Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Notability (schools) page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Shortcuts:
WT:SCH
WT:SCL
WT:SCHOOL
WT:SCHOOLS


Contents


[edit] Origins

This page is the result of a Village Pump proposal on 2007-11-21.

[edit] Proposed guidelines for naming format for schools

The following, though somewhat off topic, definately relates to the subject at hand.

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) is a guideline for standardizing the naming syntax for schools which is currently stalled due to international issues. As a result a temporary sub guideline has been proposed.

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) has been proposed as a temporary guideline to deal with the group of schools that has the greatest need for the guideline, U.S schools. It should be incorporated in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) when it can finally be resolved.

[edit] School districts

Has there been any discussion concerning when school districts are notable? Often, when a school is found to be non-notable, it's suggested that it be merged into its district article, suggesting that they're usually considered notable. Are there ever conditions where they aren't? As one example, there is an extremely small K-8 district consisting of only one school and serving only about 100 students in my county. Not sure where we'd cover it if not in its own article, but I'm concerned it won't convince people of its notability. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There are cases where school info is included in city or county articles. This would (I assume) be appropriate when the school districts, if any, weren't particularly notable. The case you cite might reasonably fall into that sort of grouping. Loren.wilton (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Most school districts should be notable as a government agency. In your case, what does the district do after 8th grade? Do the students actually become residents in another district or does your district contract with another district. That is what happens in Nevada and would clearly improve notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The area I live in does not (I believe) have districts per se for pre-kindergarden. For K-6 there is a school district that runs several schools. Historically it ran a single school (even though it was a district) that educated K-8, but in 1962 grades 7-8 were split into a new school and corresponding new junior high district. Grades 9-12 then went to the separate highschool district. So around here a student will traverse three completely separate districts in K-12. I can see where the OP may have a non-notable K-8 district that feeds other districts. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
the usual times a school district would not be notable is if there were no actual schools there, or if the district was so small it should be merged into a higher unit. There are some small districts with a small number of schools coterminous with towns or counties, in which case there is not necessarily a reason not to enter these as a section of the political subdivision. There are also some with only one or two schools, especially in the US West, and there perhaps they should be grouped under something suitable--but this may be difficult, because some US counties are also very small & there may be nothing higher until one come to the state level. DGG (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And, of course, part of the problem is that those small districts tend to be in unincorporated rural areas, which are less likely to have articles than actual cities are. In the case I'm thinking of, there's no article about the community in which the district is located, making it harder to find a place to include it. I don't plan to make an article about the district in question at this time, anyway, but thought it would be good to discuss this. Oh, and Vegaswikian: The district I'm thinking of is a feeder district. Its territory is covered both by it and a high school district (the latter also covers six other K-8 districts). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict--sorry if this is confusing] There is no independent school district in the U.S. that is not "notable," IMHO. They have elected boards of directors, some of which are the only elected officials in their unincorporated communities. They have bond elections, tax elections, disputes over money paid to administrators, and all kinds of other activities that get coverage in local weekly papers and in the nearest daily. School systems that are subsidiary to some other local government might not be as certain of notability--I'm not as familiar with them--but I suspect that they are. They are certaily encyclopedic. When I first got involved trying to save school articles from deletionists, it seemed to me that they did not fit into city and county articles well except as a brief list. With any reasonable amount of detail about individual schools, the education section of an article about a small city would throw the article out of balance. I created two district articles as demonstration projects, to show what could be done using national or state sources, whether or not the local news media were on line. I picked the district in my home town and another one that fed my high school, and got too involved in the subjects, so they are expanded past the point where the universal sources would get them. See Bolinas-Stinson Union School District and the earlier version at [1]. See also Sausalito Marin City School District and [2]. The latter is based entirely on data from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is available for every school and district in the U.S. I recently did one medium-sized district that I have no personal interest in or knowledge of, so it's still based on pure NCES and California data, pretty much. (I could have done it all with NDES data, but California has the same information for a more recent year.) See San Leandro Unified School District. I would like to see a bot set up a page like this for every district in the country (and any other English-speaking country with suitable data sources). Then, when people start up poor stubs about individual schools, there would be a place to merge any encyclopedic information.--Hjal (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
when there is non-directory information about the individual schools, it should go in individual articles. There have been several example ere where this is a town, a high school district with one high school, and an elementary school district with one elementary school. assumming we could write articles about each of those two schools, does this make 5 articles? DGG (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In countless AfDs it has been agreed that school districts are inherently notable, as government bodies, and that seems right. Apart from providing a repository for school information they are essential components in the way that states manage their education. Deleting any school districts would blow holes in our coverage for no benefit. TerriersFan (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll keep that in mind. If this guideline ever makes guideline status, it might be good to include such information in it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion for one of the first schools

A little suggestion - Westbourne Sports College. It has various trophys and teached the famous Kerion (i can't spell) Dyer Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

I have not seen any substantive objection to the guidelines for some time. Do we have a consensus? TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. The question isn't whether objections continue to be repeated ad nauseam, but whether anything has been done about them, other than moving them into an archive. The fundamental aim of the guidelines is still to treat schools much more generously than any other subject and to make them inherently notable on the flimsiest of pretexts. In particular, nothing has been done (except an ineffective toying with words) to address the example of this which I have focussed on: we still read -
“ If any [my emphasis] of the following can be reliably sourced, then the article should not be deleted... 3. The school is located in a building of architectural importance... ”
This still means that notability can be bought by an utterly non-notable school simply by buying or renting a notable building. I don't wish to repeat the whole of my rationale for this objection, but in a nutshell I've pointed out that we rightly do not award notability to any other body or person simply for occupying a significant building. This would simply be double standards. Xn4 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, if point 3 came out would you agree to it? TerriersFan (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove point three and make the page a guideline i.e. no longer a proposal. The only editors who oppose this are the ones who have shown in the past they do not want the guideline and never offer anything constructive to keep it.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As you may remember, I'm not convinced of the need for the guideline, but point 3 is the only objection I've pursued in any depth. Yes, if it came out then I don't see any more points worth my pursuing here. Xn4 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

<- As I've not been happy with that clause either (although I understand where it came from) I've just gone and ripped out, and replaced it with a "well, duh!" replacement crieterion. Discussion is hereby opened. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see my third point got immediately deleted. I think there are aspects to it that do not fall under the crieteria that was used for deletion. I agree with the edit summary, but my point covers things like your average national news school shooting or the like that brings the school into national recognition for weeks or months at a time, or the school having the worst academic record in the state 5 years running. Those are pretty clearly things that make the school potentially article (or at least stub) worthy. How can we word a point about "sufficiently newsworthy to have become notworthy"? Loren.wilton (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The third bullet that was removed had to do with architecture. The concerns raised were about the inheritance of notability.
That bullet was immediately replaced with "The school has appeared as the subject of national or regional news broadcasts or articles." This new bullet three is as or perhaps even more problematic. As written, it falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS because it could be read to allow for a single 30 sec newscast on a slow news day to justify inclusion. That's not enough to support an encyclopedia article. If there really has been the extended coverage for multiple events that you describe above, then the new bullet is unnecessary because the school will already meet the "primary" criterion. The wording now allows an unnecessary loophole. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
How about my rewrite? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's still redundant to the "primary" criterion in the section immediately above it. Rossami (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the new wording. The 'significant coverage' is supported by footnote 1. While the whole point may be somewhat redundant, in fact the whole section, nay, the whole guiideline, is somewhat redundant. I view it as a summary of collected information, and for the deletionists-in-trade, I don't think that it would hurt to be fairly explicit that a single event with lots of coverage in multiple sources can serve as a form of sufficient notability. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I too like the new wording for notability item #3, with the addition of "international". It is consistent with general Wikipedia notability guidelines and provides specific guidance to editors of school articles. I would like to clarify that lack of "significant coverage by national media" does not make a school non-notable. There may be other things that would demonstrate notability. Truthanado (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't get it. What is an example of a page that would be allowed under Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Indicators of probable notability bullet 3 that's not already allowed under Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Criteria? The Indicators of probable notability section only kicks in for those situations that haven't demonstrably met the Criteria section. How could you meet this new bullet 3 and not have fully met the Criteria section? Rossami (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say you are correct, that to meet this you have to meet the main criteria. I'd go farther and say that this is a nice short single sentence that the people that skip over and ignore boiler plate can still see, and can be pointed to when they are inclined to delete cited articles on grounds of non-notability. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Then move it to the front of the list and rewrite the two sections to merge them. The possibility of inconsistencies between the two sections concerns me. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
On reviewing the Crieteria section, I agree with you, my point 3 is redundant. I'm not terribly concerned about inconsistancies in this case, but I removed it anyway as it did not really add value. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Ribbon School

I still have an issue with item 2 since I'm not convinced that all of the BRS criteria makes earing the award notable to the school. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow the above statement. Are you saying that you consider "top school" type awards to be sufficiently degraded that being awarded one is still not a sign of anything notable? Loren.wilton (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that being a Blue Ribbon School is not a notability criteria, in my opinion. While some of the criteria would make this a useful guideline, not all of the awards are significant as an inclusion criteria here. The problem in the US is that this may be the only country wide award of note. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
On looking at the Blue Ribbon award criteria I am somewhat inclined to agree with you, but only somewhat. Saving a school that is notable only for a Blue Ribbon award and has absolutely no other press coverage would probably not be a good idea. On the other hand, deleting a school simply because it has a Blue Ribbon award would be a bad idea. I think we are saved by the overall title of he section these points appear: Indicators of probable notability. Having a Blue Ribbon award may not be enough to make the school completely notable if that is the only thing that can be found on the school. I think though that it should probably be enough to let the article exist as a stub without fear of instant deletion, given that the award is sourced and not merely asserted. And that is really what this whole section is about: "Hey, if they can show this much, give 'em a chance to show more, because there probably is more that they can show."
Do those thoughts address your concerns at all? Loren.wilton (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Press coverage is tricky, depending on the region. when found, ti is often objected to as not being substantial. The fact of the award is much more important.DGG (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For the British example we use a 'Grade 1' assessment. I guess if we limited the BRS to those for 'academically superior' achievement, then that would help a lot. However if does not help that the criteria still includes 'Of the schools submitted by each state, at least one-third must meet the first criterion of having 40 percent of the students from disadvantaged backgrounds.' That statement taints the entire process in my mind since it really is not an unbiased process. In fact it is possible for this to greatly limit the schools that can be nominated so lessor performing schools can get the award while better performers are left out, simply because of the mix of schools and students in the various states. Getting a Blue Ribbon award pretty much guarantees media coverage so that may not help as an addition with the award. Can you suggest a rewording that might work? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High school notability

  • Are all high schools in practice defaulting to notability through this guideline or via outcomes then? Eusebeus (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. In current practice highschools (even without this guideline) almost always succeed a deletion attempt. Same for colleges. Middle schools on the other hand are fairly often deleted and hopefully merged into a higher-level article like a school district or community. Grammar schools, like middle schools, also fairly often end up merged.
(It should be noted though that there are very many middle school and grammar school articles that are not likely to be deleted, most commonly for schools outside the US. It is necessary to see the age range or grade levels for the school and not just go by the name. In general if the school deals with 9th graders or above it is fairly likely to stay around.) I don't have stats on private kindergardens or the like, but would expect them to vanish fairly frequently.
A part of the intent of this guideline is to document current practice and thus hopefully cut down on the number of AfDs that will fail anyway. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although it may be impossible to delete an article about an US high school on Wikipedia, this does not follow that all US high schools are notable (for a given definition of notable). Catchpole (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not impossible and some do get deleted. Loren.wilton (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of any anglosphere public high school that has been deleted in recent times. TerriersFan (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly no high school that has been tagged for Deletion sorting/Schools has been deleted in recent times.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly most high schools are currently not being deleted based on the perceived consensus to let them stay pending a school guideline. So, I would not make any inferences about what should, or should not, be in the guideline based on the current activity at AfD. If anything, the guideline as proposed makes it clear what a school article needs to show to establish notability. How that plays out on AfD is something that we can watch if this proposal gains consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Even once this proposal is accepted (which should be soon) the school AfD's will still be decided by consensus. After all it is only going to be a "guideline".--Sting Buzz Me... 23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The guideline has to reflect what people do here. The practical effect of the guideline is at AfD, and anything here being out of kilter with perceptions there will be ignored. The present guideline is totally out of kilter. It is fully accepted at AfD which respect to high schools that almost all are probably notable, and that the notability is definitely proven by such factors as notable alumni, notable athletic or scholastic successes. This are considered major factors. It is also fully accepted that being an historic school of particularly long-standing establishment (in comparison with other schools in the region) is also definitive. (all of these things need to be proven), of course, with RSs). Attempting to ignore this here is useless, and will lead to a useless guideline I suggest going back to what the community actually does think, which is that all secondary schools for which there is more than basic address information are considered notable. DGG (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what you are saying. All secondary schools are considered notable by the majority of the community. Try and add it to the guideline and someone whose only agenda is that they don't want the guideline in any format reverts it out. The proposal already stipulates that WP:RS must be included. Instead of foiling attempts to have this proposal accepted. Why don't they just take the page to AfD if they don't want it to exist? Might that perhaps be the way to go? AfD the proposal (in accepted format) and if it survives at AfD as a keep then accept the community's decision? If the community wants it deleted then close as a rejected proposal? What do you think?--Sting Buzz Me... 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to offer an opinion that has nothing to do with notability. Wikipedia is about usefulness, providing information to our readers that they can use. In addition to being a frequent editor of school articles, I am a parent of high-school age children (btw, that doesn't make me an expert in high schools). I know several parents who use Wikipedia to find information about high schools and school districts, especially when they are (considering) moving into a new area. For that reason, I suggest that all high schools are worthy of having a Wiki article because they provide useful information to Wikipedia's readers. The historical trend of not deleting any high school articles seems to support that claim. Having said that, I am not in favor of including random information in the Wiki article that can easily be obtained on the school's website or other sources. I am in favor of a professional and informative description of the school. Perhaps we should be spending more of our efforts on defining what should be in a high school article rather than defining rules for the article's existence. That might be a task that we can accomplish. Truthanado (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As a side-comment, I am going to disagree with the wording above that "All secondary schools are considered notable by the majority of the community." That's an affirmative statement which I believe goes somewhat beyond the demonstrated consensus. A large number of people have registered the opinion that secondary schools are not automatically notable but recognize that there is not the necessary rough consensus to delete them either. A lack of consensus to delete is not the same as a clear consensus to keep. Rossami (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to second Rossami on this. Many of us still reject the idea of automatic notability for High Schools. If you go poll those editors who so expressed themselves in various H.S. AfDs, you will find that this remains the case for most. However, since the debates had become pointless and sometimes rather nasty, many simply no longer comment. I also still see this as no consensus. Eusebeus (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reduced my HS AfD participation for the exact opposite reason. Virtually every AfD in the past year or so for a high school has ended as Keep. I can't think of the last no consensus and the deletes are as rare as hen's teeth, usually for nonsense articles, nor can I think of any that were nasty. The consensus on schools based on the results of hundreds upon hundreds of AfDs -- that high schools are notable, some middle schools are notable and few elementary schools are notable -- ought to guide these discussions and help in establishing guidelines that avoid the time and effort wasted in AfDs rehashing these same issues. I do not believe that all schools are notable, and the equal and opposite "no schools are notable" has been discredited at AfD. If we want to move forward, we need to find some middle ground as to guidelines for which schools are notable, and which are not. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree that the failure of AfD to delete implies that the subject was notable, or more specifically, that the article at the time of nomination meet WP:N. Mostly, however, I thik I agree with you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not say are considered notable by everyone in the community, or even by the great majority of the community, but by the majority of the community. and if by that w mean the interested people in the community, I can prove it too,(how rare to be able to say "prove" in a context like this) because the result of close to 100% of high school deletions at AfD in the last 3 or 4 months have been to uphold the high school articles, unless there is something specifically wrong with them. I intended that merely as a statement of fact--the majority of the community accept the articles. The guidelines are supposed to be the guidelines that we actually follow, and there you are. You dont have to like it. I dont like all the guidelines that the community follows either, but they remain the accepted guidelines. What Alansohn says above is what I say too. I didnt like the compromise at first myself--I am generally pretty skeptical about articles on local institutions. I'd willingly delete about 10% or 20% of high school articles, but I decided it wasnt worth the fight. They dont do any positive harm like bad BLPs or even spam. No one will think the less of us for covering them all equally. And then we can go on to other things about which there is a serious principled disagreement. Eusebeus, I'd rather discuss articles on fiction with you--its by far the more interesting topic. :) DGG (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it is not a statement of fact. The AfDs merely prove a lack of consensus to delete, not an affirmative consensus to keep. That may not seem like a significant difference to you but it is a highly significant difference to me. By the way, my personal opinion is not that "all articles about high schools must be deleted", merely that "being a high school does not automatically guarantee notability". Rossami (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accept Guideline?

No revisions to the proposal since May 20. Everyone must be happy with the content? So does that mean we can accept the Guideline?--Sting Buzz Me... 11:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not see much trouble in it. I like the notion that an indicator of probable notability means that "the article should not be deleted but allowed to exist as a stub.", and it carries no implication that such "indicators" are alternatives to "significant coverage in secondary sources".
  • I like the simplicity of it. Could we replace "school" by subject and use it to replace WP:N?
  • Why do you continue to mark relatively momentous things like this as "minor"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a comment on a talk page. That's a minor edit in my opinion.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That may be true, but minor edits are usually those which are not likely to be debated, questioned, or replied to. So it's usually best not to mark actual comments as minor (fixing typos is minor, comments aren't). It's mostly a courtesy to the rest of us. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the need for this guideline as it now basically mirrors WP:ORG - there's no point in creating guidelines for the sake of having a guideline. This guideline started out as a way to entrench the view that lax notability criteria should be applied to schools, and has no purpose now that view has fallen by the wayside. The 'Indicators of probable notability' also remain problematic - especially #2 as this implies that a school which did well in one assessment round is forever notable and is very vauge as it's not at all clear what's meant by "the highest available official assessment" or why this matters. There also seems to be a contradiction between the statement that "These guidelines assume that there is some encyclopedic content. Directory-only entries (name, address, school type, staff member listings, etc.) are not permitted." and the statement that schools which meet the indicators should have a stub article. By the way, have you posted a formal notificaiton that this proposal is being voted on on other relavant talk pages? (eg, the Village Pump) The last few attempts to adopt this policy collapsed after the voting/discussion as this vital consultation wasn't conducted. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Who said this proposal was being voted on? Don't worry about it eh? Just go with consensus at individual AfD's on school articles. That's what happens now and that fact completely escapes a lot of people. The idea was to help cut the number of unnecessary AfD's but probably better to just keep wasting everyones time, because there will always be editors who will never allow this proposal to be accepted.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because work on the guideline has ceased does not imply consensus. I would sooner mark it as "failed" and keep debating at AfD than try to stamp it with "approved" which is a sure invitation for more drama. As it stands, I agree with Nick that it doesn't really need to exist (though not of its initial motivations). There's already a listing at the common deletion outcomes and there is no groundswell of support for such a guideline. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept - it plainly has achieved consensus though, as with any guideline, you will always get a minority of dissenting voices. TerriersFan (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a quick heads-up on the process. There is (regrettably, maybe) no well-described process on Wikipedia for promoting a proposal to a guideline. However, once it has been marked as a guideline, it will be announced as such on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), by a bot, within a day. And if the fellows there have not heard of it before, then what usually happens is that the guideline tag gets removed again, rather immediately. So leaving a message there before marking the proposal as accepted, in order to invite comments from uninvolved editors, seems to be a good strategy. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for that advice. This guideline has been unilaterally adopted at least twice now, only for this to be reverted both times due to a lack of external notifications. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Accept - I am generally willing to accept the current proposal as a guideline in its current form. However, only if all relevant WikiProjects, WP:CENT, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) are informed so a full review of consensus can take place. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The current state of consensus appears to be against this guideline, hence per the above conditions I am effectively opposing, and I am personally happy to see further work take place on it as although I accept it, this is not my proffered version. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The guideline as presented is the exact opposite of what the community is actually routinely doing at AfD, where all high school articles with even the slightest claim to encyclopedicity are being uniformly and consistently accepted. This is a community-driven project, and you can not tell the community what do to by trying to adopt a policy page that does not reflect the actual consensus. The guideline to what is considered suitable at Wikipedia is, what is kept in Wikipedia by uniform consensus DGG (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you provide references to typical individual AfDs? Where is the evidence of actual consensus? My recollection is that lots of school articles have been closed as merge and redirect, which is not what I’d call “accepted”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
those are articles on elementary schools and intermediate schools; the consensus on these is that unless they are blue ribbon school or equivalent notavbility in some way, they are indeed merged and redirected--and a good thing, too, in my opinion. For secondary schools, its been a good while since any were even nominated for deletion, so I'm still looking. Almost nobody nominates them except newcomers, because they are now never deleted. DGG (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles on high schools are still frequently nominated, though I agree that the frequency is declining sharply. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DGG for the answer. I agree that merging and redirecting is preferable to deletion for any real school, that every school deserves at least a redirect, and that little good comes out of nominating schools at AfD. I think that the question for this guideline should be whether a School should have a standalone article, or should be limited to a section/entry in some wider article (distict, town, education department, whatever), which I believe will always exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The rationale for making the primary/secondary distinction includes the following factors: The general amount of information usually available--local news sources usually pay much more attention to secondary schools, the usual relative size, the relative importance in the community, the likelihood of significant sports and academic awards--these exist in greater number for secondary schools, especially at a regional & national level, the greater likelihood of identifying notable alumni--articles here & other sources are much more likely to give the secondary school, & active alumni associations are much more likely to exist for them. there is also some likelihood of a better article being written, but this is not invariably the case. I have seen some remarkably skilled efforts at primary schools, even where there is nothing to say but a description of the layout and the curriculum. DGG (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Adam McCormick. TerriersFan does not understand consensus, which means that everyone can live with it; if there are dissenters, it's not consensus. I personally am not happy with this guideline; my edits have been reverted, and I (like others) have gotten tired of editing. Not acceptance. Truthanado (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)