Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Implementing above RfC

I'd love to see this material put into the project page asap, but the long discussion makes it seem complicated. I'll probably do the following in a couple of hours if nobody beats me to it or has better ideas.

  1. Revert to Renata's version at [1]
  2. Remove the words"school, team, religion"
  3. minor add under churches "Religious organizations, congregations and churches must meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG or both. The fact that a church building is listed on a major historic register such as the National Heritage List for England or the National Register of Historic Places does not necessarily mean that the religious organization that owns or meets in the building is notable. It is quite possible for a building to be notable independently from the institution." per this diff added after Renata's version.
  4. There must be something else with all that discussion - would folks please add to this list? Or just put in the new text themselves?

@DGG, Renata, TonyBallioni, and Slim Virgin: or anybody else. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I am on WP for five minutes at a time, so I really can't do much... thank you for taking the lead. P.S. I did not get the ping. Renata (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I supported the re-write, I still find it troubling that this debate on a controversial topic was closed by a non-admin with only about 18 months of substantive editing experience. This closing might well find itself undergoing a review. Renata, you might do better in the long run by reverting the closure and requesting that it be closed by an uninvolved administrator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The close was fine. It is now the guideline. Godric has experience closing RfCs and generally does a good job. I support Smallbones’ suggestion. I’m busy now but will review later to see if there are other minor tweaks to make. We have the general consensus via the RfC, we don’t need a new RfC for every minor modification that comes out of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. As I noted at the start of my post here, I do support the re-write and I find myself in the unusual situation of questioning the closing. But I do foresee problems with (what I view as) Godric's out-of-scope declaration that the re-write shall not apply to various types of organisations. Consider, for example, sports teams, which were unaddressed in Renata's re-write. Although some participants did address the topic, those side discussions didn't result in anything approaching a "strong consensus" to remove that topic from the scope of the re-write. And yet, apparently on the basis of Godric's out-of-scope declaration, we see SmallBones prepared to remove that list of organisations from the entire SNG (i.e., not just the portion of the SNG that was the subject of this RfC). I think this is going to create a lot of unnecessary debate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but did you fail to read the !votes that specifically supported the exemptions?! And, some who were willing to have this compromise to enact the broader aspects of the change.And, surely you can try your luck at AN.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 06:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Renata3: - now I know how to ping you. @TonyBallioni: went ahead and implemented per the above. I took out another set of "school, team, religion" and added the post-start-of-the-RfC edit by Blueboar. I think that we're in the position now that we can start the usual "policy tweaking" that goes on in these places. I know this isn't a policy, but that only underlines that we can make a few tweaks here without full-blown RfCs. In fact, right now I'd say - just post here what you think is wrong with the implementation of the RfC, wait an hour or so, then boldly make a change. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Per the above question on changing the scope: I think we would have tweaked it anyway even if Godric did not include it in the close. Like Smallbones mentioned, "policy tweaking" after major RfCs is pretty normal, and based on the above discussion/what are normal practice is anyway for these type of organizations, I think the removals were fine. The principle is that there is consensus to adapt the new guideline as proposed, with minor tweaks to scope, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how for-profit schools/universities are to be handled. Many of the comments which mentioned pulling schools out of this guideline excepted for-profit schools. Will the final guideline reflect this? Jbh Talk 18:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd put them under "companies". TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that. Would it be possible to work in wording to that effect in this 'policy tweaking phase'. I am concerned that if it is not made explicit it will be lost and we will have issues down the road. Jbh Talk 20:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
[2] should cover it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
That wording is not clear enough and implys all schools Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I swapped the words around a bit for, I hope, more clarity. Jbh Talk 21:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was a typo. Thanks for fixing. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The closure was made subject to the caveat that sports teams are explicitly excluded from the purview of this guideline. Per the closing notice, that caveat needs to be included in the revised language. Cbl62 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • We removed them from the list of examples. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • "Teams" doesn't appear at all now. "Sports" only occurs in a link-in-a-box to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and that says that teams are not covered there, they are covered here. Around and round it goes. I'll suggest off the top of my head that we do cover the off-field aspects (finances, franchise sales, etc) of the team, and, as long as the on-field aspects (games won and lost, etc.) are notable then the organization also be notable. That might need some work though. Most team articles are really about on-field stuff. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the explicit assurances during the RfD, and the explicit caveat in the closing statement, we need something similarly explicit in the guideline noting that teams are not governed by the new guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we also modify the wording in the WP:NCORP#Schools section that says All universities, colleges and schools ... must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both.? Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    I forgot to note here on talk — per the above discussion about for-profit schools I made this edit to bring the section into line with the lead which had been modified earlier. Jbh Talk 01:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Per comments above, I have more clearly clarified the scope here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As was mentioned earlier, there is considerable doubt about whether school should be included in this guideline at all, especially since the last RfC said there was no consensus to change the current practice that we keep all verifiable secondary schools. Of course, it will still be possible to argue00as has been successfully argued in thousands of afds--that the guideline for notability is irrelevant, because we treat them as if they were notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • DGG, I have made it clear in the scope that non-profit educational institutions are excluded. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni we just need to be careful mthat a clear distinction is made between private schools that are companies and are creating articles for spam, and private schools, such as Eton, etc, which are highly notable. Most genuine UK private schools, for example, are registered charities under UK non-profit law. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, yes. I think this is an English variations issue. Eton would not be considered for profit, even if private, in North American English, which is what I’m assuming Jbhunley and myself both speak. In the States, for-profit school has a very strong negative connotation. I’m not sure if there is a more neutral way to say it between English variants. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I think 'for proit' is seen just as negartively in the UK. One school that comes to mind in the Abbey College, Malvern in my home town. The article also has a troubled editing history. Most bona fida private schools, which this is although for profit, in the UK are nevertheless subject to the government OFSTED. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Correct. I had thought of setting off for-profit as 'for-profit' to distinguish but did not. Maybe that would help?? As I understand the term, and as I believe is typical in the US, a for-profit school is one where profit it the primary reason for its existence — schools such as Trump University, Univ of Phoenix etc. These, in the US, were set up to capture monies via various Federal student loan/student aid programs and provided sub-par, at best, education. I would also consider many of the 'colleges' we see from India and environs (the type of institutions which the Wifi-one matter, if I remember correctly, centered around) These schools tend to be businesses first and educational institutions second. I am not sure how these could be distinguished using an internationalized term. Jbh Talk 04:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That particular RfC should be made null and void. It was contentious and amibiguous, and like all the disscussions about notability for schools, it did nothing to change the current practice. All it did was produce some babble about OUTCOMES which merely documents the accepted practices for several kinds of articles. Note also WP:ATD-R. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Tony, but the "Schools " section remains. Im not going to get too concerned over the for-profit ones, because most of them do get enough press to show notability in the usual way. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure this was in the last guideline, David. You and I have the same view on this. I agree with Kudpung above re: the last RfC on schools. The outcome was no consensus. Everything else was commentary. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Overall, I think it would be best to leave all schools out of the guideline as Godric did when he closed the discussion as public and private is not a clear distinction in many countries such as Academy schools in the U.K.. Also, I don't think there is enough of a consensus to leave out for profit schools as many editors may have thought they were voting for a guideline where all schools were left out. Scam schools can be dealt with by AFD as WP:PROMO Atlantic306 (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No: for-profit schools generally aren't actually schools, and we never treat them the same as non-profit private schools in discussions. The editors who commented on this are smart enough to know the distinctions (knowing most of them by name). For-profit schools are companies, and are covered by this guideline. Even in the schools RfC last year, people were making the distinction. What you are referencing are private schools, which are not the same as for-profit. Just because someone has to pay for something does not make it a for-profit institution. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note of thanks to everyone who has participated in the RFC, the multiple related discussions over the years, and especially to those who did the hard work of drafting the text that has now received support. This was a lot of work over a long time, and it is really special to see that knowledgeable, dedicated Wikipedians are willing to keep working to find that elusive level of consensus that allows the project to continue its development. Risker (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on how this relates to the GNG

There is currently a discussion on how this guideline relates to the GNG at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Can_a_subject_specific_guideline_invalidate_the_General_Notability_Guideline?. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

How to apply the criteria - confusing wording

The start of the How to apply the criteria section currently reads:

The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

  1. significant coverage in
  2. independent,
  3. multiple,
  4. reliable,
  5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be a multiple of such qualifying sources.

A list of five numbered items followed by syaing a source must meet "all four" criteria is confusing. One way to fix this would be to replace one of the numbers with a bullet, possibly:

*Significant coverage in:

  1. Multiple
  2. Indedependent
  3. reliable,
  4. secondary sources.

However that doesn't fit with the wording of the sentence starting "i.e." so another alternative would be to replace "four criteria" with "five criteria" (and swap the order of "Multiple" and "Independent" for better grammar), but I don't think that "multiple" actually a criterion as no source can meet it - it means we need multiple examples of sources that meet the other criteria.

So my third suggestion is:

The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

Multiple sources that are:
  1. Independent
  2. reliable,
  3. secondary sources with
  4. Significant coverage

I think I prefer the last option, but I want additional input before making such a significant change. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is confusing, but that's why there is a full explanation after i.e. I find your suggestions actually reducing clarity. Renata (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you suggest an alternative then, and/or be more specific about the problems you see with my suggestions? I'm a very experienced Wikipedian who has been working with notability criteria for over a decade yet it took me three or four readings to understand what the words on the page were actually saying. This page absolutely must be immediately clear for the novice user - particularly the introduction - so the status quo is not fit for purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There are definitely five criteria here, so retaining the existing text but changing the word "four" to either "five" or "these" will do it for us : Noyster (talk), 17:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I like "these". Renata (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Syndicated stories

I just opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Syndicated_stories and have made a bold edit to WP:INDY to explicitly address syndicated stories in discussions of notability and weight. Please have a look. If we get consensus there it might make sense to mention it here briefly, but one thing at a time :) Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding court filings

In comment to this diff that I undid, court filings are reliable for the fact that legal action was taken, as a court record is a reliable source for that fact. It is not meant to be read that the court filing's text (assertions of legal faults) should be taken as truth as if the filing was a factual source. If these were to be included in an article, they would have to be predicated on "so-and-so asserted that...". It is a subtle difference which I did try to explain in more detail. --Masem (t) 16:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Schools in, forever

Greetings, all. From a recent AfD process which I initiated, I learned that articles about schools rarely, if ever, get deleted, irrespective of their notability. In other words, the very fact that a school exists renders legitimate a Wikipedia article about it. If that is the case, why not amend the relevant rules (WP:NSCHOOL, etc) accordingly? Rules are meant to be both clear and applicable. -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The "schools are generally kept" argument WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was overturned quite some time ago by RfC. There remains a dedicated group of editors that continue to bomb school AfD's with comments to the same tune however. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 07:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The Gnome, wrong, and wrong. The very fact that a school exists does not render legitimate a Wikipedia article about it, there are however some very clear exceptions that are documented and evidenced by literally 1,000s of AfD closures. Elementary and middle schools are generally redirected, while high schools articles that at least have some content beyond A1 & A3 are generally kept. Redirects are uncontentious , they can be done by anyone and they do not need to go through AfD. The cited RfC did not overturn anything anything at all. In fact the voting as well as the closing statement were as vague as they were ambiguous. Some editors however delight in bombing the AfD process with time wasting cases, sometimes in entire batches, which invariably close as 'keep' or 'redirect'. Redirect is more than just a guideline, as an alternative to outright deletion it is a policy. Policy is five aces over guidelines. Please thoroughly read the thread above this one where it is discussed in depth. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung. I'm already aware of the discussion above, as well as the relevant rules. I'm also aware of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Yet, I believe there must be something beyond those rules and RfCs: The consensus in AfDs I come across, and again in the one I initiated, seems to be "articles about schools are generally kept." This would be fine as a descriptive statement (i.e. schools articles are kept since their AfDs do not present a strong enough case for deletion) but it is offered in the discussions as a normative statement, (i.e. schools articles are to be kept). If the school verifiably exists, the article is kept, period. So, the road map we're supposed to follow still seems "vague" and "ambiguous", to borrow your words. -The Gnome (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Though I have continued to see a small number of people repeat the claim that "secondary schools should be kept if they verifiably exist because secondary schools are kept if they verifiably exist", the idea that the RfC was vague/ambiguous or otherwise should not be seen as the consensus articulated in its closing statement is something I have only seen from 2-3 highly active, influential administrators who have long argued in favor of keeping articles of verifiable schools. I have seen those claims repeated, in probably dozens of venues, ever since that RfC closed, to the effect of undermining it without actually formally challenging it. It should be said that I don't think they're doing so in bad faith, and I happen to like those admins, but I do think it's inappropriate to be telling people it was vague and thus shouldn't do what the closing statement explicitly says that it does, following a well publicized, well attended RfC that has not been challenged yet, as far as I know). I'm not going to comment at that AfD given the context, but no admin should be closing it as keep based on "keep because we keep" or "keep because it's probably notable because it's a secondary school". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT need to be clarified on whether high schools are inherently notable and whether existence in a government listing or a passing mention in a newspaper is sufficient to keep it around. Most of the time they can redirect to the related school district, town subsection related to education, or a list of schools in area, but they can also be permastub since there is no other information besides the school's website and the directory-like listing. Also keep in mind these include private schools and branch schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mm, for my part, "overturning" SCHOOLOUTCOMES was one of the most pointless RfCs in the history of Wikipedia; WP:OUTCOMES is not and never has been guideline or policy, and simply explains how editors have consistently voted, and how closing admins have upheld those votes. There will always be a large faction supporting the premise that secondary schools are automatically notable, the GNG be damned, and as long as there are closing admins who support headcount over policy, they will continue, as they have for the last dozen years or so, to get their way. Theory and rules are all very well, but OUTCOMES reflect the facts on the ground, and as long as editors vote the way they vote and admins close the way they close, we can say "wrong, and wrong" until we turn blue in the face, but secondary schools will be routinely kept at AfD all the same. Ravenswing 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • The problem with SCHOOLOUTCOMES was that it was used as a policy and keep-argument on its own. But without any serious policy to back it up. The Banner talk 08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It takes 5 minutes (1 minute if an editor doesn't bother to do WP:BEFORE thoroughly. But may take hours, days, even weeks to locate good sources for an article. It's especially difficult when it comes to schools that are outside English speaking countries or lack online sources. Deleting high schools and colleges that are proven to exist (WP:V) is one of the most clear examples of Systemic Bias on Wikipedia. I find it upsetting how zealous some people are about deleting verified schools and essentially trying to bully others into doing work for them.
Phor_Tay_High_School was a school that was nominated for deletion a few times, and I and others put time in to locate sources to show it was notable. Luckily these sources were online and in English, Unfortunately we can't do this for every school so rapidly, as we have neither the time or the ability of polyglots or the money to travel around the world to search through paper records. Schools are institutions of communities. Let's put a moratorium on nominating them for AFD or sneakily deleting them through less transparent channels. There must be better uses of this communities time then debating over schools that are proven to exist. Egaoblai (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Salient points are made in Ravenswing's and Egaoblai's observations. Just to allay any fears of experienced admins excercising systemic bias in their closures, Rhododendrites, I'll make this disclaimer: I approach these AfDs as objectively as possible, but based on the premise that what we have been doing for years expresses a long-standing tacit consensus, I vote in that perception; I never close school AfDs myself for the very reason that I would consider myself 'involved' through my work as 10-year coord of WP:WPSCH. Like many, including DGG who is probably one of our best informed editors on notability of educational institutions, I'm not married to the established procedure - I would simply like to see a very clear consensus (and adopted as a guideline) and I would strictly hold myself to one; although a retired educator, I therefore nevertheless do not have a 'personal' claim for inherent notability for schools.
The problem is that this issue of school notability is perennial and has been debated many times over the years without any clear outcome. Ineed, IMO it needs debating again but we should wait for the last one to blow over. Many RfC fail due to being poorly presented - not everyone has neutral RfC presentation in their skill set; such RfC, AFAICS (I'll stand being corrected), are generally proposed by the anti-school users who hope for a consensus in their 'delete' opinion. Pro-school 'keep' editors probably do not see the need for launching RfCs for fear of poking the bear. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC).
We're not ready for a decisive AfC yet (not that we can ever have a truly decisive RfC--everything at WP is inherently subject to future changes). AfCs only work effectively when there is experience for trying to reach a consensus, and are only fully accepted when the consensus is already forming. An RfC with a 51% vote will not settle this or any other issue. The way to work this out is for further experience at AfD. Once we see what the actual view is there, we can try to formulate it more generally. It is often forgotten here that consensus implies compromise--it's not a vote between two positions, but agreement on a principle that (almost) everyone can accept.
Myself, I think most notability issues are subject to compromise--there is rarely a fundamental principle by which there can be a clean cutoff between what is and what is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. The real world is not bimodal. Most things are not suitable or unsuitable, but of various degrees of suitability, covering the spectrum from the absolutely essentially to the utterly impossible. We've tried to define such meanings, but they usually cannot be defined except by taking an arbitrary point, or at most by arbitrarily choosing one among several natural points. Any attempt to make it seem more rational ends up relying on words of unclear meaning, and shifting the uncertainty to them.
We can have a viable encyclopedia including articles for every school on earth; we can have one by including none besides the truly famous or notorious. Personally, I continue to think that in the absence of any useful division point among similar schools that we do best by dividing by level of school, as is the existing practice. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, Kudpung, DGG is the other experienced admin I was, of course, referring to. So calling in the other person who most vocally advocates for effectively ignoring that RfC does not do much to allay my concerns. I do not think either of you are acting in bad faith, and I appreciate that you do not make official administrative actions in this arena. I bring up the fact that you are both "experienced administrators" not because I think you've misused your tools in any way, but because being experienced administrators means you have influence and people take your stated opinions as authoritative.
The problem I have is not with any of what's written above, necessarily, but what's omitted from both of your comments here and elsewhere: that we have an RfC that was well attended, closed with a clearly articulated closing statement. As you've both said, consensus can change. Hence that most recent RfC showing current consensus, irrespective of compromises and practices of yesteryear. If you do not think it was valid, you need to challenge that closure or form another RfC to show that consensus has changed. Maybe it wasn't how you would have closed that discussion, but it's not appropriate to simply proclaim it not to be binding and act as though it didn't happen.
generally proposed by the anti-school users who hope for a consensus in their 'delete' opinion. Pro-school 'keep' editors probably do not see the need for launching RfCs for fear of poking the bear -- this describes every scenario for which there is a stronger consensus in favor of one position, with a minority group continues to declare consensus in favor of their own position for which there is not consensus. RfC is a tool we have to resolve such differences in interpretation of policy/guideline/process. And it works a lot of the time. It just requires people -- especially the influential editors who actively discuss and advocate for this stuff -- to actually abide by community process. Paying lip service to process and practice and compromise and consensus, just to ignore the actual processes we do have in favor of your own personal interpretation is what concerns me. (edit conflict) (as an aside, it is not reassuring to see rhetoric like "anti-school users", characterizing the position you disagree with as though anybody is "anti-school" or trying to delete school articles simply because they are schools. the position is that schools should not be given a free pass for notability simply because they are schools) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
As I see it, the closing was the opposite of clear, for it said both (1) that there was no consensus that just saying we always kept high schools was enough reason to always keep high schools, and (2) that there was no consensus that we should not always keep high schools. I saw, and continued to see, this as no change in prior practice. Had there been a consensus there that we should only keep high schools if they conformed to the GNG, I would have gone back to my 2008 line of argument that there in fact always were such sources for both high schools and elementary schools. But I am not sure how strongly I would have worked on that argument in every case, as I did in 2008, for I now have many competing interests for things that matter much more in WP.
WP works, in fact, only because it has such an ambiguous and contradictory collection of policies and guidelines that anything can be justified if you make the right argument. Had we actually established fixed rules and kept to them, we would have split or failed. On balance, I think we would have failed, because the earlier tolerance of gross promotionalism would have made us worthless as an encyclopedia , and no more than a minor auxiliary to Google.
The importance of WP is not that we have made a useful encyclopedia; our importance is that we have shown that a project of very large scope and great practical usefulness can be effectively produced by the non-hierarchical work of very loosely organized volunteers; that the 20th century accepted models of social, economic, and political control of intellectual production are not only unnecessary, but inferior. This is only possible with indeterminate and even undefinable rules, for fixed rules cannot be enforced except by an hierarchy. True, we pretend to have mini-hierarchies, but we succeed by ignoring them. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anybody would disagree with the rough principles behind the latter two paragraphs. It's the first paragraph I'd like to respond to. The four experienced users who closed that RfC added a summary/nutshell to remove any ambiguity that might have been in the initial wording. That nutshell states, explicitly, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," and further rejects the use of schooloutcomes at AfD. It qualifies those two only with, basically, WP:BEFORE, and a behavioral (rather than content) note about not flooding AfD with nominations. I do not understand where the claims of ambiguity come in, unless you are arguing that the closers did not understand their own thoughts sufficiently well to summarize the closing statement accordingly (i.e. in response to possible ambiguity, the consensus is summarized in unequivocal terms). To look for contradictions/ambiguity in the original wording despite all that just seems like wikilawyering.
We have tools like RfCs to minimize the extent to which a minority of editors can push interpretations of policies and guidelines that conflict with broader consensus simply by being more vocal in smaller venues like an individual AfD. Sometimes there's no consensus that can come from it. Other times there is. This is one of them. At this point in time, that RfC is what we have for consensus on the matter. All of those minority groups claim policy/guidelines are on their side, which is why we need collective support of these mechanisms, so that 200 people only need to come together to decide on a principle rather than 200 people attend every single AfD.
On that note, however, I should disengage. I saw this thread because I came to this page to unwatchlist it (along with a bunch of others I might get sucked into) in order to head towards a partial wikibreak of sorts (how depressing that I know I have to qualify it as such to be realistic). Nothing will happen unless lots of other users jump in anyway. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
As I stated, the WP needs to first decide on inherent notability for schools as that will override GNG. If they are inherently notable then yes, the sources that prove existence is good enough to not bother us over at AFC / New Pages Feed or AFD. But if GNG and ORGCRIT applies, then they should be scrutinized as such. WP:BEFORE for inherently notable is different from that required for GNG. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The RfC closed as no consensus to the actual question asked. This has been confirmed on-wiki by the closers. The rest of it was trying to spin a nice narrative to a messy RfC, and the closers failed remarkably at that. It was the commentary of the closers as to what they thought no consensus meant. In doing that, they created a statement of policy/guidelines that would never have gained consensus if it was put to an RfC. It is actually the perfect example of how RfCs should not be closed and I personally keep it in mind anytime I am closing controversial discussions as a model for what I should not be doing as a closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Allow me two small, yet IMHO important, personal remarks on DGG's comments:
(1) DGG's description about how Wikipedia works fits the genesis and initial-explosion periods of the project. Numbers (i.e. everything from articles and sources to participants) have, perforce, changed the way Wikipedia works. The sheer number of rules and guidelines alone, not to mention the various processes of audit, administration, and oversight, are conclusive proof that Wikipedia has evolved into a loosely but still quite evolved in terms of self-organization creative process. If this had not happened (and, importantly, it happened from the ground up; it was not "hierarchically" imposed from the top), Wikipedia would have dissolved like so many boards of free input where small minorities can wield some very strong forces to destroy. Hierarchies do, in fact, exist in Wikipedia, having "naturally" evolved into this wonderfully working mode.
(2) Our world is anything but binary or "bimodal," I agree. But there's no getting around the fact that rules and regulations are inherently unjust at the margin. In so many words, no matter where exactly we place a threshold of some kind (an income limit for tax purposes, a word count for a plot, an arithmetic rule about notability, etc) we're bound to create injustices around the threshold. Should this stop us from creating any and all rules as a society of encyclopaedia contributors? I believe not. I believe that Wikipedia editors' input in discussions about enforcement of rules is equivalent to the legal process in government; it's where we mitigate or prevent injustice. But we cannot simply set forth ignoring the rules, or even not having rules at all, when the subject is "sensitive" or "controversial" or because of a general belief that without robust rules Wikipedia works best. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


(edit conflict)Rhododendrites, editors like DGG and myself never set out to become, or be 'influential'. This is the perception of those who see us as heavily concerned and and actively engaged users. Perhaps because we are retired academics, we have more time to edit the encyclopedia and comment in its back office issues. On that note, we are certainly not alone to claim that that RfC was flawed. I've rarely seen such a contradictory discussion and closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't know about you, but I definitely intended to have an influence on WP from the first. But what I intended to have an influence on was in improving the reliability of the articles by using my skills as a librarian. I did soon develop a commitment to increasing coverage of one particular subject areas, but it was in the coverage of academics, not schools. That remains my subject priority. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Question On the basis of all the above, which shows that there is disagreement about the true meaning of extant rules, shouldn't a formal question be put forth? Do we consider schools notable on the basis (a) of criteria for organizations, as currently stated, (b) of special criteria for schools (that shall take shape at a later date), or (c) of the fact that they are schools? -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the current guidance is essentially: “No, we don’t ALWAYS keep schools... but, we do USUALLY keep schools (because they USUALLY pass GNG). What perhaps is needed is clearer guidance on where the dividing line is. A statement explaining the kinds of sources that are needed - with some examples. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The RFC was messy and a messy close. As far as I'm concerned every degree granting post secendary institution needs an article. Every high school either needs an article or should be mentioned in a school district or community article. Schools are very important to proper community functions. The ability to use Wikipedia to verify XYZ College is not a fake school when evaluating a resume is an example of the usefulness of these articles. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
We definitely should not be used to validate that XYZ College or suchsome exists; WP is not reliable by default. People using WP for this purpose are terribly mistaken. That said, I do fully agree that every public school (not privately run) should reasonably be included at minimum within the article about the geographic entity (town, city, etc.) that runs the school or school district, if the school is clearly not notable on its own, and there's no reason to not have redirects for those that aren't notable; schools are an essential part of the government entity that oversees them. --Masem (t) 17:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
For my views on the separation between non-profit and for-profit institutions, see below the edit break. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Legacypac - "should be mentioned in a school district or community article" - what are you wanting from this (I wasn't sure whether you meant news, or local governmental statement etc). I'm not in disagreement with it, but as a side-note we'd also need to amend WP:NONPROFIT, which specifically notes schools should be "[supported by news sources] outside the organization's local area." Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
School districts are inhabited places. Naturally school districts should list the schools they run. In some cases the town's page would be a more appropriate place to cover the two elementary and one middle school. What education is available is pretty important info for a town article. Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Articles about any kind of community, from the smallest village to the grandest megacity, should include a section about education in it. Who could possibly object to that? But stand-alone articles about schools is the animal we discuss here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit break No. 1

The Gnome and others: I generally view non-for-profit schools as "infrastructure of public interest". I.e. inhabited localities, airlines with scheduled service, name geo features, airports etc. are routinely kept at AfD, while sub-divisions, charter airlines, for-profit educational institutions get deleted. I wonder if adopting something akin to WP:GEOLAND for schools would be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have never understood why we are making a distinction between publicly run and privately run schools. Their relative importance will depend upon the country, but the most influential schools in the UK have long been private, and the private Catholic and Jewish school systems has been important in many US communities. Perhaps the distinction intended is non-profit, but, again, in the 21st century US, profit making colleges have been a critically important (albeit controversial) part of higher education. I think the situation in some other countries may be similar or even more complicated, but I have less specific knowledge.
I agree we should be making an effort to include educational institutions within appropriate geographic/political articles, though in some cases the large number of them will require a split. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
We need to make some type of distinguishing between private not-for-profit , and private for-profit schools. We don't want to open the doors for commercial ventures to see WP as free advertizing because we don't have certain restrictions in place because they are "schools". (This is not to say commercial schools can't be notable, they just shouldn't have automatic inclusion). --Masem (t) 21:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
My original comment was about "non-for-profit", whether private or public. As Masem said, we should be mindful of potential promotionalism. Still, it's not really a concern in the high school articles that I've seen, for example. The remedy (i.e. deletion) is a judgement call and the only blatantly promotional articles I've seen were on for-profit institutions that attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional goals. Again, that's generally not a concern for non-for-profit schools. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Masem, we have religious schools that are private, non-profit institutions, up the patootie. :-) I believe allowing that set of schools more prominence than private, for-profit institutions, would be a highly questionable policy in every sense, wikipedian, encyclopaedic, and educational. We tend to focus on the western world, but can we really ignore state sponsored, non-profit institutions such as the madaris? -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Why should we make a distinction between public and private schools in deciding inclusion in Wikipedia? As it happens, I'm a firm believer in the benefits of state sponsored education at all levels (with numerous caveats, for it to be properly done, of course) but, from an encyclopaedic point of view, a school is a school, otherwise we would be making a personal quality judgement. The issue of profit is a crucial one here, but it can obscure the more important issue of quality of education, i.e. a non-profit institution could be teaching creationism, while a for-profit one would offer high educational value. Examples abound. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this particular point, I'm in line with K.e.coffman - there isn't really a great need to make a distinction, so long as its noted that blatant promotionalism will still be liable for deletion. Coming up with separate guidelines or considerations for private schools seems unnecessarily dramatic. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Promotional material can be and is removed from all articles. After we remove all such material from an article about a school, the question posed here, in this discussion, would remain. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
K.e.coffman makes a distinction between public and private institutions of education that appears to me quite tenuous, since it stems from the criterion for "infrastructure of public interest." Yet, as also DGG pointed out, such distinctions, in our day and age (and for better or worse), make little sense! The case of UK education was presented - though, of course, our world is full of differentiation. Same goes for the distinction between "for profit" and "non-profit" educational institutions: it's a non starter, since (a) both run the gamut from fine to atrocious education, and (b) state-provided education is being actively primed to operate profitably in an increasing number of countries. (I already stated I'm a firm believer in free, state-sponsored education. This does not prevent me from watching out for bias in Wikipedia.) At the end of the day, we either go for notability (as already & generally stated, or reshaped specifically for schools) or for a blanket acceptance of all schools. No getting around it. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Gnome: that would seem a reasonable summary of the three options we have in the notability dispute, though all schools 'proved to exist', is probably more accurate, but same concept. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Only schools "proved to exist"?! What, no article about Hogwarts? :-) The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Well I've always felt that WP was too constraining - if we're going to Break All Rules, All should mean ALL! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It also depends on what the private school or institution offers. Is it a standard high school diploma / certificate or equivalent? What about cram schools, tutoring and study institutes? And MOOCs and adult / continuing education / extension classes which offer "certificates"? The WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2 addresses "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools" so I am assuming these aren't counting non-academic institutions for courses like CPR Training, safety courses, or schools for licensing, which would have to meet WP:ORGCRIT instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Example: School of Rock (company) is not an academic school, so it would suit WP:ORGCRIT instead of WP:NSCHOOL AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
As soon as one tries to place definitions and categories one runs into trouble. That is the reason attempts at having clear rules degenerate into incoherence. We very much want to make an exception for schools as far as Notability goes - but we're just not sure how to go about it!
Perhaps the "blanket" option is preferable. It'd be a simple all-in rule, i.e. all institutions of teaching are inherently notable. Everything from karate schools to flirting classes would be in, perforce; all schools whether private or public, for profit or non profit. Trying to have criteria beyond notability (such as quality of education, etc) introduces a far stronger element of subjectivity to the process than notability (which, of course, carries its own weight of subjectivity.) I'd be just fine with an all-inclusive rule myself (and the necessary exception from WP:NOT). I prefer clear rules; the collaborative project of Wikipedia amends them as times change. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
A tad over the top. Nay, very over the top - it seems like a just-viable idea know, but as, no doubt we all see, subject to abuse. What we are considering as "standard schools" should be a fairly easy category (making no quality judgements) to identify. This "standard" might vary quite a lot, with queries on the edges, but shouldn't be too difficult. A general educational institution - in lots of countries it should be clear since any school is registered with the State. Creating various "one-size fits all" rules for determining "Yes/No-actual school" appears unwise. I think we'd be better off coming up several indicators that if the "school" in question appeared to match, would get it in (e.g. At least officially, attendance at the school is compulsory). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Where do I find one of these flirting schools? ;) Nosebagbear (talk)
They're not easy to come by. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
What would be a robust definition of a "standard school," one that could be used across cultures and countries for Wikipedia? Something like "state approved" or "state licenced"? -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the broad "all institutions of learning" scope. It should be limited to the easily recognized "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools", so Educational institution and not ones that are primarily Vocational education or Professional development. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
That one seems fitting. For "accredited," do we use "Higher education accreditation"? -The Gnome (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm with AngusWOOF - seems a reasonable separation. @The Gnome: - it's a good article for tertiary education, if only Pre-tertiary-education accreditation was of an equivalent quality (even being non-USA focused would be helpful)! Then it would act as a good basis for at least a reasonable level of the issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe fuzzy words such as "most" are an invitation for trouble, AngusWOOF|. Immediately below, I have a suggestion based on your input. Let's not be afraid of (properly) legislating what has become customary~ -The Gnome (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break No. 2

In view of the above comments and input, how about, "All independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are considered as inherently notable"? What do you think, AngusWOOF, Nosebagbear, Kudpung, Rhododendrites, Ravenswing, Egaoblai, DGG, TonyBallioni, Blueboar, Legacypac, K.e.coffman, Masem, et al? -The Gnome (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - That sounds reasonable - obviously it would have to be noted that this would merely be step a of assessing school notability - there will be institutions/high schools that aren't accredited, but still notable. In no way surprising/odd/massive change etc, just wanted to clarify. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I support that, but I absolutely oppose relitigating the schools RfC, which has never been accepted by the community and is probably one of the most contentious areas re: notability right now. Nothing good will come of it, and so unless there is a strong consensus for it, I do not support adding it at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I would not be supporting anything being "inherently" notable. Notability isn't just the question of "what's important" -- it's "what should we have an article about" and thus a way to make sure we have sources on which to base an article. A school can be accredited all day long, but if nobody can find sources beyond primary sources, we will be keeping based on this principle and wind up with an extension of the school's website (being, often, the only source available) and/or a place for students/teachers/staff to write their own narratives. SNGs should serve to save us time to discuss the same things over and over, to establish what we know are indicators of there being sufficient sources to show notability/write an article. They shouldn't be to say what is "inherently" notable. Besides, I've not seen it be the case that there is always enough coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to write an article about accredited secondary schools (unless we also have a low bar of local coverage for schools in a way we would never accept for any other organization). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Also noting my objection to the idea that meeting the GNG is required when an SNG is met or isn't met. SNGs define their own relationship to the notability guideline. This SNG explains what the sourcing requirements mean for a class of articles, so that the horribly ambiguous GNG actually means something when it comes to corps. Others, like PROF, do establish inherent notability insofar as Wikipedia has it (an endowed chair at a research university is notable under that guideline. Full stop.) I think we should have this rule for schools, but I'm willing to admit the community is divided on the question. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The GNG is not the only part of WP:N. The nutshell of WP:N makes clear that it requires "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time ... we consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." WP:WHYN -- which characterizes the spirit of the guideline -- makes clear that we require significant coverage, we cannot have articles based only on primary sources, sources must be independent, we need multiple sources from different people, etc. I don't understand this idea that the GNG-SNG distinction means it's ok to throw all of WP:N out the window except for that GNG-SNG distinction if an SNG does not yield sources that comply with WP:N. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The guideline also makes it clear that passage of an SNG is sufficient if the article also passes NOT. What you are arguing is that WP:V must also be met, which I agree with. Regardless, this debate won't be solved here, but I did want to note that the GNG-must-be-met and SNG only approximates it idea aren't supported by WP:N itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
          • ?? You brought up the GNG -- twice now -- when I did not mention it. That's a straw man. There is a common argument that people make in these discussions, pointing to the line of WP:N that says "GNG or SNG" as though that negates all of WP:N (and not just the GNG). The requirement for significant coverage, reliable sources, independent sources, and multiple sources is built into WP:N outside of the GNG, and thus it's inappropriate to simply decide that because of the GNG-SNG distinction, those requirements don't need to apply. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Because I disagree quite strongly with your reading of N, and I don’t want people to get the idea that “SNGs just approximate sourcing” is without controversy, so I call it out whenever it is brought up . TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not thrilled with "inherently notable". WP does not use inherent notability. I agree this class is generally presumed to be notable, but that's something that can be challenged in exceptional cases. --Masem (t) 16:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone would have an objection to a school in this category being "challenged in exceptional circumstances" (e.g. there were schools being accredited despite having nothing there), but it would be a case of prove why it is not notable rather than is.Nosebagbear (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, then you would say, 'presumed notable' - not recommending that be voted on because the current system seems ok, and such a vote would likely be just drama. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I think noting that it is inherently notable (unless some aspect of the independent, accredited etc fails) is necessary. Otherwise what is really forming is a souped up version of the essay used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with the statement as written above. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolute oppose, per Rhododendrites. SNGs are here to tell us things that are likely to be notable, never to define something as notable. There is no "inherently notable". If we don't have the references, there is nothing from which to write an article to begin with, or we wind up with a crappy permastub that's just a few factoids because that's the only thing we can reliably find out. At the end of the day, the sources have to exist. SNGs are useful at telling us when they are likely to, but they cannot define something as notable if they do not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
What we are doing, though, Seraphimblade, in actual, practical, real terms in Wikipedia is accepting inherent notability for schools. No school whatsoever gets deleted through the AfD process. The next step is to abandon AfDs altogether for schools, a step that would be extremely hypocritical. We'd have agreed on a rule, and then we'd turn around and violate it all the way through. So, like I said, all those opposing my suggestion, kindly please recommend an alternative. The current state of high hypocrisy is untenable. -The Gnome (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The Gnome, AfD is where we settle whether something is notable or not. The next step would be to discount any argument based on "It's a...", and consider only arguments based upon whether sufficient independent and reliable reference material exists or not. If discussion at the AfD reveals that there is sufficient material, the article should be retained, else other alternatives (merger, redirection, or at last resort outright deletion) should be undertaken instead. But AfD is the exact right place for a disagreement about notability to be hashed out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
There must be something wrong with my English. There's no other explanation. I keep saying the same thing but it's as if I'm not saying anything.
AfDs are where school articles get the nod to stay up, is what I'm saying. And saying again and then again. Whether there are discussions and arguments about a school's notability, the article is not affected. Why you think I started this thread? Would I initiate this discussion if things were going according to what you say, i.e. according to the rules about notability? Why would I?
It seems that a lot/most Wikipedia editors are perfectly happy to keep the rules as they are, about the need to establish notability, and then to violate them, when it comes to schools. AfDs about school articles end up keeping the articles. And this is but one example of said practice, the one that brought me here, at the end of my rope. Thanks for listening. -The Gnome (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Whenever someone says that "we don't do inherently notable" or that we don't define things as notable from SNGs, I think of WP:NPLACE; we do consider any village be it have a population of 1 to be inherently notable. (and for the reason we're a gazetteer) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral Oppose: While the battle was lost on this over a decade ago, I've never believed that high schools were "inherently" notable, and firmly believe they must meet the GNG all the same. Obviously they'll keep being kept at AfD, because the claque's been voting that way for years, but if my opinion's solicited, I can't go on record supporting any such black-letter policy. Ravenswing 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on practical grounds, but perhaps should be couched as "experience has shown..." or "the community currently lacks consensus to delete such articles...". I say on practical grounds because trying to get high schools deleted is the same fool's errand as trying to remove articles on obscure heavy metal bands -- it's very hard to do and generally does not work :-). Instead I'd like to plug these two deletion sorting pages, where discussion get routinely relisted for lack of participation:
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
How right you are! Amazing how many heavy metal fans are around! Almost as many as the GLAM community as I discovered when I nominated a couple of articles about curators and librarians! Dom from Paris (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
A descriptive text is not a rule; it's merely a report on what's happening. We need a prescriptive text. It's not enough to state the "community does this or that;" the wording must point out what we should be doing. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I guess this is a matter of your perspective, but I've always viewed schools as being comparable with places, and we certainly have inherent notability for many types of places. We don't single out towns and ask "well it certainly exists, but how is this town notable?". I think when we understand that schools are not mere companies or organisations, but are highly influential focal points of society, then it's clear they should be seen as notable by themselves. It's correct that maybe the New York Times hasn't done an interview with most schools, or Werzog has not made a documentary on them, but that doesn't make them non-notable. There's far too much focus on defining notability as something the media said was notable here. It's a necessary counter weight to make public institutions that have huge huge effects on people's lives a notable topic. And the fact is that most school will have notability, it just takes a little while longer to find it, this goes double for non-anglosphere schools, which has meant that one of the outcomes of Schools at AFD is creeping systemic bias against non anglosphere schools.Egaoblai (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in concept, although I dislike the word "inherently". According to our Five pillars, "Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." In the 20th century, single volume general almanacs have often included entries on hundreds or thousands of colleges and universities. This encyclopedia, unbound by the cost and bulk of paper and ink, and with 5.6 million articles on a very wide range of topics, ought to have space for verifiable, policy compliant articles about any and all accredited, degree awarding schools, just as we do for state and provincial legislators and Olympic athletes. I do not like the term "permastub" because I and countless other editors expand stubs all the time, and a visit to a local library and a local newspaper archive would allow any high school stub to be expanded significantly. The notion that stub status is permanent seems contrary to our ethos of continuous improvement. There is also a practical aspect to this. The converse of the presumption that accredited, degree awarding high schools, colleges and universities are notable, is the presumption that elementary and middle schools are not notable, in the absence of strong evidence of historical or architectural significance. Such an agreement, or "grand bargain", smooths and speeds the evaluation and processing of articles about educational institutions, and greatly reduces editor time wasted in fruitless and divisive deletion debates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose w/ hyperbole If there is an evil on Wikipedia it is the concept of inherent notability. It removes editorial judgment and makes mockery of WP:V. I know there is 'eventualism' and WP:NEXIST which editors point to to say articles do not have to be perfect and the sources are not required to be in the article. Those things are true but what is also true is that by saying something is inherently notably that opens up writing an article based only on SPS or PRIMARY or any other kind of crappy source without having any objective source material. The end result is not an encyclopedia article. Often it can be a rework of a /About page or blog.
    If a school is notable then eventually there will be independent third party sources upon which to base an NPOV article. Until that time any article which is written can not comply with WP:V or WP:NPOV deserving only of wiki-anathema. Jbh Talk 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Well said. And I agree with you about the perils of weakening WP:N, Jbhunley. But this is what is happening right now, as we speak! We grandly and loudly support the criterion of WP:N, everywhere, also for schools, but, in practice, we are shown up as cheats and hypocrites. No school gets deleted through the AfD process!
The objective is not some mass deletion of school-related articles from Wikipedia! The objective is to have a clear rule, which we then enforce. It's a clear, moral imperative. Plus, it carries the practical benefits outlined by others, such as Cullen328. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While I disagree with the concept of inherent notability, the repeated AfDs for schools burn time at AfC like it is going out of fashion. It is correct that through dogged persistence that school keepers have managed to 'win' at AfD, due in large part to closers ignoring the strength of arguments and not ignoring SCHOOLOUTCOMES !votes. Codify it so we can stop the repeated arguments as they are not going to stop otherwise. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The concept of "inherent notability" based on subject matter is a an AfD fallacy. It's a form of "inherited notability" which we have long agreed is not how notability works. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support While I also generally disagree with the concept of 'inherent' notability, the fallacy is that school articles are considered by a handful of people to be such a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia that they must be deleted, while they gladly accept the million or so biographies on every ball player who just once played half a match as a reserve in one major league game with only only mention on the clubs line up list. That is assuming inherent notability, but what more have such people done for society than the schools and colleges that educate us? School AfDs are a deletionist's hobby horse and a waste of good editng time of those who have to keep them in check and keep the articles. All that said, all we want is consistency, and what better way to achieve it than retaining and adopting what we have always done? Schools are not toxic articles, but we do nevertheless delete plenty of school articles that are truly not encyclopedia-worthy or blatant spam. Per Cullen328, "...such an agreement, or "grand bargain", smooths and speeds the evaluation and processing of articles about educational institutions, and greatly reduces editor time wasted in fruitless and divisive deletion debate". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think some people are getting hung up on the phrase "inherently notable". In practice, many things on Wikipedia are inherently notable. as Kudpung mentions, any person who appeared professionally for a sports team is inherently notable. As are towns, cities, countries, elected politicians, professional wrestlers who appeared on tv, Actors who appeared in hollywood movies, etc. This proposal merely asserts that High school and tertiary education institutions be allowed to join that list. We perhaps can reword it to "assumed to be notable" if that is more acceptable. Egaoblai (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I oppose “assuming” notability. While accreditation does significantly increase the likelihood that sources exist to support notability (and thus we should hesitate to nominate a poorly sourced article on an accredited school for deletion)... there are always rare exceptions. And ultimately notability needs to be established through sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The idea of presumed notability for schools could be either phrased like: sports notability WP:NSPORT in which "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." The other option is to phrase it like what WP:ENT is for WP:BIO, that is, it's Additional criteria to establish notability, not a substitute for notability as with the sporting one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as the RFC was a forced consensus that has repeatedly been rejected at AFD where many of those who voted for rejecting an established consensus don't bother to participate and experience the massive timesinks and the majority of editors who do participate obviously reject the RFC. The upshot of the proposal here would be to remove a huge timesink from AFD and remove a systemic bias to foreign schools in countries with little internet coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just to be clear, this is going to need to be an RfC and more broadly advertised to implement a change that's been discussed and even rejected in the past. Consensus can change, indeed, but an informal straw poll != huge RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Accredited by whom, just any NGO who claims the authority? All NGOs are in the same standing in their authority on this? Also, are we developing consensus on whether to launch another RfC on this topic or trying to override the RfC with local consensus? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
There exists a Wikipedia article about educational accreditation, with links taking us further, onto particular subjects such as higher education accreditation in the United States.
As to the purpose of this discussion, no, it's not meant to "override" anything; it's simply an attempt to restart the conversation, since what we're doing now is having a rule in place and then explicitly violating it: No school article whatsoever gets deleted through the AfD process. If this discussion leads to some kind of consensus, we might take it farther upwards. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I had already read Higher education accreditation which was linked at the top. It is still not clear what is considered accreditation for every country in the world, which is particularly salient here as it has been alleged that the current policy is biased against smaller and less developed countries. Also as phrased above it is not clear which accreditation is to be used, anywhere. It does not say per any article or WP page - doesn't say much of anything except link to an article that is not comprehensive or authoritative. Is it true that absolutely no school article gets deleted through AfD? —DIYeditor (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussing your query, I've seen primary schools deleted, but "standard curriculum" (for lack of a better term - neither vocational or specialist) secondary/tertiary schools are usually keep, occasionally NC. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Within the context of the proposed guideline, I do not seethe point in including "accreditation" on the proposal. It doesn't have anything to do with importance, or with any concept of what people might want to look for in WP, let alone with the usual interpretation of "notability". I think the idea behind it was to find some way of separating the ones that are too insignificant to cover, but it's not a good criterion. Among rational criteria are secondary vs primary & intermediate, and evidence of actually having students -- and these are the ones we have been using. We have made some additional qualifications over the years: we do not routinely include tutoring institutes and the like, we do not usually include home-study arrangements. Both can be notable , but they can not be assumed to be worth including.
More broadly, I continue to think this is not necessarily the right approach. The concept of notability is not fundamental policu in WP--it isn't even policy. It's a guideline about what should be included as individual articles, applicable in those cases where we want to use it. We shouldn't twist the concept of notability where it does not really apply, and we have precedent for this, most significantly populated places. The real problem is the concept of separate articles. Focusiing on this was in my opinion a mistake from the very beginning. We should be focussing on content, and how we separate the content into articles is a matter of arrangement. By now, we are to some extent locked into the concept of separate article=importance, because of Google etc., which give ranking only to this, and pretty much ignore sections. This gives a great pressure for any organization or person who needs some publicity to get an article, and thus it distorts our discussions, and it contributes to the rise of paid editing. This then carries over into al ltopics, even if publicity is not involved. Encyclopedias can and have been constructed on every possible arrangement--from those dependent on very many small distinct articles , to those with a relatively few very broad articles. For example, Brittanica and similar normally did one article for each city, and included essentially everything in that city as sections of the article. The difficulty in doing this here is that such an approach necessitates extensive centralized editorial control to ensure uniformity and accessibility of the information; it is not easy to figure out how to arrange everything in say, London, and I can not see how we could possibly do this with our editorial methods--But it would free us from Google, or at least force google to take a less restrictive approach.
I've argued in probably a few tens of thousands of AfDs, & most of the time I could have argued in either direction. The only truly rational argument related to notability that I've ever put forward is the virtue of consistency, of doing things in a way that a reader could learn to expect, and a contributor could know what it would be acceptable to write. But that's not part of our rules--we decide each case as if there were no other articles in WP.
As it applies here, I could support keeping all verifiable high schools, I could support keeping only the truly famous ones; I cannot support keeping those that happen to meet the artificial requirement of our notability criteria--it's not a defensible line, but a preliminary step to having as many arguements as possible. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Accredited is there because of Accreditation mill and Diploma mill organizations that try to pass themselves off as schools, colleges, or approval organizations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
DGG, I respect every contributor's opinion, but, as it happens, I pay attention to yours a bit more, not only because of your long experience in AfDs but your background as a librarian as well. So, your conclusion ("I could support keeping all verifiable high schools, I could support keeping only the truly famous ones") baffles me. We should have a rule, or a guideline of you prefer, that's clearer than the pit of muddy verbiage with which we currently have to work. The situation as it stands is unacceptable: We do not enforce the rule violate the guideline about notability. Leaving things as they are would amplify a situation whereby editors would be discouraged from applying guidelines. Could you suggest something more clear and robust? -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to note again that many of these supposedly notable schools that are being put up for AFD are not even listed on their primary language Wikipedias, not even as redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Other WPs are not the standard. Other WPedias have other standards and other problems than we do. Each major WP has its own peculiarities: Almost all accept somewhat less in the way of detailed sourcing. Very few have our extent of detailed rules. Almost all argue more on the basis of common sense, even in AfDs. All of them have a more homogenous group of contributors than ours, though some do include contributors from more than one culture. Very few have such a substantial number of non-native language contributors, including many beginners with the language. In some countries, even those with a beginning knowledge of English would rather work here than in their own languages.
In particular, most of them have many fewer contributors below the college age, who are the people like;ly to work on these topics. Almost all of them, besides a few European countries, have a much less dense coverage of local topics except for large cities and straight geographic stubs. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fair. I wouldn't want to discredit a small language Wikipedia that doesn't have a big user base. Just that some language WPedias are fairly detailed as the English one on their regional topics, and if they aren't including the schools as individual pages, then it makes it more difficult to cross-reference to see if it is potentially notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I have always argued for this on the grounds of (a) common sense, (b) longstanding and mostly clear support within the Wikipedia community, and (c) the elimination of systemic bias whereby schools in Britain, the US and other major English-speaking countries that put everything online will generally be kept with little demur, but schools elsewhere often get challenged. Having said that, the RfC wasn't worth the paper it was written on and merely led to even more confusion, claim, counter-claim and completely unnecessary unpleasantness and personal attacks, so I'm dubious about the success of any other attempt to codify what has long been the practice of all but a few dedicated opponents of school articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, but merge if stub Now that I've been digging through a bunch of the school article AFDs. I would support it as sports notability (WP:NSPORT), that given they are verifiable then they are likely that sufficient sources exist. This would apply to academic high schools that have some sort of accredited degree whether it be towards grade 10 or grade 12 equivalent, junior colleges, and most colleges that offer an academic degree. The ones that offer mostly professional/vocational or organizations that offer classes in whatever (YMCA, extracurricular programs, sunday schools, tutoring and cram schools, community clubs) or anything are subject to WP:ORGCRIT. However, if all that can be written and sourced about the school is a single sentence from the government agency saying that it exists, as seen with recent AFDs, then it should be Merge to general school, school district, list of schools or education section. Satellite college campuses, junior highs/middle schools, elementary are merged into the general system. The most recent example of this would be Brokenshire College which is an actual college with degrees, but has two satellite campuses, and each campus including the main one has a K12 school. At this point all the schools can be covered by the one article. Redirects can be generally kept as useful potential upstarts for articles as news articles start bringing significant coverage. This way, useful articles can be created for the schools rather than a bunch of dictionary definitions which are best served by lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll add that WP:WITHIN also summarizes my thoughts on why merge if stub. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose On what policy is the current proposal based? In fact, this is just a variation on the theme of the circular reasoning whereby institutes are kept, not based on policy but due to the fact that similar institutes were kept in the past. The articles should be judged on their merits (and independently sourced), not judged on their legal status. Bypassing the normal rules for notability is not helping the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Plenty of things bypass the normal rules for notability (NSPORTS is probably the biggest culprit). It discusses amending (small p) policy to match what editors are actually doing (and consensus in this form is usually premised on what editors have been doing - a change in notability rarely has users changing to something they don't already do). I don't think most AfD participants are Keeping schools because other schools have been kept but because they are treated as needing a low level of supporting evidence to be notable (sort of like inhabited locations).
Previous unsigned comment by
The proposal, The Banner, is made on the basis of the specific WP:NRV policy: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. So says policy. It appears, however, especially following the intentionally vague outcome of this nowhere discussion, that we casually and happily violate the policy when it comes to schools. There are numerous editors who strongly believe that no school article should ever be deleted! The (few) exceptions only confirm the rule, i.e. the practice. And all I'm suggesting is, let's make a policy out of the practice. Let's change the rules and admit inherent notability for schools. Much preferable to chaotic AfDs and time wasting. (Some folks even suggested we stop putting up school articles for AfD.) -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
So what you want to do is reward the people who refuse to adhere to the notability guidelines, by giving them the most silly non-encyclopedic guideline you can imagine? Do you really want to relegate the guidelines and policies to toilet paper? Only because a small group of loud people disagree with the present guidelines? man, this must be an April Fools type of joke. The Banner talk 16:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
We have to choose between (A) No change in the policy, and (b) Change in the policy as per my recommendation. "A" means we will continue to violate policy. End of story. Why and how can I say this? Only because this is what the record shows it's been happening. I'm far from a supporter of having every school in Wikipedia as long as it exists. But the practice of the overwhelming majority of the community (and not just "a few" editors) is to KEEP ALL SCHOOLS IN. The few exceptions only confirm the practice. So, my humble "B" does not "reward" anything or anyone. It simply reflects consensus through practice. I disagree with that consensus, as it happens, but I cannot do much about it. On the other hand, we have to have rules and policies that are clear and that we follow. Rules must reflect consensus. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the proposal is to adopt this statement as a policy or guideline, surely it needs to be put to an RfC and widely advertised? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are ALL schools notable? No. Are an overwhelming majority of schools notable? Yes. Is “school X” notable? Probably... but not necessarily or automatically. So... a) if you are writing an article on a school... make sure that you DEMONSTRATE its notability. Mention what makes it stand out and cite sources... b) if you are thinking of nominating a school article for deletion... go slowly... only nominate it if you have seriously searched for sources, and have found that there are none. Blueboar (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Even when you find sources, it will not always prove notability. A church newsletter stating that "School X" is now enrolling for the next year is not proving notability. A facebook-page or a government listing is also no proof of notability. Too often a passing mention is seen as proof of notability. The Banner talk 12:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In other words, if it exists, it stays. Well, alright, but that is not policy. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The ground rules regarding schools need to be laid out. Things that make schools notable are according to me:(1)Age of the school (Historical), (2)Past world well known pupils,(3) School is in memory of an well-known event or person,(4) Exceptional (nationally recognized) performances in sport, academic field or culture. This should go with large media or book reference coverage. Important things to remember:(1)Primary schools are not notable,(2)The schools position in its country of existence should be taken into account.(3) Abnormal or contentious issues that made the news may make it notable. Barry Ne (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - realised that despite having the first comment I failed to give a bold !vote, so have added that. Barry Ne - if you are an Oppose, then that set of ground rules makes sense (I partially disagree with a couple of them, but that's a separate discussion). But it just seems that so many editors already set either a very low notability bar or inherent notability for schools that meet certain requirements, so further ground rules are unneeded. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose inherent notability. No ground rules need to be laid out. They just need to be enforced. Schools must meet the GNG, if they don't, they are out. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Inc. 5000 notability

Is a company inherently notable if it is listed in the Inc. 5000, and if not, what about Inc. 500? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is notable simply because it is on a list, and there is no such thing as inherent notability. Notability is determined by significant coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the topic. A list entry is not significant coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
What Cullen said. I will add that there is a much higher percentage of companies on the 500 than the 5000 which are notable and a higher still percentage on the Inc 100. The fact that they are on one of these lists would not, however, be such a sign of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Also agree with the above. Inclusion in the Inc. 5000 would make me suspect that there could be some significant coverage. Inclusion in the 500 would make me reasonably confident that I could find some. But in neither case is it a substitute. CThomas3 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with above. I've looked at the Fortune 500 at times, and a good number of top level entries are simply investment firms that do a lot of behind-the-scenes funding but rarely get called out in other types of sources. A spotlight may be put on a company by ekking into the top 10 or so, but that's the coverage we want resulting from that observation. --Masem (t) 02:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

AUD (WP:CORP#Audience)

Part of this guideline is being discussed at WT:N#Local sources, again. Page watchers here might be interested. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So many shortcuts! AUD = Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Audience. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
A lot of good points have been made there about how this is an artificial distinction based on near-impossible to determine criteria. I think an RfC should be raised here to remove it. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Law enforcement agencies

There seems to be an inconsistency in notability as it pertains to law enforcement agency notability, specifically police departments. I think it's fair to say that some agencies like NYPD fill a cultural role as well as that of a police agency, but where does notability end? Is there a cutoff by population, by role with other state and federal authorities?

There are about 17,000 police departments in the US alone, less than the 36,000 high schools which seem to have easily drawn notability. In trying to write a start to an article about my own city's police dept, I have been encouraged by WP:NPP to expound on a national team policing program it took part in back in the 70s, as opposed to other sources that describe its current activities in national programs covered in local newspapers like the Hartford Courant, Springfield Republican, Boston Globe. I imagine there are many police departments that could find sources meeting WP:GNG, but are we holding them to different standards of notability?

I think we can establish the police dept of a metropolitan statistical area city meets criteria for inclusion, but for smaller cities by what standard are we measuring? For example, the town of Arlington, Massachusetts is relatively of similar size to the city Holyoke, Massachusetts, however unlike the former, the latter has had multiple riots and problems in managing crime that have made national news like AP and UPI. It also has received a number of federal police grants and task forces to attempt to reduce crime and works with the US Marshals and State Police along with only 6 other cities in Massachusetts. Are we going strictly based on population size for notability? If I want to write articles on the riots and social disturbances of a smaller city, what criteria makes that notable for independent sources? And for source quality, even if we know an article like Carmel Police Dept or Police departments at the University of California may not pass WP:NPP today, what is the criteria for sources of PD articles kept? Even those like Boston PD, with presumed metropolitan notability, cite mostly sources that are not independent (City of Boston press releases) or from outside their locality (Boston Globe). I would like to think that not all police departments fit WP:MILL simply because they are not in municipalities categorized by groups like the World Cities Network, so what is a solid law enforcement notability definition? GNG could cover many of those 17,000 depts, and I think there's something to be said about a work like Wikipedia which readily includes articles on things like the 8th season of Big Bang Theory, but has not created well-defined criteria for notability of police departments, whose actions often influence the socioeconomic outcomes of communities.--Simtropolitan (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Most police departments should be notable as per WP:GNG, I can't see that there are any serious promotional issues in this case that need WP:CORPDEPTH, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As long as the articles are not too promotional ("X-town PD is the best police department ever!"), I feel that these articles would stand a low chance of being nominated for AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It has to be said that many smaller departments have been nominated at AfD and many have been deleted. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's true nonetheless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There's always an option to redirect / merge to the article on the city or town, as an alternative to deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a clear reason why government agencies should be in a separate category to corporate ones. And yes, even if a police department is potentially non-notable there is always the option of merge/redirect to the town/city in which it is based and this should be the default option, rather than deleting it. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Schools' inherent notability

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The question is withdrawn, per WP:RFCEND #1. It has become obvious, and relatively quite clear, that no consensus can be reached either way. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

After a long and broad discussion about schools' notability criteria in this talk page, a formal Request for Comments is hereby initiated. Participants are asked about the criteria to be used in deciding if a school merits a Wikipedia article. (Please note that the criteria would be equally applied for schools in every region and country.) Interested editors are invited to consult the afore-mentioned discussion and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The options are as follows:

  1. Schools are inherently notable when they exist, their existence verified on the basis of reliable and not primary sources.
  2. Schools follow the standard rules for notability of article subjects, on the same basis.

Comment by the nominator

  • The RfC aims to remove the vagueness of the current state of affairs. Notability of schools is not assessed uniformly and with constant criteria across countries or even within the same country. Some articles remain while others do not, without significant differences in their notability. The disparity of editors' viewpoint on criteria is wide (see discussion). The community should decide which is the preferable way forward. If either option is chosen we shall have a clear guideline. A few editors welcome fog in Wikipedia's rules (again, see discussion) and this RfC is an opportunity to address tangentially that issue as well, i.e. a no-consensus outcome would essentially retain the vagueness. If, on the other hand, there are editors who believe the situation is already quite clear, all they have to do is denote that situation in their suggestion. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC) (nominator)

Suggestions

Threaded discussion

This RfC is poorly formed and unclear. Considering the controversy around WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, this RfC should be clear and be framed in a manner best suited to begetting a consensus. Options should be something like:

  1. Independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are presumed to be notable when they exist, their existence verified on the basis of reliable and not primary sources.
  2. All schools have to meet WP:GNG

Because first of all, people are not arguing that all schools are notable; it is pretty broadly agreed that primary schools aren't. What they are arguing is that high schools and such are notable. And second of all, while WP:GNG is the most broadly applicable notability rule, not all subjects follow it; WP:GEOLAND is widely accepted too, and considering many proponents of inherent notability for certain types of schools argue that they are more like geographical places, the RfC shouldn't frame the issue as schools being the one subject given a special exemption. I suggest withdrawing the RfC, and discussing here how best to start an RfC (if one should be started), and starting the RfC on WP:VPPOL than here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Greetings, Galobtter. Exceptions to Wikipedia's rules should be specific and written. That is why we have specific guidelines such as WP:GEOLAND and we do not simply use WP:GNG. This is also why hiding behind "Ignore all rules" is illegitimate since that is about articles and does not breaking a rule all the time. The RfC is fine. We ask that editors decide between having or not having clear notability criteria for schools. We either continue with the current practice (of not testing every school and every country's schools the same way) or we put in place a clear guideline, in a manner that, for instance, the (failed) essay "WP:SCH" tried to do. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • P.S. I cannot see anywhere in Wikipedia policy that all high schools are inherently notable as long as they exist. Which is one of the reasons I started the discussion above a few months ago and why I intitiated this RfC here. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a bit concerned that this RFC does not reference the previous RFC on SCHOOLOUTCOMES directly. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Greetings, Izno. The WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES link contains a number of links itself, one of which takes us to the relevant RfC. We could have a bunch of other, direct links, but I chose to give one where the end result is provided along with links to other guidelines and the discussion. In any case here 'tis! -
  • I am a bit concerned that the opening statement is not neutral and brief. Remember that everything down to the first timestamp is copied to the RfC listings, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Greetings, Redrose64. This is a highly complex and, dare I say, controversial issue in Wikipedia, as evidenced by the long and numerous discussions on it. So, yes, I acknowledge that the opening statement is not as brief as other, more routine RfCs. But do you mind pointing out where exactly the opening statemenet is not neutral? Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    Look at the RfC listing entry that I linked. It includes the subsection headed "Comment by the nominator" (altered to boldface by Legobot); this heading implies that you are going to establish your position on the matter, even if you do not actually do so. But the lack of brevity is still a concern. Remember that Legobot copies everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next valid timestamp (inclusive). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    The nominator has the right to participate in an RfC they initiate. I chose not to participate with a specific suggestion but only with a comment that provides background to the RfC. If my comment had been placed within the "Discussion" subsection I'm sure there would have been no neutrality dispute. On my initiative, I placed it up front, making clear that I'm the nominator. That's all there is to it, though I may come to regret it. (And the boldface was mine, of course, not a bot's.) -The Gnome (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noting that no good will come of this RfC just like no good came of the last one. It's a controversial issue where if properly advertised, the result will be no consensus just like the last one (yes, that was the result to the actual question asked once you strip away the narrative that the community was never asked to comment on.) Fight it out in AfDs and eventually we might come to a consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Greetings, TonyBallioni. The reason I took the iniative for the discussion above and then this RfC is precisely because after "fighting it out in AfDs" we do not seem to arrive at a consensus! Some schools are kept while others aren't, without significant differences in their notability attributes. The only aim of this RfC is to have clarity. (Note that there's explicit opposition to clarity by some editors.) The current practice is a mish mash of arbitrariness and randomness. What is wrong with having a clear guideline about schools' notability instead of vague notions (e.g. "[don't] flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations")? -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    That’s because of the last RfC where the closers decided to write a story as to what they thought no consensus meant rather than just stating the obvious fact that there is no consensus on this issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that the options offered are valid. For example, nobody has argued that all "schools are inherently notable". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment : Since most responses so far suggest changing the wording itself of the RfC, I'd propose we allow the conversation to carry on by suggesting what the proper wording of such an RfC would be. If binary solutions are not welcome, go ahead and suggest multiple yet distinct options. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    I endorse the question options by Galobtter:
    1. Independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are presumed to be notable when they exist, their existence verified on the basis of reliable and not primary sources.
    2. All schools have to meet WP:GNG
    That would make for a much more productive RfC. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    We should probably wait for more input, since this is a intensely contested issue. But the alternative looks kosher, IMVHO. -The Gnome (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Don't put universities in the same box as mere high schools. The first question needs to be split to ask about degree granting institutions separately from high schools. Public School #7651 is absolutely nowhere near the same level of notability as Oxford, Harvard, or the Sorbonne. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Splitting the first question up could make the potential RfC more complicated, but not by much. Nevertheless, the question reflect the current consensus at school AfDs. So I'm neutral on splitting. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    Roger (Dodger67), the problem is that institutions such as Oxford, Harvard, or the Sorbonne are comfortably notable through meeting WP:GNG. Schools such as "PS #7651" do not meet even WP:GNG yet their articles regularly (though not always) survive AfD proposals. I'm once again seeking rule clarity and nothing more. -The Gnome (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    The Gnome that's exactly my point, trying to formulate a single rule that covers both Oxford and "Somevillage Anywherestan High School" is simply absurd. My reply to the first option as it stands now is "Yes for degree granting institutions, but No for high schools". "Rule clarity" comes from firstly asking the right questions in the right way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    The question asked is, what are we going to do about school notability? Discussion after discussion and RfC after RfC lead nowhere because some editors prefer fuzziness over clarity. I'd have no objection and cannot imagine anyone who would have about defining the questions to be answered in more detail. So, let's define them. That's the invitation. -The Gnome (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    For notability English Wilkipedia offers guidelines, not rules. These guidelines allow for occasional exceptions and for people to adopt their own common sense. Thincat (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    Guideline clarity would be equally welcome. Guidelines are meant to be followed and not to be casually discarded; and since they cannot cover everything we are supposed indeed to follow common sense or consensus. But here we have AfDs going every which way without any semblance of common sense! -The Gnome (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
    As I understand it, guidelines are descriptive (rules), not prescriptive. If we want more consistency in our closure of deletion discussions, it should be accomplished by improving the quality of AfD nominations. Asking (and answering) a consistently identical set of questions at AfD would be a first step toward that goal. Vexations (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Guidelines expand on policies: Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. In the explanatory supplement on misconceptions in Wikipedia, the following is stated: Misconception #4: Policies are prescriptive, and other pages are descriptive. The primary difference between being prescriptive and descriptive is whether the page is telling people what to do, or whether it is describing what people already do. The major content policies, in particular, arose out of the community's actual practices, and thus are correctly considered descriptive pages, even when they describe the community's long-established and widely supported practices in unflinching terms. Here's the kicker: Any page may use—and many should use—clear, firm, and direct language when describing a firmly established practice. Clear, firm, and direct language is truly what I'm after. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
P.S. : Note that in this list of the most important guidelines, the notability guideline for organizations (which applies also to schools) is included. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments : (1) I believe only the first numbered paragraph (or something like it) should be included (and not the second). Since the purpose of the proposed guideline is to avoid time-wasting debate about whether a particular school meets WP:GNG (which is, itself, just a presumption), I do not believe that the second part of the guideline is desirable. (2) Agree with person above who suggested separate guideline for universities and high schools, at least initially. Not because i necessarily think they should be treated differently, but because it would be easier to reach consensus on universities. (3) The main purpose of notability is to keep wikipedia encyclopaedic. In my opinion, if every high school in the world ended up with its own article, even if only a permastub, that wouldn't be inconsistent with the purpose/nature of wikipedia. High schools are often important institutions in their communities, and if there are verifiable secondary sources discussing them, no reason not to include them here. Federalist51 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up commentary

  • I also endorse the options suggested by Galobtter, for a narrow future RfC that's better structured. We really do need to settle this. However, it's a "wikipolitical" matter that's actually of a broader overall scope (e.g., frequently raised about SNG topical exceptionalism in bios): Does/should GNG trump everything, or is it too blunt an instrument to use except as a default? That is, should subject-specific notability guidelines be able (with general community consensus) to make exceptions to it? If so, how is that reconciled with WP:CONLEVEL (summary: small groups of topically focused editors cannot make up exceptions to site-wide rules that enjoy a larger, broader consensus)? I suspect that GNG itself will have to be modified to specify that SNG exceptions can exist to it (and perhaps under what conditions, and/or providing an exclusive, exhaustive list based on RfC results), to get around the CONLEVEL problem. This is a discussion that should surely be done at WP:VPPOL and with WP:CENT notice, not buried on an SNG's talk page which no one reads but people interested in that narrow subject and policy discussions about that subject. — AReaderOutThataway t/c 22:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    This question has been one running for years; vaguely, the last time it came up wiki-wide, there was not a consensus. Someone would have to do some hunting on the matter. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    there was no consensus because it covers too many different situations. My own position is clear that I would deprecate the GNG altogether, but I know that's a minority view, so I'm not actively advocating it. Some people claim to judge only by the GNG, and a few of them actually do, but my observation is that most people decide on some blend between our actual rules and common sense (an approach to things I consider eminently appropriate for WP, a website built upon a sense of consensus and IAR.) We need to go area by area: the words we use: substantial, 3rd party, independent, published, reliable, multiple have a different range of meaning in different areas. As for the relationship of the SNG to the GNG, we can make whatever rule we please for as many different types of articles as we want to consider--there is nothing that compels us to make an overgeneral rule, here or elsewhere. We not only make our own rules, but we make them in our own way. We interpret them however we agree to interpret them, and make whatever exceptions have consensus.
there's a misunderstanding that we need to construct a logical coherent structure, and use it asa framework for an encyclopedia . were we doing things that way, we would never have built WP. Constructing something like this, which in so many ways is altogether new in the world and had no previous close analog, is necessarily an exercise in empiricism. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_20&oldid=891023535"