Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools

Notability of secondary schools (part 2)

Recently I have asked what the idea was behind declaring all secondary school as notable. The answers were not making me happy. More or less the answers were: it is Jimbos opinion in 2003; too much work to judge notabily of every secondary school; it is a consensus. To my opinion those answers are an admission of weakness.

Jimbo has now a different opinion and thinks that every school should be scrutinized. To prevent to send good willing editors into the woods I hereby present a (draft) proposal.

A secondary school is notable

a) as the school (and its predecessors) are at least 100 years old.

or

b} as the school has been involved in notable events, sport events or incidents.

or

c) as the school has other notable facts (amongst others: a first, special type of schooling, notable building, special history etcetera)

A secondary school is not notable

a) as there are no reliable third party sources

The proposal leaves room for debate about notability, but removes the blanket notability tag. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We had this discussion again a few months ago when wales changed his mind. Wales has no executive powers - the community decides. No consensus was reached to change the current practice, and you are asking to revert a long standing precedent that would involve a huge administrative task to delete literally thousands of school articles and revert thousands of hours of good will editing done by the members of this project and other editors to maintain the school articles, and some who work almost exclusively on schools might leave Wikipedia. Not to mention the load on the servers. Schools are not the only sector to enjoy some exceptions, there are also settlements, airports, geographical features, listed buildings, government departments, etc., to name but a few. It is unlikely to happen per WP:PEREN but you're welcome try. The most likely outcome, if there ever there is one, would be to keep the status quo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If Jimbo has no exective powers, why do people still refer to his 2003 statement as an argument for keeping all? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is fundamentally flawed. 100 years is an entirely arbitrary number - why is a 100 year old school more notable than a 99 year old school or even a 9 year old school? Population grows and more schools open as a result. Then you say a secondary school is not notable because there are no reliable third party sources - so you automatically imply that all UK secondary schools are notable because the performance of every single one is reported by BBC News, Times, Guardian and Telegraph, plus the Financial Times - all of which meet the criteria of reliable third party sources. Bottom line I see nothing here that would convince me to change the status quo. --Bob Re-born (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the only thing I say is that unsourced articles are automatically non-notable. For the period, if you want another arbitrary term, that is okay. 50, 150, 75, is all okay to me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm saying no period of time is acceptable as a measure of notability. A yet-to-be opened school can be notable if it has sources. --Bob Re-born (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see an essay I wrote some years ago. I still stand by it. All secondary schools and tertiary institutions, in my opinion, are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You think that a non-accredited tertiary instituted is notable? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly I'm talking about properly established colleges offering genuine courses, not "colleges" selling dodgy certificates that operate from one room above a fish and chip shop! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, we had some discussion a couple of years ago about proposing an RfC/Cent to get the current practice written into the guidelines - dozens of people told me not to bother, with the reasoning that we don't need a mega debate to confirm something that is already anchored and archived in encyclopedia-building spirit if not in writing, and that I would be wasting mine and everyone else's time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbor View High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windward High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oak Hills High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keira High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collier High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickinson High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keller Junior High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stearns High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castlehead High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airedale High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysart High School - an old list, yes, (by courtesy of User:WhatamIdoing) but check to how many are still red-linked. And there have been hundreds more time-wasting AfDs since. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, in addition to Necro's essay, there is also this one Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, and there are probably a dozen or so others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is sacred on Wikipedia. Building a collection of data about schools has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Like building a collection of album tracks, or soccer players 'notable' for only one game as a reserve player? Or 1-star Dutch restaurants? Of course nothing is sacred Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I signal a lack of arguments... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you do! Although I suspect that's not what you meant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment It appears there's some confusion between being notable and being worthy of a unique article. There's no reason Thistown High School couldn't redirect to Thistown, State#Thistown High School unless or until there's sufficient third-party material available about sufficiently important things about the school. Having a unique article is NOT supposed to be a status symbol or a competition, but that's exactly what some contributors here are supporting. They refuse to work on articles about the school's town, or any other articles related to the town, but scream bloody murder if they can't have even an article about their school, often based on its official site alone and some local coverage of some school sports. Point out there's little content, and we see miscellaneous trivia is added. This is not contributing to an encyclopedia, this is more like tagging by graffiti artists. I understand this is just a game for some students to get "their" school into Wikipedia so they can ridicule the students of nearby schools which don't have an article, but this is an encyclopedia. We want contributors, but contributors to an encyclopedia. If you don't care about the idea of an encyclopedia, then you really aren't contributing. 76.192.43.251 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would be very much against this proposal one its totally flawed age will very rarely make something like a school notable. Nor do i believe a change to a long standing consensus/agreement on this is necessary. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion at Jimbo's page I am not the only one not agreeing with this so called consensus. Maybe within your project there is consensus, but I smell a lack of support for it outside the project. Give that a thought too. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You started that dissuasion as well. They should be kept in one place. On top of that your proposal is very flawed. Bring back a proper merited proposal and then you might get somewhere. Its totally flawed you cannot expect to get change based on that. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' opinion is simply one of many thousands at WP. He is in the distinct minority on this matter. I suppose his deletionist ideas here are based on WP:TOOMUCHTROUBLE, which somehow envisions that if most all standing articles on high schools are eliminated, there will be nothing to vandalize and nobody will try to create new ones in the future. I can't imagine a more disruptive change of horses than this, actually. I'd cite WP:WAYTHEHELLMOREWORK as the counter to his ill-conceived new ideas here. Carrite (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting notability is permanent not temporary. If we had a half decent proposal and it was based on future articles then maybe. But to go through deleting schools we all deemed notable previously would be the wrong course of action. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Right my friends, this is the first time I join this debate but the proposal is elitist- political biased and undermines most of Wikipedia aims. I am first to concede that most of the articles are stubs, and the guidelines promote trivia and encourage articles that will be non-notable, but the solution is a root and branch rewriting of the guidelines to encourage useful articles.

There seem to be some hard working editors here that could do with assistance with the task, rather than being subject to sniping. Writing copy is a far more valid task than complaining.

So look at the points in the proposal which may have been made in good faith, but taken in the context of the UK, looks like a deeply political act.

All schools are not notable unless:

• the school (and its predecessors) are at least 100 years old.

// What you are saying is that Private schools are OK. but state schools are not. It is OK to promote private companies and give them free advertising but not the school attended by the majority of the population. OK to advertise the child care provided for the rich but not for the education of children of parents that need to work. You are making a Disney like, judgment that old and tacky is somehow notable. If you are going to make an arbitary judgement on age why 100 years- why not tie it in with a notable Education Act such as the Forster Act - or just say no school built after 1515 to tie in with the foundation of one school I know.

• the school has been involved in notable events, sport events or incidents.

//The primary function of a school is to teach- to take a child from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge there many other more erudite ways of putting, but none of them involve hosting a series of one off incidents. If all you are interested in is a list of football teams you are on the wrong page- fun but trivia. If you are looking for incidents then the subject gets very dark- are you looking for stabbings, deaths from gunshot wounds- that is sick. A school article needs to describe the community it serves, demographics, the ethos, the education philosophy it adopts curricular excellence, the buildings- yes a bit of history--no, not league tables but certainly some statistics. It can describe out of school activities forms of parental support. We need to give details of methods of funding-- etc

• the school has other notable facts (amongst others: a first, special type of schooling, notable building, special history etcetera)

// We are either back here discussing trivia, or as each school has a special history-- we must include every school.

You then go on to say secondary school is not notable

• because there are no reliable third party sources

// What is this about: The UK has OFSTED whose sole task is to produce reliable information on everything that moves in a school and most things that don't. The LEAs are statutorily obliged to churn out information-- WPeditors task is to filter out what we need.

We must move on WP is now the most important reference work in the world, so we have to accept the responsiblity we have had thrust upon us. Deletion is chickening out, we need to establish clear guide lines and work up each school article to C or better. A simple test- if a child in County Clare wishes to know what the school experience is like for her distant cousin in West Derby, the article on Broughton Hall High School should tell her- that is how we can add value as OFSTED and the LEA will be focused on info for the local resident. More to say- but lets get back to editing, and thinking about more relevant structures and guidelines. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean with What you are saying is that Private schools are OK. but state schools are not.? This is a propasal aimed at secondary schools in Canada, Brazil, India, Germany, USA, England and about another 180 states with seconday schools. It is not focused on England alone. There are lots of state schools in for instance the Netherlands that are older then 100 years.

There are lots of school that do nothing more then what are they are supposed to do: teaching. Is that special? No.

About the events: I think use use an overly negative viewpoint on that. There are also positive events. And it can help when the school was the first to use, for example, the Montessori-system. But also notable former students, like politicians, war heroes, sport stars can help determine notability.

Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly- you admit that you do not understand why it is, that giving entry to old schools is advantagious to private schools (known as public schools in England) or the relevance of the Forster Act that attempted to chip away at the religious closed shop run by the Conservative (political bias) Anglicans (religious bias) but you still want to make a blanket rule that would favour them- schools. You seem not to understand that your blanket rule perpetuates the dominance of the upper class. The point is that others do- and they have no difficulty in saying your proposal is wrong. You noticed all the examples I took were from one region in one country in the UK. This was intenional as this is an area I have a degree of knowledge. I am less familiar with the Middelbare scholen in het Nederlands but I can say the WP Category tree is a mess- more a collection of tags. It looks if there are 26 articles on secondary schools (or less), 13 of which are on selective gymnasia, and others on private colleges. I would love to know as a reader, where a parent in Haarlem sends their child if they don't get 85%+ in the selection test needed for entry into the SG Haarlem. It is quite small 839 students, whereas other Haarlem Schools (ref scholezoeker)have a respectable 1800 but where are the articles. You still want to discuss schools as if they were films (movies)- it is not notable if they were the first or last to into a Montessori technique into the town/ LEA/ region/ country but an interesting bit of trivia. Real schools do education and how they do it: differs from year to year, school to school. It is our encyclopedia job to do education articles on each school, the reader can make the comparisons. You don't understand schools if you think the majority of schools have a choice on how to work. Further schools try very hard to discourage drug-taking, and set high standards of moral behaviour so listing 'sports stars' and celebs doesn't tell you much about the school- it is movie star culture- ideal for an article about a film. The current batch of war criminals/politicians all seem to have done the same course at the same school where entry is determined by how much land their father inherited... hardly a criteria relevant to most schools. But the debate is should all secondary schools be classified as notable- and in the country I am familiar with the answer is a resounding yes. If the question is do the guidelines help us to write good articles dis[playing the unique nature of each school, the answer is to spend more time on putting forward constructive suggestions to what needs to be in tha article core and what can be pruned!--ClemRutter (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Simply, they look elsewhere. Most likely the Municipality of Haarlem has a special website for all schools they are responsible for. No need to look at Wikipedia because the local goverment provides the info. Maybe it is interesting for you to know that a "public school" in the Netherlands is not a private school, but a school open for the public. Private schools are very rare in The Netherlands. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a non-argument if ever I heard one. Why do we have articles on towns, government departments, military units, universities, companies, pretty much anything that exists today? They almost all have websites. What they don't do is provide all the information we do. Many such websites, for instance, have nothing on the history of an institution, which we may well have (not necessarily, but often, and we certainly should have). In fact, I often feel while reading official websites that they're trying to imply that the institution popped into existence fully formed in its present incarnation, particularly if the institution did not have an exactly glowing history from the outset. They're in the business of providing corporate information that seeks to present themselves only in a positive light; we are in the business of providing factual information of interest to people presented warts and all. Corporate websites and Wikipedia in fact exist for completely different purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Please stop insisting the articles must be deleted when they would obviously be simply moved into their town's article. You're playing to the stereotype of all or nothing, my way or the highway Wikipedian arguments. If separate article vs. total deletion are the only two options you can even imagine, I would suggest you find a different hobby. 76.192.43.251 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need a new hobby, because you do not read properly. We are talking about how to determine when a secondary school is notable. Not what to do after that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While I don't like the proposal as written (I also find the 100 year history part to be arbitrary), I do think that default notability is wrong. I don't believe that they deserve the exemption given, especially given that recently in countries like the US there has been a very significant increase in the number of tiny charter schools (sometimes enrolling only a few dozen students, and having operated for only a few years). I don't see any reason why these companies (or organizations, if they're non-profits) should be deemed notable by default. The problem is, GNG isn't a good substitute, because it is often the case that a school may be mentioned dozens of times in numerous articles (such as for having had a newsworthy sports team, teacher, academic program, etc.), but it is far rarer for a school itself to be discussed. I also don't find the IPs argument compelling (that these can all be merged), because in a major metropolitan area, this would mean that we would overwhelm city articles with education information. So, while I do think that we should move away from default notability towards some criteria, I don't think I know yet what those criteria should be. Perhaps GNG-lite: either one detailed discussion of the school itself, or four or more (number is arbitrary, open to debate) passing mentions in RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be a good idea to have a set of criteria on this, but it should also be a set of criteria that is careful to avoid systematic bias according to the locations or classifications of schools. The age of a school seems an obvious no-no to me (not only does it, for example, exclude pretty much all state schools in the UK, but there are undoubtedly many countries where it actually excludes all schools). And other things like sourcing would need careful consideration. I also think it would be good to have guidelines to ensure school article creators are encouraged to demonstrate notability, rather than being given a hard time because they are annoying.--FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The history part is indeed arbitrary, and will always be arbitrary. It does matter what term you chosse. I have chosen a hundred years for the same reason as centenarians are deemed notable: they are old. Another term (50,150, 75 or so) can be chosen.

I have also the nasty idea that my proposal is misunderstood. It is not A and B and C, but A or B or C. Written out:

A secondary school is notable as the school (and its predecessors) are at least 100 years old OR as the school has been involved in notable events, sport events or incidents OR as the school has other notable facts (amongst others: a first, special type of schooling, notable building, special history etcetera)

I hope that clarifies it a bit. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For the English lads: they can always use the third condition: "a first". The first state run school in Cornwall, or you name it. In the English context, that is special. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the either/or thing does clarify a bit. I had wondered about it. But why should any school be notable purely because of its age? Even if it is 500 years old (when, I would agree, it is likely to be notable), surely other things will mark its notability?

I think you're missing the point about English schools, NOBW. It is about balance and the danger of having criteria which create bias. There are 29 state schools in Cornwall, but only one will have been the first (that's assuming that first in a county counts as a first for the purposes of the criteria. Why not first in a sizeable town?). There are 8 independent schools, some of which probably ought to be notable (I have no idea without examining them), the rest of which are likely to be distinguished from the state schools only by the fact that they are not state schools and the fact that they are over 100 years old. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a draft proposal. I prefer to have a rough general guide, with additions to cater for special circumstances. I know that a general rule will never properly fit in all cases. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) In fact Padstow was the first place that popped in my mind, but I doubt if that village has a secondary school. And if so, there will never be a second. That is why I haven chosen for the example Cornwall.

I still fail to understand why Night of the Big Wind considers hundreds of thousands of schools worldwide to be less notable than his 100 or so stubs on Dutch restaurants. Do restaurants influence the entire world's population in their early years? Are they government funded or funded by important trusts? Could society exist without restaurants? Could society exist without schools? Is an entry in a commercial guide book of dubious authority, in any way more reliable than Ofsted and EduBase, or the ISI. I think not, and perhaps this is the criterion we should be examining and redebating - and where is the Wikipedia:WikiProjectRestaurants with its dedicated contributors? All mainstream schools are listed somewhere, but exactly how many of the world's millions of restaurants/pubs/saloons/delis/cafeterias are reguarlry inspected by a recognised body? More specifically, building a collection of data about restaurants in the Netherlands has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, - Wikipedia priorities should fall squarely in favour of spending time cataloging schools rather than offering free publicity for eating houses. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You are making the wrong argument here. Your argument here supports two things: 1. The topic of Seconday Schools is notable 2. Individual Dutch restaurants are not notable. Neither of these are relevant to Night of the Big Wind's proposal, nor are they relevant to the issue of specific secondary schools being notable by default. Your opinion regarding the restaurants has some merit, but that does not (and should not) diminish Night of the Big Wind's proposal in the least. It is essentially a character attack and you are suggesting that someone who thinks Dutch restaurants are notable has no business saying something else isn't notable. The two are unrelated. Heeerrresjonny (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To put matters into perspective. What I am describing are not "Dutch restaurants" but "Dutch Michelin starred restaurants". And I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Just from experience, it's much easier to get reliable sources on secondary schools than primary schools, partly because primary schools are not as prominent. This is especially so for schools in urban areas. For many of the famous Houston high schools I got in-depth reliable sources.

For very small rural high schools (where they are the only high school in the district) it's okay if they are merged into the district article, in most cases.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the wise words of one experienced editor, I believe this proposal and its discussion is a waste of everyone's time. There are a lot of school articles to be improved, and that's probably where our time can be best invested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Often the best way to "argue" is to constructively work on an article and use it as an example. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Both Kudpung and WhispertoMe kind of have a point. Even though I lean more towards the deletionist end of the spectrum, it might be better to look only at articles that are specifically concerning. For me, that's the micro-schools, the schools that just opened this year with no relevant history, the charter schools that come and go in a few years, etc. The problem is, if we just drop the discussion, and someone decided to raise an AfD on one such school, it would likely get kept just because everyone would refer to this consensus without an actual discussion of the underlying issue. As a side note, I believe that Kudpung is right one 1-star Michellin restaurants as well...but that's probably better taken up elsewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I'm personally neither a deletionist or an inclusionist, but I do not necessarily pass judgement on those who have specific leanings so long as they are clearly within the true spirit of building an encyclopedia and keeping it free of trash. I simply try my best to interpret our complex policies and guidelines as closely as possible - and knowing how difficult that can be, I understand only too well that others may not find it easy either. What do raise concerns however, are the kind of comments at RfA where the !votes clearly express some hard leaning without wanting to hear the standard arguments. Your reasoning that we look only at articles that are specifically concerning is perfectly sound - when I argue for deletion for example, is for establishments that are high street cram schools who have programmes addressed at high school students and claiming the right to be included as a high school. These schools operate extremely aggresive marketing (it's an area I've been connected with for 30 years), and their articles are generally nothing but adverts masquerading as articles. Overall, I believe we already use a lot of common sense when proposing schools for deletion, and where most schools are kept or redirected, these PROD and/or AfD have been raised almost always by editors who are not familiar with the finer details and exceptions to the guidelines that are accepted. The maturity of these traditional exceptions through long tacit consensus through precedent is like English Common law, and do not need an act of Wikipedia parliament by further debates to confirm them, and whatever Mr Wales has said in the past or says today is not part of today's policy making. The Dutch restaurants were cited as an analogy in an attempt to understand why the proposer wants to introduce deletionist theories for schools when the many short articles he has created himself often rely solely on what is probably an unreliable source, and for a subject that in my opinion is of far less importance than schools; I am not suggesting that we debate their merits here, or even begin any formal disputes anywhere about the notability of eating houses. If page patrollers could be made more aware of the exceptions, especially the A7 that does not apply to schools and can be assume to have been agreed by consensus, then it should be clear that schools are one of the special cases and that only borderline articles should find their way to AfD. PROD is slightly different - most school articles are started by WP:SPA who don't return, and have only themselves to blame if the pages get procedurally deleted after 7 days, and I see no reason why we or the ARS should spend time trying to save them. FWIW, there are probably around 50,000 school articles in the encyclopdia, and new school articles now only arrive at the rate of about 4 or 5 a week and mostly from developing countries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal and support the status quo, per Kudpung and Necrothesp. -- Alarics (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This. Again. WHY? I've previously stated that I think this quest for notches of deleted school articles. Everything that needs to be said has been said, ditto on whatever Kudpung has said. Moving on with our lives. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed easier to avoid an indepth discussion but the repeated question "why are all secondary schools notable by default" should ring a bell. Most likely, the consensus for it does not exist outside this project. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If I see the mixed reactions on my proposal, I still get the feeling there is some support for the general idea behind it: "A secondary school is not notable by default". Unfortunately, too many people skip immediately to the part of deleting, while there are more option then that. Merging, redirecting and improving, for instance.

People have stated concern about the notability for

1. micro-schools (Qwyrxian)
2. brand new schools with no relevant history(Qwyrxian)
3. "temporary schools" (charter schools that come and go in a few years)(Qwyrxian)
4. high street cram schools (Kudpung)Is that the same as the Irish "Grinding Schools"?

Right? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely the burden of proof lies with the contributor who believes a school to be notable, not the other way round? The present default argument - that all secondary schools are notable by definition - is a convenient way to deflect the usual way in which we do things here. This issue was raised last weekend at the Manchester wikimeet and at least those within range of my (rather poor) hearing seemed to think that the present default is, at best, peculiar. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes! Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"The usual way in which we do things here" -- but surely schools are not the only example of this. For instance, as far as I can see, every railway station is in practice automatically deemed to be notable. You could argue that many railway stations are not really notable, depending on what you mean by "notable" (Notable to whom? as with schools, they are probably fairly notable within their immediate geographical area but nationally? how many schools or railway stations are notable at the level of the whole world, which is supposedly Wikipedia's universe of discourse?) It is a very elastic concept, and the present policy is a handy rule of thumb which really isn't doing any harm and saves a tremendous amount of pointless argument. -- Alarics (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not harm.... Do you know this one: It doesn't do any harm. In fact, it does harm. The encyclopedia gets filled with subjects totally not notable, just because a wikiproject declares it is notable by default. It does not matter if we are talking about schools, schips, footballers, railway station or locations containing not more then two farms and a cattle crush. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Surely the burden of proof lies with the contributor who believes a school to be notable, not the other way round?" Really? What's the source for that? The "usual way we do things here" is for an article to be created, to be nominated for deletion if somebody believes it's not notable, and for any editor who chooses to contribute their opinions to the debate. That is exactly what's happened. The fact remains that most editors who contribute to these debates do appear to believe that secondary schools are inherently notable. That's not circumventing normal procedure. It is normal procedure. It's only those who dislike the fact they're in the minority who seem to be trying to make a special case for schools not being notable unless they're explicitly proved to be. And let's face it, how do you really "prove" that something's notable? It's a far too abstract and subjective concept. We work by consensus here, not rules. And consensus is clearly that secondary schools are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really. Because the present "rule" to declare all secondary schools notable by default, conflicts with WP:GNG. That states clearly: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I was being a little subtle and, I must admit, that may have been intentional on my part, sorry. Regarding the point that Alarics raises, WP:OSE. I am prepared to raise a similar argument with regard to railway stations, obscure villages etc. I also do not believe that these things are "really [aren't] doing any harm" - the very fact that these discussions are raised so frequently demonstrates that there is a serious difference of opinion. The maintenance costs can be considerable and when we have GNG then I think that we should apply it. I have similar frustrations with WP:CRIN, which results in a huge range of anomalies whereby, at the extreme, someone can turn up at a cricket ground, hit the grass as 12th man, not even touch the ball and still be notable by the project guideline. But, like I say, that is OSE.

With references to Necrothesp's point - "where's the source for that?" - the source is GNG. Yes, it is a guideline but it is one that is, by definition, generally adopted. The problem is that in the case of schools, as is apparent in this debate, there is a piling on effect. Yes, consensus applies but I think that a few people really do underestimate that there is a silent majority. I am quite happy to push this further if it might cause people actually to say what they think, from either point of view. There is a similar issue with India-related articles, where there is an oft-stated acceptance that the quality/notability/sourcing/you name it needs to be fixed by some sort of concerted effort ... but when it comes to the crunch people do not understand the subject area and so back down in the face of a small but vocal group. A part of the reason why these things - villages, sub-divisions of a clan of a caste etc - drift along is because the content is useless/pointless/trivial etc to many but deemed to be important by a few.

Like it or not, this is an issue which will not go away, and Jimbo was quite right to point out recently that those who quoted his 2003 opinion as some sort of "be all, end all" will not do the same now that he has changed his opinion. Sure, he is just one person but the apparent hypocrisy in these debates stinks. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So as not to leave things hanging, this is the Jimbo comment to which I referred above. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still waiting to hear where in GNG or anywhere else it says the onus is on the creator to prove notability. The onus is on the creator to provide verifiable sources, which is a different thing entirely. Notability is decided, if necessary, in AfDs. Are there many secondary schools whose existence is not confirmed by at least one verifiable third-party source? Nope. Is any more than this needed for a stub? Nope. Are stubs acceptable? Yup. As usual, Night of the Big Wind has managed to completely miss the point and claim that guidelines say things that they don't say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You have no better argument then an ad hominem attack? Tssss. But you can find it in one of the "basic articles" of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Your first article. As newbies are advised to Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter., I guess that that is also valid for other article-writers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No ad hominem attack there. I said you'd misinterpreted the guidelines, which you have done. What you have repeated is essentially what I've just said. The onus is on the creator to provide verifiable sources. Notability, on the other hand, is and can only ever be subjective. You think schools are not inherently notable; many of us think they are. Subjective on both sides. Neither opinion is backed up by "evidence" because neither possibly can be. However, the consensus clearly remains that they are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And on another point, Sitush, who exactly are you accusing of hypocrisy? Anyone who considers Jimbo's opinions to be binding is misguided. I for one have never read or quoted his opinions and don't really care about them any more than I would about any other editor's. I wasn't even aware that he had made a pronouncement on school notability, nor do I care. So who exactly is being hypocritical here? Would you care to tell us? Accusing people who do not agree with you of hypocrisy does nothing to advance these debates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I accuse no-one, nor do I necessarily agree with NOTBW's draft above. However, there is an apparent hypocrisy if Jimbo is to be believed and, certainly, in the past I have seen people refer to his earlier comment. Take it or leave it. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• The community of AfD participants has had a consensus for years, dating back at least to 2005, that secondary schools are normally considered notable enough to warrant their own articles. If I were starting Wikipedia from scratch back in 2001, I might have sought a tougher standard for notability of secondary schools, but at this point so many secondary schools have articles that I see no point in trying to impose a tougher notability standard now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

@Night of the Big Wind: if you don' know what a cram school is, why not look it up here? - and perhaps it's another article you'd like to add to your deletion list ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not familiar with local slang. But a cram school is indeed the same as grinding schools. Nevertheless, it would be nice when you start making a difference between a discussion about notability and a discussion about deleting. You give me the idea that you think that that is the same, while I regard it as two different things. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I drew a comparison with railway stations and was told that I was wrongly using a WP:OSE ("Other stuff exists") argument. But WP:OSE is about disputes over individual articles. It warns against defending an article whose notability is being contested by pointing to the existence of another article on a like topic: "x was kept so this should be too". (It does not, incidentally, say that this is always wrong. It says: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section [i.e. WP:OSE] is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.") Here we are talking not about a few individual articles but about a whole vast category of articles. A distinction has been drawn between railway stations (notable by default) and bus stops (not usually notable), and likewise between secondary schools (notable by default) and primary schools (not usually notable). I presume there must be similar "rules of thumb", whether explicitly articulated or not, in other subject areas too. If we are to delete thousands of secondary-school articles we ought, in equity, also to delete an absolutely enormous number of articles in other subject areas too, making Wikipedia a much smaller encyclopaedia than it is now. Maybe that *is* what ought to happen, but it is a discussion that goes way beyond the scope of this project. -- Alarics (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not said that we should delete school articles. Not yet. We need to examine this mantra of inherent notability and there is no need to consider other subject areas in order to do so. Are you suggesting that we should do nothing because it is too late? And that we should tolerate the addition of still more? Since when has notability been determined by the number of articles on Wikipedia? The existence or otherwise of some sort of "cost" related to amending the status quo is surely not a criteria for encyclopaedic content? - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are we talking about this?

I still don't get why we are, again, expending effort discussing this. So I'm going to ask a few rhetorical questions for the sake of it. If I'm wrong in any of this, please let me know.

(Q1) Are we able to deny the primacy of schools in terms of their effect on communities and individuals?
(A1) No. Schools and their work are of great importance in terms of their effect on communities and individuals. Ergo, notable at least in it respect to the dictionary definition, as has been mentioned above.

(Q2) Does the presence of school articles detract from the value of wikipedia?
(A2) No. It's not as if school articles prevent articles being written on more "valuable" subjects.

(Q3) Is it the case that school articles detract from the value of other articles at wikipedia?
(A3) No. In fact, it adds value particularly and for example to biographies, geographical articles and so on and so forth.

(Q4) Is it the case that readers/editors don't read school articles?
(A4) No. The level of vandalism on school articles, in the very least, proves that there is interest.

(Q5) Is our allowance for school articles resulting in "too many" stubs?
(A5) No. There's nothing wrong with a stub, unless it's actually the case that it can't be improved. Most school stubs can (and should) be improved.

Should I keep going? Is there a point to this conversation besides being a deletionist crusade? Seriously, I want to know the motivation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We could go on forever:
(Q6) Are school articles hate or attack pages?
(A6) No. If so, extremely rarely.

(Q7) Are school articles hoax or vandalism-only pages?
(A7) No. If so, extremely rarely. and vandalism is caught almost 99% at recent changes patrol.

(Q8) Do school articles take up too much space?
(A8) No. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.

(Q9) Do editors work regularly on cleaning up school articles?
(A9) Yes. Some are also watching Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Schools,

(Q10) Are school articles edited by competent Wikipedians?
(A10) Well, yes, at least by those who do the anti-vandalism, clean up work, and expansion.

(Q11) Are school articles edited by people who are knowledgeable about schools and education?
(A11) Oh yes!

(Q11) Is Wikipedia interested in schools and education?
(A11) Oh yes! With a big budget too!

There is another question, but I'll refrain from being cynical.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And the four missings questions are:

(Q12) Are secondary school always notable

(A12) No!

(Q13) Do secondary schools always pass WP:GNG?

(A13) No!

(Q14) Does Wikiproject Schools with strong substantive arguments?

(A14) No!

(Q15) Is it valid to question existing (formal or informal) rules and guidelines when they are not reflecting the opinion of the whole community?

(A16) Yes!

Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think schools should be required to at least pass GNG in principle. But it's also a bit of an arcane matter, because it's hard to imagine that very many secondary schools could possibly fail GNG. --FormerIP (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Humour. I keep on reading these rants and I am reminded of a BBC radio show Just a Minute. I can't do our deletionist for hesitation, but the repetition is getting boring, and the deviation from reality is chronic. I am now quite convinced that each aecondary school in the UK automatically fulfills GNG, as HMG publishes interminable reports on each seconday school leading to independent source overload. Crammers are not secondary schools- in the same way that the local theatres drama group isn't- they are out of school activity. Home schooling, or education otherwise (defined by the 44 act) is an opportunity for childen of secondary school age but again is not a secondary school. Of the last four question- by all means put them but the answer to all is yes- the last being qualified with the phrase when it is not hesitation, repetition or deviation. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. All ordinary schools in the UK are notable by virtue of the inspection reports which are both detailed and independent. What seems to drive the deletionist sentiment is a hatred of the commonplace - the ideas that you find at WP:MILL. But that's an essay not even a guideline and so has no force. WP:GNG makes it clear that notability does not mean fame or importance and so mundane topics are just as welcome as the special cases and novelties. Warden (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

(Q1) Are we able to deny the primacy of schools in terms of their effect on communities and individuals?

Well, for schools yes. But to imply that this is the same for individual schools as opposed to the collective is a stretch based on OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Often with secondary schools, the effect on the community on the school and vice versa is well documented. Sometimes it happens with primary schools too WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am slightly butthurt to stumble across yet another discussion of this topic without seeing my opus User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs cited. We have eight years of precedent settling us into a pretty good system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is proof that this project has a good management of AfD's, but it is no proof that there is consensus about the so called rule outside this project. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This project has nothing to do with AfDs. I am not involved in this project, yet I support the retention of school articles on AfDs. It is very noticeable that deletionists always seem to claim that genuine consensus supports them, even though they are opposed in AfDs. If this claimed "silent majority" actually bothered to give their opinions on AfDs then maybe consensus would be changed! Since they don't, one must assume that they either don't exist or don't care. In either case, if their opinions are not voiced then they don't count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • And in the mean time you try to intimidate the ones that do open their mouth, so that they shut up again? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh please! Nobody's intimidating anybody. Most of us just don't agree with you. What's intimidating about saying so? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
          • That you guys come out in force with the wackiest arguments to camouflage the lack of consensus about your stance outside this wikiproject. All what I here is "it works fine for us" and that is one of the lousiest arguments available in this discussion. Any body still talking about the original proposal? No! Just a load of blahblah to drown it in the mud. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NOBW, serious question. What is it that tells you there is a lack of consensus outside the Wikiproject? --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See for example the remark van Sitush: This issue was raised last weekend at the Manchester wikimeet and at least those within range of my (rather poor) hearing seemed to think that the present default is, at best, peculiar. - Sitush (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Night step back a bit. You are really making this one user against the rest and it is now rubbing people up the wrong way if were going to get anywhere here then everyone needs to calm it a bit. It dosent and shouldn't be like that. If you want anything to happen them maybe the RFC suggested below is the only way to go just let things take the proper course you have made your point very clear and so has everyone else but a workable proposal would need to be found. I agree what we have isn't perfect but whats proposed so far isn't going to cut it either. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said before: And in the mean time you try to intimidate the ones that do open their mouth, so that they shut up again? Sorry, won't work. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is trying to intimidate anyone it seems to be you. I haven't asked you to shut up i have said step back take a break calm down. Go with the RFC suggested below just stop the arguing every time someone comments you assassinate what they have said its not right. Just see what happens. I have said before change may be needed just because your initial proposal was flawed dosent mean it has to stop there all that had to be done was to come back with a workable solution. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Question/Comment - sorry, hadn't seen this previously. I can understand the logic behind the proposals here, but from a purely practical point of view it seems to me that if a whole host of secondary school articles are deleted that we're then going to be continually fighting them popping back up again as kids create them every other week. I'm not sure that's awfully productive. I'd rather see articles sourced properly and use the GNG to apply to them if necessary rather than running AfDs week after week. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will be much of a problem. The sudents of a secondary school are not kids, but unruly teenagers Somebody estimated lately that there appeared 4-5 school-articles a week. Even if that number doubles, it is still manageble. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If we were to delete the majority of articles we have I think you'd see more than that at secondary level fwiw - given the vanity/vandalism/munchkinism rate on high school articles in Suffolk and Norfolk. I tend to think that on a practical level that means an awful lot of contested prods and then (probably failed) AfDs. Sure, enforce GNG but I think you're probably creating a logistical problem rather than anything else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC?

Ok.... Reading above I think it's pretty clear that we have two groups with fairly strong opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure reasoned debate is going to help us achieve consensus on this. Two questions - 1) Has there ever been a simple and clearly laid out RfC on this topic? 2) Would anyone oppose me drafting one to measure consensus? NickCT (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a member of this group and new to this arena, but I see this simply as one editor, who enjoys arguing. User:Kudpung has summed it up nicely, others have explained the history. I think it is grossly unfair to describe this a two groups- one group and one dissenter with other editors like yourself making concilatory gestures. I leave others to answer your questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to say that there are two groups. What may be a better statement is that there are editors who believe that most schools will not meet the notability guidelines and there are editors who believe that most, if not all schools, should have articles without any consideration of notability. Then there is that third group who believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle and there are probably at least two subgroups where one believes that all secondary schools are notable and the other that supports the current compromise that reduces the battles at AfC. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to see this issue at RfC because there seems to me to be a substantial amount of "history" regarding the issue that has got lost somewhere and just become a mantra. But to lay my cards on the table, my objections from some months ago were the claims being made that secondary/high schools are inherently notable. Drop the "inherent", disallow the school websites/Ofsted reports etc (which are routine inspections and data collection) and we might begin to get something that is at least a little closer to GNG. I really do have no idea how many schools are truly notable, but these situations of "inherent" notability generally irk me, and especially so if they have been formulated by a project that, almost by definition, has a vested interest of some sort. I would be quite happy if all project notabilty guidelines were dropped and we returned to GNG. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Its pretty much one user thats causing the problem here so two camps isn't entirely the case and its become far to heated. As i argued above if someone has a workable proposal on School notability guidelines then go ahead and propose them but nobody has. Therefore it is always going nowhere a RFC will only work if people do that. Night of the Big Wind proposal is totally non workable. Come on age of a school is no way to indicate notability. it would make a bigger laughing stock than the current lets do nothing way of thinking. the intention is good but the proposal isn't. There has been a lot of talk and lets face it no workable proposal. Ofsted reports are reliable sources they are done totally independently of the schools. On top of that my concern here is notability is permanent we cannot turn around all of a sudden and say were deleting all these because we no longer deem them to be notable its not right on the scale thats basically being proposed because merging the articles in most cases won't be workable. A new guideline is probably needed but would more likely gain backing on a future basis. Very few wikiprojects would dare to go back and change notability guidelines that have allowed an article to exist for years be suddenly deleted. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the characterization that "pretty much one user" is dissenting here. Regardless, even if that is the case, an RfC would highlight that there is consensus for the "secondary schools are always notable" position. As such, it could be used as the basis for quashing dissent and/or writing policy..... I'm going to work on drafting an RfC when I get a chance. I'll give everyone a chance to comment before launching it. NickCT (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My point here is that reading the above it does read that way. Change may well be needed and on a wider scope there is feeling of need for change but the problem here was the proposal was never workable. If the proposal had been then I'm sure it would have faired differently. Im assuming you feel change is needed and yeah it probably needs something but i ask you do you think the proposal made above is workable because basically it will result in virtually all non private school article being deleted also the age of a school isn't really a notability point. I could easily be a 100 year old school in the middle of no where who nobody has heard of that not notable at all. It would be totally wrong to go back and delete all these articles. Future maybe but not just suddenly delete 50,000 odd articles. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Man, why are you so focused on deleting? There are more options then deleting! And my proposal was to find consensus over when secondary schools would be notable and when absolutely not. The rest will need discussion with all the options on the table: keep, merge, improve, delete. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging is not a workable option when we are looking at it on this scale. Deleting is the most likely as based on the proposal very few would be a keep. I would be happy to work on a proposal but the one you came with was never going to work. A blank canvas would of been better to look at the situation and collectively come up with criteria where as thats not what happened. It rubbed up far too many people up the wrong way. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tabled a proposal that included three grounds on which articles could be deemed notable straight away (or after discussion). The part about the age of an institute will always be arbitrary, no matter which term you take. I took the term 100 years, in line with the centerenarians on Wikipedia. But 50, 75, 150 are fine to me, as long as there is consensus about the term (or consensus to scrap that part). About the other two parts "as the school has been involved in notable events, sport events or incidents" and "as the school has other notable facts (amongst others: a first, special type of schooling, notable building, special history etcetera)" was hardly any discussion before the thunderstorm broke out. If you think the proposal is fundamentally flawed, be bold and call as spade a spade and tell the world which parts make you unhappy. Then we can start a discussion about it and maybe compose a better proposal. Be bold, think positive and help Wikipedia forward. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Being bold (again) I would say that your proposal above is clearly worded to attract a consensus that would be in favour of your terms that clearly lean towards reasons for mass deletion. Any proposal would have to very carefully scripted to be completely neutral and allow the community to make up their own minds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, my friend, is that you admit that there are scores of secondary schools with an article on Wikipedia, that should never had gotten one if the was a proper entrance barrier like WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, a neutral proposal would be, "Secondary schools, like the majority of other subjects on Wikipedia, must meet WP:GNG." That is, secondary schools enjoy no special treatment either way, and each must be judged on its own merits. Sadly, though I agree with this stance in principle, I'd probably feel morally compelled to vote against it simply because it would likely increase systemic bias against poorer countries. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not neutral because it's one-sided and does not mention the staus quo so that !voters can choose for themselves. A proposal statement for an issue of this kind should not lead the witness, or as you say Qwrx, introduce systemic bias. I really feel that as Night of the Big Wind opened this can of worms, that he should do this himself and see how far he gets with it, but not being one for schadenfreude, here goes:

Suggested RfC draft (and please note that is is a suggestion only) - please do not vote here.
This RfC is in two parts:

Introduction

Secondary schools are, by definition, schools/colleges/academies offering fully accredited mainstream education that follows a general education curriculum to the minimum school leaving age or beyond in their respective countries. This generally dos not include primary/elementary schools, middle schools, distance learning organisations, or private institutions offering booster courses for exam preparation.

Previous RfC discussions on the notability of high schools have been held at

• Foo
• Foo
• Foo

Essays on the subject

• Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)
• Wikipedia:High Schools
• Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable
• Wikipedia:Schoolcruft
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
• Wikipedia:Inherent notability
• Wikipedia:What notability is not
• Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
• Wikipedia:Other stuff exists
• Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill
• Wikipedia:Articles with a single source
• Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability
• See also: Category:Wikipedia essays on notability

Guidelines

WP:NOTABILITY, (WP:GNG), (WP:ORG), (WP:FAILN)

Proposal 1

Since 200x, high schools have been accorded defacto notability. that [details]. Some 50,000 school articles have been kept based on this precedent, and the majority of AfD have been closed as 'keep'. Some Wikipedians feel that that a clear guideline should be established for the notability of high schools in which the status quo should be maintained, and written into an official Wikipedia guideline. Other types of articles that need not necessarily fulfill Wikipedia:General notability guidelines are [...]

If you support this proposal, please add your comment below, remembering to sign it with four tildes.

• Your signature and comment here

Proposal 2

Some Wikipedians feel that that a clear guideline should be established for the notability of high schools in which secondary schools, like the majority of other subjects on Wikipedia, must meet Wikipedia:General notability guidelines. That is, secondary schools enjoy no special treatment either way, and each must be judged on its own merits., and deletion should should be treated by normal processes on a case-by-case basis.

If you support this proposal, please add your comment below, remembering to sign it with four tildes.

• Your signature and comment here

Well there you go. It's not perfect, but it's succinct and most people should be able to understand it. Note that we do not make any references to statements by Jimmy Wales, or discussions on other users' talk pages. If the !voters want to bring those up in their rationales, it's up to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, this proposal goes even further then mine Of course, I support it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC Mock-up

Hey guys, editing this RfC on the talk page could become cumbersome, so I have created it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Draft_RfC. I suggest we all move there to work on it. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind began this entire discussion, but ironically, this would appear to make his proposals for deletion of schools rather moot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; this is pointless. Firstly, it is predicated on a misapprehension; no-one claims that high schools are 'inherently notable' just that they should be kept on pragmatic grounds, as are designated settlements, fauna and flora, named bridges, numbered highways, airports, super-regional malls, railway stations, high court judges, peers of the realm, religious saints etc. When there is so much work to do on Wikipedia the thought of fighting 50,000 high school articles only to prove that most of them are notable makes me shiver! We have had several attempted standards on schools (and if we are to try again why not include all schools?) and they have all failed in the face of the determined opposition of a minority of editors. What we have is a pragmatic position (redirect most elementary schools (except those clearly notable) and keep high schools (except those that can't be verified)) which allows us to move on to more urgent stuff. TerriersFan (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Guideline

During the discussion the wish for a Guideline to determine the notability of schools surfaced. Collegue TerriersFan and me have both written a draft for those guidelines. Interesting enough we took completely different approaches for writing this. A problem? Nope! Just good for the discussion. You can find the drafts here:

• User:TerriersFan/Notability of schools
• User:Night of the Big Wind/Notability of schools

Please, do say just NO when you did agree with a part of the drafts. It works better when you come with a counter proposal! Let us see what we can build together. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Afds

Night of the BIg Wind's new deletion policy proposal appears to have stalled as with all such PERENs on this topic. Of the 100 or so primary schools that were suddenly mass proposed for deletion over the holiday period, roughly half are being redirected and half are being deleted (they are not all closed yet), and some are being deleted without properly evaluating the consensus. Not only is it contrary to any effort to adhere to consistency in the way policies, guidelines, or precedents are applied throughout the encyclopedia, but such arbitrary voting and closing by those who are not aware of the policies, guidelines, and precedents, does not accord equal debate to all schools that are proposed for deletion at AfD. The situation is now getting ridiculous and a ruling is urgently required one way or another. And naturally I suggest keeping the status quo and getting it promoted to official guideline (one with the policy essay page notice). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking with my admin hat on I believe that if you recreated a deleted primary school as a redirect, that it would not meet WP:CSD#G4, and would have to go to WP:MfD. In other words, it doesn't really matter if the result is "delete" or "redirect", since nothing in deletion policy prevents the recreation of a substantially different article; in this case, a redirect to the relevant school district or locality. It is irritating that others have to do extra work to redirect, but at least the afd's aren't fatal to the notion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I said on my talk page earlier, WP:CSD#G4 clearly does not cover re-directs. AfD only has ultimate jurisdiction over articles, with re-directs being covered by RfD, and the burden of arguments needed to keep re-directs are far less than that for articles. There has only been one case in which I was challenged for creating a re-direct post-AfD, and that was by Pastor Theo (talk · contribs), which was probably not done in good faith, and hence doesn't count. CT Cooper · talk 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, Kudpung. NickCT was preparing an RFC and my proposal was only part of that. Nick should officially launch his RFC (january is a much better time for that then the Christmas period) and then we can go on. You are to anxious to keep your "long standing consensus" that overrules WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, if you were to read everything I've ever posted on this topic over the years, including on my RfA, you will have noticed, as many have, that I don't personally mind which way consensus falls as a result of a correctly and neutrally proposed RfC, but that I will firmly uphold any existing conventions, precedents, and unwritten consensus that clearly exist until they are confirmed or changed. Note that WP:OUTCOMES, although an essay, neutrally documents historical facts and 'is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy' . (the bold text is mine). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So you think that the essay "Common Outcomes" is more important then the Guideline WP:GNG/WP:N and the policy WP:V???? Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that WP:OUTCOMES, although an essay, neutrally documents historical facts and 'is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy' . (the bold text is mine). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Intended by whom? The essays authors? It still carries no extra weight. Fmph (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC???

Where is the promised RfC? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I write a RFC myself. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Buffalo Public Schools

In Buffalo Public Schools, each of the schools profiled has below it a selected list of former principals and assistant principals, with each person's previous job and next job indicated where available. This seems excessive and unlikely to be of general interest, but I can't find a guideline that would specifically discourage that. Is there consensus that such lists should not be included? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is excessive. This ought to be covered by WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, though it is not explicit on not going into excessive detail about staff. Looking at the sources used, many of them are spreadsheets which contain significant personal information (e.g. salaries, where they live, and reasons for resignation) whose use may conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY. CT Cooper · talk 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTDIR probably also applies. The article needs a fair amount of work.

As an aside, "School in Need of Corrective Action", "Persistently Lowest Achieving", "School in Need of Improvement", "School in Need of Restructuring"... Why does almost every school have one of these in their Status fields? Pretty depressing. You can't have a dozen "Lowest" schools, surely. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem in a lot of articles about schools and districts in the western New York state area, which leads me to believe it's the work of a single editor or closely related editors. I've removed quite a few of these former administrator lists, in some cases multiple times from the same articles. They fail for a number of reasons (not a directory, non-notable, BLP) and should all be removed as soon as they are noticed. The only faculty that should be listed are current faculty requested in the infobox (like principal and assistants for the high schools and superintendents for the districts) and any notable (i.e. an article exists about them) faculty, former or current. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD Campaign on schools

The AfD campaign against schools continues. Although we're not seeing the volume of nominations that we saw in the Xmas/New Year's period (with 151 nominations being made by a single user over a 3 week period, for example), there continues to be a streak of nominations with 4 being nominated on Jan. 31 and 5 being nominated on Feb. 1. Unfortunately, it's the same set of around 5 or 6 nominators and delete-voters for most of these discussions and they are applying a very strict (and, in my opinion, highly arbitrary) interpretation of the notability guidelines which is leading to a number of schools being nominated despite claims of notability, particularly in regards to primary schools and middle schools (for which there is no guideline stating that they are simply non-notable, despite the claims to the contrary made by some editors)

WP:ORG states:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

...with emphasis added. The importance of schools in their effects on society (should) be beyond question (but, apparently, some people didn't have a fun time at school or something?). Where they are historical, this should be a reasonable claim for notability also.

Other nominators and delete voters seem to be using AfD as WP:CLEANUP and nominating any school (primary/middle/high) that seems to be written badly. There has been at least a few instances of badly written school regions and high schools being nominated for deletion despite obvious text pointing to their status.

I strongly recommend that project members keep a close eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools and make sure that their voices are heard. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started the promised RfC here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Schools will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in schools; i.e. school building, founding, women's only schools, educators. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Schools started

Although it is mentioned above but not in a prominent section i felt it necessary to start a proper section.

If you wish to take part in the RFC it is here.[1] Edinburgh Wanderer 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of school AfD

This school article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Bede's Prep School has been redirected after a non-admin closure of a school AfD. There was no consensus for deletion. Should this decision not have been made by an admin? Dahliarose (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, non-admin closures are allowed but are governed by Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. I have to say, at face value the keep voters didn't have things on their side either numerically or in terms of arguments, with the claims of notability being a little vague. However, this might another case of a primary/middle school being swept away without proper review. If it is notable, re-creating the article with a re-write and more references may be the best remedy. As it stands, the re-direct isn't that helpful as St Bede's School, Hailsham only mentions the prep school in passing. If the article is not to be re-created, then there should be a section on the prep school in the senior school article. CT Cooper · talk 23:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahliarose, if I recall correctly, you already have an article in your userspace that you're trying to improve, right? I have one in mine. The workload that is being created is unreasonable.

A look over the voters shows that most were just +1ing someone above them. As I said in my vote, WP:ORG states that historicity should be considered. Besides one person who tried to equate the school with his house (wtf?), no one addressed why a 115 year old school is not historical. How much of a history does a school have to have before the letter of WP:ORG applies? Certain people are reading it so strictly that literally nothing can get past. I suggest this one go to deletion review. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

no one seems to have addressed how a 115 yo school IS historical either. And in fact most contribs said they felt tat age alone does not define historicity. But you disagree and don't accept their POV and fail to remember that they they expressed it.Fmph (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please go troll somewhere else? Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this was a candidate for a non-admin closure per WP:NACD. It should probably have been relisted. Due to the large number of school AfDs and the responses to that effort, as well as the comments at the AfD, it was clearly controversial, which is enough to rule out non-admin closure, I think. Also, the article makes sufficient claims to pass GNG without any waivers or references to the various workarounds (like Common Outcomes and failed guidelines). The "Notable Bedians", or whatever they were, had been deleted before the closure for lack of references, but Izzard, at least, was verifiable in 10 seconds from his own WP page or a two-term Google search; he did attend this school--he discusses it in the bio section of his website, with some interesting detail. If we AGF with regard to those who worked to improve this article, the same was probably true for the other alums. Neither the closer or the nominator merged any of the encyclopedic information to the other article. There was a good photo of an interesting old building, lots of detail in the infobox, and enough readily available background information available, after a very brief search, that it would probably be undue if it was all put into the article for the senior school. The schools have separate histories, and the history of the junior school is longer.

Should the closure and redirect be challenged at DRV, or should one of you working on the article simply revive it in an improved state? I already saved Blue Oak School from the Christmastime listings, and need to spend some more time on it before asking for an assessment. I'm not willing to try to do the same for hundreds of other elementary schools--that's what the nominators are depending on, I think. The way to fix this is to change GNG, so that it doesn't apply to things like villages, mountains, and schools that are clearly "encyclopedic", as gazeteer entries at least, whether there is a solid consensus that they are individually "notable" or not. It would also be good to add every single publicly-funded school and school district in the U.S. and UK and any other country with a good national database of school data, the way Rambot added Census data on all of the CDPs in the U.S. long ago.--Hjal (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, be aware that userspace drafts are no longer safe from the campaign either. It seems that what's happening is a search for the phrase "primary school" and rather indiscriminate nominating of articles that turn up. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be more like a witch hunt. A whole load of new people are turning up at AfD and voting to delete or redirect these articles without making any attempt to look for sources or improve the articles. Articles about historic schools that would previously have been kept are now being deleted without question simply because they are primary/elementary schools. The sheer scale of the nominations means that it's difficult to find the time to work on the articles. I hope to find the time to recreate some of the deleted articles on English schools. Thanks for the warning about user space. I will make sure I keep my own offline back-ups. Dahliarose (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"A whole load of new people are turning up at AfD ..."? - Doh! Thats the whole purpose of AfD. Its open to everyone, not just a select few with a particular POV. The sheer scale and number of nominations obviously reflects the wider communities frustrations at the number of non-notable articles being create in this sphere. Fmph (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! A very good point. There is a huge amount of crap that needs to be cleaned out and I'm happy to play my part in that. As for whether I'm one of the "load of new people", I have been editing school articles for a couple of years now. --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The sheer scale and number of nominations, being that most of them are coming from a very small set of users (in fact, the vast majority come from one user) do not reflect the "wider communities (sic) frusrtations". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sic? At least I can spell 'frustration' !Fmph (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're awesome. Seriously. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and this should not become a mudslinging contest. Anyone is welcome to participate at AfD, but anyone who participates should take the time to review the article at hand, and it is in the interests of the common good that reasonable efforts are made to find out if a topic is notable before action is taken. That is why there is a set procedure at WP:FAILN. I do have sympathy for the view that those that work hard to try and restore school articles are being overwhelmed by the shear number of nominations. However, the worst case scenario is that some of these articles will just have to go to the back of the queue for the moment; there is no deadline after all. There is already an article request list at WP:WPSCH/AR. CT Cooper · talk 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I personally believe a DRV would be a waste of time, and as such I will oppose efforts to either start one or carry one out. I see absolutely no evidence that the AfD discussion could have been closed differently, or that the closing rationale is flawed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a DRV in the circumstances would not be helpful. CT Cooper · talk 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, Purplebackpack, that all primary schools are "inherently non-notable" (your words) because of a non-existent consensus and your bloc-voting in favour of deletion means that, yeah, we would expect you to take that position. However, many of the project members here disagree with you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that primary schools are not "inherently non-notable", as although a lot of primary schools don't have the sources to pass WP:N, some do, and the entire point of AfD is to look at an article on a case-by-case basis. However, as I have alluded to previously, while it may be true that the deletion arguments were weak, what made them appear credible was that the keep arguments weren't that strong either, and the reality is primary school articles have to make a big punch these days to exist at all. There was reference to the school's age and a murder but nothing very specific. If I was arguing to keep an article I would always try and list some sources directly to get the point across. That method doesn't guarantee the end of robotic delete votes, but it will make some people think again, and may be helpful in a deletion review or when talking to the closing admin. CT Cooper · talk 22:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Dan, you continually repeating things I said while berating them is horrendously inappropriate, and if you think it will get people to sympathize with you, you're very mistaken Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between all primary schools are non notable and what the consensus was they are not inherently notable. This means they must meet GNG the chances are most won't but as I've said repeatedly the nominator should be checking that before nominating it which is not happening in all cases but whats the percentage of cases where an error was made by the nom. Also if a school is clearly non notable and the outcome of the majority of these is to redirect what is wrong with being bold and redirecting and if contested take to AFD as I've said repeatedly these large numbers of AFDs in most cases are wasting peoples time. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So I assume that since you think AfDs to be a waste of time, you'd also think DRVs of AfDs to be a waste of time? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all AFDS are waste of time what I'm saying is where a school is clearly non notable and the common outcome of that case is a redirect then why not be bold a lot of editors are and do just that. A lot of these AFDS in the noms rationale say should be redirected per common outcome as no one has contested where is the need for further discussion at that time. In the case of it being opposed then take to and AFD. A DRV is a good thing if there is a genuine feeling that there isn't valid reason for deletion and they wish to get that reviewed. I think what you are asking is do i think a DRV is necessary here and i would say no.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What you've said, Purplebackpack, is flat out wrong and a misrepresentation of the situation. You vote as part of a bloc on the basis of a view that precludes the possibility that a primary school could be notable. I have a problem with that, because it runs counter to policy and extant consensus. Now you can dress my criticism of your behaviour as personal attacks if you like, but faux sensitivity is tiresome. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Fooians have been nominated for renaming (again)

Categories:Obscure Old Fooians which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion and renaming to 'Category:People educated at Foo School'. (e.g. Category:Old Decanians to Category:People educated at Dean Close School, Category:Old Dolphins to Category:People educated at Godolphin and Latymer School etc.)

You are invited to add your comments at Obscure Old Fooians on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Ephebi (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edgeborough School

Does anyone have any thoughts on Edgeborough School? It had been tagged for a merge but was then redirected without the content being merged so I've now restored it. The school is quite an old building and was requisitioned by the army in WWII: [2]. Dahliarose (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much sick of this. Either you don't understand what a WP:MERGE actually is, or this is yet another bad faith accusation against me. I DID merge all referenced and relevant content into the destination locality article. The army requistioned lots of buildings in WW2. That doesn't make them notable. This is getting ridiculous and is disruptive. Fmph (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

English prep schools are usually located in historic buildings. Such articles will require further investigation to see if they merit a standalone article. As you'll see from the discussion on the talk page the building was previously known as Frensham Place and there a lot of potential sources on Google Books. If you're concerned about the article then you should take it to AfD but it doesn't seem appropriate for a merge. Dahliarose (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see an AfD has been opened and I agree that the school should be deleted. As for the building itself, you can find the odd reference to Frensham Place in Google Books. However, the building itself is not listed so I doubt it would merit an article in its own right. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now done a lot of work on this article and it is turning out to be rather interesting. The school has a whole string of interesting and diverse notable alumni, and the building itself has a fascinating history. Further input at the AfD discussion would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgeborough School The school AfDs are currently dominated by people who think that all primary/elementary/prep schools are non-notable so it would be helpful if people could focus on the content rather than the type of school. Dahliarose (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have duly added my 2p worth there, to the effect that I think the article should be kept. I am getting rather sick of people whose only aim in life seems to be to delete things. -- Alarics (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlbrook School - some rather NPOV editing going on

Hi folks, I've twice removed content from Carlbrook School for having a rather slanted POV and a lack of reliable sources. Most recently with this edit. I'd appreciate people adding the article (and its talk page) to their watchlists, and assisting the editor adding the material to find better ways to source it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Alarics (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

what are some of the most notable special schools in the world?

and how is the state of their wikipedia articles? considering i asked about notable special schools at reference desk and got no proper answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.221.208 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends how you define "notable special schools". The top-importance schools are listed are Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Top-importance school articles, with those listed varying from a poor state to a very good state. The assessment table on the right at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools gives stats on article importance against article quality, with numbers being clickable to list individual pages. CT Cooper · talk 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

any articles about special schools given top-importance ranking? notable in terms of their impact on the special education field, even the general education field and wider society, of course history and all also plays a role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.200 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School

Would it be possible for a somewhat experienced school-article writer to look this over and give me a rough idea for what would be needed to get it to GA? My previous GA was a video game, and this subject is....different. (For example, with video game articles the gameplay is usually full, albeit unsourced, and the reception is usually skimpy. What are the corresponding sections here?) I already know some of the surface stuff for Doon (i.e. it's kinda a fluff piece) but I don't quite know what a reviewer will look for in a school article. Any tips on organization, content, etc is greatly appreciated. Please reply at the talk page so the other two main editors can see. Thanks in advance! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Test scores encyclopedic?

I was looking for random demographic info on Perry County schools, and happened upon this heaping pile: West Perry School District The same goes for all other Perry County school districts, and who knows how many more. How in the world is this encyclopedic, or even remotely acceptable, to have 6 freakin pages of test scores? Who the hell wants to scroll through all that? Thankfully, my alma mater has not been hit with the same ugly stick, but please, tell me this is not the way things should be done. Search4Lancer (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)