Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Presumptions of notability as used in various SNGs all say "sources are likely to exist" or similar wording. However when an unsourced article which has existed under the "protection" of such a presumption is challenged people use the presumption itself to defend it. How should we go about the process of challenging the presumption itself? There should be an AFD in which using the presumtion as a keep argument is disallowed, or alternatively the presumtion must have a defined "shelf life" - such as if no sources have been added within x months the article's is no longer "protected" by the SNG. What say you all? Roger (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the context of DEADLINE, that presumption should last as reasonable a time as we would expect sources to have come about or been found, which is on the order of years in most cases. There's no fixed time frame, there's no set number of how many attempts at AFD need to be run, just that if at a point that sources should exist by that point and there's very clear evidence that none really do, then trying to stick to the SNG clause for presumed notability will fail. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I read [[WP:AfD] and

WP:NRVE I would say that the guesswork ends when an AfD is filed. WP:NRVE states: "(..) However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. (...)" Ergo, time to give those sources. The Banner _talk

03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest starting the nomination out by acknowledging the SNG's presumption... and then noting the steps you took to see whether that presumption was accurate in the specific case under discussion (ie I would lay out what I did to try to find sources, and then argue that the lack of success leads you to the conclusion that Article X may be a rare exception to the general presumption of the SNG.) Doing this harmonizes GNG with the SNG... it acknowledges that while it is normally correct to assume that sources should exist... in the specific case under discussion, it appears that they don't. (this of course, requires you to do some fairly extensive work looking for sources, to make sure that they don't exist. You would look like an idiot if two minutes after nominating, ten people came up with sources.) Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This I agree with but I will point out that SNGs assume not only existing sources but also the potential of future sources that will come along to help expand the article. (Note that this is not a CRYSTAL issue - we are starting on an established fact of something that has happened that we can verify to meet the SNG). That sort of sets how long it should take for sources to appear and before the presumption of notability granted by an SNG may waiver. Take a case of a business that may meet WP:ORG but not the GNG - we give it an article that's rather brief. In, say, 5 years, the company has since gone out of business and otherwise has no impact. We can then start to expect that if one were to challenge the notability of that company 5+ years out, after their closure, that we can reasonably assert that it is unlikely new sources will come out, and a good faith effort for existing sources has fallen flat, and thus that presumption granted by ORG will be considered nullified and deletion a reasonably option. But I definitely agree with BB that one has to definitely show they've made a great effort to locate existing sources to even start a reasonable base case for deletion. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(Its a side track, but... in many ways, Org is actually stricter than GNG... so, I can't think of an organization that would meet ORG and not meet GNG. The other way around? maybe. This isn't the case with most of our other SNGs. So... the advice to explain how you bent over backwards and did cartwheels in an effort to find a source... and to demonstrate how you were unsuccessful still applies.) Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Since all High schools and colleges are kept by overwhelming consensus in virtually every AFD I've seen them nominated in over the years, lets just state they are all notable. Please participate in the strawpoll so we can gain consensus on this. Remember, there are ways to be notable other than getting coverage.

• Yes Dream Focus 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Any college awarding any kind of degree should be considered notable, may be they are not on par with Harward but that doesn't reduce the notability of any college --
  talk
  ) 15:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - I'd be fine with this one, though it could be more generalized as "higher education". Tarc (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes provided they are officially recognized and not diploma mills --Cyclopia^talk 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Partial I would limit this presumed notability to only colleges that are accredited by their appropriate government. This is not saying unaccredited colleges can't be notable, they just don't have the immediate presumption. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. For all accredited colleges. Not for crammers, language schools and the like. I'd go for "tertiary educational institutions" as opposed to "colleges". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely NOT - no topic is inherently notable. Yes, there is a very strong presumption of notability with colleges and universities (because it is highly likely that sources will exist to establish notability)... but there will be the occasional exceptions, and we must allow for them. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No - An organization should be kept because it is notable, not because it is an educational business as opposed to a construction business. Are most high schools or colleges notable? Maybe (Jimbo doesn't think so), but that doesn't mean that they are notable by default. An article should stand on its own merits, not because similar articles that exist are notable. A proposal to say that all construction companies are automatically notable would fail in a heartbeat; this is not a special exception. -
  Ghost
  15:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - The reason for this is that experience has shown that with enough local research high school articles can be made to meet WP:ORG. In many countries outside of the Anglosphere, Internet coverage of educational establishments is sparse so local searches need to be carried out and there is no time limit for these. This is important to avoid systemic bias.
  talk
  ) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes for accredited, degree-granting institutions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: accredited by whom? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• NO The fact that a school exists, does not make it notable. Local pride is also not a factor in notability. Only when a school has "something special", backed up by non-local, independent, reliable third-party sources (so not the local or regional newspaper, the school website or the school district website), is the school possible noteworthy. The Banner _talk 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No I don't think we can presume notability of all colleges all colleges are notable, and I agree Banner and SudoGhost's arguments. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, if the college is accredited and verified, there should be a presumption of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Wikipedia is often an early port of call when considering a college or university. While a Wikipedia article is not a prospectus, it can give a flavour of the establishment in an impartial way and give links to the establishment's own prospectus and often, depending on the info-boxes at the end of the article. Martinvl (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a college guide, and
  Ghost
  17:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely not because in much of the world, starting a "college" just means filing a bit of paperwork. I could start one today, sitting at my laptop. It'll cost me, let's see, US $30 to incorporate a non-profit and then I have a "college". Anything that calls itself, or is commonly called, a "college" includes all the [[diploma mill]s out there. Now, a regionally accredited college in the US (or the equivalent elsewhere) is always going to exceed the sourcing standards set forth here. It won't be "inherently" notable, but it will be actually and provably notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• NoWhatamIdoing's !vote wasn't there when I read this, but he's right. Colleges, schools, (and radio stations, a pet peeve of mine) shouldn't be seen as inherently notable, they should still have to meet our standard criteria for notability as described at
  talk
  ) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No if you include any institution that calls itself a college. Yes, maybe, for accredited degree-issuing institutions, accredited by a recognized accreditation organization. (Some problems of definition there, but there some dubious institutions around that "accredit" diploma mills). JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Without voting one way or the other, it is important to note that a very important distinction exists between "presumed to be able to easily meet the requirements of
  WP:GNG". I am uncertain at which definition is meant by "inherently notable". We need to use unambiguous language. No topic should be exempt from GNG, but some topics are unlikely to ever NOT meet it. Most genuine accredited colleges and universities should easily be able to meet it, but that doesn't mean that they are exempt from it, just that it would be hard to imagine that they wouldn't. --Jayron32
  05:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• No nothing is inherently notable. We need to have sources to demonstrate notability in every article, no matter what the subject is. ThemFromSpace 04:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes on a
  CT Cooper · talk
  20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• YES - They should all be presumed notable, because experience has shown that even the most obscure example inevitably produces the required sourcing, and it wastes a great deal of time on everybody's part to assume otherwise in those freak events when this is not so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• NO, absolutely not. Everything that has an entry in the encyclopedia should show why it deserves to be there. The indiscriminate collection of non-notable information hurts the credibility of the project. Unless we can show that the article on the individual school would be in a real, paper encyclopedia, we don't need it here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes and even were there no other arguments I would say this simply on the basis that otherwise we shall increase the workload at AfD , and end up with contradictory and random results, especially in the less well documented countries. There are some times where consistency is better than precision, and this is one of them . These provide a way for young contributors to get started. The need to keep the encyclopedia going is basic to everything; as long as WP:V is met, Notability is much less important than users. We can have an encyclopedia with carrying degrees of notability; we cannot have one without continually attracting new volunteer users. The underlying principle is the basic IAR principle that whatever is necessary to help preserve the encyclopedia is justifiable, and the rules must permit it. If someone's idea of the abstract concept of notability conflicts, the abstract concept must defer to real necessity. And even more than high schools, notability will be met: colleges have graduates, and some of them become notable, and even back in the days 6 years ago when we did not accept this rule, that was one of the key factors. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, provided they are on government lists as providing recognised degrees. The only exception for a Wikipedia article would be a non accredited college that is notable for not being notable: i.e. plenty of RS that have exposed it as a diploma mill or some other fraud. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes if it is a suitably accredited college which grants degrees recognized by government and other major colleges, as opposed to being a diploma mill. This merely formalizes the obvious consensus of hundreds of AFDs over the past several years. The consensus of hundreds of editors in years of AFDs trumps the whims of a very few persons seeking here to force their personal preference on the community as if they were lawgivers. Edison (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, with caveats. All legitimately accredited/licensed/approved (terminology may vary) tertiary education institutions that grant degrees of some sort should be treated as notable except in extraordinary situations where information indicates otherwise. In addition, many non-approved/non-accredited schools are notable, but this should be determined by the existence of third-party reliable sourcing. I must note that the matter of what is "approved", "licensed", "accredited", etc., is not necessarily a straightforward judgment. Some entities claim approval or accreditation from entities that are not engaged in accreditation or school approval (such as UNESCO, a Better Business Bureau, or a government agency that issues business licenses to businesses of all types), from fake entities or other accreditors lacking legitimacy. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, I think we have to be honest and admit that there are many categories of articles (such as villages or members of national legislatures) that have inherent notability, colleges are one of them. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Should all high schools be considered notable?

• Yes Dream Focus 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes --Cyclopia^talk 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No Unless there's a way to do something equivalent to accredited colleges. Again, this is not saying no high school can be notable, just that we can't presume notability just because it exists. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely NOT - no topic is inherently notable. I would be comfortable with saying that there is a general presumption of notability with high schools (because it is likely that sources will exist to establish notability)... but there will be exceptions, and we must allow for them. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - same reasons as above.
  talk
  ) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes for accredited, diploma-granting secondary schools. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• NO The fact that a school exists, does not make it notable. Local pride is also not a factor in notability. Only when a school has "something special", backed up by non-local, independent, reliable third-party sources (so not the local or regional newspaper, the school website or the school district website), is the school possible noteworthy. The Banner _talk 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No The mere existence of a high school does not make it notable enough to receive its own standalone article. It could be mentioned in the local city's article and the name of the high school redirected to the relevant section. Unless the high school has done something noteworthy, I don't think we should presume all high schools are notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes - If it is a verifiable secondary school, it should be presumed to be notable, in accordance with 10 years of AfD history as I've documented at User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs. This presumption should be able to be overcome, however, in cases of very small schools or other appropriate cases. The presumption however, will make any AfDs much more efficient (though they've been relatively efficient for years, this would help).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  I agree that all verifiable secondary schools should be presumed notable such as for the purposes of NPP/CSD or AFC; however, if notability is challenged (AFD) then I think the presumption ends and notability must be verifiably demonstrated, not presumed. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  Honestly, because this concept is being considered as an addition to a notability guideline, we should be asking ourselves to challenge what has been 10 years of near automatic "keeps". Certainly the reasoning for these keeps should influence the discussion, but the argument cannot be "well, we've kept them for the last 10 years, therefore they must be kept". While I don't agree with SudoGhost on his points, the argument that OUTCOMES has been a snowball effect without any clear reason why it started must be considered. If the argument for the last ten years has always been "well, it's listed at OUTCOMES, so it should be kept", that's no basis for a notability consider. However, I'm certain that in those ten years, more rationale arguments have been provided, focusing on sourcing and the like. That's the argument that should be built on. It's reasonable for accredited colleges, but Im not so sure on high schools. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• No because it's more complicated than that. Is any established, government-run high school notable? Very probably. Is any old high school, including the literally thousands of "private high schools" in California that are actually
  WP:SPS that they exist.
  You've got to think about the edge cases. Very small schools are almost never notable. High schools in rural areas of developing countries (e.g., the best students in the village study with the local iman) are almost never notable. We could support a statement like "It is almost always the case that companies traded on major stock exchanges, restaurants listed in the Michelin Guide, universities, colleges, and larger high schools, and similarly prominent organizations meet the sourcing requirements if a diligent search for sources is made." That's not the same thing as saying "My high school of 300 students is inherently notable, and so is every high school that our football team plays, even if nobody can actually find any sources except the school's own website". WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• NoAll organisations should be treated the same. As for the 10 years, that simply means that when our standards were laxer than they all now they all slipped through, and then that was held as precedent. I was told the same thing about radio stations - that a precedent set a number of years go meant all radio stations were notable.
  talk
  ) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No I think that interpreting
  WP:N one way in most of the encyclopedia and other ways in certain subject areas is a slippery slope, and as far as I'm concerned any sourcing belongs in a given article—not cited for the first time in an AfD discussion. Miniapolis (talk
  ) 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• No - Without repeating what I said above, the same thing applies here. -
  Ghost
  19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• What I said above (my nonvote comment) applies here as well. --Jayron32 05:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• No Strongly so, for the same reason I stated above. ThemFromSpace 04:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment note this recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang, which closed as keep, apparently on the lamentable basis of arguments that it is already policy that schools are notable, regardless of the lack of any RS to evidence that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given the lack of guideline or policy based reasoning by any of the keep arguments, I don't think a non-admin should have closed that AfD. -
  Ghost
  19:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• No Permastubs are useless and against policy; Wikipedia is not a directory. Schools should be redirected to an education section in the article about their location unless there are non-routine, independent sources available that are sufficient to build an article. Common outcomes, at this point, are circular; all schools are notable because they are usually kept at AfD and they are kept at AfD because all schools are notable. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 22:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • When did all schools become notable in policy or practice? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no idea when. As far an I recall, it's been practice since I've been aware of deletion, so before 2007. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 08:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Which policy forbids permastubs?
  WP:PERMASTUB is an essay. --Cyclopia^talk
  19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• NOT prohibits directory-type articles, which permastubs about high schools are. Though it's just a guideline, Notability prohibits articles without significant, non-routine, independent coverage. Yes, there's no sentence in any policy that states "permastubs aren't allowed" but synthesis is allowed outside of articles, no? Danger! ^{High voltage!}
  23:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed with
  WP:NOT rejects them is your own bizarre interpretation of the policy. I see nothing "directory-type" in stubs, whatever this definition actually means. --Cyclopia^talk
  01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Some permastubs might provide only directory-type information: "Foo School is a school whose website is at fooschool.org" or "Foo School is a school located at 123 Main Street in Foo, Blah". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• WhatamIdoing sums it up. I'm not talking about all stubs. I'm talking about school permastubs, to which nothing can ever be legitimately added apart from that which might be found on this sort of site. There are plenty of topics about which there's nothing to be said that is verifiable; many of those are schools. And granted, we're talking about changing the notability guideline, but changing it to some things don't have to be notable to get an article, in which case why bother with it at all. It would save a lot of time at deletion. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 07:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, as a "rebuttable presumption". We have been over all this so many times before. Having the discussion yet again is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. -- Alarics (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes as a
  CT Cooper · talk
  21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• YES - They should all be presumed notable, because experience has shown that even the most obscure example inevitably produces the required sourcing, and it wastes a great deal of time on everybody's part to assume otherwise in those freak events when this is not so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• NO, absolutely not. Everything that has an entry in the encyclopedia should show why it deserves to be there. The indiscriminate collection of non-notable information hurts the credibility of the project. Unless we can show that the article on the individual school would be in a real, paper encyclopedia, we don't need it here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes and even were there no other arguments I would say this simply on the basis that otherwise we shall double the workload at AfD , and end up with contradictory and random results. There are some times where consistency is better than precision, and this is one of them . These provide a way for young contributors to get started. The need to keep the encyclopedia going is basic to everything; as long as WP:V is met, Notability is much less important than users. We can have an encyclopedia with carrying degrees of notability; we cannot have one without continually attracting new volunteer users. The underlying principle is the basic IAR principle that whatever is necessary to help preserve the encyclopedia is justifiable, and the rules must permit it. If someone's idea of the abstract concept of notability conflicts, the abstract concept must defer to real necessity. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes if it is a verifiable public or well established private secondary school and not just a "home school" or small and transitory educational effort in a church. This merely states the widespread consensus exhibited in hundreds of afds by thousands of editors (who should not be dismissed as mere fans of schools). Years ago when the consensus was less clear I undertook to find the coverage needed in reliable sources to satisfy
  WP:N for high schools and found it was not that difficult. Edison (talk
  ) 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes , and I'm fed up with having to explain why on every new perennial dscussion about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• No. and I'm just as fed up as Kudpung in the opposite direction, having to continually state that nothing, nothing at all, is inherently notable. If it's notable, sources will be readily available.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• No and yes. "Inherent notability" does not apply, but because experience indicates that almost all secondary schools can be demonstrated to be notable by
  WP:ORG if sufficient research is done, all such schools should be presumed notable unless and until thorough investigation demonstrates the contrary. --Orlady (talk
  ) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• No in theory, Yes in practice. The line of inherent notability probably stops between degree awarding colleges and high schools. However in practice there will probably always be enough sources. JASpencer (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Common Outcomes

Now that it is clear that there is no overwelming support for a blanket notability offer, I think we have to look at the effect of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. This is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy now, often used as a argument for keep-votes.

It is in fact the same discussion as above: do schools need a blanket keep argument or should they be judged on notability. So the question is in fact "Should the Common Outcomes regarding to schools be kept?". I like to hear your opinions. The Banner _talk 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Should the Common Outcomes regarding to schools be kept?

Everything in the common outcome does appear true. Is there some part of the section that you think is not? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People tend to give keep votes, because of the Common Outcomes. There are loads of school articles kept because of Common Outcomes, that are only sourced with the school website (= selfpromo) or the local schooldistrict (= not an independent source). The Banner _talk 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter what the article is sourced with. It only matters what the article could be sourced with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think common outcomes should ever be cited in a deletion discussion. Perhaps it should be modified to state that although schools are usually kept, the fact that they are usually kept is not a valid argument when the notability has been challenged such as at AFD. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely say there is at least minimum consensus that any accredited (*) degree-granting college or universe is presumed notable, with the (*) cavaet of having an explicit definition of what accredited means (which I'm taking as a government or appropriate agency having reviewed and reported the school as such). ("Joe's Beauty College, accredited by Joe Smith!" is not going to work). Make something precise on this - with the verification being through the proving of the accredition, and you have something. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumed notable, so you guess that they are notable. The Banner _talk 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, this is coming from

by good faith we should allow such articles time to grow and develop because the topics are presumed notable. However, because consensus can change, that notability may be challenged at a future date if the article otherwise lacks sources or other facets that we would have expected to be present for a notable topic. So basically that's just saying that when one declares a topic is notable on WP, it is not an indefinitely protection from any AFD challenge in the future. In this case of the above, talking about accredited degree-granting schools, it is hard to envision a case of these where there is not some type of documentation from the school or the local region it is in to fill out an article, it just may take time to acquire that information. So here, we allow the evidence of the school being accredited and degree-granting (which should be a source that has to be provided) as the presumption of notability, so that the article is given proper time to grow and develop. I personally do not believe that all "colleges" can do that, and don't believe that necessarily extends to high schools as well. Of course, if these others can meet the GNG, then all the better for them so they can have an article. --MASEM (t

) 23:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What

Ghost

23:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

" then show that consensus by changing the guideline." - That's what we're trying to decide. --Cyclopia^talk 23:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyclopia's got it. Right now, SudoGhost, you are exactly right - no notability guideline says that any type of school is notable for any reason, short of passing the GNG, but OUTCOMES says they are always kept, so clearly theres a strong likelihood that we (collectively) think they are presumably notable. The above poll started by DreamFocus shows, at minimum, strong support to change ORG to include a presumption of notability for accredited degree-granting colleges. That's the change we're discussing before actually adding it in. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Collectively? I don't think so. And the poll shows no strong support, but some support. (9 yes/1 partly/6 no and 6 yes/8 no) The Banner _talk 23:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that most schools aren't currently considered notable, but what I have an issue with is how this is suddenly turning into "since most schools are notable, notability isn't required." It doesn't matter how many articles about actors are kept at AfD, each article about an actor must demonstrate notability. The same goes for businesses, or non-profits. Schools are no different. -

Ghost

23:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just using the college straw poll, some of who say "no" are supporting the inclusion if the requirement is limited to accredited universities. And to Sudo, you need to recognize that the GNG is not the only way to tell if a topic is presumed notable for the GNG. Now granted because of COI issues, I can understand why ORG doesn't have obvious criteria because that would a way for companies that want to get themselves listed on WP play with the rules to get it there. Which is probably why in the straw poll the limitation is set to accredited degree-granting schools, as that assures at least one third-party source - the accreding agency - to avoid the COI problems. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I never at any point came anywhere close to suggesting that the

Ghost

00:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And that's why this discussion is here, to add a criteria for schools to a notability guideline (specifically this one, ORG), such that we reduce (perhaps eliminate?) the OUTCOMES statement on schools and instead have a notability-based reason to include. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, so you presume that this school is notable?

Plantage Mavo The Banner _talk

23:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the school was accredited or gave degrees, so no, per what I believe the consensus is, we wouldn't consider that notable (but per OUTCOMES, you'd have to fight tooth and nail to have it deleted.) A comment to the above is that if these criteria are added to ORG, we have to reasonably expect OUTCOMES to change to "pull out" the categories that have been covered, and likely with workding as Whatamidoing explains below. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a thought: instead of deciding which schools "count" in terms of if the accreditation is sufficient to us or if the diploma is "good enough" to our estimation, how about we let reliable sources decide which schools warrant articles, by demonstrating notability? Other organizations have to show notability, and it seems to work pretty well everywhere else on Wikipedia. -

Ghost

23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole reason we have subject-specific notability guidelines like

no deadline to develop and encourage others to help find and include sources. That's why they are alternatives for the presumption of notability to the current GNG. The question being asked here is that can we say the same for some subset of colleges and high schools. --MASEM (t

) 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SudoGhost here. I think that presumed notable is fine for things like AFC/NPP/CSD, but that when an article's notability is challenged at AFD, the presumption must end and notability must be verifiably supported by reliable sources. Common outcomes should never be used at AFD, and a notice should be placed on the page stating that these are not valid arguments at an AFD discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But that's not how it works (Dream Focus and I have argued on this point before but I'm pretty sure we are in agreement here) - if you take an article that meets one of the subject specific notability guidelines but does not yet meet the GNG, most of the time you will find the AFD closed entirely in favor of keeping the article. This comes from WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (the box being the list of subject-specific notability guidelines). It would require a major sea change to alter this behavior at AFD. Mind you, eventually, maybe after 10 years and 3-4 repeated AFDs that have closed "keep" based on meeting a subject-specific notability guideline, the patience of the consensus may give out if no additional sourcing can be found and deletion will occur (hence the presumption of notability, not guaranty), but in the short-term, as long as verifiable evidence is presented that the topic meets a subject-specific notability guideline, the AFD is 99 times out of 100 close in favor of keep. That said, I do agree with the concern of using "this is listed at OUTCOMES so should be kept" as an argument at AFD (it is snowball propagation), but that's an entirely separate issue here from asserting that schools that meet a certain requirement are presumed notable. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I think adding to the notability guideline that colleges are presumed notable will only continue bypassing the need to demonstrate it. With regard to the Common Outcomes, we should add a notice discouraging editors from using them in lieu of actual arguments at AFD. I'm not very good at drafting these kinds of things. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

And this "bypassing" happens all the time with other topic areas: there's lots of athletes, buildings, books, soundtracks, etc. that pass their subject-area notability guideline but don't pass the GNG, but are kept if challenged at AFD. This is the SOP for those subject-specific guidelines. What we don't want is the allowance of a class where anything less than a majority of the members would lack any chance of finding reliable sourcing at all. For example we wouldn't even think about saying "every elementary school should be presumed notable", because its highly unlikely that the majority of such are. But if we consider the limited group of accredited degree-giving colleges, that's likely a problem. There may be a few that slip through that never can be shown notable, but the net cast allows only those that we want (where souring is very likley possible) to be kept. Do note that I started a dicussion

WT:ATA to suggest a line to add OUTCOMES as a bad deletion argument. --MASEM (t

) 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing that's been done in the past with SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and that might be useful to introduce again, is to say "Most, but not all", rather than just "Most". Yes, the meaning is the same, but being explicit about it tends to help some editors figure out that m-o-s-t doesn't spell "all". IMO this would be particularly important for larger middle schools/junior highs, since most of them actually are demonstrably notable according to the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an older version that I liked, and that might be a source of some improvements for the existing one:

There was also a version once that talked about "schools for younger children", which I think was good because it obviates the need to talk about preschools or Kindergartens as well as making sense no matter what the editor's local area calls these schools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I like this version as well... it does a very good job of explaining why the outcomes occur as they do (for example: "..because a thorough search for

third-party sources nearly always supports a claim of notability"). It also lays out that there will be occasional situations where notability can not be supported (ie no sources). Blueboar (talk

) 05:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it limited to "government run universities"? There are thousands of notable private colleges and universities in the world. Shouldn't it be "universities and colleges accredited by a government or other major accrediting agency"? You already have the modifier "almost always kept".

'Common outcomes' are just that and are not a guideline or a policy. The proposed rewording is invalid because it does not reflect the outcomes.

talk

) 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the problem is that they are used as a policy. Quite often, the Common Outcomes are mentioned as reason to keep a school article, like in the discussions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balmoral High School (Belfast, Northern Ireland) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salfia Muslim Institute. Just because of that the wording has to be changed to offer more clarity that Common Outcomes is not a keep-argument. The Banner _talk 23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And, more recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang. I would urge everyone involved in this debate, on either side, to read the comments on that AfD, and then on the accompanying (and ongoing) deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Tenby International School has been relisted and, interestingly, the first comment there starts "secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough for Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

...and closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just having been alerted to the existence of this discussion from the pages I watch on schools issues, I have three further thoughts to share:

• The phrase Now that it is clear that there is no overwelming support is usually a euphemism for: I have ignored all that has been written and will carry on doing what I always wanted to..
• All the pontificating is counter-productive until you define the age groups attached to the terms- Collège/College is a common term for educational establishments catering for youngsters from 11 upwards ranging in merit from the non-selective state funded establishment to the private dance school -all of which is familiar to those on WP:SCHOOLS. Similarly a
  Technical High School
  can be a research university with graduate entry. For discussions of definitions see [www.unesco.org/education/framework.pdf Unesco definitions]
• Selecting notability on internet presence is a deeply political act

--ClemRutter (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Start counting the votes, mate. Or is your comment a euphemism for: I have ignored all that has been written and will carry on doing what I always wanted to..? The Banner _talk 18:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At the moment it's 10:8 for inherent notablity of colleges (not counting Masem and Jayron's comments) and 8:10 against inherent notability of high schools, for those keeping score at home. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 08:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would much rather we select notability based on reliable sources, which is a deeply Wikipedia act. A source need not be online to be a reliable source, so the "internet presence" thing doesn't mean anything. -

Ghost

16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"

Internet presence" is usually taken to mean my own website, blog, Twitter feed, etc., not "presence of some information about me on the Internet". As such, internet presence is pretty irrelevant to notability. It's the information from independent sources that we value, not what I post about myself. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting comment here: Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Makes it clear again that the Outcomes are either completely misunderstood or misused. The Banner _talk 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As I note above; that closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

If we're agreed that there is no general presumption of notability for schools, perhaps it's time to remove their exclusion from the

The exemption to educational institutions does at face value look rather strange, but even before there was a written exemption, admins would routinely decline A7s for schools simply because it caused too much trouble; speedy deletion is supposed to be for deletions which don't cause controversy, and so any decision to revoke may not make a lot of difference. A7 is one of the most misunderstood and misused criteria on the CFD as it is, so on that basis alone I'm not keen to support any attempt to expand its coverage.

CT Cooper · talk

11:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a perfect time to use OUTCOMES as a a valid argument! CSD is for non-controversial deletions or deletions which are backed by strong consensus that we don't keep certain types of articles. But per OUTCOMES, we usually do keep schools, so removing the exception from A7 would not be at all appropriate. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here; I certainly don't see enough consensus to swing from the "currect" position of "all schools are kept at AFD" to "schools can be speedily deleted". The fact its been at OUTCOMES for long enough is a reason not to make it a CSD. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think schools should be removed from that exception just yet either, if at all. I don't think school articles should be "automatically notable", but I don't think they should be speedy deleted either; given that sources can generally be found for most schools if a school article is to be deleted, I'd rather it be as the result of a discussion and consensus as opposed to a speedy deletion. -

Ghost

18:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Even if we were not to accept automatically notable, and I think the above discussions show we do not have consensus for ending the practice, every school deletion will always be controversial. Even for elementary schools, they can always be merged into the town or district--if existence can be shown there is never the need for actual full deletion. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Worked example

I read a book a while ago by someone who was commissioned by a government agency to write a "local history" sort of book. Here's the information about a school that I remember from the book:

• There are (explicitly stated in the book) no surviving newspapers or similar reliable sources from that period in that area.
• There are (again, explicitly stated in the book) almost no surviving government records from that time period.
• No former students or other people with first-hand knowledge of the school had been located.
• Only (again, explicitly stated in the book) the following facts are known:
  • The school was in existence for about three years. The exact opening date is unknown.
  • It served all the children in a small, temporary settlement. (It was a sort of temporary town for a particular mining or logging project.) It had maybe two dozen students total.
  • The exact location is unknown. Nothing is known about the nature or location of the school building other than it was somewhere in the small settlement.
  • The school closed when the settlement suddenly disappeared. (It was always expected to disappear whenever the trees were cut or the mine closed or whatever.)
• If you look up the location on a map, you could figure out which school serves that area now (if anyone lived there, which I'm not sure anyone does, because I believe that it's in the middle of a nature preserve now).

This is literally all the information that is known about this school except one fact that I'm withholding, which is whether or not it conferred diplomas. So here's what I'd like to know: Should the English Wikipedia have an article about this school? Should we, if it conferred at least one diploma? Should we not, even if it did, since we'll never be able to find more than one independent source? Should we not, since we'll never be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it? How would you evaluate this particular school's notability? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If a full article can not be fleshed out due to the nonexistance of reliable sources, then it is not notable regardless of its degree-giving status. Tidbits of history like this school are great in articles about local history. But if the sum of all present knowledge results in a perma-stub, we shouldn't have an article devoted to it (good rule of thumb for any minor historical topic). ThemFromSpace 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspect that this mystery-school may have inherited some notability due to the recipient of that diploma :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, none of the students' or teachers' names appear to be known. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article (articles really) described above exists (or at least very similar articles), but probably shouldn't. Any bright line rule for convenience can be twisted to look silly if you wish, because although the "rule" will be useful for dealing a large majority of cases, there are always exceptions. Such as the bright line de facto rule that populated or previously populated places are notable, which is a useful rule of thumb when dealing with stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen City, Iowa.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

and the information you give can be supplemented by archeology. it will certainly be possible for historical archeology to find the location, it will probably be possible for further historical research to find further information fro m accounts of the people who attended, even if no such accounts are known, and, when the US (I assume its US) is covered as thoroly by local archeologists & historians as some parts of the world, there may yet be an article. Once you've seen what can be done by professionals with places and institutions and people from the early middle ages where much less evidence than this seems at first to be there, I'd be reluctant to say anything couldn't be expanded. there is not and never has been a policy against stubs, It's not necessarily that productive to make them, but it can be even less productive to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DGG, have you been gazing into your

WP:CRYSTAL

ball much? The school I'm talking about was open for a couple years more than a century ago. Everyone involved in it is dead. You're pinning your hopes of "accounts of the people who attended" on the hope that someone will discover a mention of it in his great-great-grandmother's diary and get that diary published.

The settlement is (presumably) notable, but there is no guarantee that archaeological work will be able to tell you which of several rectangular buildings (probably the same fire-prone white-washed wood as most school buildings of the time) is the one where the students had their classes. Archaeology isn't likely to determine the name of the school, which you'll notice is not listed among the known facts.

But let's stop looking in our crystal balls. Assume that this really is all the information you're going to get in the foreseeable future. How much of an article could you write now, and do you think that two or three sentences in a single local history book is a good reason to accept an article now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Next steps

Given that , in how I read the above straw poll, that there is agreement that as long as we limit the statement for notability to colleges/universities that are degree-giving and accredited, and that these terms are clearly defined, that there is support to have an SNG that presumes such schools are notable. For all other colleges/universities and for any high school/secondary school, that presumption is not backed by consensus but that doesn't mean we rush to delete them, as I would then argue that the language in OUTCOMES (either the current version or the version above) stills hold true that as an OUTCOME we have not really deleted high schools or the others in the past. But again, it is important to stress that OUTCOME is not a guideline or policy, and itself says it shouldn't be used as an argument at AFD, so it is not an iron-clad reason to keep any such articles on these, but if any doubt is raised in the AFD, we should err on the side of OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not happy with the "presumption". You can fairly guess that a degree-giving university (et al) is notable, but it should be properly proven with sources when challenged. The Banner _talk 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When any SNG gives presumed notability, that means that we assume, by good faith, that the topic is notable and merits a standalone article while sources are located (you still need the necessary WP:V sourcing to show that it exists and not a fake entry). The presumed notability can be challenged, but because of

WP:DEADLINE, most editors will not rush to delete something that is presumed notable. Only if it should have been possible to find sources after a long length of time (years) and nothing has come to light that the presumption may no longer be appropriate, and the article deleted. --MASEM (t

) 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you also ready, based on the straw poll, to presume that secondary (high) schools are NOT notable until proof is shown by multiple, independent, verifiable & reliable sources? GregJackP Boomer! 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

They wouldn't have presumed notability but it would also be disingenuous to remove the statement from OUTCOMES that allows these to be kept in general (as - well, we're not changing the historical observation). But again, we need to stress that OUTCOMES is not a valid argument in deletion and should be considered only as a default "keep" closure if there's no clear consensus from other arguments. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable changing the statement on colleges based on the straw poll, then you should also be comfortable with changing the statement on secondary schools. The margins and arguments are the same in both cases. GregJackP Boomer! 15:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OUTCOMES is supposed to document historical patterns at AFD where other situations do not cover them. It is still a truism that high schools have generally been kept at AFD; no discussion can change that. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why change the text on colleges? Don't pick and chose, either use it all or none of it. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Having a criterion that is listed in an subject specific notability guideline is a strong reason to keep an article over the claim that all articles of a certain type are kept due to OUTCOMES. (overly simple but an SNG is a guideline, OUTCOMES is an essay, and the former outweighs the latter). --MASEM (t) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And having a criterion that is listed in a subject specific notability guideline, regarding high schools is a strong reason to delete those articles that are not notable, but have been kept due to OUTCOMES. It still works both ways. If the reason is sufficient for justifying retaining articles, it is sufficient for deleting articles that don't belong in the project. Why else did we have a poll? Just to find ways to justify retention, but ignore it if it doesn't support retention? GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The poll first highlights that OUTCOMES is being misused as an argument in AFD. We don't keep articles simply because OUTCOMES typically retains such articles - that's the slippery slope problem. And the fact the poll above suggests there's no consensus for an SNG-type allowance means that their retention is not so cut and dried as some think. So first thing is to make sure people remember that OUTCOMES should be considered a default result if consensus is not very clear on keep or deletion.

Once you get past that, now if one comes across a high school that they can prove exists, but otherwise shows no evidence of notability, now the ball's in the court of those that want to retain the article to show there's something more than just that for OUTCOMES to be considered valid. For accredited colleges, the barrier for retention is much easier - proof that it exists as an accredited college. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is bo consensus to require accredited. In fact, sometimes the unaccredited institutions get all the more information about them--and sometimes the controversy over whether or not it is accredited is the most easily documented thing about the place. All there was at the start of the discussion was the initial limitation of the discussion to the ones that were accredited. What is true, is that it can sometimes be much harder for an unaccredited school to prove real existence. Similarly for degree-granting-that is a concept that can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. Many colleges in India --some of them very highly notable--for example do not actually give formal degrees of their own, but certificates to permit the students to be given degrees by a college that is accredited to give them. We've also usually interpreted degree in the US to mean junior college degrees, but in some countries these would not be formal degrees, but some sort of certificate. It can be hard to differentiate a trade school that gives an associates degree from one that doesnt. I agree there is not consensus to consider all of these possibilities as invariably notable, but neither is there consensus not to. Actual afd discussions have been inconsistent, and some I've !voted delete on have been kept. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to exclude articles on unaccredited schools, but there appears to be a consensus that only the regular, general education, accredited colleges and universities are the ones whose notability should be assumed. After all, we don't want to presume notability for "Bob's Beauty College", even though one-room places to learn how to cut hair frequently call themselves "colleges". "Big State University" can be safely assumed to be notable; "Bob's One-Room Beauty College" needs to prove it by supplying sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Point of order A few editors here seek to set policy or to change guidelines. This should be listed at Centralized Discussions so as to afford more editors the opportunity to share their views. Edison (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I Propose that we have no separate criteria for schools (of any levels)

Determining WP:Notability for schools is actually quite simple... are there independent reliable sources that discuss the school? If yes, then we know the school is notable enough for an article... if no, then it isn't. This is, of course, the standard criteria we already state in this guideline (for all organizations, institutions, companies, etc.). In short, I see no reason to discuss schools separately from any other organization, institution, company, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I support your proposal. Notability of schools/colleges/universities, for the purposes of AfD, should be determined by the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So the question becomes, why are these schools being kept when GNG isn't shown? It must be the slippery slope of OUTCOMES, which is being used as a reason to keep, and that should not be the case. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Do we then need a guideline that says to use the GNG for schools? Though it seems redundant, I would support that if you think it would help against OUTCOMES-based !votes. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• The proposal above is simply to maintain the status quo, that there are no separate criteria. Which is pretty much the way every conversation on the issue since 2004 has come out.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Which basically means we have a class of articles that are free to ignore the GNG when challenges, because "that's the way it's been". I understand the argument on OUTCOMES around towns and settlements in that there will likely be sources in time that document these. The question is begged for schools , particularly when schools are kept despite strong arguments that no third-party sources exist to discuss them in detail. This is the problem with how OUTCOMES has been used at AFD. -MASEM (t) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The way to respond to an OUTCOMES-only argument is to say "many schools can be shown to meet WP:GNG, but this one cannot." And then, in most cases, it will be shown to meet WP:GNG. In some it may not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative (that no sources at all exist for meeting the GNG). It is always the case that those wanting to retain the article have to show how the GNG is being met, not the other way around. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support We should make sure wp:gng is calibrated right and eliminate all SNG's, not multiply them. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support Just let them take the WP:GNG-hurdle, but that means that the Common Outcomes on schools should be removed. That is now misused as a backdoor to keep school articles, how insignificant or rotten the article is (i.e. like
  Plantage Mavo) The Banner _talk
  21:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Followed your link and found a laughable stub. I then googled and came up with a well written history of an interesting small school that was in existence for 27 years, and the article plotted gentrification and social change in a community. (I have added it to the stub) The photos displayed could be worked up as a case study of the clean modernist architecture of the polder lands. It does rather show that notability is not the same as bad writing- and even so two references had been give. I am appalled by the standard of some of these stubs; they are very rough- but had I the time most could be worked up. Being appalled is my problem- as I am prone to forget what it was like to write the first new article- and without this flawed effort I would never have cyber-visited this community. I'll keep on taking the mince pies- Prettige kerstdagen! --ClemRutter (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The website you mentioned is a personal reflection of two alumni, the two mentioned sources are social media (Hyves is a outperformed collegue of Fb, Schoolbank.nl is similar to www.classmates.com). None of them a reliable sources... The Banner _talk 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The pope publishes on Twitter, for God's sake. It is the quality of the source not where it is published that matters. Any school that has ever received state funding will be extensively documented though it may not yet be online. Any school that has ever entered a pupil for an external exam will be documented and qa'ed. That is two sources so that WP:GNG is fulfilled. (I do think the wording of WP:GNG significant coverage is counter intuitive and flaky) I share your prejudices re Facebook and Friends Reunited- but my prejudices are so last millenium. If some one has the time and inclination even this rubbish piece can be rescued using those rubbish references. This piece still had a mountain to climb to become a Start- and we don't bite newbies. Keep taking the mince pies. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that sounds very much like routine coverage to me. It is just a record that the school exists and get Government money. Not proof of notability. The Banner _talk 12:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

No- that's not it at all. When a school receives funding it is constantly monitored by the the funding authority. When I sat on the Medway Education authority, my officers had to justify the sum that went annually to each school and wrote a detailed document to committee each March. This document is a matter of public record and a copy is available in the archives in perpetuity. When the political hue of the council changed, we or they demanded a summary of our portfolio. This went into detailed analysis of the history of each building- the academic record- social economic description of the intake. Reading these and WP GA is a seemless transfer. This is a matter of public record- when we decided to merge a school a public enquiry was needed, and the independent inspector wrote a report to HM Government which again had to give these details.(This gov. report a snippet when the council attemted to close a minuscule school.) Local government archives are a rich source data. It is impossible for a state school to avoid such scrutiny- it is a process like going for FA. It is routine that all schools are documented- but notability is counter intuitive! Shall I put those mince pies on to warm? --ClemRutter (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have discussed it earlier that the British schoolreport do not prove notability of schools. It is not an independent source as it is ordered, paid and published by the government. It can give valuable information about size, program and quality of the school but the report on its own is just plain routine. The Banner _talk 19:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot had been repeated- but another thought- if you are driving from your current home back to your roots, via Sheerness or Dover you must be passing within a few miles of me. Gives us bell- and break your journey and we can continue this over a pot of coffee and a pile of papers. Serious offer. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but I am not going to Holland for Christmas. And besides that, while travelling by car Harwich/Hook of Holland would be far handier for me, but normally, I just take the plane. I know quite well what kind of papers are available. In a big city as Groningen, where I used to live, there was one major newspaper (circulation far more then a 100.000) covering city and 3 provinces. Even the special city edition hardly covered schools, unless they had done something special, like winning major prices, new or burned down buildings or visiting aldermen.(Thank God, I don't remember any serious incidents.) On the other hand, schools did get a lot of attention in the local community papers (circulation between 500 to 10.000, depending on neighbourhood size), mostly on request or prepared articles. Those community newspapers, even those with big circulations, are no valid sources for proving notability as they are not independent (I have worked for a couple, as a volunteer and professionally). The Banner _talk 13:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem I see a lot of times when schools are challenged, that those supporting them pull out these sources that would barely pass our normal standards for RS for any other topic, and then claim the GNG is met. Or say, here are these sources, so OUTCOMES says we keep. If we are going to stick to GNG for schools we have to remove the normal allowance for OUTCOMES, you can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting enough is that I got a warning that challenging schools at AfD is considered disruptive editing. To me, this only prove how desperate some guys are to keep articles about schools. Just like all articles, they just have to meet

WP:GNG is should be deleted (or improved), not kept by the backdoor of Common Outcomes. The Banner talk

15:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I think that because schools are the centres of their communities and that therefore a lot of the coverage is going to be local schools need a more nuanced approach. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Schools may be the center of your community, but they are not the center of everyone's community. In much of the world, either the religious institutions or the market are the center of the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, yes, where there are no schools they're not the centre of their communities but that's like saying that where there aren't hospitals/clinics, healthcare tends to be given by provided by witchdoctors. On the other hand, if you go to any country with a school system you will notice that villages/towns tend to be built around some combination of (a) a school; (b) a piece of transport infrastructure (such as a railway station or a road junction), which are generally notable; and/or (c) some site of heritage value, which are generally notable (list not exhaustive). Often, religious institutions (particularly here in Australia) are historically linked to schools in some way where they occur together. Rowena, New South Wales, demonstrates the point: it's a school with a couple of houses around it. The same goes for more urban areas. I argue for a separate criteria such that we don't have to have those "dozens of weekyly AfD debates" on whatever. Where there is a bias for certain types of articles and against others, for no actual reason than an arbitrary category is silly and unproductive to the point of creating an encyclopedia. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No, your professional experience is misleading you. There is a school near my home. It's a typical, government-run, general-education school. Several hundred kids attend it. It is not, however, the center of my community. Except for the one neighbor whose daughter went to school there, neither I nor any of my neighbors have ever set foot on the property. I've lived near this school for about fifteen years and never had any reason to be there. A place that nobody ever goes to doesn't sound very central to our lives, does it? As far as I can tell, the actual community center here is either the dog park or the grocery store.

You're a teacher, so schools are obviously significant in your life. What I'd like you to learn is that most adults don't share your experience, especially if we don't have kids ourselves (and even then, the school is "the center of the community" only until the kids are out of school, and then they never go back). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable to directly address the question of schools in this guideline. IMO substantial independent sourcing is available for practically all "normal", general-education schools/colleges/universities, including schools for young children. There are about ten million schools in the world. The community doesn't appear to want ten million separate articles about schools (else it would quit trying to delete articles about relatively famous schools below the high school level with such lousy excuses as 'OUTCOMES says we don't keep articles about elementary schools').

So the question is what we want. We want well-sourced articles, and the two-independent-sources minimum put forward by this guideline seems to be easily achievable by basically any school that we want an article on. We want the fewest number of needless AFDs possible. And we don't want to declare high schools to have a magic, unimpeachable, inherent notability (a status we don't even confer to articles like George Washington, Queen Victoria, or Earth).

One way to reduce needless AFDs on schools, without going the untenable, easily hoax-able route of "let's have an article for any alleged school that appears to have its own website" is to use schools as an example of something that is easily sourced. We could accurately say something like this:

This could go under

WP:ORGSIG's statement repudiating inherent notability. (It might also stop the occasional question about why Fortune 500 companies aren't automatically notable.) What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 17:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - You will be very very very hard pressed to find a school that hasn't been covered, probably many times, in the local and not so local press. Schools routinely have contests with other schools, compete in state and national events etc. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Independent sources The Banner _talk 20:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not be hard pressed to find a school that hasn't been covered in the local press ... for example the relatively small private New England boarding school that I attended has (as far as I know) never been covered in the local papers. As a boarding school, most of the school's clientele do not live in the local area... so there is not much incentive for the local papers to cover news from the school. The local community are not alumni, and their children are rarely students at the school. The local community does not really care about the school's sports competitions (which are against other small boarding schools). The school does not bother to submit stories to the local papers, since it has its own student paper and alumni magazine that can be mailed to the parents and alumni to keep informed of what is happening at the school. This isn't at all uncommon for private schools in the US... coverage in the local paper is actually fairly rare.

Please don't assume that because something happens in your community, with your local school, it must be true in every community, or with every school. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If your school was in a smaller town, it was probably the subject of a newspaper article when it opened, because it affected the local economy. But a small school (a few dozen students) opening in a large place (London or NYC) might well go unnoticed or get only a single paragraph.

But I agree that people are making assumptions here, both about what a school is and what gets covered. A school in a town without its own newspaper (e.g., most of the world 100 years ago) wouldn't have sources. What used to called dame schools and their modern equivalents tend not to result in sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A small private boarding school is a different animal from a public secondary school. But I would think that you would be suprised even with a small private school. There could have been ground breaking ceremonies, incidents that occurred there. Interviews about the school in the local papers, coverage in magizines about private schools, etc., etc., not to mention any number of things that could have resulted from the various alumni. I count myself as a deletionist, I think my record will confirm that, but I also hate things that waste a lot of everyone's time...and running a thousand secondary schools through the AfD process just so you can catch the one that can't be sourced will waste a lot of time and energy. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You're still assuming that the school is located in a place well-served by newspapers, rather than in a rural area of a developing country. How many newspapers do you suppose there are in Sudan these days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "coverage in magazines about private schools, etc., etc."... oh, sure... I was not trying to say that my boarding school is not notable (its actually quite notable)... I was only refuting the assumption that local press will always cover a school. I completely agree that there is a strong likelihood of finding some kind of sourcing for the vast majority of schools in the US ... but we can not assume it when it comes to specific schools in the US, and as WAID correctly points out, we can not assume coverage in sources for all schools everywhere. We actually have to search for sources and find out for sure. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - no separate criteria proposal

As noted above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang (2nd nomination) (just closed as keep) is instructional. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And it was entirely appropriate... the article was appropriately nominated for deletion due to apparent lack of sources... and appropriately kept once sources were found. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We - rightly -

require more of sources than their mere existence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

09:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming to believe there is a thin group of editors that are, unintentionally, wall-gardening school articles (not as aggressive or bitter as the MMA article group, but it is obviously there.) They rest on OUTCOMES as an AFD rationale (when its not supposed to be) and argue that notability is there for these articles when they are not. Clearly, there's only limited cases where some would even consider the presumed notability for a school, and argued here, that even the GNG should be the only metric they have to meet. At this point, I don't care if OUTCOMES has 10 years of history - it's breaking the treatment of schools relative to any other type of institution. The Tenby article is a good case in point. All that is is a data dump from primary sources about small school. That's not an encyclopedic article and given how hard it was to find a few more sources, I doubt it can become one in the future. We'd never allow a company article that was that much of a data dump, a school article should not be treated any differently. (the arguement that schools are important to the community they are in is bogus - its rarely the individual schools but the school system that is the factor) What's in OUTCOMES needs to be removed, and, if desired, replaced with subject specific notability guidelines or simply a fallback to the GNG. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are some editors who are unduly expanding the GNG to cover all possible topics, whether it is or is not rationally applicable. It doesn't work for schools, because in small cities there is always local press, and in large cities there are locally-oriented newspapers. The situation at AfD before we accepted the common outcome was that for both primary and secondary schools there were dozens of weekly AfD debates on the exact interpretation of "substantial" and "indiscriminate" coverage. As almost always the sources were sufficiently borderline that they could be argued in either direction, the results were rather random and tended to reflect the persistence that particular week of particular editors. The same, for that matter, seems to me true of the MMA events--I have insufficient interest in these article to read them carefully enough to debate intelligently, but again the decisions were based on quibbling over the details of sources and other borderline factors, and the results were rather random and tended to reflect the persistence that particular week of particular editors. Before we had a rough consensus of inhabited places, the exact same thing happened: we had endless useless discussions about the details and reliability of various maps and gazetteers, in this case often whether they constitued primary of secondary sourcing when they could in fact equally well be seen as either.

We are best served by doing constructive work on actual articles, which is not usually compatible with spending great efforts at either AfD or policy discussions. GTven a fundamental disagreement, how then can we proceed? I think best by compromise. For schools, they fortunately fit into two groups universities/secondary & primary/intermediate. So we draw an arbitrary line there, and let it go at that. For any one of us, some things will be decided wrong, but no more than if we argued them all at great length. Masem, you were responsible for effective working agreements in our handling of fiction, tho the present situation probably fully satisfies nobody, and the the stubborn opposition of a few people prevented it ever being a formal guideline, or a formal agreement of the right wording of the relevant portions of WP:NOT, Your work there is my model in the arguments here. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The arguments that are being used here start with the viewpoint of "we need to include every college and high school"; with the fiction one, the question was more "how do we make fiction topics work under the GNG"; as no topic is inherently notable, the schools approach is inappropriate. The inclusion of every town and village makes sense as that fulfills the gazetteer aspect of WP, but this argument doesn't extend to schools - most gazetteers don't work at the level of schools, and if they were, then we should have articles on every church, government building, and the like (which we don't). Just because we can document a topic doesn't mean we have to, particularly if it creates a topic-level bias compared to other topics. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Tenby article was kept because it met GNG. Stop jousting at windmills folks, we have an encyclopedia to write here. Can anyone help me expand Lake Maumelle? I ran across it in a mirthful attempt to write an article about a long closed school to show its notability. But then I saw we already have 1000s of articles like that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Arguably the AFD was closed that way but the sources on the page are far from secondary or independent (in my opinion). But, DRV is not AFD#2, so there's no point in challenging that closure this soon based on that point. And no, this isn't a windmill - this is recognizing that something that is long-standing is a self-propagating problem that needs to be fixed lest it continue to grow and worsen. Part of this is the fact that some believe OUTCOMES is a valid AFD rationale, but that never has been the case. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the solution is to block all editors commenting on notability issues unless they have unbroken track record of making more than 50% of their edits in the (Article) namespace. This discussion having buried itself we now can jump down a section and discuss it all over.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing fundamental to the concept of a school which would necessitate a separate criteria for inclusion. Standard guidelines seem to address the topic sufficiently.
  ^talk
  10:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As an ideal concept, I'm completely happy with just sticking with the
  CT Cooper · talk
  16:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• What is the difference? Perhaps I am not understanding, there is ALREADY no separate criteria for schools, so a support vote is the same as keeping the status quo, am I correct? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something? I am not always at the top of my game before Coffee and on Christmas of all days. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been OUTCOMES-based votes at AFD, so this affirms that the GNG should be met for a school to be considered notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The only notability guideline that applies directly to schools is presently the GNG - there's no special subject-specific one. Ergo, at AFD school articles should demonstrate notability to be kept. However, as Odie points out , there is a essay OUTCOMES where school articles are often kept on the argument that sourcing can be found. --MASEM (t)

I still don't understand. Are you saying that

WP:OUTCOMES, then I would say that the evidence bears out that the essay applies to secondary schools as much or more than any of the other categories. So no, I do not follow the logic of this vote. The intended result of this consensus should be made clear. As far as I can tell, support and oppose votes will still maintain the status quo either way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉

03:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not experimenting. Schools without shown notability should be removed. That they kept based on Comon Outcomes is an affront. Common Outcomes is in fact overwriting WP:GNG. So yes, Common Outcomes should be thrown out. Not because what it says (it is a summery of the past AfDs), but because the way it is used/misunderstood/misused. The Banner _talk 03:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I must apologize to you. I thought you described your AfD nominations (which were closed as

WP:OUTCOMES is not an affront in my opinion, and should not be thrown out. I am deletionist in nature, but I also hate things that waste a lot of time for a lot of people. Placing 1000 schools up for AfD in order to find the odd article that would be anything but a snow keep is a waste of a lot of editor's time in my very humble opinion. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉

03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if the snow keeps are simply arguing on OUTCOMES and show no attempt at finding sources, that's breaking the intent of OUTCOMES (which is not to be used as a AFD reason). I don't think anyone is suggestion putting 1000s of school articles to AFD to test them, but that when schools that come along that clearly fail the GNG and no one can even point to a third-party source, a keep based on OUTCOME arguments is completely bogus. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

More then likely other groups of editors will outgrow the US-group of editors. More then likely, that will break the consensus to keep every US-school, regardless if it passes or fails WP:GNG. When that time is here, a massacre will follow unless somebody starts upgrading the present articles to WP:GNG-level. Don't start crying then, I've warned you. The Banner _talk 04:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As proceedure. Notability of schools/colleges/universities is already determined by GNG. There is already no separate criteria for schools. This vote serves no purpose. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Then make sure that the schools you describe has the sources to pass WP:GNG and not rely on a misinterpretation of Common Outcomes. The Banner _talk 04:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - schools are not fundamentally organisations and/or companies the way this guideline is designed. That is (for instance) why they're excluded from CSD#A7. They're covered by N, OUTCOMES, whatever (although again note that policies are descriptive, not prescriptive - if we're keeping schools where the policy says we shouldn't be, it's the policy that needs to be fixed, not the practice). WilyD 13:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why do you think that Common Outcomes is a valid argument in a deletion discussion? The Banner _talk 14:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Consistency in what's included/excluded makes for the best authoring/editing environment. Producing this encyclopaedia is a lot of work. Why would anyone want to create and improve articles that might be arbitrarily deleted? WilyD 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the
  Ghost
  02:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's possible that we could fix SCHOOLOUTCOMES by adding a boilerplate "warning" to that section that directly says something like "This section describes what happens in most AFDs related to schools. The normal outcome may not be appropriate for any specific school. If you believe that a school is notable, do not
  the required evidence of notability in the form of multiple independent published sources" or explain in your own words why you believe this school should be treated the same as (or different from) average schools. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• OUTCOMES is a valid reference. After all these perennial discussions about school notability, when will peple finally realise that OUTCOMES is neither a policy, nor a guideline, nor an essay. It's a chronicle. So rather than provide links to the 1,000s of AfD that have been closed a certain way, in AfDs we link perfectly legitimately to the page that chronicles the facts. The facts are that the policy/guideline for schools' notability has been clearly established by precedent. There's no going back, and serious editors are not going to launch mass deletions of 1,000s of school articles if we did. It would be mass disruption and most of us have got better things to do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And this is why OUTCOMES is bad when it is used as an argument without other merit at AFD. Again, I point out that OUTCOMES even says "DO NOT USE AT AFD". In light of the lack of direct SNG guidance on schools, it is appropriate to say at AFD something along the lines "I found a few references that support this school and given our tendancy to not delete school articles from OUTCOMES, it should be kept."; but too many times the argument is "KEEP - We don't delete schools per OUTCOME". Remember OUTCOMES says nothing about notability, it is just a record. We should not fear the mass deletion of 1000s of article as long as we have proper grandfathering steps in place to give editors time to fix them up, were we to enforce notability requirements. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to cite the cat created by {{R from school}} and to create a cat School AfD closed as 'keep' . Either way, the result will still come up with the summary mentioned in Outcomes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's ORG, not GNG

This has come up several times, and it's wrong, so let me clarify: The "ruling guideline" for school notability is ORG. It has been ORG for years. The lead to org says,

The primary criteria repeats this:

WP:CLUB mentions schools:

So you aren't "stuck with" just the GNG, and we do have a SNG that addresses schools right here at ORG. This fact is even mentioned at

When I read the first lines of I see something else, more restrictive: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The Banner talk 21:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have to say that WP:ORG comes remarkably close to being essentially a focused restatement of GNG (it's certainly closer to GNG than any of our other SNGs). Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The wording at

CT Cooper · talk

21:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)