Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Another idea from the other proposal...

If we're going to be supporting merges over deletes (not a bad idea), perhaps we should take up the "unmerged school" template and category that was once proposed at WP:SCHOOLS. This would give WP:SCH members an easy way to watch for school articles that need merging (or expansion and sourcing). The suggestion more or less got lost in the notability debate over there, but it seems like a good one. Shimeru 08:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've bashed out a quick draft proposal at User:Shimeru/Template:Merge-school, if there's any interest. Comments appreciated. (I am aware of Template:Cleanup-school, and lifted some basic formatting from there, but I think this one serves a different enough purpose to justify its existence.) Shimeru 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the template gives the mistaken impression that unverifiable information is acceptable as long as it's merged. Unverifiability of information should be entirely separate from the issue of not having enough information to justify an article. Fagstein 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks to JoshuaZ, that issue is now dealt with more explicitly. Shimeru 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is an excellent idea. Using prod tags does not draw sufficient attention to allow articles to be fixed. Using AfD to clean up articles has worked in the past, but it's an extremely blunt tool and it's not always possible or achievable to bring articls up to snuff in the couple of days that an AfD will last. Some intermediate state, using this proposed template, would allow interested parties to take a closer look at improving these article, knowing that there would be adequate time to do something about the article, before it went to AfD (if need be). Alansohn 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My chief concern with this is that it does not set a timeline on how long an article has to be improved. It is my experience that only about 20% of school articles receive significant edits beyond their initial creation, and if significant edits are made, they tend to happen earlier rather than later. While categorizing school stubs as articles needing attention will help to some extent, I think that some kind of limit still needs to be imposed, otherwise these pages will hang around forever as very weak stubs. Denni ^talk 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the tag is dated, the fact that it's been there for a while without being addressed will be evident, and that would lend some weight to an eventual AfD nomination. I'm not certain a time limit would be viable, since other cleanup-style tags don't specify one. What sort of time frame did you have in mind, though? Anything less than a month would seem a bit hasty to me. Shimeru 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented the template. Usage is {{subst:merge-school}}. Hoping it will be more effective than the existing cleanup template. I plan to go through the current roster of schools needing cleanup over the next few days and retag the ones that seem appropriate. Shimeru 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Commentary

Probably nothing here that's not been said before, but here we go anyway ...

• Criterion 1. There is a de facto exclusion of most things that appear in the local paper. This is because they are either (1) trivial (2) of local interest. If they are beyond local interest, there will be further press coverage. As an example, the fire at Penyrheol Comprehensive School has received considerable attention in the regional/national news (depending on how you classify a television service originating in Cardiff broadcasting to all of Wales). The place was gutted, and the perp has been convicted and is due for sentencing today. It would be another matter to decide whether or not those references were trivial or not, but this demonstrates wider interest than merely local. It should be made clear that what I am suggesting here is only exclusion of trivial references to the school in the local paper in its area. Coverage in the papers in neighbouring areas might suggest more than local interest. The main reason for this applying to schools rather than anything else is that schools get an awful lot of trivial coverage in the local media compared to most other things. We don't hear about most people's garage bands being so successful on the local scene that they're supporting a major act on tour, but the local press start falling over themselves when someone in a local school gets into Oxford University.
• Criterion 2. This makes a lot of sense, though will need considerable interpretation for ex-US schools, possibly even within the US. A school that reaches the final stages of a California-wide competition will have probably faced more opposition than a school participating in what would be roughly the equivalent tier in the UK, which might be across Glamorgan. Of course, if only 20 schools in all of California participate in the state-wide competition, it might be an indicator of a "unique program" (sic).
• Criterion 3. There needs to be clarification on the scope of this. For instance, I was aware of one school in my area that offered Russian on an extra-curricular basis. Then there is the case of a school in an area with a large Asian population which was considering starting a kabaddi team - though this would certainly not be typical for a British school. For this, we really need the solution which I proposed about two years ago, which is to have articles on generic subjects such as High schools in the United States, such that we know what is typical and what is unusual. There have probably been a number of scholarly studies on school in general that an article should be feasible.
• Criterion 4. Care needs to be taken with the awards that are included here. First off, any award for which the school nominates itself is out. No questions, no argument. Anyone can nominate themselves for an award.
• Criterion 5. This absolutely has to go. I have no issue with listing notable former pupils on an article, but the school needs to earn the article on its own basis, and its own achievement.

As for comments that only criterion 1 is necessary, and that everything else is either more restrictive or redundant, I consider such a position to be absurd. By that logic, all our policies and guidelines are redundant to WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. They provide clarification, and the additional criteria should be situations which would cause non-trivial coverage. I suggest #5 needs to go, since being some second-rate actor's alma mater is not (in the main) likely to attract vast amounts of interest necessary for non-trivial published works. Chris cheese whine 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re your criteria 1 comment: The fact that a fire received media attention over a wider area does not make the school notable.

Re your criteria 5 commnet: This was added to help this proposal obtain consensus. Given the restrictive nature of the current version, would removing it hurt the changes of getting consensus for this proposal? Vegaswikian 18:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For C1, as I said, it's a matter of whether or not it's trivial. I leave the decision about whether or not it's trivial to others. For C5, I would imagine there would be no opposition to removing it other than from the "zomg its a school!!11" crowd. It's mostly useless for judging the merits of a school, generally irrelevant, and endorses use of the association fallacy. Chris cheese whine 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For C5 the current version of it isn't so bad since it insists that some independent had to find the alumni connection to be notable. I'd prefer not to have it but we don't have any realistic chance of this proposal gaining consensus without it. Since the notion has minimal plausibility I think we should be willing to let it stay. JoshuaZ 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLS plug

Hi there, in response to JoshuaZ's rewording of this last week, I've reworded the criteria at WP:SCHOOLS to (hopefully) meet a lot of the objections that the more deletionist side of the debate. Comments are of course welcome. Who knows, maybe we can meet in the middle somewhere... Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One big concern I see remaining there is the "is likely to receive coverage..." criteria-this is a totally subjective criterion. I would suggest changing this to simply "has received coverage." Seraphimblade 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A pretty good rewrite. I agree about the last half of criterion 3... we can't judge whether a school "is likely to" receive coverage; that's POV and crystal ball. I'd also remove criterion 4, because I don't see what "half of" criterion 1 would mean. That it's been covered, but only in publications related to the school? That the source is independent but not reliable? That the coverage is of no encyclopedic value? None of these make any sense to me. Finally, while I agree in theory with "Age," it should be defined such that it's clear this means "first school" or "designated national historic site" or such, rather than "older than some arbitrary figure." But perhaps that doesn't matter so much, since if it's being called distinctive, it should have attracted mention in reliable sources. Shimeru 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I still dislike WP:SCHOOLS. In fact, I now dislike its wording even more. I'm still fully on board with SCHOOLS3, though there's no reason I couldn't support both (or a combination of the two) if SCHOOLS is improved much, much, much more. -- Kicking222 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And after reading this yet again, I think I like SCHOOLS3 just how it is. I don't think it's too inclusive, and I don't think it's too exclusive. I like every criterion. Suffice it to say, I'm completely supportive of SCHOOLS3 100% (or, since I play a lot of sports, 110%). -- Kicking222 23:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding, I was away for a few weeks. However, looks like my rewrite has inspired further progress, so I'm happy for that. JYolkowski // talk 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've had a go at revising the proposal based on some of the discussion above and at WP:SCHOOL. Better? Clearer? Possessing any shred of hope of reaching consensus? Shimeru 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction, for what that's worth. Fagstein 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WOW! This is MUCH improved. Criteria 2 is much improved. I would like it also to contain the statement "It is expected that all schools that meet this criteria will also meet criteria 1," since without meeting criteria 1, we can't write an article, since there will be no references!!! I still have some issues though, mainly with criteria 3 & 4:

• • • Number 3 is still arbitrary. Notions that "national" exposure is automatically "more notable" than "state" or "regional" exposure does not jive with the main idea of "notability" as expressed in the PNC. Notability is a boolean concept. Either the references exist or they don't. Either they are independant or they aren't. Either they are reliable or they aren't. Either they are non-trivial or they aren't. We can't rank-order references by saying "These kinds of references need only one mention because they are more reliable" and "These kinds of references need 2 mentions because they are less reliable" Either the coverage meets the Primary Notability Criteria or it doesn't. Collapse criteria 3 into criteria 2, and state only that "verifiably gained recognition for" yada yada yada. Arbitrary restrictions on the geographic nature or number of citations seems uneccesary.
    • Number 4 is also problematic. While any article on a school SHOULD MENTION notable alumni, the existance of notable alumni does not, by itself, make a school notable. There is a difference between statements that can be made in an article, and statements that indicate that an article is notable. The existance of notable alumni, where the alumni's notability is not tied to their time at the school, does not confer any additional notability to the school. It might be worded better to state: "The school has notable alumni or staff whose claim to notability is tied directly to their time at the school, and where such notablity can be verified in reliable sources." That seems much clearer as it establishes that notability for the school by alumni must be clearly established by a logical connection.

If I may be bold, I might make these changes myself tomorrow. I am quite tired now, and after some sleep, I might get to this. Otherwise, it would be interesting to how these proposals fly here. --Jayron32 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • 4 is part of a general compromise and is based partially on the observation that in AfDs many people are willing to keep based on the presence of alumni. Without 4 I doubt this will ever be acceptable to the more moderate inclusionists and if this is ever going to get a consensus behind it it will need them. The question about 4 should not be "is it reasonable" but "is it reasonable enough that one can live with it as part of a compromise?" I think the answer to that is yes. JoshuaZ 07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I was trying to make obvious that the primary, overarching requirement was the production of sources (independent, reliable, non-trivial, etc.) -- that's why the boldface text and the new lead. The numbered criteria (or subcriteria, I suppose) are meant more in the vein of examples. What might you look for to show notability? Well, aside from the school itself, there's the national championship, the long list of alumni notable in a given field, and so forth. I absolutely do not mind if you (or anyone else) makes further changes, for what that's worth. On number 4, I pretty much agree; the current version is GRBerry's rewrite of the previous criterion #5 (see discussion above), included basically verbatim. (I did add the staff part.) I don't object to your rephrasing; I do think some concession to the notable alumni thing needs to be made, as JoshuaZ suggests. Shimeru 10:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and on national vs. regional... It's not so much that national distinction makes it "more notable" than a more local one, but that a national distinction serves as a stronger proof of notability than a state or provincial one. National-level distinction is harder to achieve, and so a single instance is a pretty good claim to notability. Local recognition is much easier, so does not automatically serve to make the subject notable; however, multiple instances of local recognition present a stronger claim. If you can think of a better means of phrasing these, by all means, please do. Shimeru 10:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, can't support any proposal which legitimises the association fallacy. Criterion #4 has to go. Chris cheese whine 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't an association fallacy so much in that the people are notable and what school they went to presumably had some effects on what they subsequently did (the most obvious example of this would be athletes who were on the school sports teams). Thus, it is a weak rather than falacious argument. JoshuaZ 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The school has multiple notable alumni or staff ... Even if it is used as a supporting example to suggest circumstances in which their might be verifiable coverage, it's still suggesting that the school might be notable on the basis of its staff and pupils. It's a fallacy to attribute their notability to the school. Many sports stars might well have achieved their own fame regardless of what school they went to. It's rather like suggesting that Arsenal FC is notable because Thierry Henry has played for them. Chris cheese whine 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To accept the "notable alumni" criteria, we have to accept that an article is perfectly legitimate if it consists only of the school's name and the statement "(Celebrity name) once attended this school." Why does this make the article automatically exempt from requiring multiple reliable sources that feature it? Forget this compromise talk - half-assed hackjobs of policies are why the previous proposals have all failed. Fagstein 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does seem the prevailing feeling is against it. I've removed it from the proposal for the moment. Shimeru 10:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always been against the alumni criterion, and while JoshuaZ convinced me of its possible importance, I'd still rather not have it in there. I'm glad it currently isn't. -- Kicking222 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I think are the strongest reasons to keep the alumni matter in 1) empirically it is often used as a keep argument in school deletion discussions even by editors who would otherwise favor deletion 2) it is very likely if a school has multiple notable alumni that some verifiable connection exists between why the alumni is famous and what they did at the school (this is for example very often true with athletes who played in the school temas) 3) If a school had notable alumni and someone is at our page on Alumni A and they want to know who else was a notable alumnus of the school they have no obvious way of getting that information. 5) I don't think it is realistic that this is going to be accepted as a compromise without some form of alumni criterion. (At this point I'm beginning to think that 5 and 1 are really the best reasons - I'd rather have a compromise with a few inclusion criteria that are somewhat too broad than the continued acrimony that we currently have. And given that schools with notable alumni are being kept I don't see much being lost in including it). JoshuaZ 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposal has made some small but meaningful steps towards a compromise that might be accepted by the broad range of those Wikipedians with a more expansive view of school article inclusion. To add to JoshuaZ's arguments above, removal of the alumni criteria is a giant step backward in trying to craft a useful compromise for all school articles, and not just a proposal that satisifies a small number of deletionists. As I have suggested earlier, this could be an example of a criterion that must appear with other supporting material to justify inclusion. However its entire removal will not fly. Alansohn 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? It's not a question of deletionism vs. non-deletionism. It's that with this criteria included, the policy essentially states that schools follow Wikipedia's deletion policy in that it has to have numerous reliable sources writing about it, but that for some strange reason having a couple of notable alumni is a "get-out-of-policy free" card which allows an article to be written on a subject without any direct reliable sources. It's just trying to put it in line with existing Wikipedia policies. Fagstein 03:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We do actually allow similar statements in other guidelines when we have some other concern. For example, see criteria 2 and 3 of WP:CORP. In fact, since this criterion is (arguably) a proxy for having a high likelyhood of such sources existing but not having them on hand easily it is in line with the general policies. JoshuaZ 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "non-routine inspection reports by government agencies". In England and Wales all schools, both primary and secondary, are subject to regular inspections by OFSTED. Nursery schools also have to be inspected by OFSTED. It is generally the failing schools which have non-routine or more frequent inspections, so, for English and Welsh schools at least, the current phraseology seems to suggest that failing schools are notable but schools which have good inspection reports are non-notable. It might be best to leave out this phrase altogether. An OFTSTED report can be a useful source of information but cannot be the only source used to verify notability. I would also suggest that for criterion 3 the bracketed phrase "(statewide or provincial)" be deleted as these terms could cause confusion. Not every country is organised into states (eg the UK is divided into counties) and state could in some contexts perhaps refer to a country. Provincial is also another term which could perhaps be open to interpretation. Dahliarose 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point -- my main interest there is to denote a geographic/political area somewhat more extensive than a single town or city. Will try to think of a better way of phrasing that. Shimeru 06:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be safest to provide regional definitions by country (eg, state in the US, county in the UK, province in Canada) to avoid any ambiguity. The phraseology must be global and not just applicable to the USA. Dahliarose 11:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias against local press

I've removed this. There's lots of problems with media at all levels, not just local. This proposal was written from a bias prospective against local media. It also implies there's a problem with "typical" coverage, which is rather absurd. That fact something/someone is "typically" covered may well be an indication of notability. Let's keep in mind this "non-trivial/multiple sources" item is common to several WP:N guidelines, and we shouldn't be substantially changing that particular item. --Rob 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it. It's been substantially agreed upon that routine coverage such as sports scores is trivial -- insufficient to build an article around. If you would like to argue that this is not the case, feel free to do so, but please do not make such a major change without first seeking consensus. I would also like to point out that other notability guidelines do exclude trivial coverage, such as mention in passing. Shimeru 20:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rob that the "multiple non-trivial source" standard specified by WP:N (and elsewhere in Wikipedia) is rather broad and has no exclusion of local coverage. As long as the article is about the school and comes from a reliable source, it should be included. I will agree that routine sports scores, profiles of valedictorians, class play announcements and the like are trivial. I will even acknowledge that government reports routinely prepared for most schools are trivial, despite the mention in the WP:N definition of "published works". But we cannot ignore the fact that many schools do get coverage "about" the school that would meet any reasonable interpretation of the "multiple non-trivial source" standard. While some positive steps have been made here, attempts to narrow the "multiple non-trivial source" standard for schools will only make WP:SCHOOLS3 even more unacceptable as an option for achieving consensus. Alansohn 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But local coverage that isn't routine in nature is specifically noted as non-trivial in the same footnote that Rob/Thivierr had removed, so I can only assume that his objection was to the exclusion of routine coverage. Shimeru 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not actually arguing against what I did. I merely oppose the anti-local bias, and misuse of the term "routine". I fully accept excluding trivial coverage. We agree a school mentioned faintly, in passing doesn't count. However, its irrelevant whether that happens in a local or national/international publication. There are numerous international sources which have only trivial (or directory-style) information on schools, which wouldn't count. Also, whether something is "routine" is not what matters. If numerous papers give routine trivial coverage, that wouldn't count. But if they give routine non-trivial coverage, that should count. What's at issue is the depth of the coverage, not whether its routine. A list of school game scores is trivial, whether its in the local, or national paper. A comprehensive throurough, indepth story on a specific school, is signficant, even if its local, and even if its routine for that publication (e.g. its part of what that publication does). The question is "All other things being equal how does being local make a source unusuable". --Rob 02:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The article type that I believe the footnote is attempting to deal with is to make clear that something like an article about a student who scored many goals in in some sport is not useful for writing an article about the school. Furthermore, there is a genuine concern about local sources- even though they are published, they don't do nearly as much fact checking as what we would normally expect a reliable source to do and in fact for school articles they often do even less. I strongly doubt any school notability policy that doesn't attempt to deal with these issues will satisfy the less school inclusionist editors. JoshuaZ 03:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying your opninion on local media, without showing has some proof of it, as a rule. Anyone can find good local and national media, and bad local and national media. Examples and exceptions don't make a rule. Are you contesting the idea there's local media that has strong fact checking? Its actually humorous, when you consider how often a single corporation (aka media conglomorate) will own large numbers local and national outlets. Often the reporter writing about an event in City Y for National Paper X, is the same reporter writing for the City Y Local Paper. The reporter may follow exactly the same standards for both (not always knowing which will run the story in advance). Also, the limited number of remaining truly indepedent local papers are often a good source of independent coverage. Next, in the age of the Web, it is absurd to give preference to what's "national/international". A 12-year old can have an "international" media outlet (e.g. a web site used around the world). But, the main publication of a million-person city, is merely "local". Now if you wish to exclude media media outlets that are not recognized/respected outside of their local area, we can talk about that idea. But I think generally, detailed rules on reliable sources need to go in the relevant page. This page should be for matters specific to schools. --Rob 05:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I think I see what you're trying to say, but I'm confused by the way in which you're saying it. Could you provide an example of a local publication which would routinely include comprehensive, in-depth stories about a given school? I'd been thinking of newspapers and community newsletters, but I might well be missing something. Shimeru 03:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, if we're going to include routine coverage, we're right back to "include all schools" again-all schools receive some type of coverage in their local area, especially if we're including publications which specifically write about schools, and that's "what they do". What we're looking for is a requirement of notability-that the school has attracted non-trivial attention which is not routine, not given as a matter of course, and has some impact outside its locality (ALL schools have an impact and receive attention within their locality). I think the paragraph as written was quite good and clear on that, and I think there should be an "anti-local bias"-an important barometer of notability would indeed be "Has the school had an impact or gathered attention from outside its community?" Finally, I disagree that a 12-year-old's website would be "international" in scope-after all, most local papers would be international by this definition, most of them post their stories to the web. The definition would be the scope of coverage-if the paper mainly covers San Francisco, it would be local to San Francisco, even if you theoretically can view it in Manila. Coverage of a San Francisco school by this paper would be local. Coverage of a South Dakota school would be national coverage for that school, if printed in our San Francisco paper. Coverage of a school in London by the same paper would be international coverage. Does that make a bit better sense? Seraphimblade 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Which other notability guideline has had this anti-local bias you are insistant upon? Why are you insisting on deleting schools that would pass WP:N? Please cite specific official guidelines, and quote the passages in *other* notability guidelines, like WP:CORP which use the same approach. Its funny, that the very people who've been demanding for so long we treat schools like everything else, are now insisisting we can't, and we must have extra rules, that exist nowhere else. Let's be clear: I'm trying to make this page be consistant with WP:N and other "notability" guidelines that mention "non-trivial" coverage. No more, and no less. It seems you're only support WP:N when it favors deletion, but not when it supports inclusion. I'm expecting that you're utterly unable to quote other notability guidelines on this, to support you position. --Rob 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So are we. We've had issues with defining "non-trivial" before, which is the reason that footnote was in place. Routine coverage is excluded in other guidelines, although the word "routine" may not specifically be used. For instance, WP:CORP excludes "newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours" (analogous to school sports scores) and "Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service." (analogous to human-interest filler pieces). You are perhaps focusing too narrowly on the usage of the word "routine" -- if you can think of a better, concise way of stating the point, then please do so. Removing the point, however, is not terribly productive. Shimeru 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As another example, specifically applying as requested to WP:CORP, a local paper in a small town might run extensive coverage of most new businesses that open. This would, however, be considered routine and trivial coverage, even if it went into quite a bit of detail on the well-anticipated (locally) new fast-food chain or megastore, and such a fast food chain or megastore wouldn't be "more notable" than a new one in NYC just because Podunk News has less to print then the NYT. Coverage in The Local Gazette wouldn't make Mom's Antiques notable under WP:CORP either-it just means there was a slow news day, or that the Gazette does that type of thing routinely, either of which makes it trivial. Now, of course, if several local papers print a lot of in-depth information about a school, that just might be enough source material to write an article from-but that's why it's suggested we should be a bit skeptical of local sources establishing notability, not totally against them. In some cases, notability and adequate source material may be established by purely local sources, but a school which has achieved national or international recognition is a lot more likely to be notable. No one's advocating prohibiting local sources-only making people aware that local coverage often (not always) is routine and trivial. Seraphimblade 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This makes the over simplification that all "locals" are equal. A city city could be 10 million, a million, or a thousand. A city of a million can easily sustain a highly reliable newspaper. The question is whether the publication is reliable, not whether its "local". You keep insistantly repeat the assumption that "local" and "routine" means "trivial. Even if that was often the case, why be prejudice about? Lets simply demand non-trivial coverage. If a local item is trivial (e.g. list of sport scores) its excluded, just as we can exclude the same listing by a national source (for instance if ESPN rattles off some scores, with no detail/substance). Incidently, the National Enquirer is a national source, so I guesse, by your logic its more reliable than my local Calgary Herald. You also think my National Post is more reliable than the Calgary Herald for covering a story, even than it uses the same reporters, and procedures. So, far I just see a very over-simplified view of terms like "national" and "local". Also, you have yet to explain why any of your concerns are specific to schools. If they're not specific to schools, they belong in places like WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:N. We must *not* put detailed specifications on sources in each of the numerous notability guidelines (and such guidelines must be based on facts, not simple-minded stereo-types). Now, some sources, like government school reports, are specific to schools, soo rules to count/discount them, do belong here. But how precisely we weight the national/regional/local media simply doesn't belong on this page. --Rob 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right, as I just said! If local coverage is genuinely non-trivial, I have no problem treating it as such. We should place the caution, however, that local coverage is routinely trivial. I also do believe that "local" and "routine" weighs heavily toward (though does not by definition indicate) trivial coverage-if local papers cover every school that opens in the area, the coverage is likely trivial. On the other hand, if the coverage is usually a blurb but a full-feature article is written on a given school, that is likely to establish notability. (If the paper writes a full-feature article on every school that opens in the area, it would depend if such coverage were genuinely reliable and neutral enough to write a full article from-if so, it's likely fine regardless!) However, this last scenario just doesn't happen very often, if at all, and the fact of it remains that most local coverage is stuff like sports scores, human-interest type blurbs, and the like. Seraphimblade 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to address this rather puzzling (to me, anyway) semantic issue by rewriting the bullet-point in question to exclude the words "local" or "routine." Better? Shimeru 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And now there seems to be an issue with "common school events." Rob, your comment (from your edit summary) was "By your logic a large comprehensive series of articles on a school's drama department wouldn't count." Could you explain why not? As I read the footnotes, it would indeed count -- it is "large" and "comprehensive," so it's not a mention in passing -- bullet point one, check. It is not a directory or demographic data -- point two, check. It is not "brief coverage" of a common school event -- point three, check. It is not a government report -- point four, check. We will assume it's a reliable source for the purpose of this conversation, so point five, check. The only way I see for such a series not to pass would be the last -- if it's written up in the school newspaper, for instance. But if we assume that that is not the case, I don't see any logical way in which this large comprehensive series of articles could be taken to fail. I've expanded the point in question to (redundantly) make explicit that this is intended to exclude only the sort of coverage that cannot sustain an article: a given year might produce a dozen articles along the lines of "West Side High baseball beats North Side High 4-2," but there's nothing noteworthy about that -- baseball is a common school activity. Winning the state baseball championship? Not so common. But that aside, I honestly do not see how the previous wording could be taken to exclude any "large comprehensive series," and I'd like to see that logic laid out -- it might help in writing other sections of the proposal. Shimeru 02:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything, local coverage is likely more detailed, and less trivial, when mentioning local schools, compared to national coverage of the same. Also, "West Side High baseball beats North Side High 4-2," doesn't count, if that's the *whole* story. But if that's just the headline to a complete newsarticle, giving detail of what led it it, and why it matters, than that probably does count, and will help provide a fleshed out article. --Rob 08:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)