Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Another issue

Regarding Helen M. Jydstrup Elementary School the school was nominated within minutes of its creation. I think it may also make sense to have some sort of agreement about a minimal amount of time that schools will be up prior to nomination. JoshuaZ 05:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no such agreement for any article category. The nominator should just take the trouble of doing a minimal check to see if the article has a decent chance for expansion and meeting WP:V, but I don't feel that we should let the article stay for a minimum amount of time before nominating it. If the nominator is wrong often, he or she will probably learn to check more carefully first. Fast assessment of articles is the essence of newpage patrol, and many articles, after they are checked on creation, are not checked again for a very long time it seems... 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, the speedy nomination in this case was a bad idea, it should have either been prodded or AfD'ed. Fram 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mm... I don't know about that. It's a new article, yes, but that doesn't stop other articles from being tagged with db-bio or db-band or whatever. This one was initially tagged as db-empty (just a restatement of the page title), and subsequently untagged because schools are controversial. Taking it to AfD is the proper next step for someone who feels it shouldn't be included. I'm wary of the possibility of setting a precedent that would keep every band someone decides to add for weeks, too. (And even more wary of setting up a special exception for schools.) Shimeru 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm concerned about the WP:BITE element, since these articles are more likely to be written by youngsters than other types of articles and are more like to therefore feel bitten if there articles are immediately AfDed. I don't see it as intrinsically unreasonable to consider holding things off for a while if it reduces biting. (indeed, I think this is the strongest argument for keeping school articles in general, but that's a separate issue). JoshuaZ 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the connection. Yes, I suppose the nominator could have spoken up on the article talk page, or the author's user talk page, first... but we should judge articles by their merits per WP:V, WP:RS, and the rest, not by their contributor. If this new user had written an article about the band he's in instead, for instance, do you think we'd have people complaining about WP:BITE after it was tagged? Or would we instead be seeing WP:COI and "vanispamcruftisement?" I agree that the author should have been politely informed, but I don't agree that the article needs to stay around simply because it's not existed for some arbitrary time period. I don't agree that the article should be treated any differently than any other good-faith (but potentially unsuitable) contribution. Shimeru 06:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's a perennial issue about any kind of tags. In general, any proposal that "tag X may only be applied after Y days" is rejected as instruction creep. A consequence of the way Wikipedia works is that as soon as you hit that "save" button, you allow your work to be "edited mercilessly" by other users. (Radiant) 12:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We do allow it for some things. For example images. JoshuaZ 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't that more like "tag X may be applied at any time, but if it remains for Y days then Z happens" ? (Radiant) 10:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree as well for the same reasons. No other type of article is told "you can't be nominated for deletion until X number of days after the article is created." Allowing for debate and improvement of the site is precisely the reason that the five day wait before deletion is in place. I nominated a school for deletion last night less than a day after it was created - Why? because 98% of all high schools are non-notable.

This is not to say that the school lacks importance to you, the wr iter. It just means that to the community at large, the school lacks any merit to make it stand out from the tens of thousands of other schools that do not, and will not have an article here. Trusilver 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Criteria #2

Can we discuss expanding this criteria to include schools that hold (or once held) a record in the listed activities? Accurizer 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, I am posting the same question at WP:SCHOOLS with regard to its Criteria #3. Accurizer 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems more than reasonable to me. JoshuaZ 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, providing the record is reliably sourced. "Firsts" and "bests" are encyclopedic material. Shimeru 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excessive narrowing in Criterion 1 of the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard

Wikipedia standards in general at the highest level -- WP:CORP, WP:BIO, etc. -- all reference the "multiple non-trivial published works" standard, which clearly specifies that this includes newspaper articles (other than those with "merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.") There is no discussion that local newspapers are verboten, or that it must come from peer-reviewed journals or from noted journalists or in book form or must have a minimum circulation. The discussion above regarding which articles meet Criterion 1 is set so arbitrarily high and is so far removed from general Wikipedia standards. Virtually every single one of the scenarios User:Jayron32 proposed above (with limited exceptions), that were almost all brushed off by Shimeru and others, would meet any reasonable interpretation of the "multiple non-trivial published works", provided they came from sources that met WP:RS and satisfied WP:V. The original WP:SCHOOL version of this Criterion narrows the general "multiple non-trivial published works" clause to a degree, and is far closer to the spirit and clear intent of the version used in WP:CORP and WP:BIO. While the threshold of "multiple" might need be more than the minimum two, the current WP:SCHOOLS3 version of Criterion 1 is so far out of line with the most-widely accepted Wikipedia standards as to be unjustifiable. Significant thought must be put in to dramatically expanding the scope of Criterion 1 if there is any prayer of obtaining consensus on this issue. Unless there is significant movement from the extreme positions taken here, WP:SCHOOL will be the only viable option for achieving consensus on judging school articles. Alansohn 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's WP:RS and WP:V that's in question for those sources. Does an article about a teachers' strike or a fire make a school notable? I think it does — if that strike or that fire attracted wider attention. If that's the case, then there's outside commentary and analysis to draw upon for the purpose of expanding the article. If it's a matter of purely local interest, though, then there is not, and the most that could be added is a sentence saying "In 1999, teachers went on strike," or "In 2003, a fire started in the chemistry lab." That information is not encyclopedic. Strikes and fires happen all the time, but they are generally unimportant — trivial — in the larger picture. Routine events of no particular impact do not make for good articles. That's why List of historic fires includes the burning of the Library of Alexandria but not the burning of the convenience store two blocks from my house a couple of months ago. The former is exceptional, the latter is trivial. I'm not opposed to such articles being used as sources for, for instance, a "History" section in the article, but if those are the only sources available, I have to question whether the school is actually of encyclopedic importance. Shimeru 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I sincerely hope you don't mean that a source is unreliable in violation of WP:RS or that it's unverifiable in contravention of WP:V because an article appears in a local newspaper. I encourage you to read what these Wikipedia gold standard guidelines actually say and try to justify this arbitrary standard. The "multiple non-trivial published works" standard, clearly specifies that this includes newspaper articles (other than those with "merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.") While I would hope for greater quantity and quality in the references chosen -- articles that are about the school, and not something that happened at the school -- none of the scenarios you describe come even close to failing this clear, objective standard. On what authority are you creating an "outside commentary and analysis" requirement that overrides basic rules and regulations? Alansohn 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, no. But if it doesn't contain "commentary" or "analysis," then it's not an in-depth report, and therefore trivial. If it's not "outside," then it's not a demonstrably independent source. Local news can be a good source, but it isn't automatically, and I would go so far as to say that in most cases it's not. Shimeru 20:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • From what source have you manufactured a "commentary or analysis" standard.? This is simply an arbitrary barrier to excluding worthy schools. If you don't have a basis for this, it's worthless. Alansohn 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This is why we need notability guidelines, to avoid the endless discussion over what coverage and how much coverage is enough to warrant an article. Almost every company will get an article in the local newspaper once in a while: still we don't accept articles on these companies. A band that plays at the twon fair may get an article (or a paragraph) in the local newspaper, and their article gets deleted as well. A local football team (or whatever sport you prefer) gets articles, the winner of the local junior cycling event gets an interview, ... We routinely dismiss all those because they fail the guidelines. All these guidelines are based on the opinion that coverage in local newspapers is not enough to establish notability, because they give undue weight to topics of local notability only (ass they should). Some of these local newspapers may have a very high reputation for fact checking and would thus technically be valid under our WP:V policy: most local newspapers are not so reliable. Where do we draw the line though. Student newspapers? Fanzines? Specialist amateur magazines? I think that under WP:V (and WP:RS), we should only include (as main indicators of notability) major newspapers and magazines, with a good reputation and a broader scope than just the locality. Local newspapers and so on can be used to "stuff" the article, to add additional info, but not to decide if something is worthy of inclusion, if something is notable. This is not an arbitrary standard at all, this is a valid interpretation of what is intended by "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Most local newspapers don't have that reputation, and so are not acceptable. Fram 13:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That's exactly backwards and wrong. The PNC focusses discussion on the specific sources that exist in individual cases, and their specific provenances and depths; and contrary to what you say that is exactly what discussions should be about. What discussions should not be is the application of generalizations such as "all locally reported stuff is not notable". Notability is not a blanket.

        We don't exclude companies because they only receive coverage in local newspapers. We exclude companies because of what their news coverages actually are, irrespective of whether it is published by a local newspaper, national newspaper, or international wire service. We exclude companies if the only coverage that they receive is simple re-hashes of the company's own press releases. Considering the exclusion of local newspapers to be a "valid interpretation" of our policies is simply wrong. It's not a valid interpretation. Our policy has never excluded sources based upon geography. The valid interpretation, which is quite different, is right there in the wording: "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Local newspapers should be considered on their individual reputations, just as all other news services are. For example: PR Newswire is in no way a local newspaper, yet works published there don't count towards notability, because PR Newswire is a press release publication service, that performs no fact checking whatsoever on what it publishes. The size of PR Newswire's readership isn't the consideration. Its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is. The same principle applies to local newspapers as to international wire services.

        I strongly suggest avoiding arguments based upon ideas such as "undue weight to topics of local notability". That argument is based upon personal, subjective, judgements, on the parts of Wikipedia editors themselves, of what is "purely local" and "undue". Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

        • I have no idea what the PNC is, and I notice that you don't reply to the inspection reports part. Do you consider published inspection reports as verifiable secondary sources, automatically ensuring that an article on whatever gets inspected has to be kept? Fram 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The PNC is shorthand for the Primary Notability Criteria. This is expressed seveal ways by several sources, but it boils down to: Nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. And, to the issue of "Local" papers: establishing a reasonable, NPOV cutoff for the difference between "National", "Regional" and "Local" newspapers is nearly impossible. For example, what is the difference, in reliability, between say The New York Times and smaller papers like say The Sacramento Bee, Nashua Telegraph, or Detroit Free Press, or even Christian Science Monitor? How small is too small? Is size based on readership? Also, what is a "purely local" issue? An individual teacher strike may only be of direct interest to a person in the local area, but what about someone with an interest in teacher strikes or public employee labor relations as an entire discipline? Isn't that a much broader interest? Denigrating an issue as a "local" issue is POV-ish: It's just saying "I don't care about it, therefore no one else should". The citerion for inclusion should be: Enough people have cared about this OUTSIDE of Wikipedia to put it as part of the public discource, so Wikipedia (as a Tertiary Source) has, within its scope, the right to include it as well. --Jayron32 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Your question is based upon not actually reading the reports that you think "automatically" constitute non-trivial published works, simply because they are government reports. Try reading some. You're clearly in for a surprise. This proposal gets triviality wholly wrong, note, so don't use its definition. The correct explanation of what triviality is can be found in WP:SCHOOL, for your reference. Uncle G 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
            • No, I think it's WP:SCHOOL that has it wrong. An in-depth report is still trivial for this purpose if it's something every school gets. This is because the existence of such a report doesn't show that the government has especially "taken note" of that school in particular. It's mandatory, meaning it in no way confers any more notability than a building's inspection report does. Such reports can potentially be used as sources for certain information... but not for satisfying the "published works" notability criterion. Shimeru 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
              • It is not "something that every school gets". It is demonstrably untrue that every school is the subject of such reports. Please stop repeating this canard. It's a falsehood, and your entire argument, being based upon it, is fallacious. Uncle G 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Granted, not every school gets a given report. There are a variety of different inspection agencies in different countries. However, almost every school in the first world is the subject of such an inspection or evaluation on some fairly regular basis, to the point where it is more noteworthy if a given school has not received such an inspection or report. The existence of these reports is therefore trivial in terms of establishing notability for the school (though not in terms of establishing verifiability, which is completely separate). If you intend to argue that that is not the case, please point to some examples of such reports that, in and of themselves, demonstrate notability for individual schools. Shimeru 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I've seen some AfDs that have the temerity to question whether or not a school really exists, where an official report may help as a source. Other than that, it's hard to justify an official report as establishing notability despite the fact that it is a source in compliance with WP:V and WP:RS. Given today's standards-based school evaluation system, every school has some sort of inspection report. While a significant percentage of schools are notable, the inspection report standard would mean all schools are notable, which is extremely hard to justify. Alansohn 04:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
                • It is demonstrably false that "every school has some sort of inspection report". Please stop repeating this canard. And please stop ignoring the word "multiple" in the PNC, too. The "inspection report standard" is a straw man of your own creation. Uncle G 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Uncle G, please don't assert repeatedly that I haven't actually read this or that. I have read some, I just interpret their value differently. It is your opinion that triviality is correctly described in WP:SCHOOL and not in WP:SCHOOLS3. Fine, let's agree to disagree, but don't make it personal by implying that I make statements without knowing what I'm talking about. I had read some school inspection reports and some food inspection reports, neither surprised me, and both are trivial (although, of course, the food inspection reports in general are even more trivial). Let's try to keep this discussion civil and factual, and let's not start defending a position by casting doubt on the opponent instead of actually answering a fairly simple question. Once again, Uncle G: do you consider published inspection reports as verifiable secondary sources, automatically ensuring that an article on whatever gets inspected has to be kept? Fram 09:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
              • This discussion has been civil all along. Triviality is correctly described in WP:SCHOOL. It's the same there as in all of our other notability criteria. That you are getting triviality wrong, thinking that a report with zero prose content that comprises solely two tables of dates and codes is an in-depth discussion of its subject, is the very source of your error, as I've explained to you twice, now. Get triviality right, applying it as per its description in WP:SCHOOL and our other notability criteria, and you won't paint yourself into the corner of supporting broken criteria such as the ones here in the first place. And, yet again, I draw your attention to the word "multiple". Read the criteria as they are actually written, including the copious explanations of them to be found in many places, including User:Uncle G/On notability. And see how they apply. Stop putting up straw men of your own invention, such as criteria that don't include "non-trivial" or "multiple", and then asking people whether they support or oppose them. Uncle G 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                • As I see it, Shimeru and Fram are closer to right than Uncle G. However, I use somewhat different vocabulary because the issue is not really one of being "trivial". The essence of notability is significance or importance. A routine report does nothing to demonstrate significance or importance, precisely because it is routine. A routine report can, by its findings, cause something to happen that creates significance or importance. Here are two hypothetical examples in the school space. First, a report notes that the school's library is inadequate - the school board/council/... funds more purchases, and the next report notes the situation has been corrected, but no other record exists. Second, a report notes that the school's library is adequate, the problem remains uncorrected, and after a couple more such reports the school loses accreditation (or is taken over by a higher level of government) and this is reported on by the local paper. At this point something of significance has happened, and the school has become at least locally notable. Routine reports are routine, and do not demonstrate notability. This is not an issue of whether the source is trivial, it is an issue that their very routineness makes them not be evidence of significance, and thus not evidence that should count toward notability. When another published source comments substantively on either an action taken on the basis of a report or upon the report itself, that commentary becomes evidence of notability, and the report is a second reliable source, but not one that establishes notability. GRBerry 05:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An example of what I'm looking for...

Trying to clarify a little what I look for in a school article. Earlier, I did some work on Wyoming Seminary to bring it in line with what I consider an encyclopedic article. (Not to suggest there's not still more that can be done -- just that I'd consider it an unambiguous "keep.")

I chose this article partly because it was my own high school, lo these many years ago. Therefore it somewhat mirrors the often-cited example of a new user logging on, searching for his school, and writing an article when he finds it doesn't exist (or is a bare stub).

Before my edits, it was an article like many of our school articles, perhaps even a little more developed than the average. We have a name, location, founding date, president (equivalent to the principal in many ways), and demographic info. We also have a bit about the name "seminary" and a claim to notability via diversity of the student body. (Note that this claim is not sourced -- one of those areas I mentioned that could still be improved.) We have a link to the school website, and no other references.

If this had been brought to AfD, I think delete votes would have been absolutely appropriate. As a graduate, I know that the school is noteworthy, but based on the article as it was, I couldn't point to a reason why. If we imagine for a moment that no further research were done during the AfD (not likely, I know), then it should be deleted as unverified through independent RS and potentially NN. (I also suspect it would have ended in a no-consensus, anyway, but that's neither here nor there.) My say-so is not (or, at least, should not be) enough.

After my edits, it has a more developed history section, including several "firsts." It has further claims to notability through both its history and its current activities. All of these claims are cited. It has references.

This school is noteworthy, but the "before" version of the article doesn't make that obvious. It was little more than a directory entry. The "after" version does, explicitly and with sources. It reads more like an encyclopedia article.

This is the sort of content I'd like to see in all school articles. What makes the school noteworthy? What has it done? What is it known for? What sources say so? If these questions cannot be answered, then I don't feel the school is worthy of its own encyclopedia article yet. Shimeru 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem some have-I'm not entirely sure why this school is noteworthy. While I imagine it'd survive an AfD (and so I'm not going to nominate it, someone else can), this indicates to me that the guidelines are too loose. It's just one more school, I don't find a thing about this to indicate that it's very notable. It's old. So are a lot of things. I don't see a single reason why this article should be here. (And yes, I'd say the same for the high school I attended-if I found that here one day I'd AfD it myself, it's just not notable). Seraphimblade 12:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree, there seem to be some clear arguments in the article for notability- "The school's Madrigal Singers, a 28-voice choral group, have gained recognition for their proficiency. The group has toured worldwide — most recently touring Asia in 2006" and "in 1892, the Wyoming Seminary football team participated in the world's first nighttime football game" (the second doesn't seem to fall under any obvious inclusion category here but I would naively think that it should. It may make sense to add something for it). JoshuaZ 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the second not being included here. But that fact would qualify the article as notable so it would be included, school or not. Vegaswikian 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would fit under the expanded criterion 2, as suggested in an above section. It's a record, of a sort. (I also think being on the NRHP is a reasonably good claim — that means a little more than "it's old.") Shimeru 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The singers and NHRP listing might do it, upon reflection. Still, it seems way too many are getting listed (in my own generally-not-humble opinion, anyway!) Seraphimblade 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat. But there are those who would include every school, golf course, shopping mall, and business office, and we're looking to find a reasonable middle ground. I think it's inevitable that the criteria, when we're finished, will include a pretty large number of schools. But they'll also exclude a pretty large number of schools. As long as the ones that remain look something like this -- claims of notability, sourced and cited -- then I can live with it. The articles I don't like are the ones that run along the lines of "X High School is a high school in X, Indiana. It has 500 students and its principal is John Jacobjingleheimerschmidt. Its student body is 53% white, 43% black, and 4% other. It has a football team. Its motto is Reductio ad absurdam. Here is a link to its website." This is all information, and it's usually verifiable, but it's not encyclopedically substantial. If we can arrive at criteria that allow enough schools to keep inclusionists happy while demanding that articles show why they're a worthy encyclopedia topic to keep deletionists happy, we'll have achieved something. Shimeru 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good proposal

This one is much better than the "standard" one. I support this over WP:SCHOOL. Lankiveil 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Previous discussions

Just last November, this very discussion took place in Wikipedia:Schools. I note that in the current debate, except for vegaswikian and Christopher Parham, none of the original participants is present. Therefore, I would recommend that those who are interested in learning some of the history of this debate read Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 4, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 5. It may be instructive to note that even though the suggested guidelines in this first lengthy debate were less restrictive than the current proposal, it still did not lead to any resolution, due in large part on the entrenched positions taken by many people in both camps. As a deletionist, I believe that notability is an essential criterion for the inclusion of any article on anything, and I support the idea that a fundamental determinant of notability is that, as per a comment made in that discussion, "multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it." However, in the spirit of compromise, I am willing to accept less than what I consider the ideal, and thus support what I see as being a fair middle ground in Wikipedia:Schools3. Denni ^talk 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:SCHOOLS

There is some discussion now there about making some proposal that is midway between the two. I think one obvious issue that needs to be addressed is making criterion 1 here more explicit and possibly slightly broader. JoshuaZ 18:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A thought on criterion 1...

It occurred to me late last night that we may be writing the criterion and its related footnotes in such a way that the semantics are eclipsing the actual point. The purpose of the criterion is to allow an editor to show that the school is noteworthy by pointing to independent sources that have "taken note" of it. I believe the primary intent is to require sources that say enough about the school, and the impact of various events upon it, to allow for significant expansion of the article. With this in mind, the "local news" issue is something of a red herring. It applies to some extent, in that a secondary intent is to show that the school has some notability beyond the strictly local, but it's not meant to be a blanket denial of all local coverage -- only trivial local coverage.

Right now, the criterion reads: The school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, television documentaries, and public reports by school inspection agencies and consumer watchdog organizations.

I suggest instead something along the lines of: The school has been the primary focus of multiple published works, at least one of which is beyond purely local in scope, whose source is independent of the school itself. This includes (etc.)

"Primary focus" helps to avoid arguments over trivial vs. non-trivial -- an article that names the school only in passing, or deals purely with a single student or teacher at the school, or offers routine coverage such as sports scores or announcements of drama club performances, cannot be said to focus primarily on the school. The new criterion also allows for the use of local news, including historical and event articles, but insists on recognition above and beyond that level. Along with the caveat that mandatory inspection reports and directory entries do not establish notability, I think that would suffice, even if it's looser than I frankly would like.

Alternatively, we could try to reword it to make it more explicit that the sources should contain encyclopedic information and allow for expansion of the article beyond the basic statistics, but I think that'd be another semantic minefield. Shimeru 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. JoshuaZ 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)