Talk:Thornhill Secondary School

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Education Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.

Untitled[edit]

should we be moving the information into the Infobox_Education_in_Canada infobox? {{Infobox_Education_in_Canada}}

zeChinaman 01:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for self promotion, if you want to put up a list of the Executive, that's fine, but it needs to be clearly marked as such. And "undeniably attractive" is just juvenile. pm_shef 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Executive listing[edit]

Is the listing of the student members of the BOSS Executive relevant to the general reader? I.e., is it encyclopedic? I do not think it should be included: the students are not individually notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. —C.Fred (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. They are not notable, and the continued addition of their names gives the appearance that the editor has a conflict of interest. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, going a different route - per WP:OUTCOMES#Education, students are subject to the same standards for inclusion as WP:BIO. Namely:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published^[1] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,^[2] and independent of the subject.

--Tgeairn (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to argue about here--the names don't belong, a user is edit warring and ignoring guidelines and consensus, and in desperation invoking freedom of speech. Must this trivia go to a noticeboard, or can we delete the non-notables? 76.248.147.199 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and remove the student list. If unsourced, remove the section. As C.Fred noted above, it is trivia. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but don't want to set myself up for a 3rr warning. And until the disruptive party is blocked, or the page is protected, believe that the removal of student names will be reverted in high dudgeon. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Yes, What can we define as noteable? Worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.

Thornhill Secondary School is known for having the largest student council budget. Over 50,000, which is then split up between clubs listen in other sections by STUDENTS, not by teachers. These are the students that do it. They are elected, known by the entire school and are in charge of huge sums of cash which ultimately benefit the school.

They are as noteworthy as anyone on that Alumni list because they are important to Thornhill. Student Council makes the school. These students make the student council. Sorry for that freedom of speech, crap, but seriously, live a little.

--Voldemorto (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE (and in particular WP:BIO) has a different meaning than you think. It's synonymous with neither "important" nor "well known", especially in a local-impact-only niche. There are also the conseneus-based guidelines for these types of items on these types of articles in general (WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI) on wikipedia, and this is explicitly against them, so you have a fairly high bar to reach to make an exception here. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]

I don't see where you're coming from. This is a perfectly legitimate list of people. --Voldemorto (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voldemorto - The impact of the student council does sound important to the school. If it is sourced, then I recommend adding that information to the article. The list of council members is (per Wikipedia:WPSCH/AG#WNTI) not notable though. You are obviously looking to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I encourage you to continue. Let's just stick within the policies though. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in assuming good faith for a new user, per WP:ASG, we're being led along. User has no intention of ceding to either Wiki guidelines nor consensus. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really now? Because I now completely agree with you guys. Delete all my contribution. Delete your warnings and make this article normal again. You win. I understand that I was wrong.

--Voldemorto (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's truly the case I'm happy to be wrong in my above assessment. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note2-1] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[note3-2] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[1]

[2]