Wikipedia:Deletion policy/schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump.

There currently is no consensus on inclusion of high schools despite numerous attempts to create one. This is indeed unfortunate, but it is the status quo.


See also: Talk:List of schools in the United States/Delete, User talk:Rambot/Delete, m:Kill the Stub Pages, m:Wiki is not paper, Eternal Ephemeral thread of the WikiEn-l archive, October 2003, m:inclusionism, m:eventualism.

Should Wikipedia have articles on schools?

Rather than discuss this repeatedly on VfD every time a school article appears, it would be more sensible to gain a consensus which could be applied to all of them. That's what this page is for.

More sensible than a special rule that applies only to schools would be a consistent rule that applies to all articles. Such as: keep all content that can be confirmed to be true. -- Oliver P. 02:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This is about more than what can be "confirmed to be true". I'm currently in favour of keeping schools, but strongly against insignificant articles which, while verifiable, are for other reasons completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Angela

Contents

[edit] Reasons to keep

  • In response to "High schools are not important enough and number too many. This is comparable to writing an account of every Walmart or Public Library in the United States (or similar chains in other countries). Yes, you can write about who does what at the school, who founded it, what it's named, but it's not encyclopedic." - The goal is to make a comprehensive encylopedia, and to make it stand out, it should have an incredible amount of detail. Our nearby library has a very interesting history behind it, and when I get time I plan to add an article outlining its history. Schools and libraries should definately each have their own page, as each has a unique legacy that deserves to be shared.
  • it's world-famous, eg Eton College
  • some historical event took place there (protest, shooting, etc)
    • (though you might just want an article on the event?)
    • I don't think this really cuts it unless the event article needs a school link or multiple events have happened. Daniel Quinlan 02:40, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
  • people may want to know about good schools in a particular place (Schools in x place) Allowing the school page to stay could lead to a "Schools in x place" page where the information would eventually be .. at the risk of sounding Borg... assimilated.
    • Then put it into the city article. RickK 19:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • And make every city article eventually several megabytes long? Even if such a ridiculous thing were done, the name of the school should be a redirect to the page where the content is, to enable people to link to it easily. -- Oliver P. 02:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • If there are enough to make the page "several megabytes long" then most likely those schools all collectively belong to one single school district, which could then contain all the information on the schools separately from the city article. --Minesweeper 02:45, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
        • Any town article that gets too big can be split. School lists/entries can go off to a subarticle - Marshman
    • this is nutty and "best schools" is going to be a very POV and long non-encyclopedic discussion, this belongs in a different project
  • People may want to know about the schools with famous or important alumni
    • Then put it into the city article. RickK 19:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Verifiable and is something known to many 1000s of people who have attended the school.
    • Probably every school has something that makes it in someway notable. Angela
    • For universities (four year colleges, not community colleges), okay, but not high schools unless the school is rather notable like Phillips Exeter Academy.
      • Merging school pages with the city articles and redirecting sounds like an acceptable compromise. And yes, obviously these entries could get split back out if they got really big themselves or very numerous. But at the same time, I could see how one might object to what this does to the city page itself. anthony (see warning)
  • Why is a real educational establishment less important than a List of fictional elephants?207.189.98.44 17:27, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Increases the comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia.
  • Precedent. See Talk:Temasek Secondary School for a non-notable high school that has been kept. Andrewa 10:30, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to not have them. They will not be cluttering (ie. will not require disambiguation pages or get in editors ways): there can only be one St. Andrews Primary School, Winchester. Secondly, they are not offensive. Finally, they are not factually inacurate (one may assume). There is, therefore, no reason to not include them. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think that Wikipedia is quickly becoming the MAIN source of enciclopedic information IN THE WORLD. I envision wikipedia getting a TOP 100 place in Alexa[1] within the next 2 years. Students all over the world are using Wikipedia and will use even more as an enciclopedic reference tool. I believe that as time passes, more and more studends, and probably even the school teachers and/or administrators, will be involved in maintaining their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think that the idea of making a Wikipedia article as a class project for English or Journalism is far fetched. Once teachers all over the world start noticing Wikipedia as a powerful tool, I don't think that the "DELETE" community will be able to stop schools from becoming an integral part of Wikipedia.--AAAAA 18:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Why would we apply a different standard to cities than to schools? We don't require a town to be 'notable' to be included. Generally, we seem to think that cities and towns deserve coverage to capture an encyclopedic view of a region and its history. It seems that we have decided that the institution of 'town' is significant per se. I think a similar argument can be made for schools. They are lasting institutions of real meaning to their communities, understanding their history helps us make sense of how things are in a region today. Indeed, in many regions, citizens feel more loyalty to the history and identity of their high school (especially through high school sports) than to all other local institutions. Chrisvls 20:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to delete

  • High schools are not important enough and number too many. This is comparable to writing an account of every Walmart or Public Library in the United States (or similar chains in other countries). Yes, you can write about who does what at the school, who founded it, what it's named, but it's not encyclopedic. Daniel Quinlan 04:08, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • I take "encyclopedic" to mean something like "comprehensive". We must be using the words in different ways. --Camembert
    • Also, the import of these schools varies. While in your opinion, they are insignificant, in many areas, citizens feel more loyalty to the history and identity of their high school (especially through high school sports) than to other local institutions, such as their town. Chrisvls 20:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • To expand on the observation above, how local do we get? So we list every high school, junior high school, and elementary school (approx. 90,000 public and thousands more private in the U.S. alone). How about pre-schools? Every local church? Every local post office? Every local police station or fire station? How deep does this go? We have an article for Sunset High School in Portland, Oregon. So, why not have articles for Portland Fire Station #1, #2, #3, etc.? Surely, we could give an address and equipment on hand for each, and on and on, but where does it stop? --Minesweeper 04:49, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
    • It stops once we reach a subject so small that a verifiable, neutral non-stub cannot be written about it. --Camembert
    • It is obvious that you yourself don't think that it will get to that point. Hemanshu 08:14, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but just to be clear: I know very well there are lots of subjects that it is impossible to write verifiable, neutral, non-stubs about - my house, for example, or the violin sonata I wrote a few years ago, or me - and when people try to write about these things, I have no objections at all to them being deleted. But I don't believe schools fall into that category. --Camembert
    • Personally I think covering every fire station, police station, high school, elementary school and church in the world should be part of the goal of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia. I see absolutely no reason not to include these things. anthony (see warning)
  • There are tens of thousands (at least) of schools in the world, many with the same name. I deleted Sunset High School the other day because it referred to a school in a particular city. I know of another Sunset High School in a different city, and I'd hate to think of the disambiguations we'd have to do if we decided to list every Central High School or Boys' High School or Saint Mary's High School in the US, let alone in the world. If it's necessary to discuss the school, put it into the article about the city in which the city is located. BTW, I agree with the "world famous" or "historical event" reasons for keeping, above, but definitely not for the other reasons. RickK 19:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with disambiguation pages. And if you're agreeing that having content about schools is all right, then you are quite free to move the content elsewhere and redirect the name of the school to wherever the content is. That isn't a question of deletion but of rearranging. (It wouldn't be sensible rearranging, though.) -- Oliver P. 02:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Disambiguation, if necessary, is easily done by putting the location of the school in the title (eg Sunset High School (Portland). --Camembert
    • If the number gets to be a problem we can fork after developing the first 10,000 articles, keeping those which we reference elsewhere here. We will need ways to indicate relative significance as part of preparing for 1.0 print edition. Jamesday 05:23, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • People may feel inclined to create these en masse and we'll have 1000s of useless stubs saying nothing more than Gosbecks is a school in Colchester. Angela
    • We already have a policy against useless stubs. This has nothing to do with schools.207.189.98.44 00:09, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • What policy against stubs?
    • Creating them en masse would require bot approval. anthony (see warning)
    • Useful stubs. (Gosbecks is in Colchester? I didn't know that!) Stubs which will, inevitably, grow into longer articles over time. -- Oliver P. 02:29, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • And this isn't, in any case, a problem (if problem it is) specific to schools - people might make lots of stubby article en masse about types of apple, or Swedish playwrights. --Camembert
    • Why is an article about the local high school more noteworthy than an article about the local Walmart? How about Upland Walmart in which I discuss the Walmart in Upland, California, including how it currently has a special on christmas candies? --Delirium 04:33, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
I think we already have a policy on avoiding material that will date quickly. Perhaps that should be enforced more rigorously? Martin 18:49, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A school is a pivotal institution in many communities, plays a vital function and touches the lives of thousands of people. I doubt this is true of Walmart, but if it is, write it, as long as it is NPOV, non-trivial and non-stub, I won't oppose it.207.189.98.44 00:09, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • With secondary schools, the burden of proof should be on the writer to show that the topic is notable by the inclusion of suitable material when the article is first posted.
In the case of a topic that is intrinsically encyclopedic, there is some value in posting a stub as a placeholder and a stimulus to get the ball rolling. The person posting the stub may have good reason for believing that the topic is encyclopedic, but not have the depth of knowledge to write a good article, and may post a stub in hopes of stimulating some other person to carry the task on.
But in the case of a high school, the first poster is likely to know more about the topic than anyone else who is going to come along for some time. If he knows something interesting about the school, he should say it right off the bat. If it's just the school's location and slogan, the contributor should be politely informed that the article is not up to Wikipedia standards and has been deleted, and that he is welcome to resubmit it if he can add enough to it to justify its inclusion.
Not very much should be needed—an alum or two of encyclopedic notability; notable architecture (especially if a photo is included); any connection with a significant news event. But there should be something, and it should be present in the article as initially inserted.
Bare stubs that include nothing genuinely interesting or noteworthy that would distinguish the school from thousands of others should be deleted. It's not as if it is much of a burden to reinsert an improved version later. Dpbsmith 22:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We don't delete articles just because they are stubs (stubs get expanded, even though it may take weeks, months or years), and just because you don't find something interesting, doesn't mean nobody else will. As I've said elsewhere on the page, there is little to distinguish hundreds of 19th century novelists, but I wouldn't argue for their deletion because of that. --Camembert

[edit] merge/redirect/disambiguate with city or town?

Perhaps we should merge with the nearest place? Eg, Malvern Girl's School could be merged and redirected to Malvern. And we could disambiguate some of the common school names. I think this kind of approach would be better than deletion. Some schools should have their own articles, of course. Martin 02:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Merging is better than deletion, but not ideal, in my opinion. If all you have to say about a school is "X is a school in Y", then yes, there's not a lot of point in making a specific article to say it, but beyond that, why not give them their own page? Seems to me one could just as easily argue "we shouldn't have articles on cities. Merge the content into the article on the county they are in." --Camembert
I guess I'm assuming that for most schools, there won't be more than a few K of verifiable, neutral, informative content. Eton would be an exception to that, of course. Martin 02:59, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A few K is quite a lot, isn't it?  :) But OK, I don't have a big problem with merging content into a larger article if there's very little content to merge (but any school with a fair amount written about it (whatever a "fair amount" might be - more than a couple of paragraphs, say) - not just "obvious" cases like Eton - should have its own article as far as I'm concerned). --Camembert
The amount of content generatable about many topics can be almost endless. That's however not a reason to keep articles on any topic. Most high schools are virtually undistinguishable from hundreds of other similar schools because there are so many. Notable schools like Eton and Exeter can have their own article (and do), but merging is just silly, the content is equally unimportant in town pages aside from perhaps the name of the school and a link to the school page. Daniel Quinlan 04:34, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand why, if somebody writes a neutral, verifiable article on a school, people want to delete it. It's not important enough?! Who to? You? The students? Particle physics isn't important to me, lets delete that. Most 19th century novelists are virtually undistinguishable from hundreds of other similar novelists because there are so many. Lets scrap pages on them as well then. There is no reason to delete verifiable, neutral, non-stub articles. And yes, if you really want to write about branches of Walmart, do it. You'd be wasting your time, of course, but it's fine by me. --Camembert

[edit] Proposed "clear" thresholds

While some aspects of schools are somewhat controversial, there seems to be a significant prospect of broad agreement in some cases. Please indicate your agreement or otherwise in a numbered opinion poll.

So far the message seems to be that it's not the significance which is the fundamental issue here. Not surprising. Jamesday 19:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  1. We mention the school in another article, for some reasonably significant reason, like the biography of an actor, politician or scientist who merits inclusion, not solely "list of all schools in this town, so all of them merit an article".
    1. encourage creation
      1. 207.189.98.44
      2. Angela (iff >100 words and not just raw data)
      3. anthony (see warning)
      4. TB
      5. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]]
      6. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      7. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      8. Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      9. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. Jamesday
      2. Martin
      3. theresa knott
      4. TMC1221
      5. Gentgeen
      6. Penfold
      7. Guaka
      8. Dpbsmith
      9. ALargeElk | Talk
      10. Ambivalenthysteria
      11. AAAAA
      12. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      13. Joe D (t)
      14. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      15. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      16. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. RickK
      2. Daniel Quinlan
      3. Adam Bishop
      4. Maximus Rex
      5. Catherine
      6. Improv
      7. Noisy | Talk
  1. The school itself is notable, perhaps in the top ten of some category (biggest or smallest few, best academic record in a region; or best few in a moderately large city).
    1. encourage creation
      1. Jamesday
      2. Martin
      3. theresa knott
      4. 207.189.98.44
      5. Angela (iff >100 words and not just raw data)
      6. TMC1221
      7. Gentgeen
      8. Penfold
      9. Guaka
      10. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      11. anthony (see warning)
      12. Ambivalenthysteria 09:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      13. TB
      14. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004
      15. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      16. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      17. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      18. Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      19. Joe D (t)
      20. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      21. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      22. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. If truely somehow significant Marshman
      2. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      3. ALargeElk | Talk
      4. AAAAA
      5. Noisy | Talk
      6. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. "best" is entirely POV. RickK
      2. I think being exceptionally well known is a better indicator. Other than local schools, I can name Eton and Exeter off the top of my head. Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      3. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      4. Maximus Rex
      5. The examples given for notability are poor. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. The school is notable if only because more than one Wikipedia contributor of more than 10 articles, images or other content is from it (mainly so we do encourage schools to participate in this project):
    1. encourage creation
      1. 207.189.98.44
      2. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (iff >100 words and not just raw data)
      3. anthony (see warning)
      4. TB
      5. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      6. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      7. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) (This is a misleading vote; I encourage the creation of all high school pages; I just do not support their creation for this stated reason.
      2. Jamesday
      3. Martin (perhaps, if it's ten or more contributors on a school project, but suggest better alternatives)
      4. Angela (iff >100 words and not just raw data)
      5. Guaka
      6. Penfold
      7. ALargeElk | Talk
      8. Ambivalenthysteria 09:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      9. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      10. AAAAA
      11. Don't encourage creation based on number of Wikipedia users fom school, do so based on content. --Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      12. Joe D (t)
      13. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. Disagree vociferously. Totally a vanity project. RickK 04:18, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      2. Horrible idea. Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      3. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      4. Maximus Rex
      5. TMC1221
      6. Gentgeen
      7. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      8. Vanity. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      9. Noisy | Talk
      10. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      11. Worst idea ever. Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      12. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Less than 30 pupils, none of whom are noteworthy and nothing otherwise noteworthy about the school.
    1. encourage creation
      1. anthony (see warning)
      2. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      3. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      4. I know someone who's been principle of two tiny schools, and these schools tend to be fairly interesting.--Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      5. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. 207.189.98.44
      2. Gentgeen
      3. Penfold
      4. Guaka
      5. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      6. ALargeElk | Talk
      7. Ambivalenthysteria 09:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      8. AAAAA
      9. Joe D (t)
      10. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      11. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. Martin (or redirect to local education authority or town)
      2. Jamesday (agree with Martin - must redirect all of these to inhibit recreation)
      3. RickK
      4. Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      5. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      6. theresa knott
      7. Maximus Rex
      8. Angela
      9. TMC1221
      10. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      11. TB
      12. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      13. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      14. Noisy | Talk
      15. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      16. Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      17. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. A school for those aged 5 or less years old, none of whom are noteworthy and nothing otherwise noteworthy about the school.
    1. encourage creation
      1. anthony (see warning)
      2. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      3. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      4. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. 207.189.98.44
      2. Gentgeen
      3. Penfold
      4. Guaka
      5. ALargeElk | Talk
      6. AAAAA
      7. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      8. --Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      9. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      10. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. Martin (or redirect to local education authority or town)
      2. Jamesday
      3. RickK
      4. Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      5. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      6. theresa knott
      7. Maximus Rex
      8. Angela
      9. TMC1221
      10. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      11. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      12. TB
      13. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      14. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      15. Noisy | Talk
      16. Joe D (t)
      17. Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      18. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Bulk automated entry of schools primarily for those aged 11 or younger (chosen because it's about the transition point from elementary to "high" schools of various sorts).
    1. encourage creation
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. anthony (see warning)
      2. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      3. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      4. Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      5. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. Martin (see wikipedia:bots)
      2. Jamesday
      3. RickK
      4. Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      5. 207.189.98.44
      6. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      7. theresa knott
      8. Maximus Rex
      9. Angela
      10. TMC1221
      11. Marshman
      12. Gentgeen
      13. Penfold
      14. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      15. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      16. ALargeElk | Talk
      17. TB
      18. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      19. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      20. AAAAA
      21. Noisy | Talk
      22. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      23. And encourage physical violence against anyone who tries it ;-) Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      24. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      25. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Bulk automated entry of schools primarily for those aged 16 or younger (chosen because it's been the high school leaving age in at least some industrialized countries and this threshold is intended not to exclude bulk entry of universities).
    1. encourage creation
      1. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      2. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      3. Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      2. anthony (see warning)
      3. TB
      4. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      5. Joe D (t)
      6. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. Martin (see wikipedia:bots)
      2. Jamesday
      3. RickK
      4. Daniel Quinlan 04:39, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      5. 207.189.98.44
      6. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      7. theresa knott
      8. Maximus Rex
      9. Angela
      10. TMC1221
      11. Gentgeen
      12. Penfold
      13. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      14. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      15. ALargeElk | Talk
      16. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      17. AAAAA
      18. Noisy | Talk
      19. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      20. Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      21. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      22. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. School where only one or two notable people (with articles) attended, or the child of a celebrity attends or attended. Having the luck of a future celebrity attending the school is not anything special, mentioning the name (without a link) in the celebrity article is sufficient.
    1. encourage creation
      1. 207.189.98.44
      2. Angela (iff >100 words, not just raw data and properly famous as Martin says below)
      3. Penfold
      4. Guaka
      5. anthony (see warning)
      6. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      7. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      8. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. Jamesday
      2. Martin (depends on the people, though - a president is one thing, a "star" of Big Brother is another)
      3. theresa knott
      4. TMC1221
      5. Gentgeen
      6. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      7. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      8. ALargeElk | Talk
      9. TB
      10. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      11. AAAAA
      12. Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      13. What makes schools interesting is the school, not who came from it.--Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      14. Joe D (t)
      15. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      16. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, discourage creation
      1. Daniel Quinlan 04:43, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)
      2. Adam Bishop 00:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      3. Maximus Rex
      4. Ambivalenthysteria 09:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      5. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      6. Noisy | Talk
      7. Celebrities may be notable, but their touch does not confer notability. Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      8. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Any school about which we can write a non-trivial, non-stub, NPOV article.
    1. encourage creation
      1. 207.189.98.44 00:12, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      2. theresa knott non-trivial articles should always be encouraged
      3. Camembert 20:49, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) - this is all that matters (it should also be verifiable, of course). The above categories (apart from the bot ones, on which we already have a policy) are completely irrelevant in my view.
      4. Angela (iff >100 words and not just raw data)
      5. Gentgeen
      6. Penfold
      7. Imran
      8. Guaka
      9. Andres
      10. Catherine 22:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      11. anthony (see warning)
      12. Ambivalenthysteria 09:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      13. Dpbsmith 22:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      14. TB
      15. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      16. We need safeguards to prevent vanity though. Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      17. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
      18. Guanaco 00:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      19. Quintucket 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      20. Joe D (t)
      21. Posiduck 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      22. Bovlb 06:50, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
      23. Neonumbers 12:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      24. Zantastik 07:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    2. keep if created, don't encourage creation
      1. Jamesday
      2. Martin (if informative and verifiable too)
      3. TMC1221
      4. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I'd like to know what constitutes "non-trivial" though. Any Wikipedia contributor could theoretically write a non-trivial article about their own school. Personally, though, I find the concept of allowing people to write articles about non-famous schools ridiculous, but if it's allowed, more power to me, the individual contributor, then. =)
      5. ALargeElk | Talk
      6. AAAAA
      7. Marshman 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    3. delete if created, don't encourage creation
      1. Maximus Rex
      2. Noisy | Talk
      3. Unless by "non-trivial" we mean "establishing some form of notability", then this is meaningless. I could write a lengthy, NPOV description of my bedroom, but it would not be an encyclopedia article. Isomorphic 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'm not very clear on the difference in practical terms between "encourage creation" and "don't encourage creation". I put myself under "encourage" because if a kid asked me "is it OK to write an article about my school?" I'd say "yes", but I could've said "don't encourage" because, well, I'm not going to go around saying to people "do write about your school, won't you". Is there any difference between the two in practice, or is it just symbolic? --Camembert

Examples of encouraging creation:

  1. If such an article is created, say thanks, well done, could you do some more?
  2. Create lots of red links to future articles
  3. Place articles on wikipedia:requested articles
  4. Do so yourself (Meatball:ModelDesiredBehavior)
  5. Tell people yes when they ask you if it would be appropriate to create such an article.
  6. Don't make a huge fuss over such articles and/or speculate whether they will cause the death of Wikipedia
    •  ;-) <-- for the humour-impaired
  7. Start a schools WikiProject

Martin 19:57, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm not sure whether I'm an "encourage" or a "don't" any more, but I'm sure it's not important enough to worry about. --Camembert
As you say, it's probably largely symbolic. For the purposes of deletion policy, the two numbers can be added together. Martin 21:24, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

I believe the main problem with this is that primary and secondary schools are inherently local, ephemeral phenomena in nearly all cases. There are no independent, widely available sources that can be used to check facts. Indeed, there are usually no independent sources available locally to check facts, short of a visit to the school itself or interviews with faculty, staff, or students. A high school yearbook may provide some information, but most primary schools don't publish a yearbook. Yearbook topics tend to be particularly ephemeral and do not include most of the facts that might make an article informative, such as year of founding, area served, funding, comparison to other schools.

I would like to see a perfect article containing verifiable information about a school that is not unusually notable. I don't think such an article can be written.

UninvitedCompany 16:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with parent (usually city) articles

I believe that merging school articles with the most logical geographic article makes the most since in over 90% of the cases.

Schools are usually local structures that are best understood in the context of the area they serve. A school such as Shattuck St. Mary's School that serves a non-local student body might be an exception, as would an unusually notable school such as Columbine High School.

However, exceptional cases aside, a photo and a paragraph or two of summary information about local schools adds to the locality article. Usually that's about all there is to say that doesn't date quickly and that is genuinely informative.

UninvitedCompany 16:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a look at the Brecksville, Ohio article improvements I've made as an example of what I think is appropriate level of detail (minimal) for schools. --Improv 16:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Take a look at this diff, then see if your mind changes on deleting high schools

Moanalua High School (02:44, May 18, 2004): [2]
Moanalua High School (Currently): [3]
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 05:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
I think thats a beautiful piece of work, an a wonderful representation of what Wikipedia articles are. They begin as stubs, and become better with time. —siroχo 12:34, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal about school evaluation and deletion

Please see Wikipedia:School articles needing evaluation to discuss a new proposal. —siroχo 13:56, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/l/Wikipedia%7EDeletion_policy_schools_25b4.html"