User:Bearian/Standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Contents

[edit] Notability of High Schools at WP:AfD

English Wikipedia does not have a Policy on Notability of High Schools. These are my own Standards.

A High School is inherently or per se notable, and thus will earn a keep vote from me at WP:AFD, regardless of anything else wrong with its article, according to these standards:

A notable High School is defined by these required elements (or at least 8 of 9):

  1. Currently has 25 or more students
  2. Has (at least) 10th through 12th grades
  3. Has been in existence for (at least) 2 academic years
  4. Grants a diploma
  5. Pays its teachers (who presumably have Bachelors' degrees or higher)
  6. Is a Public school, or an Accredited Private school, or an Accredited Charter school
  7. Has 2 or more notable alumni, who already have their own articles
  8. Has 2 or more reliable sources, as defined below
  9. Has 1 or more notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports.

New high schools, elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools, those Yeshivas that do not grant diplomas, EOP's, EOC's, and the like are not inherently notable.

Reliable sources for High Schools are one or more of these:

  • Daily newspaper articles on line, or a Magazine article.
  • Public school district web site.
  • A recognized accrediting body's web site.
  • A sports web site.
  • For a non-public school, evidence must be cited and referenced that a school meets the above criteria. Those references must come from reliable independent sources other than the school or sponsoring entity, and meet normal Wikipedia standards for reliable sources.
  • Notes and links to other, notable Wikipedia articles.

Blogs, weeklies, and MySpace accounts, and the like, are not reliable.

I believe these standards are in line with the statement of Jimbo Wales on high school articles.

These are also based upon the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Schools/Old proposal.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notability of Streets

  • I agree with the standards enunciated by User:Grutness at WP:50k. Specifically: "Notable streets and roads can be divided into two types: those which are inherently notable due to some specific historical, geographical, or other quirk, and those which are notable simply by way of their prominence within a city or town."

1. Inherently notable streets have:

  • a subway, El, or bus lines that runs down it
  • a center of a well-known industry
  • historical buildings facing or having addresses on that street
  • a book, or major article, has been written about this street
  • a notable person has ever lived on this street
  • There is a WikiProject to list every named street in X notable neighbohood

2. Business districts, very long avenues, or streets dividing "slums" from "fashionable districts" are "notable simply by way of their prominence within a city or town."

  • Obviously, with very important cities, such as Manhattan and London, the ratio is probably more like 1 street per 20,000 persons.

[edit] Notability of Rivers

I declare that a river is notable if it:

  1. is verifably real
  2. is at least 1 kilometer long
  3. is filled with water at least 3 months of the year.

[edit] Notability of hamlets

I declare that a hamlet, town, or village is per se notable, for English Wikipedia, if it:

  1. is verifiably real by at least one reliable source
  2. is in an English-speaking country
  3. has at least 12 persons living year-round, according a government census taken in the past 12 years.
  • A hamlet or village outside of English-speaking countries may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but must be verifiable and have at least one reliable source.
  • An example of a very small, yet possibly notable, town is Altamont, South Dakota, pop. 34.
  • A probably non-notable, very small hamlet is Two-Mile Prairie, Missouri, pop. unknown.

[edit] Rotten boroughs

[edit] WP:RFA standards

I agree with:

  1. Jimbo Wales - [1] - "no big deal".
  2. User:Dlohcierekim - see User:Dlohcierekim/standards, i.e., "3,000 edits or equivalent service". Work at WP:AfD a big plus. "Generally at least 3 months." But: "History of vandalism, recent blocks, recent serious conflicts (Incivility), demonstrated unreadiness weigh against."
  3. User:Lradrama - see User:Lradrama/RfA_Criteria - "at least 400 edits in Wikipedia / Wikiproject space, or near enough.... The user should've participated actively in article / mainspace work, and not just reverting vandalism. .... The user interacts well with others on a whole variety of issues. ... The user doesn't totally neglect the edit summary. ... The user gives intelligent and proper answers to the given questions on their RfA."
  4. User:Mr Senseless - see User:Mr Senseless/RfAStandards, especially regarding what would cause me to oppose a candidate.
  5. See User:Keegan/On administrators as to why WP:RFA is so important.
  6. See User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria for a less serious view. LOL.
  • Having rollback privileges is a big plus, but not a necessary factor.