Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

This proposal has not failed. Yet.

It was a clever idea to subject the original Schools proposal to the dustbin, and have this one inserted in its place. Unfortunately, what was once the SCHOOLS3 proposal has made little progress in its months of existence in demonstrating that it will reach consensus. What was the SCHOOLS3 proposal has been created by a small number of individuals with an extremely restrictive view of which school articles merit existence. While there have been a few voices seeking changes that might achieve consensus, hardly any of these proposed changes have been implemented. It's well beyond the point of seeing whether this proposal will achieve a clear consensus or to see if the "old proposal" has a greater chance of achieving consensus. Other than that, the overlay of the original proposal with the narrowly drawn SCHOOLS3 option only creates confusion. I, for one, cannot support this proposal as currently worded. Alansohn 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have too much trust in this process at the moment considering the manner in which this proposal with little input from all sides (not just those with particularly restrictive/negative views on schools) has now been moved into WP:SCHOOLS.

Speaking for groups of people (though not everyone) from WP:EiC, I'd like to see inclusion of a bullet that allows series of related articles covering both schools and school boards. Think of "completeness of coverage" as the theme. This was in the previous proposal -- the one people refer to as "AMiB's proposal" -- until the very end just prior to the conversations dying off and the rejection. --Stéphane Charette 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Completeness of coverage" is not and has not ever been a policy or guideline on Wikipedia, nor has it ever been a valid excuse to short-circuit other policies and guidelines. Complete series of articles based on a finite set of elements that already exist tend to do so because the individual elements in the set merit an article by themselves. Chris cheese whine 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Constructive suggestions

It might be helpful if people could indicate what they think is wrong with this policy and what they would like changed. I'm only speaking from an English point of view but the policy does not seem unnecessarily restrictive to me. It would be quite possible to write a good article about virtually any English secondary school with multiple verifiable sources which satisfy the criteria listed. I would much rather people were encouraged to do a bit of digging to seek out some of the more interesting historical material and appropriate references rather than take the easy way out and recycle existing material which is already on the internet (eg from a school's website or OFSTED report)purely to get a Wikipedia listing.

Note 6 possibly needs re-wording. Books written about schools are rarely completely independent. Most such books take the form of school histories which are invariably written by someone who is closely connected with the school such as a teacher, an ex-pupil or an ex-teacher. There are a number of books written about Reading School for instance but they are all written by an ex-teacher. I would imagine the situation is the same with the example quoted for the King's School, Worcester (note that the book itself was published in Worcester which suggests that it was published by the school). However, the fact that someone has found sufficient material to publish a school history suggests that the school is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dahliarose 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Third criteria

Could the third criteria be merged into the second? (which it seems to reinforce). Other than that I fully support these guidelines as a means of countering the proliferation of articles on non-notable schools. --Nick Dowling 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

bias against private tertiary institutions

Why should private tertiary institutions be compared against WP:CORP, but not private secondary (or primary or pre-) schools? I would have thought this actually makes it pretty easy anyway - most private secondary, primary and pre- schools are owned as part of a network of schools anyway so the whole network would meet WP:CORP pretty easily and each insitution would be too big for a single article. Garrie 05:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why must for-profit schools be compared against WP:CORP at all if they satisfy WP:SCHOOLS3? Satisfying either CORP or SCHOOLS3 should be enough.

Further, I suggest a differentiation be made between for-profit schools that have successfully obtained government-recognized accreditation, from unaccredited diploma mills or those accredited by questionable accreditation mills. This way, properly accredited schools should automatically have at least 1 non-trivial source (ie, the website of the accrediting body listing them as a member). Wl219 12:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss high schools first, and by itself

It can be seen at any AfD debate on a high school, that there are those who think only selected high schools are notable, and some who thing that all are. In a debate on an elementary or intermediate school, there are those who think that almost none are notable unless some major event has happened there (usually a disaster of some sort), and again, those who think them all notable.

Of schools I know, most established NYC high schools have articles; only 2 public elementary schools do. Seems reasonable. I suggest progress could be made by discussing high schools separately, and first. There is more likely to be some appearance of consensus. DGG

Entirely disagree. A school is a school is a school. There may be more high schools which pass the requirements, and that's fine if so. However, even a university should be subject to the sourcing requirements. It's overwhelmingly likely such sources can be provided, but apparently, we need more of a nudge to tell people Don't just argue they can be provided, bother to provide them! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A Separate Place for Schools?

Has anybody suggested creating a separate wiki for schools and letting them all be included there? That way, Wikipedia could be more restrictive but there would be a place for an article on every school.

This approach has worked for many topics. Wookieepedia has over 45,000 articles and is less than two years old.

Think about it for a minute -- 20 years ago, if you wanted information about a high school, would you reach for a general encyclopedia? No, you'd grab a directory of high schools.

Butseriouslyfolks 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it has. At one point someone said they were going to set it up. Many consider a new school wiki a near perfect solution. Others consider not having these articles here an unacceptable omission. Personally go for it. Vegaswikian 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just filled out the application to set it up. I'll post a notice here when/if it is approved. Butseriouslyfolks 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm still trying to determine if this is a sick joke. Are we trying to set standards to determine which schools are notable or finding a place to dump all the articles off of Wikipedia? School articles belong on Wikipedia with far more justification than hundreds of thousands of other articles. Alansohn 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it's not a sick joke. Neither is Wookieepedia. It's not dumping, it's a question of what is better off where. If there is a better place for school articles, proponents won't have to worry about being cut out of Wikipedia. At School Wiki, editors will be able to build comprehensive articles about primary and secondary schools (and colleges as well) without wasting time and energy on needless deletion debates. Also, schools will sort into categories not only by geography but also sports conferences, academic competitions and the like.

And as for the hundreds of thousands of other articles that are less appropriate for WP than high school articles, I'll be starting on them next. I can only tackle one major issue at a time.  ;-) Butseriouslyfolks 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Allow me to suggest that there is a distinction between a complex but self-contained fictional "universe" and the presence of schools in real communities. Research interest in specific topics in the Star Wars universe is always limited to that context. (Though one could distinguish fictional elements of Star Wars from real-world film-making and publication issues). Research interest in individual schools can come from many angles - geography, biography, history, pegagogy, sociology - which benefit from being able to freely interlink with the rest of the encyclopedia. I don't see any legitimate need for Wikipedia to be "more restrictive". 20 years ago the world of references was more limited to paper. --Dystopos 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than turning this into a rehash of all of the pro and con arguments, can we wait and see how the School Wiki turns out? There will never be consensus on a school guideline as things currently stand, which means unless somebody comes up with an alternative approach, we're all doomed to an endless string of prods, AfDs, CfDs, CSDs, etc. Maybe that's what some segments of this community thrive on, but I think most of us would prefer something more constructive. Butseriouslyfolks 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I wish you the best of luck with your school wiki, but until then, school articles are here to stay. Let's try to find a set of standards that specifies which to keep and which need improvement. Until then we're doomed to deal with an endless string of prods, AfDs, CfDs, CSDs from individuals, many of whom have never edited an article but seem to do nothing but find articles to attack. Alansohn 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An absurd comparison

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nebula_Room http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Senior_officer http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Renforra http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta-class_JV-7_escort_shuttle http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jay_David_Ramos http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/CT-8828 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/CT-8837 http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sibisime http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Domain_Carr http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Infinities:_Return_of_the_Jedi_4

Based on my reading of the above ten random selections, Wookieepedia is a creative exercise of fantasy. The amount of real-world context is negligible. It is almost entirely unverified, making it subject to immediate removal from wikipedia. The comparison with schools is absurd. Schools (articles, or article sections, about schools) belong in wikipedia. SmokeyJoe 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• You can make anything absurd if you view it narrowly enough. Wookieepedia was just one example. You might feel more comfortable about some of these:

[1] (14,000+ articles in one year) [2] (1,000 articles in 1st month) [3] [4]

Your right, those make me feel more comfortable. I'll note that the first three aren't compatable with wikipedia policies, and so are better suited in a spin-off wiki. School articles are compatable with wikipedia. Schools might be well compared with the fourth. Maybe schools.wiki.com is an idea with merit, and I'll wish it well, but I don't agree with requiring a firm, unusually high, minimum threshold for schools in wikipedia. SmokeyJoe 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can think of a better way to approach a workable consensus? Butseriouslyfolks 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The main issue at hand is whether school articles are permitted by Wikipedia's core policies (V, NOT). The existence of another wiki elsewhere is irrelevant to the main issue. So it's not clear how this will help us reach a workable consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideas:

• Clarify “desirable standards” versus “minimum standards”. Clarify that failure to meet the desirable standards does not, per se, constitute a reason for deletion. School articles should be improved, not deleted. (see Wikipedia:How to edit a page; do you disagree with that policy?).
• Minimum standards should be fairly low, meeting the policies WP:V and WP:NOR, and representing a limited exception to the guideline WP:N.
• Re-write the article for an audience of new contributors requiring encouragement, not as a reference piece for use in AfD.
• An idea supported by many here is that WP:Schools is instruction creep, and that wikipedia is better off without it. SmokeyJoe 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"trivial" secondary sources

Seraphimblade, or anyone, can you show some examples of school articles that satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR, but whose secondary sources are so "trivial" such that they require deletion and where you feel that extra, school-specific criteria for deletion are required? SmokeyJoe 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I can show you plenty of school articles which cite no secondary sources whatsoever, and plenty more which fail even to cite primary ones. Run a search for "school" and have a look at the first five articles you find-if you don't find that most of them cite no sources or primary ones only, I'd be absolutely amazed. Primary sources do satisfy WP:V and WP:NOR-they're perfectly verifiable, and so long as interpreting the source doesn't require extensive analysis, it doesn't violate WP:NOR. What it fails to satisfy is WP:N. I would imagine there are also some out there which cite only secondary sources which mention the school only peripherally (for example, mentioning that an alumnus attended it), are routine (printing of high school sports scores in the newspaper), or are "human-interest" type blurbs that really give no workable information. If you really want me to point to specific examples, I suppose I can find them, but right now one of these three problems apply to most school articles I've seen. Seraphimblade 05:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In short, you can’t? I’ve failed to find any. Without examples of the benefits of additional school-specific criteria, why have them? You seem to want guidelines to use as a stick to beat on articles you don’t like, without offering constructive criticism. Doing this is discouraging, not encouraging, of contributions, contributors and the improvement of contributions. Many school articles contain violations of WP:V. Such content should be deleted, where any editor can review the deletions and reasons, and can retrieve the material if & when sources are found. SmokeyJoe 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, if you're insistent:

• Elmwood School (Ottawa). The school's website is cited, and verifies the information provided. This also means it's not original research. However, no secondary sources are cited, which gives no indication that the school passes WP:N.

It passes WP:OR because it barely says anything. It needs expansion, or to be merged somewhere. So do we agree that the status quo is not good enough? The argument "delete because it fails WP:Schools" offends me. I see no reason to delete this. It intimidates new and potential contributors. Keeping the history available to allcomers is in better keeping with the principles of wikipedia. I want a helpful guideline, not a formula for quick and easy deletion. SmokeyJoe 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging is not a problem by me if a suitable merge target exists. The problem I see is in articles that can really never reach comprehensiveness without OR. That's what notability, in the end, is for-to ensure subjects we write about have enough source material for a good, comprehensive, neutral, OR-free article. If the sources are cited, but a good article hasn't been written yet, I would never argue for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the sources exist. Your criteria creates a bias for articles with online sources. Library research is harder. It needs encouragement, not deletion of stubs. I also have little doubt that a suitable merge can be found. Perhaps some research is needed! Perhaps the destination article needs writing. If the proposed guideline specified that failures are not criteria for deletion, then I would be more sympathetic. SmokeyJoe 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean if it included something along the lines of "In general, even when a merger is non-optimal, it is preferable to make redirects out of small stubs and not delete the history, rather than to delete the articles," perhaps? Shimeru 07:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Not just stubs though. Articles like Toko School, below, are what I had in mind, which have content but need improvement. WP:Schools should in no way imply that such articles are to be deleted. The policy should gently encourage improvements, much like WP:Local. SmokeyJoe 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Toko School. Same issue-primary source verifies what's said, but no secondary sources are cited.

So what would your guideline say about this school? Delete, with all records suppressed except for an Afd archive? Would that encourage someone to peruse the Stratford city library? I have no doubt that in that library is an abundance of secondary information, given that the school is over 100 years old, and no doubt connects to the majority of the people who lived in that some town. SmokeyJoe 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right, or you may not, and there's no way to know. In the case that you are, if and when someone locates those sources, they're welcome to create or recreate the article! Again, if there's a suitable merge target (if it's so important to this town, presumably the town would be one?), merging would be fine too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a way to know! Someone can search the Stratford city library for sources, for example. Such a search is something I would want to encourage, and it seems it is something that you want to discourage. This is a good example of how some people want to hold schools to a higher standard than the vast majority of articles. I think a degree of leniency should be allowed for schools because there are important to their communities for extended periods, because they seem to always be associated with good faith contributions. SmokeyJoe 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So, is it too much to say that someone should have done this in the 16 months the article has been up? Chris cheese whine 08:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had another good look at it, thinking of working on it, and even the primary source/external link doesn't support the content. I have to agree with you. My solution is to convert it to a redirect, not to delete it. SmokeyJoe 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hummersknott School. One primary source, one trivial one (a government report that all schools receive). Verified, yes, notable, no reason to think so from what's there.

• Oldfields School. See above.

Neither of the above are based on trivial secondary sources that I wanted to talk about. Both contained unverified statements that should be edited out according to WP:V. Both are notable, I believe, but the verification is lacking. This is what I mean by saying that existing policies suffice. Tthere is no need for endless extra (punitive) guidlines. I wouldn't want to see the articles deleted because I hold hope that someone may find the redirect, find the histories useful, and then write a verifiable article. SmokeyJoe 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just a sampling that I found in a few minutes with a search for "school". There are tons of these, with no maintenance, no secondary sources, and no reason whatsoever to believe that the school is notable in any way, or that a comprehensive article can ever be written. Is that true of all school articles? Absolutely not. But there are a lot like the above it is true of. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was hoping you would show me is examples of school articles that are well cited to secondary sources, but where you consider those secondary sources to be excessively trivial. Note that I don't consider a list of external links to be sufficient for verifiability, do you? SmokeyJoe 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several of those I've seen, but nowhere near the number with primary sources only. I have seen some turn up on AfD where the "secondary sources" are basically sites that list school directory information and maybe a very brief statement of what the school is (public, private, etc.). Really, though, I'm more worried about the ones with only primary sources-if for no other reason, those are a massive forest of substubs. In comparison, the ones that cite a trivial secondary source or two are a small orchard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So you mean, you're really concerned, mostly, with articles that fail WP:V or WP:NOR, ie articles that are not based on any secondary sources. So why are you intent on creating a guideline that is overkill for the bulk of the problem? And suppose the current version were made policy. What would you see done with it? SmokeyJoe 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Elmwood School (Ottawa) now meets WP:N, I think, if 'Ottawa Life is verifiable. It looks like Elmwood does not just pass the WP standard, but is in fact exceptional, which is not required.--Hjal 10:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not that I can see, that's just a name drop (hence a trivial, insufficient mention). That article is about private schools in general, and does great to establish the notability of private schooling in general, but the mention of that particular school is very brief and trivial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Organizations and Companies

Further information: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 § Merger_of_WP:CONG_and_WP:SCHOOL_here

There is really little here that isn't already covered by Organizations. There is no reason to add another set of criteria to what we already have. With slight modification we can cut the clutter. See WP:CREEP which discusses the danger of growing regulatory codes. --Kevin Murray 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at the organizations and companies page has anything to do with schools, aside from affirming that the primary notability criterion applies, which has never been the serious point of contention. So the value of the proposed merge seems pretty suspect. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong disagree with the proposed merger. The two proposals have little in common. WP:ORG is all about having a national or international impact, which is not a sensible requirement for a high school. Only if there were a section added to WP:ORG which incorporated all criteria in this proposal would that make any sense. A high school is not Sears Roebuck and Company or Tesco. "Cut the clutter" usually means "throw away valuable collaborative editing by replacing a promising proposal with a simple redirect to someone else's favorite guideline proposal which suits the topic like a bicycle suits a flounder." Then in every subsequinet AFd it is easy to simply cite the new irrelevant guideline and say. DELETE. This high school does not have an international importance so does not satisfy WP:ORG.Edison 07:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  People seem to keep forgetting that the "collaborative editing" thing is secondary to that little E-word in the tag-line. If anything, I'm against the merger, because this version does the job rather nicely, and were it proposed right now I'd support it, and urge other right-minded Wikipedians (and maybe left-minded ones too) to do so. Chris cheese whine 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong disagree. Schools and companies cannot be compared. The criteria for such articles need to be defined separately. Schools are generally government-run institutions or privately run non-profit organisations with charitable status. The sources used for such articles will be completely different. We need to develop this guideline to get a consensus not complicate matters by merging with another guideline. Dahliarose 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree Agent 86, There is heavy opposition to the proposal on both pages. It is obvious that there is no consensus to merge. It is appropriate to remove the merger proposal from the project page now. SmokeyJoe 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need for a separate notability criterion for schools. However, this merger is worse than continuing the fruitless debates at Schools_X, Y & Z.--Hjal 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since a week has gone by and the clear consensus is against merger, I will remove the proposed merger tag. Edison 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • There were parallel discussions here and at Organizations. When evaluating them together Edison is correct. The WP custom seems to be discussing the merger at the page to be merged to, which seems counter intuitive to me. I appologize that the opposition here was ignored in the other conversation, but has now been copied there and included in the evaluation. Happy editing! --Kevin Murray 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why WP:Schools should create an exception to WP:Notability

Consider schools as compared to restaurants. Are not schools more likely to be more important to their communities than restaurants? Yet schools are far less likely that restaurants to have independent sources. I have multiple books containing a review, including commentary, on every restaurant in my city. These books are cheap, nearly given away. School reviews, in book form, which I have seen, do exist, but are expensive and are focused on the best high schools, and focus on output measures desired by competitive parents. The way WP:N is written, it encourages a systematic bias towards fine restaurants and elitist schools. This bias is stronger than the bias on background of new contributors (I conjecture), and this is the cause of the dispute here at WP:Schools. The solution is to write policies that are gentler on subjects important to communities, gentler than policies are by default on things regularly called cruft. SmokeyJoe 03:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think the restaurant analogy is flawed. A review of a restaurant, even one that includes commentary, is trivial and does not pass muster under WP:N. If a restaurant is notable enough to have a book written about it, it goes in. If schools are, as you suggest, so very important to their communities, there should be plenty of non-trivial, verifiable sources from which to build a WP article. Butseriouslyfolks 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That "trivial" word again. It is poorly defined, and amounts to "what I don't like". It is also offensive. Now you seem to be suggesting that "non-trivial" means "at least a whole book". You also seem to fail to take my point that a school can be very important (and not just as a service/utility), but due to being relatively long-lived and constant, it doesn't tend to attract a lot of third party commentary. SmokeyJoe 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You may not like the term "trivial", but it's an important part of the official Wikipedia guidelines. As I noted above, anything can be made absurd if it is construed narrowly enough. The statement "a whole book equals notability" does 'not' imply that "the lack of a whole book equals non-notability". But you have to give me that the complete absence of 'any' non-trivial verifiable sources 'does' indicate a lack of notability. Butseriouslyfolks 04:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If something does not attract a lot of third party commentary, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Fact. Chris cheese whine 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Schools are important to their communities. So are garbage dumps, gas mains, courthouses, city council members, police stations, and grocery stores. That doesn't mean we need an article on every one of those things. Just like any of those, we should have an article on a school if and only if it establishes notability like anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first three sentences. That's why WP:Schools should remain concerned about schools, and it should not have any relevance to garbage dumps, gas mains, courthouses, city council members, police stations, and grocery stores. My point, which I invite you to address, is that WP:N, while well-meaning, creates a systematic bias if exceptions are allowed for. SmokeyJoe 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is-if your only rationale is "We should create an exception due to importance to the community", my question is "Alright, why only an exception for one institution of importance to a community, and not all these others?" That question stands. Where we do create a systemic bias is if we allow editors to determine what's to be written about. What WP:N assures is that others, specifically writers and editors of reliable secondary source material, decide what's important enough to cover. We simply source and make encyclopedia articles from their coverage. Whether we like it or not, WP:N prevents editorial bias. Now, of course, if you think a newspaper, magazine, or anything else should be covering a subject more, feel free to contact that publication and tell them that's what you want to read about! But until they decide to cover it, it's inappropriate for us to cover it. We just reflect the real world, we don't seek to correct it. If real-world secondary sources rarely cover schools, neither do we. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"We just reflect the real world, we don't seek to correct it." "WP:N prevents editorial bias." Good point. SmokeyJoe 20:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" are the weak points coming from WP:N. There are plenty of secondary sources covering schools (reports of all kinds), but they are susceptible to being called "trivial". SmokeyJoe 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They are weak points to you only because they do not support your position. To me, they are critical. Common sense tells me there is no reason for a world-wide encyclopedia to cover a non-descript high school in Indiana. (No offense to any Hoosiers out there.) What are you going to say about it other than what someone could find in a school report that is by WP definitions "trivial"? Butseriouslyfolks 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An overwhelming percentage of schools, certainly at the secondary level, do have extensive coverage of events and issues related to specific schools. Schools in all locations win awards and championships that are covered in the press. Almost all of this coverage constitute reliable and verifiable sources. Find two of these real-world sources, and you've got "multiple" covered, satisfying any objective notability requirements. Then let the anti-school crowd come up with excuses to justify that the sources are too "trivial" for their delicate sensitivities. Common sense tells me that a significant percentage of high schools can have articles that meet the arbitrary standards of even the most pompous and arrogant deletionists. Even schools in Indiana. Alansohn 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

... and with this comment, you lose. Chris cheese whine 10:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. Then we don't need an exception to WP:N, we just need people who are motivated enough to find and cite the sources when they create an article about a school, and there won't be any issue. Of course, if someone creates an article without any of these sources, they are running afoul of a key WP policy: Only add information based on reliable sources. Butseriouslyfolks 05:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that every one of these school articles you vote to delete are based exclusively on original research in violation of Wikipedia policy? Alansohn 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He's not. But since you mention it, a large number of school articles are, in fact. Or, at least, they do not state their sources, which amounts to the same thing. Shimeru 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think I have voted in more than a dozen AfDs since I've been editing here. So "every one of these school articles I vote to delete" would be maybe two or three of them. When I vote on an AfD, I state my reasons in that forum. I'd have to review my contrib history to see, but I would think that most of my votes on school articles were based on WP:N, not on WP:NOR. That being said, I have seen a lot of school articles which are completely bereft of citations and sources. Those obviously violate WP:V. Butseriouslyfolks 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Basically, if and only if there's enough source material cited in an article to write more than a stub someday (even if the article's currently a stub), I will argue to keep it. If I think there's a very good chance I can find such sources, I'll look. If I can, I'll cite them. But for most schools that I've seen, only a primary source is cited (usually the school's website), and that's good for nothing beyond a directory stub-ever. WP:V is pretty unambiguous-if you want to include information, it is your responsibility to find and cite sources. It is not the responsibility of the person who may wish to remove the information to do your work for you first. If you don't want a school article to be challenged and possibly deleted, find sources that pass muster before ever moving the article into mainspace. (It can always be put in userspace before you find sources, userspace article drafts are not required to be sourced.) If you want to create the article, that's your job. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is from WP:V, which must be ambiguous if you can read it as above, while I read it as it seems to be written:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Most school websites I've looked at are poor at doing what they probably should be doing--providing useful information to parents and students--but many have lots of information needed to write a good article. Even the official sites are doubtful in spots, when the language gets too self-congratulatory, but they may have a welth of information that a reasonable reader can accept at face value, since they are patently not self-serving and since they are put out for public review by public officials. I think that qualitative text comparing the school to others or rating its own importance should be ignored, mostly, while most of the history and statistics are reliable.--Hjal 07:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to Seraphimblade: The non-existance of references is NOT the same thing as the non-existance of sources. A quick perusal of articles turns up many articles that, while currently unreferenced, are also patently notable if for the plainly obvious fact that many reliable sources DO exist on the subject. A random search turns up an unreferenced article on convection, a concept exhaustively covered in nearly every physics, chemistry, materials science, thermodynamics, etc. etc. textbook in existance. Poorly written articles is NOT a valid reason for deletion. The arguement made here is that schools of the secondary level (high schools) and higher are so likely to receive copious coverage in reliable sources that they should pass notablity tests with flying colors. I may or may not disagree with this arguement myself, but one should not discount an unreferenced, but keepable, article with an unreferencable article. Still, if any current article on a school is indepenantly referencable, it already passes the Primary Notability Criterion and this guideline is unneccessary. If any current article on a school cannot be referenced (regardless of whether it currently is) then it should be deleted as it cannot contain any verifiable encyclopedic knowledge. However, one cannot claim that an unreferenced article is the same as an unreferencable one. --Jayron32 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's that pointless -ed/-able comparison again. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the distinction between the two is meaningless. If an article has no sources (and is not on such a widely-understood concept such as convection), then it is de facto unverifiable in its current state. That's simple logic - if there are no sources, it is impossible to verify the article content. If an article can indeed be verified (there is no such thing as a "verifiable subject", we verify articles), people who claim such when challenged should put their money where their mouth is (as they are required to do) and do so. Chris cheese whine 10:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(in reply to Hjal) Yes, that material may be used. However, it may not establish notability. Sources used for that purpose must be independent of the article's subject. A website written by the subject pretty clearly fails that.

(in reply to Jayron) Generally I don't, and certainly, rather then requesting deletion of convection, I would fact tag any dubious information, pull out an old textbook, and source the rest. But that's exactly the point-if someone did request deletion of that article, it would not be onerous to source it. It would be trivial. Why isn't it done? On the other hand, it's very difficult to find non-trivial mentions of many schools, even high schools. Blurbs, sure, but "The Foo High football team beat Bar High on January 1, 2000 by a score of 14-7" is not encyclopedic content, and is a routine, trivial mention. Any editor can challenge unreferenced information. Granted, unless it's a BLP concern or very obvious bullcrap, one should attempt first to look for sources and/or add a {{fact}} tag, and then delete if none are found or forthcoming. However, sometimes it's the case that no secondary sources are found or forthcoming for an entire article, school or otherwise, despite use of an {{unreferenced}} or {{primarysources}} tag for quite some time. In that case, the proper challenge is made at AfD. The fact that something theoretically might be verifiable doesn't mean we should wait forever on verification-that was the responsibility of the editor who added the material anyway, just like it's everyone's responsibility to make edits that conform to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, it is everyone's responsibility to verify added information or articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, move along ...

Excuse me, but you said,"for most schools that I've seen, only a primary source is cited (usually the school's website), and that's good for nothing beyond a directory stub-ever. WP:V is pretty unambiguous-if you want to include information, it is your responsibility to find and cite sources." You referred to WP:V to back your statment, not WP:N. Neither policy supports your statement that a primary source can generate nothing more than a stub—ever. In addition, WP:N is a Guideline, not Policy, and is subject to exception when warranted. Including information about the educational system in any city is always warranted, including the high school(s) in a small or mid-sized town, and the school or district website might provide enough information by itself to produce a decent start class article, while it would overwhelm the locality article. You could start an Education in Foo article, but the deletionists have not responded favorably toward separate articles or clusters about school districts either. Finally, to go beyond what Jayron said, it is simply inconceivable that a high school in the U.S. could exist without being the subject of multiple, independent, verifiable publications. Whether it's in a small town or a big city, the planning, financing, design, attendance area, educational philosophy, principal selection, school board elections, bond elections, decline, closing, surplus land sale--all are covered and hashed over. You can't read daily and weekly newspapers for 40+ years without knowing this to be true. I suspect that is true in all English-speaking nations and most others. Only in states without a free pres would I expect otherwise. The problem for us is that many of the small and mid-size papers are not online, which makes finding third-party coverage online difficult sometimes. Similarly, the newspapers of record in the very largest cities (e.g., New York and Chicago) may not cover their hundreds of numbered public schools in the detail that I'm familiar with in Caifornia, Minnesota, and the DC area, and their neighborhood media are almost certainly not online. I do not think that either WP:V or WP:N is intended to strangle article creation when the creator does not have access to the local library in the locale of the article, as much as I wish that a local student would go to the damn library and fill out their articles.--Hjal 08:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"It's hard to find sources, but I'm sure they're out there" is not an argument to keep anything. Nor is that "occasional exception" clause in the guideline tag meant to mean "whenever I feel like it." The occasional exception would be an edge case. Let's say, for example, that a subject is covered by a single independent source of exceptional depth, and that source is universally considered to be extremely reliable on that subject, but no other secondary sources were available. Sure, in that case, any reasonable editor would argue to waive the "multiple" requirement for secondary sources, and accept the single secondary source. But "All schools are notable!" is not an occasional exception, especially given the state of most of the school articles I've run across. Once again-if you create an article, it is your responsibility to ensure that the article is properly sourced. If you can't do that yet, draft the article in userspace and put it up once adequate sources can be gained! Many community newspapers are coming online, so if what you say is true, that won't be a problem in a few years. I'm not really sure as to what you say though-the community I live in is only mid-sized, and has several schools, but I've seen very little in the paper about them, and I read it daily. There's the standard high school sports blurbs, but I saw no more then one short editorial about the recent bond issue, and a few brief pieces about an elementary school closing and moving to another location (these were more "status updates" then in-depth coverage, and were more about the move then the school in any case). Certainly nothing that would support an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to make an exception for schools. In any case, where do you draw the line? Do you think all nursery schools and primary schools should also have articles simply because they are perceived to be "important" to their local community? I would have thought that the majority of schools at secondary level will be able to demonstrate notability in one way or another. If it is so difficult for people to find appropriate sources then perhaps what we should be doing is offering constructive advice to point people in the right direction. I've already made some amendments to the guideline to this effect. Perhaps some of you will have other suggestions. Dahliarose 09:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I happen to think the street I live on is very important, but I don't feel that it deserves an article here. Yet it serves the community, has been the subject of some local newspaper articles, but so what? It's only of interest to the local population and STILL doesn't deserve to be here.
I have to admit, I don't really understand why there is such a fuss about "schools" in particular. Someone questioned why other municipal services don't deserve an exception also, so why not? The only answer was "Don't bring that up, we're talking about schools here." Well, what is it especially about schools that's so important? Would the people arguing for the notability of schools in Indiana also feel the same about the inclusion of all schools in India, say? Dare I say it, that people consider schools notable only because they go/went there? I'm not trying to provoke anyone, but just trying to see it from the bigger picture and understand it. Icemuon 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what street you live on or why some people feel that schools are not as "important" as say, Pokemon cards or imaginary Star Wars planets. Where I live, our community spends about five times as much on its public schools as it does on either its police force or fire department. Any dozens of times more than any one street. Our society not only taxes us to pay for the schools, but it requires children to attend them, and the overwhelming majority do in almost all places worldwide. Thus, schools seem to have a far greater inherent notability than a police station, post office or street. I would certainly draw the line at nursery schools, but other than that most schools have an inherent claim of notability in and of themselves. Even more than Hayashigame or Ossus, neither of which have any non-trivial sources, which may come as a shock to some of our more anal-retentive, rules-obsessed deletionists. Alansohn 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn, do be nice to the deletionists. No need for this to turn into a namecalling contest. I fail to see where in WP:N is the criteria for "Large amounts of money are spent on the subject", "Children are required to go here", or any of the like. (And if you'd like to put some Star Wars- or Pokecruft up for deletion, I'll be right behind you, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a keep rationale.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "All Pokemon characters or Star Wars planets are notable" but deletionists seem to have no problem with those. Can you point me to any of your many AfDs on the matter? If you're arguing that schools are less important than "Pokecruft", let's hear your arguments, or at least an explanation in the hierarchy of the Universe why the fact that coverage for schools is being deemed "trivial" while elsewhere no sources are required. WP:HYPOCRISY is not a delete rationale. I think a general rule that states that "many schools are notable" -- or even "most schools are notable" -- would be accepted by most humans worldwide based on their inherent societal importance, though I'm sure that more than a few deletionists would object. Alansohn 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Every time I read a school article I see "Mr. Harris is the vice-principal" or "The bell rings at 9:20..." etc. And how is that arguable as deserving inclusion in a global collection of amassed human knowledge? I myself couldn't care less about Pokemon characters or Star Wars planets but millions of people DO care about them. Can't say the same about your local schools. By the way, I'm not some ANTI-SCHOOL fanatic, and I doubt most deletionists are. I have seen good articles on schools (for example) that I think are worthy of articles. But the majority don't. Icemuon 13:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's the same feeling I get when I read "Hayashigame evolves from Turtwig at level 18, and into Dodaitose at level 32." or "Ossus was a rich, lush world with a Jedi training center and the Great Jedi Library which were established by Jedi Master Odan-Urr 4,996 BBY." Again, I will state that all schools have an inherent claim of notability bestowed by society, that no police precinct, post office or street has, let alone a Pokemon character or Star Wars planet. I see scholars here analyzing the relative triviality of articles and sources about schools, but who lack the intellectual consistency and rigor to apply the same standards anywhere else. The fact that Mr. Harris's existence or the 9:20 bell ringing time bother you is cause to improve the article not an excuse to delete it. Alansohn 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately most cannot be improved because there is nothing more about them that can be said. Icemuon 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You've set the bar extremely low and still failed to clear it. When you make absolute statements you're almost always wrong, and statements of the ilk of "most article cannot be improved" fall into that category. I'll step up to the challenge: Show me one school article that demonstrates that it would be impossible to improve it through the addition of a single additional bit of information about the school. If I can modify the article in any way that improves it, your statement will be disproven, and your "I guess I'm a deletionist; I think there's too much cruft on Wikipedia — for example, I think most schools should not have articles of their own" approach along with it. Alansohn 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're being pedantic. You can "improve" an article all you like, but that still won't make the subject matter important. Since I know you will automatically assume I've failed your challenge if I don't provide you with an article to improve, please take, say, this one. Icemuon 15:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you picked this school as an example of one that would be the poster child for your "most articles cannot be improved" philosophy. Take a look at Springfield Park Elementary School and tell me that it has not been improved in the past half hour by enhancing the description of the school, adding sources for the information provided, trimming out unnecessary details and adding details of championships won by its chess team. I do not claim that all schools are notable, particularly at the elementary school level. But I think I have shown a perfect example of an article slapped with CSD and notability tags that could have been improved and been brought up to even the most pedantic standards with a trivial amount of effort. Thanks for proving my point. Alansohn 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, improving an article does not automatically make its subject matter important. You yourself claim that there are loads of "Star Wars- or Pokecruft" that are meticulously written and maintained. However, if you say "I do not claim that all schools are notable" then why are we even having this dicussion? Icemuon 16:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that there is a log of all of your statements being retained here before you start writing? Timestamped 13:45 today, you insisted that "Unfortunately most cannot be improved because there is nothing more about them that can be said." At 15:19, you offered Springfield Park Elementary School as your basket case of an unimprovable article. Has the article been improved? Yes or no? Your user page states that "I guess I'm a deletionist; I think there's too much cruft on Wikipedia — for example, I think most schools should not have articles of their own." It seems clear that your biases are distorting your ability to recognize that most schools, particularly at the secondary level, are more than sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own. I don't need to argue that "all schools are notable" to justify that Springfield Park Elementary School is a perfect example of an article that you would have given a knee-jerk delete, without lifting a finger to research the school or improve the article. Alansohn 17:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Improved, yes, but is notability demonstrated? All I see are some regional chess championship wins -- that satisfies half of one of the (rather less than strict) criteria. Is there anything else? We don't, after all, host biographies of people who win a state chess championship once... Improvement is not the same as satisfying notability. It would appear from this discussion and the article talk page that I am not alone in this opinion. As another example, I could very easily write an autobiographical article, and I could improve it a great deal (certainly the sources I'd reference would be a great deal more independent of me than the Virginia DoE is of a Virginia school). This would not make me notable, and an editor would be justified and, I'd say, correct in tagging my article for deletion, regardless of my mentions in the Wall Street Journal etc. Shimeru 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas un titre

Pokemon have verifiably proved their notability. They are the subject of a playable card game and a console game. They have spawned countless films, TV shows, books, magazines, websites, etc. Because so much has been written about them it is possible to write detailed articles on the subject to explain how the game is played and the role of the various characters. Children, and many adults, anywhere in the world will recognise the names of various Pokemon. The same cannot be said for most schools. For instance, I can name many schools in the UK but I could not name a single school in America, let alone in Indiana. In contrast, I can name many of the Pokemon characters. If sufficient material has been written on a school to prove its notability then it should have an article, but the onus has to be on the writer to state within the article why the particular school is noteworthy and to provide verification. All secondary schools at least will have had volumes of information written about them so why is it so difficult for people to find the sources to write good articles? Dahliarose 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The education industry has verifiably proved its notability. They have spawned far more films, TV shows, books, magazines, websites, etc. than any Pokemon-like playing card has. My example of Hayashigame provides sources about Pokemon in general, but not a single source about Hayashigame itself, let alone anything reliable or verifiable. Far more of society's resources are devoted to any school in Indiana than on any single Pokemon playing card. Your ignorance of schools beyond your borders is why we need more articles about schools, to give you more of the edumucation you need on the subject. Alansohn 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't conflagrate the education industry with individual schools. The education industry is obviously notable in the aggregate. Individual schools are not. Millions of children around the world can recognize, name and discuss hundreds of Pokemon characters. How many are familiar with a random local school? If WP had hit counters, how many hits do you think we'd see on a random Pokecruft or Jedicruft page, as compared to even a relatively high traffic high school page? Shouldn't that be telling us something? Butseriouslyfolks 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Pokemon articles you hold up as an example fail the most basic tests of reliability and verifiability. As an example, Hayashigame provides sources about Pokemon in general, but not a single source about Hayashigame itself, let alone anything reliable or verifiable. 99.9% of Wikipedia articles would fail your Poke-test. Furthermore, even the best-written, exquisitely sourced and verifiable school article will almost certainly have but a fraction of the hits of any "random Pokecruft or Jedicruft page". Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and these Pokemon articles will be distant faded memories in the not-too-distant future, while these schools will be in business for decades and centuries to come. Schools have inherent notability. Pokemon characters and Star Wars planets have none. Alansohn 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First you insult other participants by calling them "arrogant deletionists", and now you present a clear distribution fallacy fallacy of distribution in a manner which makes it unquestionably deliberate. Oh, and you've started calling people "ignorant" again. You're lucky you're getting any meaningful responses at all, let alone still able to edit. Chris cheese whine 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)Springfield Park Elementary School(Personal attack removed). (Personal attack removed), (Personal attack removed). Any notability issues with the article are more than satisfied, (Personal attack removed). (Personal attack removed). Do you honestly believe that three administrators of a school constitutes a laundry list. (Personal attack removed). Alansohn 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article on Hayashigame is pretty poor and there is scope for improvement. Nevertheless it is one character in a game and because the game itself is notable then each individual character needs an explanation. There is an article on chess and each playing piece has its own page so why should the Pokemon game be any different? The notability of the game is already proven and there have been several featured articles on the subject. The article which Alansohn quotes on Springfield Park Elementary School does nothing to demonstrate its notability, despite the addition of a few references. Winning a few isolated chess tournaments in Virginia does not seem particularly noteworthy to me. The school might be very important to those people who live in Virginia but as the article stands there is nothing to suggest it has anything other than local interest. I'd be very interested to learn about schools in other countries but this particular article tells me absolutely nothing of interest. Dahliarose 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By your argument, if Education -- or more specifically, Education in the United States -- is notable, wouldn't that make all schools, or at least all schools in the United States notable? To address specifics, Springfield Park Elementary School has won two state championships in chess. This establishes notability under criteria 2: "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level in multiple such areas." The fact that I (and the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians) find absolutely nothing of interest in Hayashigame, and the fact that it has no references whatsoever specific to the article, has not hampered its universal acceptance. If notability of Pokémon makes Hayashigame and all "Pokecruft" notable, why doesn't notability of Education make all schools notable? Alansohn 01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you object to the presence of Pokemon articles, you're welcome to propose them for deletion. Chris cheese whine 11:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) I would agree, Alan. Not all Pokemon are notable just because Pokemon itself certainly is. (By that standard, we'd have to presume that, since McDonald's is notable, every one of its employees is!) Notability doesn't "rub off"-either an individual subject is notable enough for a separate article, by that subject (not a parent subject, or a related one) being covered in non-trivial, reliable sources, or it is not. Pokemon is unquestionably notable. Most of its characters are not. Star Wars is highly notable, and probably some of its characters are as well (Darth Vader and Han Solo, at least, are cultural icons, and certainly have received plenty of literary and critical analysis), but its minor characters and planets are generally not. The same with schools-the question is not "Are all schools notable?" The question is "Is this particular school notable?" To some the answer will be yes, to others, it will be no. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• We've actually made some progress in the wording in criteria 2, which reflects clarification that awards received are an affirmative demonstration of notability. Springfield Park Elementary School, our "incapable of any possible improvement" challenge article, has won two state championships in chess, which establishes notability under criteria 2. All schools are not notable, yet all schools have an inherent claim and presumption of notability that sets them above any Pokemon character or any McDonalds location. While the current proposal is still far too restrictive to be acceptable, it is heading in the right direction. Alansohn 02:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "is a school" is not an assertion of notability. There is no such thing as an "inherent claim and presumption of notability". You saying it is does not make it so. The whole point of notability is that it is a quality that is "inherent" in nothing. Chris cheese whine 11:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All municipalities and governments have a presumption of notability in Wikipedia. There is no obligation to demonstrate that a town is unique or that there are reliable sources to demonstrate a village's notability. It was asserted and it is so. Your assertion that schhols do not have an inherent claim of notability greater then Pokemon cards or McDonalds locations violates your own claim on making assertions, by simply begging the question. Alansohn 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Once more, there is no such thing as a "presumption of notability". All subjects are presumed not to be notable in the absence of specific evidence to the contrary. This is for reasons of fundamental logic more than anything else. Chris cheese whine 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this "You said no article can be improved, I improved one, therefore your argument is flawed" statement — I thought it was clear from the context that in this sense "improving" meant bring the article up to the status of an article worth keeping. But apparently this was not clear, so I should have worded it better. Of course every article can be improved in order to make it better. Even featured articles can be improved. There's no such thing as the perfect article. But it still stands that well-written articles can lack importance of subject matter. Icemuon 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I will quote you directly again: "Unfortunately most cannot be improved because there is nothing more about them that can be said." I asked you to "Show me one school article that demonstrates that it would be impossible to improve it through the addition of a single additional bit of information about the school." You picked Springfield Park Elementary School as your example of an unimprovable article. Over the span of several minutes of searching and editing, I added that the school's chess team has won two state championships. This establishes notability under criteria 2: "The school has gained national recognition for its curriculum or program of instruction, or for its success at the national level in extracurricular activities such as art or athletics. For example, the school has been recognized with a notable national award, has won a science competition at the national level, or its athletic teams hold a nationwide record. Or, the school has gained recognition at the regional level in multiple such areas." The article clearly meets the standards of notability set by this project. The unimprovable article been improved. This exercise demonstrates the fundamental issue with the assumption that no schools are notable. All schools have an inherent claim of notability, and almost all school articles have material available to improve them to meet even the rigid standards set here so far. Alansohn 12:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There is an error in your final sentence. Chris cheese whine 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • As long as you agree with everything else, I guess we're making progress together. Thanks for the vote of support. Alansohn 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • When did I say I agree with everything else? I can't side with someone who can't string two sentences together without committing a fallacy. Chris cheese whine 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If Alansohn believes that all schools are inherently notable then by definition he means all schools worldwide not just those in America. I am sure that there are many notable schools in Africa, China, Japan, but I imagine it would be very difficult to write articles about most of them. Perhaps he might like to accept the challenge of writing an article about a random school in, say, North Korea to prove his point. You can't have one rule for America and another rule for the rest of the world. Dahliarose 13:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I have never stated that "all schools are notable". While I have edited school articles for schools in Canada, Australia, India and Nepal (among other places) in response to articles for deletion, I have chosen to focus on schools in the United States, based primarily on ensuring access to source material, which limits me to a few hundred thousand schools. As stated above, "All schools have an inherent claim of notability, and almost all school articles have material available to improve them to meet even the rigid standards set here so far." While I have created hundreds of school and school district article, and saved dozens of school articles from certain (or likely) deletion -- Springfield Park Elementary School notably among them -- it is unjustifiable to insist that no school anywhere in the world is notable by insisting that adequate material be available for every school on the planet to justify the creation of an article on any school. As I have proven when given the task of improving Springfield Park Elementary School, the poster child of unimprovable articles, it can be done and has been done. An overwhelming percentage of schools deserve articles on Wikipedia. It's time that we agreed upon the standards that would clarify which do and which don't to reflect this reality. Alansohn 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Your edit summary is "An overwhelming percentage of schools deserve articles on Wikipedia". Quit whining and show us the evidence already. Your endless cycle of fallacy and constant lack of civility is trying our patience. Chris cheese whine 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Take a gander at Springfield Park Elementary School, an article that User:Icemuon insisted was the perfect example of an unimprovable article. The article has been expanded to approximately a dozen sources, which can be reviewed as reliable and verifiabl by all involved. Even User:Chriscf acknowledges that this article meets any and all standards of notability. Its easier for some schools than others, but the same way notability was demonstrated for Springfield Park Elementary School, is the same way it can be done for the overwhelming percentage of schools. (Personal attack removed) Alansohn 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I've removed some attacks, Chris and Alan, please remove the hands from each other's throats. This doesn't need to end up at RfC or ArbCom. That being said, I don't personally see it for Springfield Park from the online sources (those are mostly statistics lists or name drops, which would make them either primary or trivial), but I'm willing to presume some good faith in that the offline ones may be longer and more comprehensive (as is often the case). I'd certainly rather see that then the primary-sourced OR mess most school articles are. The fact remains, though, that most school articles aren't that way, and I don't really imagine they can be. Many of them have been up for AfD, and even when the discussion was clearly leaning toward deletion, no one went and did what Alan just did-which would've probably saved the article. Rather, we just get a lot of "All schools are notable" without anyone actually going and finding the sources to prove it. I think that's the main problem people have with schools (and the problem I've got with most Wikiproject-done stuff, realistically). Most of those are not thinking in terms of "Does this particular subset of our interest, or this one, or this one, belong in the encyclopedia?" Rather, they write permastubs about every last trivial bit of it, and then become quite incensed when secondary sources are requested (and required). If all schools really do belong in Wikipedia, cite your source for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While WP:Notability is under flux, challenge, it's probably prudent to postpone thinking about exceptions to it. SmokeyJoe 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a point there. You're saying, get WP:N fixed before we decide on an eception to it for schools?