Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Just one?

I simply cannot concur that a school can be considered notable if it is the subject of a single local newspaper article. ALL schools are at one time or another the subject of a feature in a local community newspaper. I am an unashamed exclusionist, my stance is based on the fact that Wiktionary defines notable as Worthy of notice, remarkable, memorable, noted or distinguished.. If something is remarkable (of remark), noted (of note), it MUST by definition be a minority thing. Something must stand out from the crowd behind it to be notable, absolutley to be distinguished (after all, distinguished from what?).

This proposal would include every educational institution of more than three students across the globe as distinguished. It has my unreserved opposition. •Elomis• 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er. Are you certain you're commenting on the right proposal? This is the less inclusionist of the two. Nowhere does it suggest that a single source is sufficient, let alone a single local news article. Shimeru 09:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed battery of modifications

Pursuant to a variety of comments here and on WP:SCHOOLS I would tentatively propose the following changes (note that this isn't what I think would be best but I think making this standard more inclusionist would make it more likely to be accepted). First, modify criterion 1 in a way similar to how Shimeru has suggested above and Alan suggested on WP:SCHOOLS. Second, as Alan suggested add a general criterion for inclusion of schools recieving the highest generic award given by the school's country (such as the Blue Ribbon in the US). This condition while it will annoy some of the less inclusionist editors (such as myself) is not intrisicallly unreasonable and seems like a possible compromise. Third, possibly consider generalizing the alumni criterion? I think some variation of this might actually lead to a compromise. Fourth, in general instead of deleting (even when mergers seem to be innappropriate) instead form redirects and not delete the history- this will allow articles to be recreated if the schools then become notable. JoshuaZ 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious about any overly-broad criteria based on alumni. I think the fact that person X went to school Y is something of trivial interest in general, and most usually will be worth mentioning only in person X's article, if at all. Obvious exceptions will be with people of academic note, where the research that brought them note was performed at the school. The award criterion sounds acceptable, though. As for Shimeru's proposal ... I'm not sure, so I'll abstain from comment for now. I am generally in favor of mergers over deletions, though. Even in cases where it may not be entirely justified, it serves to offer the school-stub-spammers something useful to spend their time on. Xtifr _tälk 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts:

• • Criteria 1 should include that the coverage must be non-trivial (not just mentioning the school in passing, not just a standard "X school held Y event on Z date"), and should establish that the school is of note to something besides its community. If we allow notability within a community, we may as well just say "Alright, include all schools"-all schools are of interest to their community and receive some press coverage within them.

• • The award one is fine, but we should establish that, firstly, it should have to be a difficult-to-achieve award, and that it should be an award considered to grant considerable prestige and merit to the school. If, for example, only 0.1% of schools within a country have won that country's top honor, those schools are notable for having done so (and likely received considerable press for it too). If a quarter of them have achieved some certification, then it's evidently not very notable to achieve that particular certification.

• • The "notable alumni" bit should go away entirely, unless said alumni somehow defined or was defined by the school. Just having "stepped foot there" shouldn't qualify, but if a student's fame or career began while at the school (especially if this caused significant issues at the school which gained a lot of press) it might. Otherwise, again, we may as well "include all schools"-I would bet you that just about any school you can find has at least one alumnus whom WP considers notable.

• • The redirecting bit would be quite sensible, provided that the article is not then recreated before the school's notability really does increase. Seraphimblade 03:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the alumni criterion. I'm complete agreement with most of the above. It might be helpful if some of the more inclusionist editors would comment on this. JoshuaZ 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the direction that JoshuaZ is proposing. To follow up on the discussion above, Criteria 1 must exclude trivial articles -- sports scores, new staff, bake sale, etc., in addition to the existing reprints of press releases or days of operation, which are already widely excluded -- but articles that cover the school and its program would not be trivial and would establish notability per the "non-trivial coverage" standard. We may have to visit this issue by country, but the Blue Ribbon Schools Program granted by the United States Department of Education should meet the standard of a notable award; State awards may not meet that standard without other supporting evidence of notability. As far as alumni go, I can agree in regard to elementary or pre-school. It's hard to see how their nursery teacher led the student to become the notable they became a decade down the road; But for a high school, you'd be hard pressed not to see how the notable actress, football player, scientist, author or entrepreneur did not get a start in a high school play, compete on the football team, take a chemistry course with a professor who inspired them, develop a knack for writing or work on a school fundraiser that set them off on their path to future notability. Not all schools are notable, and many elementary and preschools will have a tough time establishing notability. But, a significant number of schools (especially high schools) will have multiple articles about the school and a significant number of schools will have notable alumni, which will mean that a significant number of schools will merit articles. I do not believe that all schools are notable; but excessive restrictions that mean that no schools are notable are just as unreasonable. We need to achieve a substantive broadening of the WP:SCHOOLS3 standards if there is any hope of achieving a guideline that will be accepted as a consensus. Alansohn 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But for a high school, you'd be hard pressed not to see how the notable actress, football player, scientist, author or entrepreneur did not get a start in a high school play, compete on the football team, take a chemistry course with a professor who inspired them, develop a knack for writing or work on a school fundraiser that set them off on their path to future notability. The question, though, is: Are there reliable sources that attribute these notable individuals' success to their school efforts? We as individuals might draw that conclusion, but we as editors cannot -- that's original research. I think there are cases where mere attendance by a famous individual might confer notability, but these are cases where the person is notable (at least by association) before or during their time at school -- a member of the British royal family, say, or the daughter of the US President. If Joe Shmoe became a famous actor at age 30, it doesn't necessarily mean the high school he hasn't seen for over a decade is noteworthy. If we can find an interview where Joe talks fondly about how his role in Godspell junior year inspired his career, then yes, that's a good argument under such a criterion. But if there are no sources, how do we know that Joe hadn't planned to become a doctor? Shimeru 10:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with Shimeru mostly I think at this point it may make more sense to ask not what is most logical for a school proposal but rather what are the most people willing to tolerate in a school proposal? I would tentatively suggest that as possible inclusion criteria go, the presence of notable alumni is one of the less unreasonable ones even if it doesn't make much sense. Therefore the less inclusionist editors (such as myself) may want to consider if an alumni inclusion criterion might be something that we can possibly give slack on. JoshuaZ 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that in our criteria for music articles, we say that information on early band projects of a notable musician should be merged to the musician's article unless the band itself was notable. This logic extended to schools would say that the school information should be merged to the article on their notable alumni. That is not really a workable solution for school articles. It would be a disservice to our readers, who would never expect to find a paragraph on a school tacked to someones biography unless the paragraph was focused on them while at the school. Similarly, for biographical subjects it is not sufficient to be married to, or the child of, a notable person - unless the spouse/child is notable in their own right we merge to the notable relative. This is how notability by association is handled in other subject areas, but the general solution is unworkable here. So we go overboard on inclusion and just say keep the article, go overboard on deletion and just say delete regardless of alumni, or we look for a compromise. The compromise that springs to my mind is a requirement that we be able to reliably source a non-trivial (more than names, dates and degrees) sentence about the alumnus' time at the school. So "Joe took Biology in 1976 from Prof. Smith" is inadequate, but if we can source "Joe took Biology in 1976 and was horrified by the required animal disections", that is a reason for inclusion. (The source should be independent of the school, it need not be independent of the alumnus.) GRBerry 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems quite reasonable, actually. Loose, but acceptable. Shimeru 08:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Any proposed wording? JoshuaZ 02:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni has to be one of the most popular reasons proffered for inclusion of articles, and a requirement that a reliable source demonstrate that the student's future notability arose from an experience in high school would be perceived as an unreasonable standard that is exceedingly difficult to find. I'd have to assume that 99.9999% of professional athletes starred on a high school team, though you'd be hard-pressed to find a quote that says "I owe my success in [sport] to my experience at [X high school]". It might be a bit harder to connect notability to school attendance in some circumstances, but there seems to be consensus that alumni are an indication of notability, especially for high schools. Alansohn 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll wager you're right about professional athletes -- you don't get to that level without a lot of practice and effort, and high school teams are a common place to find and invest that. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that we're asserting a school is noteworthy because notable people X, Y, and Z attended it. But if X, Y, and Z were not notable at the time they attended, why does their subsequent rise to fame make the school noteworthy? Clearly that's only the case if X, Y, and Z were in some way inspired or reaffirmed or shaped by their experiences at the school. But if we're asserting that that happened, Wikipedia policy demands verification through reliable sources that it did, in fact, happen. It need not necessarily be a direct quote such as the one you offer, but we can't simply insert our opinion without any such facts to back it up. I will concede, though, that this is an area in which quantity plays a role. If a school is known for producing a large number of noteworthy alumni, it is doubtlessly noteworthy on those grounds (see Juilliard School, for a famous instance). When claims of noteworthiness per "notable alumni" hinge on one or two athletes or actors or politicians, though, it's much less convincing, in the absence of reliable sources. Perhaps, since tracking down reliable sources in this particular instance is an undue burden (and somewhat tangential to the actual school), we could instead modify the criterion's language to reflect, as it were, weight of numbers? "X, Y, and Z" might make a weak claim, but "A through Z" makes a stronger one, in other words. Shimeru 10:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd imagine most professional athletes got their start in sports on a Little League team (or similar type of league). That wouldn't necessarily mean the team is notable. If, on the other hand, the athlete constantly refers back to that experience as h(is|er) inspiration, that might make it so. I think that criterion here is reasonable as well-and not just if the athlete refers to it, but if other sources can be found that state a similar type of thing. On the other hand, if a school has a verifiable reputation for consistently turning out high-caliber athletes, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc., the school has likely received considerable press for that and would be notable. As to earlier, I'd also entirely agree that the Blue Ribbon award should qualify a school as notable-that's quite a prestigious achievement and likely gains the school a significant amount of press. Seraphimblade 11:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That alumni can be a cause of notability is why it is relevant to have a criteria at all. I'm not sure that there would be any agreement that alumni are sufficient for notability. If the only reason we knew the school had notable alumni was that it mentioned them in its alumni magazine (as colleges and many non-government high schools have), then we wouldn't have anyone independent of the school saying anything about the school, which is the sort of evidence of notability that all the notability standards use. So the key is that we be able to source some non-directory type information from a source independent of the school. (The source does not need to independent of the alumnus - if they mention it in their biography, then that constitutes an implicit statement on their part that it was significant, and they are a reliable source on their own life.) So I'll go stick a draft wording up - keys are 1) multiple notable alumni, 2) non-directory data, 3) reliable source independent of school. GRBerry 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry's proposal on alumni is a step in the right direction. We should be looking for independent sources for attendance at a school, and many reference sources will provide it. It is indicative that sources will almost always list an athlete's college, and very often list a high school. But such sources will hardly ever mention the middle school, elementary school, nursery school or little league program an athlete participated in. Furthermore, an article who is participating at the highest levels of a sport who would merit notability per WP:BIO were almost always top athletes in high school who should have press coverage for their feats at various levels, many of which will refer to the individual's high school. A major mention in an article might be evidence of the athlete's notability and might connect the athlete to the school, but I agree that it does not indicate notability for the team or the school. Alansohn 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think that's a very reasonable direction to take it. Seraphimblade 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. I think that's a great improvement. Shimeru 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why is there a WP:SCHOOLS and a WP:SCHOOLS3, but no WP:SCHOOLS2? 38.100.34.2 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:SCHOOLS is actually the second proposal on schools (see the top of WP:SCHOOLS for details), so this proposal is the third proposal. When making a new proposal I decided to label it in a way that reflected the actual history. JoshuaZ 01:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

kudos

Wow, this one looks about right, IMO. I am duly impressed by all the hard/good work.

--Ling.Nut 01:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• I still have serious concerns. Look at criterion 2, for just one example. There are no justifications as to the existence of this criterion. For all other notability guidelines (like WP:CORP for example), when any secondary criteria attemts to extend the primary notability criteria (which is Criteria 1 here), there are specific and narrowly defined reasons for doing so. Why does 3 extracurriculars and 2 championships automatically qualify a school as notable? Such numbers are arbitrary and random. Why not 4 and 3? Why not 1 and 1? Why even use these as secondary inclusion criteria? There is nothing inherent about participation in a non-notable activity that should make a school notable? Even if the activity is notable, if we lack any third-party non trivial sources, how can we call it notable? If the sources exist, it is notable by criteria 1. If sources don't exist, how can we write a verifiable article with notable information? --Jayron32 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• • There is some justification to this criteria. It may be possible to readily source the winning of pre-web era championships to a non-independent website, or one that only offers a trivial list of championships. Yet there will probably be articles in the local paper, or even statewide papers, about that championship. When I was in school, my state's paper of record (generally considered a local paper) covered state championships even for the class D schools, which if I remember correctly was roughly high schools of 100 or fewer students. Thus the championships can be viewed as an indicator for the presence of such coverage. The numbers, are, however are arbitrary. GRBerry 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but if they appear in reliable sources, they appear in reliable sources. If they don't, we can't write about it and reference it. Ergo, the criterion is either reduntant or overextends notability. It should then go. --Jayron32 05:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Were y'all in the original SCHOOLS discussion? I gave up. Trust me, you ain't gonna get anything near what you want. One side will fold its arms and say "All schools are notable" ad infinitum.
• Accept whatever you can get (if you can get anything, which is highly questionable).. trust me. It will save you oodles of frustration :-) --Ling.Nut 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Jayron, I agree that if they appear in reliable sources, they do. But the use of indicator variables is perfectly reasonable to an eventualist, because time pressures may prevent the reliable source from being found right now - especially during an AFD discussion. GRBerry 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • 1) If sources are found after a deletion discussion has closed, the article can be recreated. There is no mandatory waiting period for article recreation, if the recreated article substantially solves the problems of the prior deletion. 2) Likewise, new sources can be used as evidence in a Deletion Review, which has no 5 day time limit. 3) There is a fine line between saying sources may eventually exist to verify notabilty (which sounds like crystalballing to me) and saying that souces exist, but have yet been found. I would say that either case is an unreasonable jusitification to keep an article; if such, one could simply claim on every AfD... "Don't delete this, I know a source exists, I just haven't found it yet" and could then retain an article with NO NOTABLE FACTS indefinitaly. If no notable facts can be sourced, the article should be deleted. If sources are found, recreate the article. Its that simple. --Jayron32 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be getting there

I would therefore like to inquire what other issues people think need to be dealt with? JoshuaZ 04:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• As it is written as of now, only Criteria 1 and 3 (1=PNC, 3=unique educational program) seem to be appropriate as they don't extend notability to schools about which it would be impossible to populate an article with non-trivial facts. ALSO, it should perhaps be noted that all of the other criteria would be approprate facts to add to an article that has already been deemed notable by Criteria 1 or 3. For example, an article simply listing state championships won by a school contains no notable information, however, and article that already has information that passes Criteria 1 or 3 COULD and SHOULD list state championships won (assuming of course, verified in reliable sources). --Jayron32 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would be quite willing to jettison criterion 2 for these reasons. I think criterion 4 speaks to the noteworthiness of the school, although it's also true that criterion 1 will usually subsume it. Criterion 5 is somewhat troublesome; I think there are cases where notable alumni can in fact make their schools notable, though I also think it's rather rare. I'm not certain outright removal of that criterion would be supported. GRBerry might have hit upon a good compromise, though; the current version is much preferable to earlier versions. Shimeru 05:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Criteria 1 we need, though I think I see a contradiction between the current paragraph and footnote four to it. The paragraph says that "public reports by school inspection agencies" are non-trivial, the footnote says "Standard government reports" are trivial. These need harmonization. My preferred harmonization would be to change the paragraph to "non-routine reports by school inspection agencies". Criteria 3 is the PNC in the context of the schools programs, so is not problematic.
• Criteria 2 and 4 are only justified if 1) they serve as highly reliable proxy variables for the presence of not yet cited press coverage that would meet the PNC and 2) we are willing to take an eventualist approach to such sourcing. I am willing to be an eventualist on this in hopes of getting a guideline in place. I also believe that #2 is a good proxy variable. I don't have a sense of confidence that #4 will be a good proxy variable as used in practice. We don't have strong enough definition of what constitutes a significant award. Can we improve it from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#School Awards?
• I proposed the current wording of criteria 5 as a compromise. That means that even I am not completely satisfied with it, but it also means that I think we should have it in the proposed guideline. GRBerry 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction-criterion 1 states that non-routine reports by watchdog or government agencies qualify as non-trivial, note 1 reiterates that routine ones do not. That seems to be pretty reasonable. All restaurants receive health inspection reports, which are trivial. On the other hand, if a restaurant receives national press for flagrant health code violations and causing an E.coli outbreak, that would make it notable. The same would apply here-if the government makes a special report on the school as a model of what to do (or a model of what not to do), that would be a non-trivial mention, but a standard report on test scores and the like would be a trivial mention. The first mention is about the school, the second is about test scores and mentions the school in passing. Seraphimblade 15:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It does now say "non-routine"; it didn't when I made that comment. Here is the diff. This change does eliminate that concern. Is there any way to improve criteria 4 at this time? GRBerry 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see how that would've been confusing! Disregard the last bit then. I think for criterion 4, we should specify that it should be an award which is generally considered a major one, and has not been awarded to more than (my own number, this could be modified of course) 2% of schools that would be eligible for it. If it's a standard "passes basic standards" award that 60% of eligible schools have won, it's not very notable. On the other hand, if it's something like the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, or an equivalent program in that school's country, an award winner would likely be notable. Major state/region awards which are difficult to win might qualify as well, again if they're not awarded regularly and routinely. (Of course, generally a school winning a major award will receive a significant amount of press and pass on criterion 1 anyway.) Seraphimblade 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Once again, I think it looks good. I might suggest that you dry-run through some real examples and see how your scenarios play out. On example might be Boone County High School. I'm sure you can find others. --Ling.Nut 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed up some of the references and such to link to the actual pages used as sources, rather than just the organization's front page. Seems to have gotten plenty of press, so I'd say it passes on criterion 1. Seraphimblade 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

School Awards & criterion 4

Okay, so we need to nail this one down a bit further...

Right now, the criterion reads: Significant awards or commendations have been bestowed upon the school or its staff that are not common awards. Generally, national awards pass this test. State, provincial, and other subnational awards may pass it depending on how many schools or individuals receive the award.

The first thing I note is that the second sentence needs revision. I contend that there are national "awards" that aren't "significant," such as indicators of passing the national standards of education for its grade levels. We could argue that the word "significant" in the first sentence eliminates such, but it's better to remove the potential contradiction.

Second, we should make it clearer that this criterion requires multiple awards or commendations, not just a single one. The use of the plural case may not be clear enough.

Looking at the suggestion from Wikiproject Schools (list by User:Hjal at 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)):

• TeachersCount-Teacher Awards and Competitions This site has a long list of links to awards for teachers, some of which seem to be the kind of award that would justify including a teacher under "Notable faculty."

This is not a school award, so irrelevant to criterion 4. If it is sufficiently noteworthy to be covered in independent reliable sources, and reasonably exclusive, then that does make it support for a criterion 5 argument. (On a side note, criterion 5 should indicate notable faculty or staff as well as notable alumni.)

• Newsweek, The 100 Best High Schools in America Also includes a list of the top 1000; the single criterion used limits the value of this list, but it gets widely reported whenever it comes out.

I'd say making the top 100 in a country as large as the US might be notable. Top 25 or so would definitely be an argument for inclusion. Top 1000 is too loose to be useful in my opinion. For extremely small countries, assuming such lists could be found, top 100 might be too inclusive, but that's another matter. Newsweek does make a reliable and widely-reported-on source, even if its rankings are disputed.

• Washington Post 2006 Challenge Index

Not sure about this one. "Divide the number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or other college level tests a school gave by the number of seniors who graduated in June." It seems to me this might be biased based upon school population. And does a school offering more AP courses than its neighbors really make that school notable? "Challenge" may not be the best benchmark.

• A top-100 list roils high schools CSM article about the Newsweek/Washington Post rankings.

Criticism of the Newsweek rankings, not a ranking or award in itself. Not really useful for this purpose.

• Ranking America’s High Schools-A Few Quibbles on What Constitutes 'Best' EdWeek's take on the Newsweek list.

More criticism of Newsweek's rankings.

• Canada's best high schools Macleans list from 2005.

Looks like a Top 30 list for Canadian schools. It's drawn from a smaller pool, about 200 schools, but I'd consider Macleans about as reliable a source as Newsweek. I'd say at least the "Top Overall" schools are worthy of inclusion.

• Edward R. Murrow High School Journalism Awards

Most of these honor students, not schools. However, "Best Edition" is for the student newspaper as a whole. I'd say that the winner merits an article. It's certainly an exclusive award. The student award winners can be used as evidence toward the "notable alumni" criterion, as they appear to be exclusive as well.

• Critics and Awards Program for High School Students "The Cappies"

Operates in only a few areas in North America, most awards go to individual students rather than the school's drama troupe, and the schools themselves nominate the critics, making this non-independent. On top of all that, there's the "Criticism" section's claim that critics like to "spread the awards around." I'm going to have to go with "no" on this one.

• California School Recognition Program

A state award. California Distinguished School goes to over 300 schools in the state every year. Schools nominate themselves and can reapply every 4 years. I don't think this is an acceptable level of exclusivity for a subnational award.

• Blue Ribbon Schools Program

As User:Dgies notes at Wikiproject Schools, this's been given out at the rate of roughly one every three days, and over 3,000 schools have gotten one. That makes it pretty common. I'm willing to accept it as one of the awards necessary to establish notability, though. It is national level, and it is a high award. Shimeru 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'll note that I think this criterion is redundant. I think we should consider awards only if the awards talk about the school itself (i.e. they profile the school, even briefly, instead of just listing it). Then it becomes a reliable source with which we can build an article. Fagstein 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)