that this is relevant to a general page on how to create an article but not here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but given that one of the main problems with school articles is kids adding rubbish to the article on their school, it's probably worth highlighting. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When "kids" are adding rubbish to their school articles the last thing they are going to read is Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Sting au Buzz Me... 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but it will provide a handy link to use when justifying the removal of the material. I'm not terribly fussed either way. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not true at all! Their page gets prominently tagged, often with the notability template, which points them to these guidelines. I think the advocates for this guideline should think more clearly on who the expected audience is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Which notability template points them to WP:SCHOOL? I did make one for my own use. here's a copy: {{notability|Proposed|[[Wikipedia:Notability (schools)]]}} Sting au Buzz Me... 23:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The {{notability}} tag would be modified to include this guideline if it becomes accepted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know. It was discussed a while ago. Must be in the archives. Will need to tweak the javascripts too. Sting au Buzz Me... 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well anyhow, I'm not fussed either really. Before creating a new article editors (either newbies or old hands) are requested to visit Wikipedia:Your first article or do a search, experiment in the sandbox and quite plainly asked to provide references to WP:RS. How many kids actually do this though? A lot of pages on here are most likely created on the spur of the moment and subsequently improved by a flotilla of other editors. The kids are probably bored in computer class and would much rather be outside playing. If enough editors want it to go back in I'm ok with that. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was guilty of not visiting the Wikipedia:Your first article and I haven't been called a kid in ... um ... decades. Part of the issue is the basis of what about this other article? Speaking from my own experience, I think that people who are somewhat familiar with adding content to something electronic - website, blog, digg, etc. - will wander in, look at some other school articles, and determine that they know enough to begin editing their own school page. When I came in a couple weeks ago, I searched for a couple of the other 'sister' schools near the one that I was adding. Upon seeing their pages, I started adding one with even more detail (as is my penchant). I didn't initially realize how woefully lacking in notability, reliable, and verifiable sources it was and how stocked with non-NPOV language it was. When an editor brusquely NN'ed it, I was ready to fire back or leave. Fortunately a couple of other editors helped with the article, steered me in the right direction, and the article subsequently survived a challenging AfD. I suppose having more prominent entry suggestions/tutorials, especially for those categories that have current notability issues might be helpful, but may be just as easily ignored as the current ones.

I think I would have preferred a more neutral explanation of the issues with my article, a concise explanation of WP:WAX to quickly suppress the 'well they have one and mine's better' argument, and a good listing of quality school articles to use as examples. Maybe a tag could be created that would spell this out? It could be added along with the notability tag or the afd tags, as appropriate. I'd be happy to help in creating one, if that's even feasible. --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there's a lot of interest in creating the tag now does it? I tend to think we have enough tags. But if you want to go and create something specific then go ahead. This is Wikipedia after all. Check out WP:TEMPLATE for inspiration. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative criteria 10

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)

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)

Inherent Notability of High Schools

I would like to add the following statement under the second primary criterion:

1. • 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)

Protest

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)

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)

Status

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Compromise proposal

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)

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)

High school/secondary school notability

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not written like a guideline

In its present form it has much text that belongs on a discussion page rather than a main guideline page. Get rid of the "Background" section and any such metadiscussion, and leave only text which would be the permanent form it it, in the event it does not get tagged as "Disputed" "Rejected" "Historica" etc as many previous attempted guidelines for various areas have been. Edison (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. It has served its purpose. TerriersFan (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I was thinking this needed doing the other day. Still needs one more thing though? Remove the "proposed" and make it a Wikipedia guideline. These discussions have gone on long enough and many users refer to WP:SCHOOL in AfD's. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see sufficient consensus to support the majority of the proposed alternative criteria. I'm not even sure that there is consensus for the second primary criterion. There are still serious flaws which have not been adequately addressed. I would strongly oppose elevation of this page in its current form. Rossami (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your kidding right? What part of "A school will be regarded as notable provided at least two of the following criteria can be reliably sourced:" Don't you like? Two of them! And reliably sourced to boot. That would give notability right there. Just go with the guideline. We've had enough of this. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. "Notability is not inherited" is a firmly established principle across the project. Most of the alternative criteria are based on inheritance, not independent notability. A topic is not notable for having one notable parent and it doesn't suddenly become notable for having two. The premise of the section is a broken standard regardless of the reliability of the sourcing. Rossami (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your views but the threshold of requiring two criteria be met is pretty tough. It needs to be borne in mind that these guidelines will not result in more articles being kept. If you examine AfDs over the last few months you won't find any school that was deleted which met these guidelines and, I would add, no Anglosphere public high school gets deleted. What these guidelines do is reflect the practice that has emerged from AfDs. They will help article creators know what is required to try to stop the creation of numerous no-hoper elementary school pages and, also, avoid equally no-hoper AfDs that waste everyone's time. I am sure that most editors have reservations about some of the criteria but we need to compromise because if they bring the guidelines down because of that there will be no winners. TerriersFan (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The guideline doesn’t document practice at AfD. Normal practice is that a school article in particularly poor shape is nominated, a few individuals do some quick research to improve the article, adding secondary sources, removing the original basis of the argument for deletion, and the AfD fails.

Apart from that, TerriersFan seems to not deny that the guideline is not impressive, but regardless, it may serve to stem the time wasting AfDs on undeveloped school articles. The hope, I guess, is that interested editors will be left to spend more time improving articles instead of arguing at AfD. I suppose that it may work. Could an inferior rule lead to a better product? A better product trumps other concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of difference between accepting the current practice and enshrining it as the rule. Once the practice becomes codified, it is far harder to change. If the choices are this page as currently written and nothing, I honestly think the project is better served staying with nothing. Rossami (talk)

Yes but it will be a "guideline" not an iron clad "rule" as such. In fact the template at the top of the guideline would be worded much the same as WP:ORG is now. I'll tag the page now just to show everyone how I feel it should look. Before reverting do have a look and a think about the wording i.e. "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Sting au Buzz Me... 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the procedure is for adopting guidelines, but I'm pretty sure that you can't just declare a draft guideline adopted. From the slow paced discussion on this talk page it's clear that there's no consensus here to adopt the guidelines as they stand, so I don't think that they're fit to be put to a wider audience for consideration. The problem with the 'alternative critera' being based on inheritance is serious and will act to prevent this guideline from being adopted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone can, and did, just declare the proposal accepted. But will it be accepted for long, and more importantly, will anyone pay attention? Now that it is declared accepted, its profile will be increased, especially when people start referring to it at AfD. We’ll see what happens then. If a number of editors come to dispute the guideline, it will be very hard to sustain the argument that it reflects consensus. WP:POL makes it very easy to apply the {{rejected}} tag. I am happy to wait and see what happens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing like guideline-level consensus here. I've retagged as rejected, given how long the discussion has been going on, it's unlikely there ever will be. If someone wants to put it as proposed again, that's fine, but there is certainly no consensus for adoption as a guideline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you dispute the guideline on your own judgement, or do you just rely on "lack of apparent consensus"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above, really. I don't support it myself, since it adds retention criteria not based on sufficient source material to write an article with, and it cannot be a guideline without consensus. It's not really a question of "disputing the guideline", it never was a guideline and has never had significant consensus behind it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So you waded in with your whole consensus of "one" again and tagged the guideline with the rejected template just like you did a while back. Did you read what it said before you tagged it? Did you come to this talk page first? No you didn't did you. We have WP:N, WP:PROF, WP:BK, WP:MOVIE, WP:MUSIC, WP:WINI, WP:ORG, WP:BIO, WP:WEB and WP:FICT but you want to use your whole consensus of one and reject WP:SCHOOL? I really don't understand your reasoning for wanting to do this. It has been explained here on this talk page how having this guideline will help the AfD process. I notice you had nothing to say about that. It was me who reverted your edit last time you tagged these guidelines with the rejected tag. Someone else did it this time but I can assure you I will revert the rejected tag if added again myself unless I see consensus for the guideline to be rejected. So honestly what does that tell you? Sting au Buzz Me... 11:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It may not yet have achieved complete consensus, but it certainly has not been rejected. Seraphimblade's argument amounts to "it ought to be rejected" DGG (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that this is unlikely to garner consensus and should be rejected. There will not be consensus on inherent notability and the outcomes argument that is advanced with reference to AfD debates is not grounds for enshrining a disputed principle as a guideline. Indeed, it is possible that at some point the necessary forces to succeed in purging Wikipedia of all this schoolcruft that has heaped up will organically coalesce as a function of the growing tendency to recognise that this is, avant tout, an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This aside, there seems the idea here that there need to be some type of consensus to reject a proposal. This is not so; there need only be lack of consensus to accept it and a similar lack of likelihood that it will form. Given the lack of large-scale interest and the continued disagreement with this guideline, there is certainly not consensus to accept it now; given the previous history of any type of school sub-notability guidelines, chances are it won't. I have no problem with "proposal", if people still believe discussion to be valuable, but it's not likely at all to get accepted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have stagnated with neither new changes to improve the page nor new arguments to keep it as is. I do not see consensus that this page has been accepted or that it is likely to do so in the near term. I'm going to be bold and tag this as {{historical}} until and unless the debate restarts. Rossami (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent lead section did not read like one of a guideline either, the page is supposed to help guide Wikipedia editors to if a school is notable or not (if it is accepted), so should stick to this guideline says / says not in the lead section to help overview the page. This guideline must / must not content, and generally anything aimed at those who are trying to contribute to the page itself is more for the talk page or for policy itself - most people who edit this page are quite familiar with core policy, and probably won't appreciate it being read back to them anyway. So I have rewritten the lead section to give a more appropriate introduction that is in a tone more like existing guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:Notability (books) - note that the latter despite having such an introduction does allow for some inherent notability. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested secondary notability criteria

I would like to suggest a secondary criteria to establish notability of a school:

"A school is considered as notable if there are at least three alumni (with verifiable sources) who have biographical Wikipedia articles."

The rationale and justification for this follows:

• A Wikipedia article about a person implicitly asserts that person's notability. If they weren't notable, they wouldn't have an article.
• A school that has educated at least three notable people is notable for that reason.
• Why three? Why not one, or ten, or twenty? I admit the number three is somewhat arbitrary, yet it demonstrates a trend. One or two could be an oddity; three indicates at least the start of a trend. And three is a common number used in decision-making (ex: three strikes in baseball, three branches of government). This suggestion is offered to the community for discussion. What do you think? Truthanado (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I'd go along with that, unless the school had something to do with their later achievements beyond being "just the school they happened to go to." Also, your average school will have a certain number of notable alumni per million, which means large schools will reach that number after a relatively short time.

Now, if the school has an otherwise-semi-notable program which led to the later achievements, then yes. For example, if a Junior High School has a good but under-recognized music program and it sends more than its fair share of students off to famous music academies for high school, and many of those become notable, then yes, you could use this as an alternative criteria.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that that is consistent with WP:N or WP:V. First, it boils down to notability being inherited from something else, which runs against a lot of conventions and is why the alternative criteria were, in effect, rejected. Second, Wikipedia guidelines are explicit about Wikipedia not being a satisfactory source for other Wikipedia articles. Third, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are all very clear that reliable sources which directly cover the topic of the article are essential to establish notability, and this seems to contractict that by saying that sources which cover students of the schools are good enough to establish notability for the school. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit off-topic, but notability can be inherited. In a quite literal sense, royalty and high-ranking nobles are usually included by virtue of their office even if they did nothing notable and were but a footnote in history. The question we have to ask ourselves is does the position of being a high school, a public/tax-supported school, or the combination create inherent nobility? Does the act of producing a certain minimum number of notable graduates make you notable absent other criteria? These aren't "easy" questions and there probably won't be a consensus without a lot of work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion above. Let's try an example. Is the high school that President Bush attended considered notable because he attended it? Would people like to see an article about that high school? I have a hunch most would say yes. What say the community? Truthanado (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Rossami (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I would expect it because it was a high school, not because a President graduated from there. If you asked the same thing about his otherwise-non-notable day care, preschool, elementary, and middle schools, I would be satisfied with a wikilink to the school district or a hyperlink to the school's or district's web page. Ditto any President's Scout Troop and Little League team: External links or wikilink-to-section links will do fine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Training schools inherently notable?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Governor's Schools as Inherently Notable

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alternative criteria

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)

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)

Why diploma-granting schools are usually notable

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Speedy delete no longer applies to schools

Recently, the {{a7}} "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit warring over status

Sting au's edit converting this page from proposed to guideline is quite unjustified. The use of the "minor edit" flag even makes it underhand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion you mean? Seen all the work that has been done to the guideline? How long does it need to go on?--Sting au Buzz Me... 07:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It needs to go on until the proposal is ready to see if there is consensus. Consensus is determined through a poll. One editor does not have the right to edict a new guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Consensus can be decided right here and now. If enough people go with the edit that changes it to a guideline. Then THAT will be consensus. The guideline is fine as it is and no longer needs to have that lame proposal tag on it.--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, announce it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in order to see whether it has wider consensus. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that all the main problems with this guideline have been ironed out, but there was never any kind of discussion on whether the guideline was finished and ready to be adopted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that we need a final discussion on if to put the guideline tag which is announced at the village pump and on WP:CENT before we actually do so, I assure you this will prevent a lot of problems later on. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus has not been called for and it looks like there is still some discussion going on. Consensus is achieved when either there is an explicit call for consensus and there are no serious objections, when it is so obvious that snowball applies, or when the discussion dies down with not serious objections AND someone makes a statement along the lines of "I think discussion has died down and we have consensus, if I don't see any objections I'll change this to a guideline in 3 days." If you go the latter route, it's good form to alert all previous discussion participants and post the announcement in the same places where the original proposal announcement was placed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not sure whether consensus exists for this upgrade or not, consensus is absolutely not determined through a poll. Polls are evil is still a key part of the Wikipedia process and culture. By all means, make an explicit call and see if anyone objects. But remember that in practice, that's exactly what Sting au did when he boldly edited the page. And those of us watching the page tacitly endorsed his decision by not immediately reverting it. The edit stayed unreverted for just under 72 hours. The bold move has now been reverted so we should discuss it but that does not mean that we get to vote on it. That's not how policy/guideline is made at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume. I didn't revert because I assumed I missed the discussion and on that particular day and for that matter much of the past week I was too busy to dig through the discussion. In most other weeks, I would've reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold moves should also not be flagged as 'minor' edits with summary "Looks right now"; that has implication of minor grammar or phrasing changes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your right I shouldn't have marked the edit as minor. I've realised now that I have a habit of marking almost every edit I do as minor! I suppose I hadn't considered how some people could see some things as such a big deal. I'll try to not do that in future. Well at least for policy pages ;-) Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe all this rubbish? Anyone read WP:CON lately? We don't need polls. The thing plain to me at present is that there is a core of editors who will not allow this to be a guideline and seem happy to have it remain as a proposal until their faction gets it rejected. Any editor who believes this should now be a stand alone guideline simply revert to that edit.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and has anyone not wanting the guideline being declared actually read the guideline? I notice none of the people reverting actually saying what still needs to be done with it? That actually makes be believe that their reversion edits are actually in bad faith. It is not a case of striving to perfect the guideline but simply one of scuttling the process no matter what. Next time I tag this guideline please be prepared to say here what you think it needs adding to make it acceptable to you.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the proposal and the discussion. Both before and after your arbitrary closure. I saw your change within about 3 minutes of when you did it. I looked for the closure discussion and couldn't find any discussion at all past the last comment that said the point about historical buildings needed to be fixed. All I saw was your "looks right now" comment. My thought was along the lines of "What the hell? Is this what consensus means around here? Some admin just wanders by and makes it a policy because he wants it that way? Crap." But since I'm not an admin, and I've only been around here a few weeks, I assumed I didn't have the authority to override your decision, even though it looked like typical clique politics. I guess I should have reverted immediately, and I certainly woulld that this point, even though I assume I'd be accused of edit warring.

Who said I was an admin? Certainly not me! Don't think you need to be an admin around here before you can make a bold edit. This place runs on volunteer labour. No one gets paid for doing this. "Clique politics" yeah that's an understatement. If you'de take the time to wade back through the archived discussions you might become a little more enlightened.--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't know I could undo your change, I did the next best thing -- I brought your closure to the attention of the people involved in the discussion, whom you obviously didn't notify of your closure.Loren.wilton (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't need to notify them. They all have this page on their watch list just like me. Did the person who tagged the proposal as rejected notify anyone first? No he didn't. Once again this is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit be they a motor mechanic, waiter, housewife etc. All unpaid volunteer contributions. This is a community effort. Some people think it needs to be more perfect than Encyclopedia Brittanica (built by paid staff) and what then if it does? Will it be sold off for several billion dollars and filled full of advertizing? Do I need to notify someone before I make an edit? Don't make me laugh. Keep editing you're doing a great job. The important thing to remember is to enjoy yourself.--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for several months and while there have been massive changes in the last few weeks, a consensus this is not, and while marking it as one has been effective in eliciting proof that it is not a consensus, it seems to go against WP:POINT on several levels and I worry about the motivations behind it. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a big long look back through the edits to the guideline and you will see many that fit nicely with WP:POINT. My motivation? Rather than speculate (or are you trying to make a point?) how about sharing what your specific worry is? Everyones got an agenda. At least you snuck an edit into the proposed guideline trying to clean it up. This guideline is more than ready.--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems:

• 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)

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)

I for one think it should be better than Britannica, at least in terms of the target quality implied by guidelines like this one, if not every individual article. We’re a work in progress. The current standards are not the target. The problem with notability subguidelines is that they have to set a low standard because people interpret then as deletion criteria, and then you’ve gone and set a low standard that other people will think is the appropriate standard. So, yes, by default, I am opposed to any and all notability subguidelines as unhelpful complications that muddy the waters, unhelpful to newbies and unneeded by experienced wikipedians.

It’s all a horrible mess though. I still think WP:N is a dog’s breakfast of a document, and that the core principles as expressed in WP:CORP and WP:BIO are actually in better shape.

On another level, I am opposed or semi-opposed to the content of most of the alternative criteria and most certainly dispute your "opinion that the guideline was ready". Documenting (in a pseudo policy document remember) the implication that a school article is good enough if the school includes a special building is just stupid. I would just strike that alternative. Perhaps you might like to expand it, probably adding many words, perhaps to require that the history of the special building is connected to the history of the school. I have laid out criticisms on most of the alternative criteria [1]. Proponent’s of this guideline, including you, have ignored them. I find your strategy of ignoring the criticism for a few weeks, letting it get archived, then sneaking in a status upgrade, to be less than ideal. I don’t see why I should work to improve the alternative criteria when I think this guideline is a waste of time, detrimental in that its net effect will be to reduce the quality of wikipedia. I think everything good in it is redundant to some simple advice (not originally mine) [2] that apparently others don’t like because it should already be elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Consensus?

The previous subject does not really address the issue. It primarily focused on improperly changing a proposed guideline to a guideline. So I raise the question, does consensus currently exist among those working on this proposed guideline so that it can be properly moved up to the next level for adoption. If you do not believe that this is ready to become a guideline, please state why and be as specific as possible, create a separate section for each problem area. Link to previous discussions if related. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still debate on the third alternative criterion. While the building a school is in may be notable, that does not make the school notable. Take for an example (outside of schools for sake of example) the The "Old Capitol" building in Golden, Colorado, the building is absolutely notable as a nationally registered Historic place, but the restaurant which currently resides in the building is not (The Old Capitol Grille). The Building needs an article, but at best the school deserves a sentence in the history if not notable in its own right.

I think the guideline needs to explicitly reiterate (or supercede) the section of common AfD's that describes schools. I don't agree that High schools are "Inherently" notable, only that in the vast majority of cases they happen to be notable (and that most of the rest are hoaxes).

This guideline just needs more eyes and more opinions, as i have stated before. I'd like nothing better than to slap a big old "Approved" stamp on the front but as we've seen at least four times now, schools guidelines don't seem to be getting enough consensus for approval. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that element needs better wording. The intention, I believe, was not to confer notability on a school that happens to be in a historic building but, rather, when the school and the building share a common history. Someone needs to find the right phrasing to make that more clear. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep: This issue was raised when the discussion first re-started. If it is not significantly different than WP:N (which is really just a guideline to ensure the WP:NPOV, V and OR policies can be met), then it is an evil multiplication of guidelines making the project less transparent and accessible. I think the sole point which differed, originally, was to come to an agreement that verifiable schools should never be deleted but, rather, kept or merged. That does not need a Notability guideline, just a line in WP:ORG DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a further list of instruction creep that already got away from you..WP:PROF, WP:BK, WP:MOVIE, WP:MUSIC, WP:NUMBER, WP:ORG, WP:BIO, WP:WEB but for some reason editors here think we shouldn't have a WP:SCHOOL?--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

there is a difference between merge, which usually ends up putting the name of the school in a list in an article, and an article beting kept, which provides substantial information. he point of the notability guideline is to explain when there should be more than jsut the mention in a list. DGG (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We need a seperate notability guideline for schools. We need it now and we need to have this proposal accepted. As was pointed out above this is just a "guideline", it works in with WP:N and WP:V.--Sting au Buzz Me... 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need to rush on this. The issue has been open for years and a few days or weeks are not a big deal. At the point that we are with this proposal, it may need a merge into WP:LOCAL and that will end the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be midday Saturday UTC before I can give this the attention it deserves. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this guideline. It seems to have been originally created as a vehicle to justify special treatment for schools (for instance, nominators for deletion having to prove that the school isn't notable and not the other way around, notability being inherited from notable former students and from vists by VIPs, etc). Now that these items have been removed it's basically WP:N with three 'Alternative criteria' which basically add up to a reasonable assumption that the school meets WP:N. The policy as written is inoffensive and consistent with WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP (all of which are relevant to schools), but isn't really neccessary as there is no longer any claim that schools notability should be assessed on different criteria than general notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability using WikiProject Universities as a benchmark

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do not confuse Notability with Importance. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indicators of probable notability - too restrictive

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

With respect to stubs for "obviously" notable schools: The current style guide for stubs, WP:STUB, does not explicitly require references. As a result, editors may not realize that normal Wikipedia content rules do apply even to stubs. I've proposed a change that would make this explicit. This should cut down on the number of stubs that don't include at least one reference in order to meet WP:VERIFY. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Significant coverage"?

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)

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)

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)

Is this notability discussion moot?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re the alternate criteria

I think that the current version of the proposal is much better than what has been proposed before. However, having read the alternate criteria, I have some doubts. They seem to be a bit contrary to the spirit of WP:N. Criteria like this usually serve to give an indication that there is independent coverage about the subject. For awards, outstanding rankings, etc., this might be true - these schools may receive a lot of press coverage for example. (Although, why not cite these sources directly?) But the criterion regarding a historically important building seems weird to me. If the building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, an article about the architecture of the building may be warranted, but what does that say about the school (as an educational institution)? It almost seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In support of the above, I should like to repeat my comments over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools:-

"A school will be regarded as notable provided one of the following criteria can be reliably sourced... The school is located in a building of architectural importance, for example... a school in England which has been designated as a listed building by English Heritage." It would be quite wrong to confer notability on a school which simply occupies a notable building but has no educational or other claim to notability. That would surely be as misguided as claiming that all individual owners of notable buildings must be notable: notability becomes purchasable. If it's only the building which is notable, then what merits a Wikipedia article is the building and not the school. This section should require more than one of the three Alternative criteria, or else the one on buildings should be taken out. 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xn4 (talk • contribs) (I think he/she accidentally hit 5 tildes instead of 4)

Architecture is only one of four criteria looked at when deciding whether to list a given school (or any other location) on the National Register of Historic Places. See the criteria at NRHP#Criteria. If a non-descript garage in Silicon Valley was the place where HP began, it might make the list. Same for an otherwise typical adobe house that happens to be the oldest structure in Fremont. Design and execution are not always the issue--for schools, it is frequently based on being the first permanent high school or public school in an area combined with some archictural merit, which may only be that it provides a good example of buildings of a specific historic period more than 50 years ago.--Hjal (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the above has nothing to do with justifying the one of the four criteria objected to, and the argument offered is about the notability of buildings. Hjal uses the phrase "based on being... combined with architectural merit", but the present draft doesn't require anything to be combined with architectural merit, it offers 'probable' notability (and the right for a stub to remain, which effectively confers notability) to a school which has no claim to notability except architectural merit. Xn4 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects/Disambiguation

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)

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)

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)

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

CSD and notability

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)

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)

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)

Proposal: Refer to WP:CORP for now

It looks like there are areas where there will not be a consensus any time soon.

With that in mind, I recommend we delete what we have and merge it into WP:CORP and add a section for schools, under Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations - Non-commercial organizations:

start

===Schools===

In general, schools should be treated as any other non-commercial organization, with a few minor adjustments. Colleges and universities that grant undergraduate or graduate degrees are generally considered notable simply because they grant degrees. The Wikipedia community has not reached a consensus on whether high schools are notable merely because they grant diplomas. Because there is no clear consensus on what it takes to make a high school article notable, editors who create new articles should be prepared to defend the articles against deletion. Editors of articles on high schools are strongly encouraged to go beyond the basic requirements and provide reasons why the school is notable beyond the fact that it is a diploma-granting institution. Examples of nationally recognized notability such as being a Blue Ribbon School or being the location of a nationally recognized event like Little Rock Central High School's nationally-followed desegregation efforts are strongly preferred, although multiple examples of state or regional notability such as state athletic championships may substitute. As with any Wikipedia article, multiple examples of notability are far better than a single example. Lower-level schools, post-high-school institutions which do not grant degrees, trade schools, and other schools are generally not considered automatically notable and articles about them should not be created unless notability is clearly established.

A7 applies to organizations. Since the consensus is that colleges and universities are automatically notable, it should not be used for degree-granting colleges. Because there is no consensus on whether high schools are automatically notable, it should not be used for high schools either. In both cases, other forms of deletion, including other SPEEDY deletions, Proposed Deletion, and AfD can be used. A7 can be used for lower-level schools, trade schools, and other schools that do not grant diplomas or degrees where the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." added 4/15/2008 14:08 Before deleting a school for lack of notability, consider merging its content into that of a related article instead. end addition

end

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the concept and the proposed merger. I would like to see the text pruned some but don't have any specific suggestions yet. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• I support this proposal. Suggested addition to the text: "... to provide reasons on the article's talk page why the school is notable ..." Truthanado (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• the problem is to keep pace with consensus as expressed in the field of battle at AfD. Trying to guide it here has, admittedly, kept us either ahead or behind of the changing views there. But I think the consensus there quite consistently for non-notable elementary schools has been to merge, not delete, and this would supersede deleting them by A7. It should rather be an default of merge to the locality or the school district or diocese or whatever is the most appropriate unit in the circumstances. Agreed, speedy is easier, and it's tempting, because there are quite a few UK elementary schools waiting for such treatment. DGG (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I think that that pretty much sums up the state of consensus. I believe that if it is added, though it needs to be internationally friendly. It's not about "national" notability, but of global notability, so perhaps a UK award instead of a US award, maybe an Australia example as well as a US example. Otherwise, I agree that that will at least stand in the interim before consensus developes (if it ever does). Adam McCormick (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The wording needs a lot of work to make it understandable to non-US readers. Most of this is unintelligible to me. I don't understand what is meant by a diploma-granting institution. I also don't understand what is meant by degree-granting colleges. Lots of UK universities are made up of a number of colleges. Is the idea that every single college at say the University of Oxford should have its own article? I am also not convinced about the automatic notability of universities. Sources will undoubtedly exist for universities in most English-speaking countries but it might well be a struggle to write a properly sourced article about a university in China or North Korea without any knowledge of the language. The use of the word 'state' is also somewhat ambiguous as it can often be synonymous with national. What is the difference between an undergraduate and graduate degree? Is a graduate degree the UK equivalent of a postgraduate qualification such as a PhD? I think also the term athletics has a different meaning in the US. In the UK athletics generally refers to the track and field events but I think perhaps the US meaning is much broader and encompasses all sports, so again particular care needs to be taken to ensure that the meaning is clear for all international readers. Dahliarose (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are some very good questions. I won't attempt to answer all of your questions but I will answer a few. In the USA, a High School Diploma is given at the completion of High School. High School is grades 9-12, which is typically ages 14-18. From there, most people go into the work force, the armed forces, trade school, or to a college or university. Like in England, universities typically consist of more than one college. From a notability perspective, it is the university, not the individual colleges, that are "automatically" notable. Individual colleges within a university should start off as a section under the parent university then be split off later if warranted. For university systems, such as The University of California System, individual universities each get their own article. You are not convinced of the automatic notability of universities, but it seems like most Wikipedia editors are, at least with respect to "real" universities. Mail-order unaccredited "diploma mills" are not automatically notable no matter what they call themselves. As far as colleges and universities in China, lack of citations will result in the article being tagged then gutted to a stub, a stub which will likely be AfD'd away if it's not a clearly notable university. This is true of any Wikipedia article. In the United States, an undergraduate degree is typically either an 2-year associate degree or a 4-year bachelor's degree, both of which can be earned immediately after high school. Graduate degrees include just about every degree that requires a Bachelor's degree before beginning the program of study. This is typically a Masters Degree, which typically takes 2-3 years of full-time study, or a Doctorate degree, which involves 2-3 years of full-time study followed by a dissertation in the case of a Ph.D. or equally rigourous training in the case of a Medical Doctor or other types of doctorate degrees. Your other points about the differences between countries is important and needs to be discussed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to divert the issue from schools, but essential all major college-level division of a university--allowing for the large variety of names by which they are know-- (beyond a certain size) do it practice get articles--all medical schools for example do, if anyone has gone the trouble to do the work, as does the typical Where the line is presently drawn is with individual academic departments, and individual academic programs at universities, that are below the college level--these almost never get courses, at least so far. DGG (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be true of medical schools, law schools, and seminaries, but it is less true for business schools, schools of liberal arts, schools of science, schools of engineering, schools of education, etc. Yes, there are many of the latter group but I would say most universities do not have articles for all of their constituent schools. Usually this happens if the school has a different name than the university or is famous, not just notable, in its own right, such as Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Heck, even the The University of Pennsylvania Glee Club article is deemed WikiWorthy, something most student groups at any university will never achieve. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I find I agree with SmokeyJoe, writing above:

“ The effect of this notability guideline is to create more notability loopholes... 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. ”

For me, that's the nub of it. There need to be limits somewhere, and WP:N sets them. Nibbling away at those in different projects undermines the policy and takes us into nonsense. If a dismal school becomes 'probably notable' simply by buying or renting itself a notable building, then why should that loophole apply to a school but not to a person (or a fish and chip shop) with no other claim to notability? A flawed policy like this draft would command little respect and would cause more problems than it solved. Xn4 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose part of the problem being raised is that of, what a school is and when you agree on that, then the notability factors will fall into place. The meanings of school generally discussed here are:

1. The building used to provide the education
2. The organization and process in a building that provides the education

Obviously, or maybe not so, the former has notability for the building when appropriate. The latter can be notable as an institution and could be for the building if there is a long term relationship. I suspect that most school articles are about the institution as a body or organization and not the building which is only incidental to the education process. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comments seem to prove my point. In the proposed policy, what's meant by school is plainly the educational institution, and not "the building used to provide the education". The proposed policy develops around educational, not architectural criteria. If a building is notable as a topic (see WP:N), then it's notable as a physical object, just as a painting or a statue is. An article on a notable building is an entirely different animal from an article about the person or activity which occupies it. As I've asked before, if occupying a notable building makes a school "probably notable", then why not a business or a person? What is creeping in here is surely the notion that schools, as topics, are in some way superior to others, so that the slightest pretext (or even none at all) should confer notability on them, but no one has advanced a rationale for that. Xn4 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

School districts

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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 [3]. See also Sausalito Marin City School District and [4]. 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)

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)

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)

Hmm, I'll keep that in mind. If this guideline ever makes guideline status, it might be good to include such information in it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for one of the first schools

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)

Proposed guidelines for naming format for schools

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)

Consensus

I have not seen any substantive objection to the guidelines for some time. Do we have a consensus? TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The question isn't whether objections continue to be repeated ad nauseam, but whether anything has been done about them, other than moving them into an archive. The fundamental aim of the guidelines is still to treat schools much more generously than any other subject and to make them inherently notable on the flimsiest of pretexts. In particular, nothing has been done (except an ineffective toying with words) to address the example of this which I have focussed on: we still read -

“ If any [my emphasis] of the following can be reliably sourced, then the article should not be deleted... 3. The school is located in a building of architectural importance... ”

This still means that notability can be bought by an utterly non-notable school simply by buying or renting a notable building. I don't wish to repeat the whole of my rationale for this objection, but in a nutshell I've pointed out that we rightly do not award notability to any other body or person simply for occupying a significant building. This would simply be double standards. Xn4 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if point 3 came out would you agree to it? TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove point three and make the page a guideline i.e. no longer a proposal. The only editors who oppose this are the ones who have shown in the past they do not want the guideline and never offer anything constructive to keep it.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As you may remember, I'm not convinced of the need for the guideline, but point 3 is the only objection I've pursued in any depth. Yes, if it came out then I don't see any more points worth my pursuing here. Xn4 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

<- As I've not been happy with that clause either (although I understand where it came from) I've just gone and ripped out, and replaced it with a "well, duh!" replacement crieterion. Discussion is hereby opened. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see my third point got immediately deleted. I think there are aspects to it that do not fall under the crieteria that was used for deletion. I agree with the edit summary, but my point covers things like your average national news school shooting or the like that brings the school into national recognition for weeks or months at a time, or the school having the worst academic record in the state 5 years running. Those are pretty clearly things that make the school potentially article (or at least stub) worthy. How can we word a point about "sufficiently newsworthy to have become notworthy"? Loren.wilton (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The third bullet that was removed had to do with architecture. The concerns raised were about the inheritance of notability.
That bullet was immediately replaced with "The school has appeared as the subject of national or regional news broadcasts or articles." This new bullet three is as or perhaps even more problematic. As written, it falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS because it could be read to allow for a single 30 sec newscast on a slow news day to justify inclusion. That's not enough to support an encyclopedia article. If there really has been the extended coverage for multiple events that you describe above, then the new bullet is unnecessary because the school will already meet the "primary" criterion. The wording now allows an unnecessary loophole. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about my rewrite? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still redundant to the "primary" criterion in the section immediately above it. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the new wording. The 'significant coverage' is supported by footnote 1. While the whole point may be somewhat redundant, in fact the whole section, nay, the whole guiideline, is somewhat redundant. I view it as a summary of collected information, and for the deletionists-in-trade, I don't think that it would hurt to be fairly explicit that a single event with lots of coverage in multiple sources can serve as a form of sufficient notability. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I too like the new wording for notability item #3, with the addition of "international". It is consistent with general Wikipedia notability guidelines and provides specific guidance to editors of school articles. I would like to clarify that lack of "significant coverage by national media" does not make a school non-notable. There may be other things that would demonstrate notability. Truthanado (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What is an example of a page that would be allowed under Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Indicators of probable notability bullet 3 that's not already allowed under Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Criteria? The Indicators of probable notability section only kicks in for those situations that haven't demonstrably met the Criteria section. How could you meet this new bullet 3 and not have fully met the Criteria section? Rossami (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you are correct, that to meet this you have to meet the main criteria. I'd go farther and say that this is a nice short single sentence that the people that skip over and ignore boiler plate can still see, and can be pointed to when they are inclined to delete cited articles on grounds of non-notability. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then move it to the front of the list and rewrite the two sections to merge them. The possibility of inconsistencies between the two sections concerns me. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On reviewing the Crieteria section, I agree with you, my point 3 is redundant. I'm not terribly concerned about inconsistancies in this case, but I removed it anyway as it did not really add value. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue Ribbon School

I still have an issue with item 2 since I'm not convinced that all of the BRS criteria makes earing the award notable to the school. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the above statement. Are you saying that you consider "top school" type awards to be sufficiently degraded that being awarded one is still not a sign of anything notable? Loren.wilton (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that being a Blue Ribbon School is not a notability criteria, in my opinion. While some of the criteria would make this a useful guideline, not all of the awards are significant as an inclusion criteria here. The problem in the US is that this may be the only country wide award of note. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On looking at the Blue Ribbon award criteria I am somewhat inclined to agree with you, but only somewhat. Saving a school that is notable only for a Blue Ribbon award and has absolutely no other press coverage would probably not be a good idea. On the other hand, deleting a school simply because it has a Blue Ribbon award would be a bad idea. I think we are saved by the overall title of he section these points appear: Indicators of probable notability. Having a Blue Ribbon award may not be enough to make the school completely notable if that is the only thing that can be found on the school. I think though that it should probably be enough to let the article exist as a stub without fear of instant deletion, given that the award is sourced and not merely asserted. And that is really what this whole section is about: "Hey, if they can show this much, give 'em a chance to show more, because there probably is more that they can show."

Do those thoughts address your concerns at all? Loren.wilton (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Press coverage is tricky, depending on the region. when found, ti is often objected to as not being substantial. The fact of the award is much more important.DGG (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the British example we use a 'Grade 1' assessment. I guess if we limited the BRS to those for 'academically superior' achievement, then that would help a lot. However if does not help that the criteria still includes 'Of the schools submitted by each state, at least one-third must meet the first criterion of having 40 percent of the students from disadvantaged backgrounds.' That statement taints the entire process in my mind since it really is not an unbiased process. In fact it is possible for this to greatly limit the schools that can be nominated so lessor performing schools can get the award while better performers are left out, simply because of the mix of schools and students in the various states. Getting a Blue Ribbon award pretty much guarantees media coverage so that may not help as an addition with the award. Can you suggest a rewording that might work? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

High school notability

• Are all high schools in practice defaulting to notability through this guideline or via outcomes then? Eusebeus (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In current practice highschools (even without this guideline) almost always succeed a deletion attempt. Same for colleges. Middle schools on the other hand are fairly often deleted and hopefully merged into a higher-level article like a school district or community. Grammar schools, like middle schools, also fairly often end up merged.

(It should be noted though that there are very many middle school and grammar school articles that are not likely to be deleted, most commonly for schools outside the US. It is necessary to see the age range or grade levels for the school and not just go by the name. In general if the school deals with 9th graders or above it is fairly likely to stay around.) I don't have stats on private kindergardens or the like, but would expect them to vanish fairly frequently.

A part of the intent of this guideline is to document current practice and thus hopefully cut down on the number of AfDs that will fail anyway. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it may be impossible to delete an article about an US high school on Wikipedia, this does not follow that all US high schools are notable (for a given definition of notable). Catchpole (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not impossible and some do get deleted. Loren.wilton (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any anglosphere public high school that has been deleted in recent times. TerriersFan (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no high school that has been tagged for Deletion sorting/Schools has been deleted in recent times.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly most high schools are currently not being deleted based on the perceived consensus to let them stay pending a school guideline. So, I would not make any inferences about what should, or should not, be in the guideline based on the current activity at AfD. If anything, the guideline as proposed makes it clear what a school article needs to show to establish notability. How that plays out on AfD is something that we can watch if this proposal gains consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Even once this proposal is accepted (which should be soon) the school AfD's will still be decided by consensus. After all it is only going to be a "guideline".--Sting Buzz Me... 23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline has to reflect what people do here. The practical effect of the guideline is at AfD, and anything here being out of kilter with perceptions there will be ignored. The present guideline is totally out of kilter. It is fully accepted at AfD which respect to high schools that almost all are probably notable, and that the notability is definitely proven by such factors as notable alumni, notable athletic or scholastic successes. This are considered major factors. It is also fully accepted that being an historic school of particularly long-standing establishment (in comparison with other schools in the region) is also definitive. (all of these things need to be proven), of course, with RSs). Attempting to ignore this here is useless, and will lead to a useless guideline I suggest going back to what the community actually does think, which is that all secondary schools for which there is more than basic address information are considered notable. DGG (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying. All secondary schools are considered notable by the majority of the community. Try and add it to the guideline and someone whose only agenda is that they don't want the guideline in any format reverts it out. The proposal already stipulates that WP:RS must be included. Instead of foiling attempts to have this proposal accepted. Why don't they just take the page to AfD if they don't want it to exist? Might that perhaps be the way to go? AfD the proposal (in accepted format) and if it survives at AfD as a keep then accept the community's decision? If the community wants it deleted then close as a rejected proposal? What do you think?--Sting Buzz Me... 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to offer an opinion that has nothing to do with notability. Wikipedia is about usefulness, providing information to our readers that they can use. In addition to being a frequent editor of school articles, I am a parent of high-school age children (btw, that doesn't make me an expert in high schools). I know several parents who use Wikipedia to find information about high schools and school districts, especially when they are (considering) moving into a new area. For that reason, I suggest that all high schools are worthy of having a Wiki article because they provide useful information to Wikipedia's readers. The historical trend of not deleting any high school articles seems to support that claim. Having said that, I am not in favor of including random information in the Wiki article that can easily be obtained on the school's website or other sources. I am in favor of a professional and informative description of the school. Perhaps we should be spending more of our efforts on defining what should be in a high school article rather than defining rules for the article's existence. That might be a task that we can accomplish. Truthanado (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As a side-comment, I am going to disagree with the wording above that "All secondary schools are considered notable by the majority of the community." That's an affirmative statement which I believe goes somewhat beyond the demonstrated consensus. A large number of people have registered the opinion that secondary schools are not automatically notable but recognize that there is not the necessary rough consensus to delete them either. A lack of consensus to delete is not the same as a clear consensus to keep. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second Rossami on this. Many of us still reject the idea of automatic notability for High Schools. If you go poll those editors who so expressed themselves in various H.S. AfDs, you will find that this remains the case for most. However, since the debates had become pointless and sometimes rather nasty, many simply no longer comment. I also still see this as no consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced my HS AfD participation for the exact opposite reason. Virtually every AfD in the past year or so for a high school has ended as Keep. I can't think of the last no consensus and the deletes are as rare as hen's teeth, usually for nonsense articles, nor can I think of any that were nasty. The consensus on schools based on the results of hundreds upon hundreds of AfDs -- that high schools are notable, some middle schools are notable and few elementary schools are notable -- ought to guide these discussions and help in establishing guidelines that avoid the time and effort wasted in AfDs rehashing these same issues. I do not believe that all schools are notable, and the equal and opposite "no schools are notable" has been discredited at AfD. If we want to move forward, we need to find some middle ground as to guidelines for which schools are notable, and which are not. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that the failure of AfD to delete implies that the subject was notable, or more specifically, that the article at the time of nomination meet WP:N. Mostly, however, I thik I agree with you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not say are considered notable by everyone in the community, or even by the great majority of the community, but by the majority of the community. and if by that w mean the interested people in the community, I can prove it too,(how rare to be able to say "prove" in a context like this) because the result of close to 100% of high school deletions at AfD in the last 3 or 4 months have been to uphold the high school articles, unless there is something specifically wrong with them. I intended that merely as a statement of fact--the majority of the community accept the articles. The guidelines are supposed to be the guidelines that we actually follow, and there you are. You dont have to like it. I dont like all the guidelines that the community follows either, but they remain the accepted guidelines. What Alansohn says above is what I say too. I didnt like the compromise at first myself--I am generally pretty skeptical about articles on local institutions. I'd willingly delete about 10% or 20% of high school articles, but I decided it wasnt worth the fight. They dont do any positive harm like bad BLPs or even spam. No one will think the less of us for covering them all equally. And then we can go on to other things about which there is a serious principled disagreement. Eusebeus, I'd rather discuss articles on fiction with you--its by far the more interesting topic. :) DGG (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it is not a statement of fact. The AfDs merely prove a lack of consensus to delete, not an affirmative consensus to keep. That may not seem like a significant difference to you but it is a highly significant difference to me. By the way, my personal opinion is not that "all articles about high schools must be deleted", merely that "being a high school does not automatically guarantee notability". Rossami (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Accept Guideline?

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)

• I do not see much trouble in it. I like the notion that an indicator of probable notability means that "the article should not be deleted but allowed to exist as a stub.", and it carries no implication that such "indicators" are alternatives to "significant coverage in secondary sources".
• I like the simplicity of it. Could we replace "school" by subject and use it to replace WP:N?
• Why do you continue to mark relatively momentous things like this as "minor"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Go for it! GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to WP:N My personal opinion has always been that WP:N and WP:V are fine when dealing with school articles; we really don't need this policy. It seems like the rest of the community agrees. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see the need for this guideline as it now basically mirrors WP:ORG - there's no point in creating guidelines for the sake of having a guideline. This guideline started out as a way to entrench the view that lax notability criteria should be applied to schools, and has no purpose now that view has fallen by the wayside. The 'Indicators of probable notability' also remain problematic - especially #2 as this implies that a school which did well in one assessment round is forever notable and is very vauge as it's not at all clear what's meant by "the highest available official assessment" or why this matters. There also seems to be a contradiction between the statement that "These guidelines assume that there is some encyclopedic content. Directory-only entries (name, address, school type, staff member listings, etc.) are not permitted." and the statement that schools which meet the indicators should have a stub article. By the way, have you posted a formal notificaiton that this proposal is being voted on on other relavant talk pages? (eg, the Village Pump) The last few attempts to adopt this policy collapsed after the voting/discussion as this vital consultation wasn't conducted. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose Because work on the guideline has ceased does not imply consensus. I would sooner mark it as "failed" and keep debating at AfD than try to stamp it with "approved" which is a sure invitation for more drama. As it stands, I agree with Nick that it doesn't really need to exist (though not of its initial motivations). There's already a listing at the common deletion outcomes and there is no groundswell of support for such a guideline. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Accept - it plainly has achieved consensus though, as with any guideline, you will always get a minority of dissenting voices. TerriersFan (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Just a quick heads-up on the process. There is (regrettably, maybe) no well-described process on Wikipedia for promoting a proposal to a guideline. However, once it has been marked as a guideline, it will be announced as such on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), by a bot, within a day. And if the fellows there have not heard of it before, then what usually happens is that the guideline tag gets removed again, rather immediately. So leaving a message there before marking the proposal as accepted, in order to invite comments from uninvolved editors, seems to be a good strategy. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Accept - I am generally willing to accept the current proposal as a guideline in its current form. However, only if all relevant WikiProjects, WP:CENT, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) are informed so a full review of consensus can take place. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose The guideline as presented is the exact opposite of what the community is actually routinely doing at AfD, where all high school articles with even the slightest claim to encyclopedicity are being uniformly and consistently accepted. This is a community-driven project, and you can not tell the community what do to by trying to adopt a policy page that does not reflect the actual consensus. The guideline to what is considered suitable at Wikipedia is, what is kept in Wikipedia by uniform consensus DGG (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you provide references to typical individual AfDs? Where is the evidence of actual consensus? My recollection is that lots of school articles have been closed as merge and redirect, which is not what I’d call “accepted”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose per Adam McCormick. TerriersFan does not understand consensus, which means that everyone can live with it; if there are dissenters, it's not consensus. I personally am not happy with this guideline; my edits have been reverted, and I (like others) have gotten tired of editing. Not acceptance. Truthanado (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: As DGG has so well put it, the present draft is not remotely reflective of community consensus. As such, it would result in more conflict and AFD debates, not less. Having participated in some AFD discussions myself, it is clear that high schools and colleges are considered notable per se; for middle schools and below, notability must be supported by specific distinction (e.g., Blue Ribbon Schools Program), otherwise they should be mentioned only in a school district article. Unless the school notability guideline explicitly includes these points, we are better off without it. JGHowes ^talk - 12:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark as unsuccessful?

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)

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)

• New proposal: Rather than see the project die on the vine, I've completely reworded Indicators of probable notability to reflect prevailing Wikipedia practice and consensus, thereby making the guideline more useful to editors. JGHowes ^talk - 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  I definitely prefer the new version. No arbitrary parameters or loopholes. Good formal tone. I can't complain (or at least choose no to). Adam McCormick (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  I have to agree that I prefer the new version, written quite well and reflects reality as I see it. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

  If you reword so that secondary schools are not assumed to be notable, then you might have something. The current situation on AfD is a compromise only to allow AfDs to have some direction and not battle over every school. Those that want to delete may of the secondary schools have been quite in support of a compromise to allow AfDs to move forward while waiting for a guideline. To use that to assume support for a policy is simply wrong. Maybe the compromise statement should cover all schools except secondary schools for now and continue to work on that after the rest of the section becomes policy. It does not make sense to kill the entire effort over issues with one type of school. Lets go with the consensus that just about everyone supports and then work on tackling the last remaining barrier. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The draft doesn't state that high schools are automatically notable; the present wording reflects community consensus as developed over many AFDs. I would add that any guideline will differ from WP:N. This is no different from, for example WP:Music or WP:Athlete where a person can fail WP:N and still be notable. TerriersFan (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Marked as failed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• This is going in circles (hence the tag). As a guideline (not a policy), its only purpose would be to give editors guidance and information that is helpful in writing school-related articles. If it provides no information beyond what's already at N, V, and RS (and the School Project page), where's the added-value? If all mention of the prevailing consensus at AfD regarding notability of schools is removed from the guideline, there's very little added-value to be of much practical help, I'm afraid. JGHowes ^talk - 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The added value is in being able to move most of the school deletions to speedy deletes and not having snowball consensus on these articles when they are taken to AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)