Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question regarding United Methodist Church bishops[edit]

Would it be reasonable to specifically include in this page indications that United Methodist Church bishops will in general be notable as well? John Carter (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The standard is GNG. Therefore the real question is, based on experience, do most UMC bishops pass GNG? I have some doubts, but I am am not sufficiently familiar with the polity and doings of the Methodist Church to know if their leadership routinely garners in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The relevant policies on schools should be WP:GNG and WP:ORG, not WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES[edit]

Using WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a deletion argument, is in essence, an appeal to the majority, a logical fallacy. We should instead insert language that schools are usually kept because they almost always are notable, and that one has to show that news coverage satisfying WP:GNG does not exist or WP:ORG is not satisfied. I'd like to cite Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (an essay stating my opinion) in saying that, even though high schools are commonly presumed to be notable, they must also be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability. Basically, a discussion in 2009 where 3 people participated (see here) has created something that has taken on the level of a policy in AfD discussions. I'm not proposing any sort of notability guideline for schools, but this summary of AfD debates intended to be used as a guideline has somehow been transmuted into a pseudo-policy, which we need to rectify by stating that the primary policies covering schools are WP:GNG and WP:ORG. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is persuasive, but should not be the "be all and end all" when it comes to schools. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I have long opposed the more or less presumptive notability for schools. Far too many articles have been created with few or no RS sources and they are being treated as presumptively notable. As of right now the de-facto (if not yet de-jure) reality is that most editors believe that any High School or secondary school that can be proven to exist is presumptively notable. I think this is wrong and and contrary to both the letter and spirit of the guidelines. I also believe it has allowed way too many articles to get on Wikipedia that do not meet GNG. It's time for the blank check to be torn up.-Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • PS Could the OP shorten the rather long thread title please? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is often misused as an argument, mainly when USA-schools are in play. The Banner talk 10:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Being bold and adding it. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we also talk about the sentence: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. That is of course a massive failure of WP:GNG. And to make it worse, I have seen this sentence being used in combination with a statement that sounded like when you failed to find sources, you did not search hard enough. The Banner talk 21:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose We should have an SNG saying that (real) universities are notable, and ORG does appear to say that. GNG, and the exclusionary parts of ORG, are too vague to be helpful inclusion criteria; and some parts of ORG advocate a particularly rabid form of deletionism (they go on and on and on about how evil organisations are, and how, because a few non-notable nonentity organisations have spammed us, we must totally delete all important notable organisations in order to punish and punish and punish a completely different group of people, and similar bizarre nonsense). So I don't think we want to rely on them. James500 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed the addition, because it's redundant. ansh666 00:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Classrooms "invariably" deleted[edit]

I changed this to "almost invariably". Reason is, some certainly could, the Ether Dome was built as a classroom, surgery was secondary, the purpose of the large structure with its tiers of spectator places was not to operate, but to enable medical students to observe operations. The 1595 Padua anatomic theatre certainly merits an article. No surgery performed here. It was built to enable medical students to observe the dissection of cadavers. The are probably other examples. I suspect that an aritcle on the real classroom where they filmed Indiana Jones giving lectures could pass GNG.15:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the proposition that some 'classrooms' are likely to be notable. James500 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so. I've been intending to write that Padua article. Another is the classroom where the first Parliament of Norway met (very early 1800s) its been moved to a museum and preserved intact. My point is that almost no category of think is "invariably" deleted. changing the owrding was an excellent move.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Bible and other religious schools that fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG[edit]

Anyone have a good sense of school outcomes for relatively-unknown (that is, they would fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP) "Bible" and other religious post-secondary schools that grant degrees, but where the accrediting agency is so closely tied to the school that it can't really be called independent, or where the accrediting agency and related institutions recognize the degree but the government and the "rest of the world" doesn't recognize the credentials the same as they would a typical college degree (that is, the government might recognize a graduate as being qualified to preach and perform marriages, but would not recognize the school as a degree-granting school for financial aide or other purposes).

I'm asking because this recent AFD about a religious college/university was opened with the comment

non notable school of [a religious group]. If we started giving article space to every [school run by/for that religous group] there will be almost 1 thousand articles created every day for the next ten years FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [edited by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) at 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) to remove the particular religious group, which is not related to THIS discussion]

Nevermind the merits of this particular school (which probably will pass based on WP:GNG or WP:CORP), the issue remains: How have past AFDs for otherwise-non-notable religious schools whose only credential is one recognized by a particular church or religion been resolved? Have there been enough of them in the last few years to even declare that a precedent has been set?

If the answer is "they have NOT been uniformly KEPT" or "there haven't been enough to declare a precedent" then I recommend we explicitly note that otherwise-non-notable religious schools whose accreditation to grant degrees is not recognized outside of the related religious community are not "presumed notable" under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

there has been considerable difficulty in judging institutions not part of the modern US-Western Europe pattern. The basic crition for colleges is that they award a degree, and there is not necessarily any equivalent of this in many traditional systems (including some in the US). Such articles have indeed often been delated unless the usual sort of GNG notability could be shown. The article mentioned was kept as nonconsensus; had I noticed the AfD I would have given a very strong keep. To a certain extent, the nomination of such a school shows an unawareness of other cultures, one which we call Systematic Bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Political parties[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danig Party of Australia is a rare case of a registered political party in Austrailia that had practicall zero press coverage as of the time of the AFD.

It is interesting because at least one AFD participant indicated that registered political parties in Austrailia almost always meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines: As a general rule, we've always held that notability goes with registration, and that registered parties have articles when their preferences matter very significantly is a pretty fundamental reason why our coverage of Australian politics is good.

Even if this is true in Austrailia, it's not true everywhere. If "political parties" is ever added to this list, it will have to be on a country-by-country basis or based on whether it or is members have won elections and at what level (e.g. "Political parties in the United States may be presumed notable if their candidates for Congress have won an election, their candidate fot President has received electoral votes, their candidate for governor has won, or enough of their candidates for any house of any state legislate has won enough votes to give them a majority. They may also be presumed notable if ....").

If political parties are added to this list, this AFD can be cited as an example of when the presumption breaks down and the article should not be created or it should be merged or redirected or sent to AFD if it already exists davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This definitely does not apply to UK political parties, which are registered in their hundreds and often inactive or vanity/marketing projects. People have tried to argue for having representation as an indication of notability, but getting a town/parish councillor is like falling off a log. They need in depth coverage from multiple sources. Fences&Windows 11:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. There are other tests we can apply for United Kingdom parties: a single MP certainly guarantees notability, and we can count the number of councillors they have (one might not suffice, but a large number will), and the number of votes they have received (eg you could infer the Referendum Party was notable from the 812,000 votes they received in 1997), and we can look at whether they actually have had control of any county or district council or unitary authority (ie a majority of councillors on the council). I am under the impression that the United Kingdom has significantly fewer elected representatives per capita than many other countries, as I recall reading that somewhere. Multiple sources are certainly not needed for any purpose, and references to them in notability guidelines can be safely blamed on WP:RANDY. References to "depth coverage" are completely unhelpful because they are subjective and certain sections of the community keep insisting on an unreasonably large quantity of coverage. Minor and "joke" parties do get coverage, and are certainly collectively notable: see for example the article "Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?" by Matthew Parris. James500 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the talk page for "Common outcomes", not the place to establish what should be the notability criteria for political parties. Minor UK political parties have often been deleted or merged, so the suggestion above that registration=notability=kept doesn't apply. Any party with an MP will inevitably pick up ample coverage in reliable sources, but I don't know of any practice of using representation at local level to indicate notability. I didn't say that minor parties or joke parties cannot be notable (and there may be a suitable merge target if they are not), but rather that they are not automatically notable. "Multiple sources are certainly not needed for any purpose": I was restating WP:GNG, which expects significant coverage from sources. Fences&Windows 13:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
p.s. Do you have a link/reference to that Parris article? I couldn't find what you meant. Fences&Windows 13:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
GNG does not require multiple sources in absolute terms. It is a common misconception that it does. The article is in The Times Guide to the House of Commons May 1997 at page 49. James500 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus about ambassadors[edit]

To LibStar: Regarding your edit, what "consensus" was this? The last discussion I saw was here. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

the fact that several perhaps over 30 ambassador Articles have been deleted. If they had inherent notability they would have been all kept. There has been no consensus in AfD or that discussion to grant ambassadors inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems like to be included on the list there should be some nuance to the subject. Maybe I just haven't been involved in enough ambassador AfDs to know, but there should be something there explaining why it needs to be noted here (i.e. by default, topics are not inherently notable, by default notability is not inherited, and by default additional roles can help a person become notable. What am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that the vast majority of AfD discussions in which ambassadors have been deleted have had no more than two or three contributors. Not much of a consensus that they're not notable either! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment  WP:N states, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists".  So it is a truism to say that "(x) is not inherently notable".  It is like saying that "(x) does not confer notability", but notability is not bestowed.  The statements are always true, and carry no additional information.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Then there is no consensus for that wording to be added. I have removed the offending text per WP:BRD. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is no 'common outcome' that ambassadors are not generally notable. Thirty counter examples prove nothing because the number is too small, and could consist of outliers. In any event many of those examples should have been closed as no consensus due to there having been no quorum. There is also a problem that editors who !vote against deletion of bilateral relations articles are so regularly subjected to such intense trolling that some editors altogether refuse to participate in any AfD on a diplomat. James500 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If consensus really has changed back to Ambassadors being generally notable, I would find it very satisfying. We shall see what future AfDs bring. I have argued against deletion of almost all such articles for many years, but even whenI was new here, I can't say I received any trolling. One very inclusionist editor (and a good wikifriend of mine) I know did come under considerable attack, but it was not primarily for this topic. If anyone would like to reintroduce any of the bilateral relations articles, I think I have a list somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
nice try... there is definitely no consensus to grant ambassadors inherent notability otherwise they would all pass through AfDs as keep which is clearly not the case. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unclear politician guidelines.[edit]

There are a few things on the current WP:POLOUTCOMES rules that only become clear after analysis, I think it could be worth reformulating this a bit. This has for example caused confusion on Articles for deletion/Rod Silva (businessman).

1. The sentence "losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated" has been used to argue that losing candidates on the national level should be kept and are notable. Of course, it also says "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability", but you have to read through everything carefully to realize this.

2. WP:POLOUTCOMES never mentions ongoing campaigns, only losing candidates. Now we clearly can't have a Wikipedia page for every non-notable politician just because they are currently standing for an election somewhere, and we can't have articles for people because they may become notable once they win, so this should perhaps be made clearer.

I suggest changing the third point of WP:POLOUTCOMES to:

  • Candidates who are have never been elected are not viewed as having inherent notability. For elections to a national legislature or other national office there is often lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article.

This would make it clearer that notability comes only with being elected to the national level. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Opinions? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make any sense: "For elections to a national legislature or other national office there is often lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." From your use of the word "into" perhaps you meant to say something about merger into those articles. But you didn't actually say it?--Jahaza (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You are right, it was a rest of what was there before I missed when I rewrote it. Something like this, rather?
For elections to a national legislature or other national office there is often lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or lists of candidates in the articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010.
--OpenFuture (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposing this: It is usual to delete articles about otherwise non-notable candidates rather than moving them to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace the kind of repository of campaign brochures for political candidates that we're trying to prevent mainspace from becoming (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have long thought our policy here incorrect, and we should make basic articles for anyone in a countries with a 2 party system who has received a major party nomination for national office (in the US, H of Rep or Senator, or State Governor, which has a national influence) . Equivalently elsewhere also --but I do not know how we'd handle multi-party systems. There is always sufficient material to be found in local press sources,which always cover everyone running for this office. (Much of the coverage is likely to resemble a campaign PR, but that's even more true of the winner). The way we do it now gives a bias for the incumbent.
As a more immediately attainable measure, I see no reason not to move to draft space. Even in draft space, they shouldn't resemble campaign ads to the extent it can be avoided. I'd apply this only to those actually winning the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Sir thanks for your help[edit]

Now it's clear enough for me to think about putting my school on Wikipedia or not. As it is in their rules. I kept on trying to put my article on Wikipedia because I didn't know the reason for deletion of my school article.

Thank you so much again for your help.

May God bless you.

Darbar Ali Soomro D Grammar School Larkano

Darbar ali (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES outdated?[edit]

I'm closing this due to a request at WP:ANRFC. Unsurprisingly, there's no consensus for anything. The reality is that secondary schools are generally kept at AfD if they can be verified to exist. Whether that's a good or bad thing isn't clear, but it's the current reality. If anyone wishes to change or enshrine that, I'd recommend an RfC at WP:VPP with a very clear question. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is a fairly long established norm, I believe, that all High Schools (or national equivalents) which can be independently verified as being genuine, are considered notable. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Good_Shepherd_English_School seems to be trying to set a precedent for suggesting that as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not have the status of policy, it is being used rather than the WP:GNG in AfD discussions [and should not be]. It seems to me that this would be quite a significant change to the way school pages are treated and therefore suggest that we're probably better off with having a RfC rather than potentially complicated individual DRV.

I'd like to put my cards on the table as someone who believes that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a useful way to make assessments about these kinds of pages. My reasoning is this: if a school exists (and we can find some evidence from an independent secondary source that it does exist), then this is indicative that there must also be a whole lot of other official paperwork associated with it which may be difficult to find and assess during the period of an AfD discussion. It seems to me that the only situation where there is zero official paperwork for an alleged school would be when it doesn't actually exist and therefore the page is a hoax.

Second, I think it is highly unlikely that many secondary/high schools in much of the world get the kind of newspaper or book coverage that we might normally expect to see to assess the notability of a person or other kind of organisation. So if we're really going to be looking for in-depth coverage of an individual school - that we can easily find on the internet - then we're basically whistling for much of the world and wikipedia will remain as a bastion of information about English speaking Europe and North America. Is there anything really more notable about Eton College than École Normale Hébraïque? Yes, there are likely books and newspaper articles regularly written about the former and none on the latter, but is that really the kind of WP:BIAS we want to encourage here?

Third, I think we're into difficult territory if we're going to start saying that categories of long-established notability consensus are somehow now not notable. Because that moves us out of talking about schools and into talking about (for example) WP:STATION and a whole bunch of other common outcomes. Again, I believe that these make sense, for example for train stations because in order to build and run a train station there must have been a whole lot of organisation and official paperwork which would show notability even if we can't actually put our hand on it over the internet.

Thoughts? JMWt (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this, JMWt. I previously started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Schools and notability about this. My concern is that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is being cited in AfD discussions as if it were a policy or guideline, when it is in fact an essay summarising common outcomes. If there is consensus that what SCHOOLOUTCOMES describes should be a prescription, then that should be incorporated into notability policy. Personally, I think that schools should be assessed on individual merit, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Good_Shepherd_English_School demonstrates that when this is done, some will fail to meet our existing notability criteria. Even after this outcome, however, editors continue to cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES as if it were a prescription. Note that this isn't the same as saying that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is outdated. It may well be that most secondary school AfDs are closed as keep, but that should not be misinterpreted as a policy. On the English-language sources and bias point, I agree that that is a concern, but then that same issue surely applies to all topics on Wikipedia, not just schools? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
First, let me start off by saying that I initially hated this essay's assertion. I mean, come on, every HS is inherently notable (as long as it's accredited)? But as time went on, I began to see, as another editor has pointed out in a different discussion of this same topic (who I will not ping, since I don't want to be accused of canvassing), that this is an excellent tool for overcoming an American and European bias in coverage of high schools. I think it should stay. I understand Larry's point above, but I believe that doing away with the essay's consensus will create much more work for many editors who right now struggle to keep up with reviewing articles. However, I do think that we need to get more specific as to what constitutes a high school. Some editors feel that if a school contains a 9th or 10th grade, even if they are primarily a K-8 school, that they fit the definition of a secondary school. I believe that it should be confined to school's who contain 11th and 12th grades. Onel5969 TT me 15:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not necessarily opposed to a policy that says that all secondary schools are notable (although I wonder what that might be opening the door to), but I think that if there is consensus for that, then it should be exactly that - a policy, not an outcomes essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that that is very Americanocentric. In many countries the statutory and commonest school-leaving age is 16, not 18. Why should only schools that meet the American standard be regarded as secondary schools (which is the term we should be using here, since 'high school' too is an Americanism)? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I'm really struggling to understand how you are assessing a notable vs a non-notable school. Help me out: what does a non-noted school look like? How can it be non-noted if it has official relationships (and presumably paperwork) with the government, state, examiners etc? JMWt (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm using the basic notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I don't believe that the paperwork you refer to is independent of the subject (also, much of it won't be published). Presumably this paperwork also exists for non-secondary schools, as well? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Erm.. well I think you're adding a whole new argument to the WP:GNG if you're going to state that official government documents are not independent. In fact, as per note 2, they are specifically mentioned as being useful sources to cite. I think such paperwork does exist for non-secondary schools, but given that most/many countries only have compulsory examinations at school leaving age, I think it is fair to think that there is likely far less official documentation about them. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I think perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "paperwork", JMWt. Published government documents are indeed likely to be reliable sources. What do you have in mind, specifically, that would constitute significant coverage? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Government inspections, reports, examination agreements with third-parties etc. The fact that we can't find such things is not necessarily because they don't exist. Indeed, if one is talking about a real rather than a hoax school, I have a hard time understanding how these things can possibly not exist. JMWt (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether they would be considered significant coverage in the same way that, say, a book or a collection of newspaper articles would. Anyway, I'd like to see these produced as evidence for notability and properly debated in an AfD, rather than all school AfDs simply deferring to an essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
JMWt, I think you're having an unconscious "culture-bound" moment. Do you know what it takes to create a school in some parts of the world? Sit down at your kitchen table and say, "Okay, I'm starting a school." You're done: you've got a school now. There need not be any paperwork at all. In other places, there are paperwork requirements, but they are really trivial, even for high schools. For example, non-governmental California high schools are required to mail a simple form to the state each year, keep attendance records, decide what they're going to teach, and have a list of the teachers' names, addresses and qualifications. If you do that, then you're welcome to issue high school diplomas in California. That's why I (and others) pushed so hard for SCHOOLOUTCOMES to mention important factors like accreditation (something that either doesn't exist or is uncommon for schools in much of the world) or being run by a government agency (something that exists everywhere, but which seems to have been removed from this section since then).
On the other end of the spectrum, there's a reason that WP:ORG, with its "the neighborhood newspaper isn't enough" ideas about sourcing, is recommended for schools. There has probably not been a single elementary school built in the US or UK during the last century that didn't get mentioned in the local newspaper. Those all "technically" qualify as notable under WP:GNG. However, as a matter of editorial judgment, we think that most of them are better handled in a merged list or as part of the local city article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • IMO this RfC needs a clearer question than "is it outdated?" I don't think outdated is really part of it. The example given and the recent discussions are just the most recent. It's never been wholly uncontroversial that this page substitutes for policies and guidelines, but the more time goes by the more reified that practice becomes. For an RfC I'd prefer to see an actual proposal either to add the gist of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to a policy/guideline or to change this page in a specific way (i.e. to strengthen or weaken the claim of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES rather than have it be an anomaly of an essay that trumps guidelines). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the (first) opinion voiced by Cordless Larry. I see the Common Outcomes to often misused as a policy. Even WP:NOTINHERITED or Wikipedia:Other stuff exists have in fact more value than the summery that Common Outcomes is. And in fact, I have never heard a valid argument why a (second level) school should be "inherently notable" to the point that even Wikipedia:Verifiability is ignored (I have heard multiple times: If you can't find sources, you did not search hard enough.) The Banner talk 15:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Clearly the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus cannot override a core policy (i.e., WP:V), but consensus can and regularly does override guidelines such as WP:GNG. Several secondary school articles have have been deleted in the recent past for failing WP:V. The question here is whether the SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus still stands. My !vote is to incorporate that consensus into a guideline. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
No, clearly not as it prevents unsourced articles low quality articles to be removed. Even an deliberately bad article like this was to be kept as it was a secondary school conform Common Outcomes. When there is so much discussion about Common Outcomes, somebody could get the bright idea that something is wrong with it. Just let reliable sources in the article prove its notability. Not some summery. The Banner talk 22:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, your example fails SCHOOLOUTCOMES in that it doesn't exist and hasn't for a long time. It's questionable if it would even have passed WP:V as ever having existed. That article should have been deleted if it had ever been AfDed. Someone should AfD it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no: if the school ever existed, and would have been notable during its existence, then it is notable now. Notability is not temporary. We don't delete articles when a school closes. Also, I've had editors tell me that a temporary school in a 19th century logging camp most definitely deserves its own separate article, if it issued high school diplomas, even though both its name and exact location are unknown. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I have never seen a school article kept if its existence cannot be verified. But if it can be verified then clear consensus is that it should be kept. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES is simply shorthand for pointing that out. We all know that there are a few editors who don't agree with the consensus. That doesn't make it any less of a consensus (nothing on Wikipedia is ever going to have 100% agreement, even among the very limited numbers of editors who participate in discussions) and those who disagree that all verified secondary schools should be kept are essentially using the old argument that they're right and the rest of us are wrong so their opinions, despite being in the minority, should prevail. They certainly shouldn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the problem with this argument is that people voting to keep school articles sometimes do so in the apparent belief that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a guideline or policy that, if met, requires an article to be kept. As a result, it's not really clear whether there is consensus that all secondary schools are notable, so much as confusion about the status of the essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
And as I've pointed out elsewhere, that's merely your opinion. Do you know that most (or indeed any) people do this or believe this? No, you do not. You're merely making an unsupported assumption because doing so accords with your apparent personal belief that no consensus exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See this, for example. That comment, by an administrator, states that the school concerned "didn't used to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". That sounds like it is being treated as a guideline to me, and indeed later in the comment that is exactly how it is described. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Nope, still just being used as shorthand for "it didn't meet the standard of referencing and verification at which consensus has been reached to keep". Let's face it, there is a fine line between a guideline and a consensus which has not yet been given the status of a guideline. There have been attempts in the past to make the consensus on secondary schools a guideline (in the same vein as WP:POLITICIAN, say), but unfortunately these have been undermined by a couple of opponents who have wittered on about how they're right and the rest of us are wrong until the whole thing just petered out as these things are sadly wont to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So when someone refers to something as a guideline, that doesn't mean that they consider it a guideline? I can't agree with that. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations for never writing something you didn't mean to write. Most of the rest of us aren't so perfect! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume that it was a mistake, and the tone of the rest of the comment suggests that it's being treated as a guideline to me. I would be happy to be corrected. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Another example: "All sec/high schls are keep per SO ". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
To me this is the crux of this discussion. For me, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is exactly what is says, namely a description of very common outcomes of school AfD discussions. So - when I'm using it if not anyone else - it is being used as shorthand for the kind of points I've made above, specifically that if a school exists, there must also exist a range of official and government documents which would show notability if we could find or have access to them. As WP:NPOSSIBLE (which is part of a guideline) we are supposed to be considering "the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." That's right folks, to correct a common misunderstanding, the AfD is not decided only by the state of sourcing currently in the article, it isn't even decided upon sources we can find online. It can be decided by the possibility that reliable sources exist, and as I've already mentioned above Note 2 of the WP:GNG clearly makes the case that reliable sources include, "but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals." A school in my view clearly has notability as given by government reports if it exists in order for it to exist. Even if we don't have access to them. I'm afraid that in the absence of any other suggestions as to how one is supposed to distinguish notable from non-notable schools, then WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems to me to be a simple shortcut for the truth and a way to avoid almost impossible notability decisions. I don't think this has anything much to do with other forms of notability, incidentally. A school is a school, not a corporation, organisation or person. JMWt (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Government agencies are not precisely WP:Independent sources when writing about other parts of the same government. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The other problem with this argument is that it's just not true. There is consensus that the statement "most articles about verifiable schools are kept" is true, taken from past examples and a general sense about sourcing for those subjects. Nobody's disputing that. What I've not seen any consensus for is "if a school is verifiable it should be kept". The latter switches the role of verifiability from qualifier to sole criterion, and replaces a helpful generalization about past examples with a prescription for the future. If you believe there is consensus that all schools should be kept if they're verifiable, then add it to a guideline or develop a new guideline. As long as it's in WP:OUTCOMES it should serve only as a cautionary tale to those who might nominate a school, and as a supplement to a substantive keep argument, not as a free pass. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
How long have you been participating in school AfD discussions? I've been doing it for years. I have seen a definite consensus build over those years. And that is what SCHOOLOUTCOMES illustrates. Claiming otherwise is, I'm afraid, flying in the face of the facts. It's not being cited as a policy or a guideline. It's not being misinterpreted or misused. It's merely being used as a pointer towards the consensus that certainly does exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That you have seen lots of schools be kept only means that lots of articles about schools have been kept. It's not consensus for a free pass. It means (or should mean) that all of those schools were shown to be notable. I'm sure you've also seen people point to past outcomes as though it grants a free pass and I'm sure you've seen discussions closed, treating those as valid arguments. Nonetheless, there is no guideline. Again, if there's such strong consensus, why not just add it to a guideline. If it's just "a few" who don't agree with you, that would be an easy way to stop their protests. I have a strong hunch that no such guideline would pass because no such consensus exists. But you're right; you've been participating in the discussions for longer, so I might be wrong (that sounds sarcastic but isn't). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In my view that's a misreading of the current situation. I repeat; in order for schools to exist, there must be notable reliable sources from government and elsewhere in order for the institution to operate. The fact that we do not have access to them is neither here nor there. And if we are going to be using the apparently argued criteria that only long and extended works in books, magazines and newspapers would give sufficient notability, then there would be almost no schools on wikipedia because almost no school has that kind of coverage. JMWt (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@JMWt: It sounds like you're conflating the notability issues with verifiability issues. Verifiability is a bare minimum bar for any content on Wikipedia. Yes, it requires only that sources exist vs. being cited. People have differed in their expectations in that regard, but I don't think that's really the issue here. The issue isn't how to satisfy verifiability, it's how to satisfy notability. For an article to exist on Wikipedia it has to do both. The issue is that people point to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as though it's a subject-specific notability guideline that automatically confers notability based only on verifiability. Until schools are included in a policy or guideline granting them inherent notability, they're subject to WP:N (or WP:ORG) just like everything else that isn't covered by a subject-specific notability guideline. In other words it's the part you end with "there would be almost no schools on wikipedia", and I think that interpretation is entirely wrong. The reason schools have been kept in the past is because sufficient sources have been found to deem them notable -- enough, in fact, for them to be included in the outcomes essay. They weren't (or at least should not have) been kept purely because they exist and are verifiable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hard to see whether you intended to be replying to me or not. If it wasn't a mistake, then what you've written is wrong. I have not said anything about verifiability. Indeed, the guidelines I have mentioned above have all been about notability and sources. Namely Note 2 of the GNG, which is about sources to be used for notability, NPOSSIBLE which is a paragraph of the guideline WP:N discussing the existence of sources for notability. I have not actually discussed WP:V here at all, I have simply pointed how WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a shorthand way to referring to aspects of the notability guidelines I've quoted above with regard to sources. We are told to consider whether reliable sources can possibly exist - even if we can't find them - and we're also told that government reports are considered to be reliable sources with reference to notability. If you are arguing against either of those points then you are arguing against two points spelled out in the notability guidelines and not WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES at all. Suggesting that official government reports must exist for a secondary school to function is not a controversial point. I can point to any number of these for any school in my jurisdiction because the documents are available online or can be obtained under FOI legislation. This may not be the case in other jurisdictions, but I'd like to see any reasoned explanation as to how any secondary school anywhere can possibly function without these kinds of official government reports existing. Schools do not routinely get much coverage in newspapers, books or other kinds of internet-accessible WP:RS, so only allowing pages where there has been widespread coverage of this kind would inevitably mean that very few school pages would exist. Fortunately the notability guidelines allow for other kinds of reliable sources and also allows for us to contemplate their existence even if we can't find them during an internet search. JMWt (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a mistake. we're also told that government reports are considered to be reliable sources with reference to notability - Could you highlight where it says government documents support notability? Not whether they're reliable sources, but that they could support the notability of a school. Sources with a connection to the subject will often be WP:RS, but do nothing for WP:N, which requires the sources be independent of the subject. I'd also add that I'm not sure what sort of government documents required for a school to operate would constitute significant coverage in the sense of WP:N (WP:V yes). What am I missing? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It could also be that in some cases, the government documents necessary for the operation of a school are not published. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: yes, for the nth time it is Note 2 of the GNG. The note is from the section describing sources which show notability. Government reports are, by their nature, considered to be published. JMWt (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@JMWt: ?? Note 2 says government documents count as sources. Right. But you've ignored the whole rest of the page, including the rest of that section and even that one line, which goes on to say that the sources (of which government documents is one) "should be secondary". It also says sources should be independent of the subject. By your interpretation, every single department or activity undertaken by any level of government would be notable because the government has documents about said departments/activities in order for them to exist. That's verifiability, not notability. To support notability sources have to do more than exist and be published. A CDC brief reviewing literature about a particular disease is secondary. A government report about fracking is [probably] independent from the fracking companies and methods it describes. The documents that enable a school to run aren't significant coverage, aren't secondary, and aren't independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Disagree: unless the government is directly running the school, any report they write about it is going to be a WP:SECONDARY source. A primary source would be one written by the school themselves. Your examples don't work because government departments are not even notionally independent from each other, whereas schools are independent entities from the government that funds them. JMWt (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Government documents that are required in order for a school to exist/function are just not going to constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Even if they're not involved in running the school (so only private schools or, say, schools in another government's purview), if the nature of the documents are such that they're required of every school, and if they exist only so that the government can perform a function with regard to its relationship with the school (hence "required for the school to exist") then it's still hard to say they're independent. But for the sake of argument, let's say they are independent. They're still almost definitely primary (which is not the same as independent). They're primary because they offer no "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". If there are independent and secondary government sources about a school, they would not be those that are required for a school to run, they're be things like the Ontario Ministry of Education publishing a report that reviews literature on testing methods in Singaporean schools, or an evaluation of school lunch programs at private schools in Iowa. The documents required to exist for a school to run are not only problematic within the terms of GNG, they're also problematic for the spirit of WP:N, which is not about determining where we source content or what a reliable source is but functions as our way of determining what subjects have received enough attention for us to have an article about it. It requires more that mandatory government documents. I'll leave it at that because I don't think this straightforward (to the extent any of it is straightforward) WP:N talk does much to further talk of the role of WP:OUTCOMES. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well sorry, I don't think it is problematic in the way described above. If the page was about "funding of x school", then arguably a funding agreement is a primary source which has been written and agreed by government and the school so does not show notability. But if we're looking to see if a school has been noted as existing then government reports are very strong secondary sources. It may indeed be true that the reports contain no secondary analysis (although even this is hard to believe if the government school inspectors are interpreting the information given to them by the school and other sources with reference to performance) but the GNG clearly cannot mean that government reports are only notable when they're talking about things outside of their own jurisdiction. It states nothing which can even be inferred as meaning this. JMWt (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
been noted as existing again, "noting existence" is verifiability, not notability. GNG clearly cannot mean that government reports are only notable when they're talking about things outside of their own jurisdiction - Yes, it most certainly does mean that. Well, notability is about subjects, not the sources, but I take your meaning as "only contribute to notability". But yes, the GNG does mean that government sources do not contribute to the notability of parts of that government. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If these sources are published (which WP:V requires), then presumably it should be possible to access them some way or another (via a library, for instance)? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I dare say that they exist on a shelf somewhere in a national library, a regional education office, etc and so on. These are still reliable sources, even if we cannot access them via the internet hundreds of miles away. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Understood, but we are not all hundreds of miles away, and I would like to see some of these sources rather than just discussing them in the abstract. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I refer the honourable editor to the answer I gave some moments ago. The sources do not have to be accessible on the internet, and the GNG tells us specifically to consider the possibility that such sources could exist if we can't find them via a search. JMWt (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and am often pointing out that sources do not have to be accessible online myself. Just because something isn't online doesn't mean that no one can ever hope to access it, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
But still those sources should be mentioned, so one day someone can check them. That is something else than staring into coffee ground and supposing that there are sources in there, as JMWt seems to suggest. The Banner talk 17:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
And ideally we would also use the sources as the basis for content, so that the articles go beyond simply noting the existence of a school. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Correct, but the points I've made above are clear from the notability guidelines. It'd be great if all of the articles about schools on wikipedia had statements which were properly referenced to WP:RS, but the purpose of the AfD discussion is to determine whether the sources exist to show notability as per WP:NEXIST. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It is funny to see Necrothesp, one of the most ardent users of Common Outcomes as an keep argument, claim that others are by claiming Common Outcomes is not a valid argument. He uses that argument already for years and already for years he refuses to look beyond it. And even for years he gets rude against people who challenge Common Outcomes. So far the example.
To my opinion, you need facts and sources in the article to prove the notability. But when those facts and sources are not there, people tend to use Common Outcomes. What means that the whole Common Outcomes is slow turning is a self defeating concept and should be abandoned. The Banner talk 17:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well your opinion is wrong. WP:NEXIST. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Always a good excuse not to come with sources and wave with Common Outcomes. But in fact, I sincerely disagree with WP:NEXIST as it bites WP:V. The Banner talk 19:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Well now you've moved on from discussing an OUTCOMES and into disagreeing with a guideline. I'd say that's moving the goalposts. JMWt (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you started waving with WP:NEXIST. I just explained why it is a dodgy backing for Common Outcomes. The Banner talk 20:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. So explaining the rational behind an OUTCOMES with reference to the notability guidelines is dodgy backing. That's nonsense. JMWt (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
No, using Common Outcommons to circumvent WP:V and the notability policies is nonsense. The Banner talk 21:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@The Banner: I really have no idea what it is you're saying above. "It is funny to see Necrothesp, one of the most ardent users of Common Outcomes as an keep argument, claim that others are by claiming Common Outcomes is not a valid argument." This is a meaningless sentence. Are you saying I'm claiming others citing COMMONOUTCOMES isn't valid? Where am I doing this? Neither have I been rude to anybody. I have merely pointed out that a few people disagreeing with a consensus doesn't make it any less of a consensus and that you thinking you're right and we're wrong doesn't make you any more right or us any more wrong since it's just your opinion and consensus is against you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. missed the word "wrong". (...) claims that others are wrong by claiming Common Outcomes is not a valid argument. And yes, you have a remarkable ability of not understanding or ignoring arguments against Common Outcomes, what makes it seem - in your eyes - that Common Outcomes is not contested time and time again. The Banner talk 14:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I have never used or cited Common Outcomes as an argument in my posts at AfD, since despite my inability to understand arguments on Wikipedia I do know the difference between an essay and a guideline (the only essay I would cite is WP:SOLDIER, since that is pretty much accepted as a de facto guideline). I have used consensus as an argument. I have on occasion cited WP:IAR (that's a policy, you know, and one that some editors would do well to remember). Perhaps you should examine what I actually have said before assuming you know what I've said! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this RfC is going anywhere... ansh666 23:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It isn't and it won't. The fact is that the current practice as documented at OUTCOMES is spported by tacit consesus of literally thousands of such AfD closures. There have also been many discussions such as this one over the years and they too went nowhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the fact is that a certain group wants their school to be notable. Independent of any evidence. So any objections are ignored or bullied away. The Banner talk 06:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
First, most of us who contribute to school AfDs have no vested interest in the particular schools being discussed. Second, AfDs are closed on the basis of the opinions of those who have contributed to them, most of whom opine that all verified secondary schools are notable (hence the word "consensus" that many of us use). Nobody is being ignored or bullied. Unless of course you believe that your opinion carries more weight than other editors' opinions and should be given greater consideration than theirs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Its a highly useful guideline and should be retained. As I documented in User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs a few years ago, it is based on solid evidence.--Milowenthasspoken 17:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not a guideline in the strict sense of that term on Wikipedia, Milowent. Perhaps it could be made one if there is consensus to do so, but one of the concerns I have expressed is that some editors are treating an essay like a guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, my language was probably inartful, that's true. But it helps avoid laughable nominations like the recent one of Union City Community High School, where I did 20 minutes of work on the article to prove (as is always the case) that American high school was notable. I think such nominators should be permabanned for wasting our time. AFD is overhead on our project of building an encyclopedia, this essay is a net benefit to our project.--Milowenthasspoken 14:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Union City Community High School specifically, Milowent, some of the sources now cited there are pretty poor in my view - the genealogical research pages look self published, and Union City Now is a blog. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Not every source in articles is used for notability, some are for verification. I didn't have time to look for microfilm of the Union City, IN newspapers in 20 minutes. As for "Union City Now," its not like its a personal blog, its an LLC, it has advertising, it appears to be a valid local news source at least above the level of the old patch outlets. But if you want to renominate for deletion, go ahead, so I can ask to have you banned forever.--Milowenthasspoken 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I had no intention of nominating the article for deletion, but I don't think that threatening editors that you will "ask to have you banned forever" is a very productive way to engage with this issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Milowent, I love you like a brother/sister/favorite chicken, but that's a bit strong. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well now that Drmies has called me out, I am forced to admit to Cordless Larry that I am just being cranky. My apologies. Having previously researched the statistical support behind the essay, I expect all discussion of it to cease forever, which is unreasonable.--Milowenthasspoken 17:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Apology accepted, Milowent, and I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your attempt to find sources. I admit that I've been surprised by the passions this topic inspires. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Cranky or not, the block-threat shows up more often in a discussion about Common Outcomes. And that is something that is really worrying. The Banner talk 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I also have a 9th grade home economics class at a small rural Nebraska high school ready to protest you Banner, but I've asked them to hold off.--Milowenthasspoken 19:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Banner is bad news, always. Can't trust a Dutch person, really. Milowent, between you and me (or between you and I), I only ran for ArbCom so I could get you desysoped, but I'll wait until the dust settles down. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You mean desysop yourself? you're the only admin here! Face-tongue.svg ansh666 21:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Ugh... I absolutely hate this essay, which is essentially WP:NEXIST, but then applied to schools. In AfDs other than those about schools, throwing around NEXIST without actually providing sources is usually not enough to keep the article. To quote NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Even a link to Google results (read: the subject exists) is taken down as being not WP:RS. Yet schools are an exception. Talking about double standards... - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a working compromise, which has one great advantage: it works on making decisions. Even were I to disapprove completely of the results, as in fact I dislike some other of our compromises, I would still think it should be supported, just as I support essentially any other compromise. The very worst way of making decisions about notability is to decide about each of a hundred thousand articles at individuals AfDs. We'd end up with a n assortment of primary schools, and of high schools, very few of which would make much difference one way or another--but we'd spend hours each day arguing over them. We haver important problems: keeping nonsense and promotionalism and bias and copyvio out of WP. We have millions of articles that need updating. We have tens of millions of notable subject we haven;'t covered. Debating the trivial detracts from this.
Rather than deprecate this, what we need to do is extend this to as many classes of articles as possible. Any objective standard is better than a standard of what articles we happen to easily find on the web, and can make out a case for being significant and reliable. I could take almost any article here and attack its references on these grounds;I could take almost any references here for challenged articles at afd and defend them similarly, and so could anyone with experience at AfD. It would make for an amusing debating game, but it wouldn't build an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem I have with schooloutcomes is that it's circular: high schools' articles are always kept because high schools' articles have always been kept. That would be fine if the original debates had been honest, but if you go back to look at the vfds that set the trend - around September 2004 to July 2006 - almost all would have been overwhelmingly deleted if not for Radman1's sockfarm. Wikipedia's treatment of schools would be very, very different without this vfd. —Cryptic 05:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what basis you have for that assertion. The consensus to keep secondary school articles has been established over hundreds of AfDs since then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
      • It should be kept as it is kept more often... In fact, every AfD of school articles is a challenge to Common Outcomes, something that is completely ignored by the keepers. The Banner talk 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
        • "The keepers"? You really are quite bitter that your opinion doesn't prevail aren't you? Yes, they are challenged and then the challenge is defeated. Time and time and time and time again... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: The deletion review for Good Shepherd English School was closed as no consensus, so the delete outcome of the AfD stands. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Time for a community poll or vote?[edit]

  • Time and again, people say that there is consensus to keep >secondary schools, as long as they exist. I wonder how much consensus there really is, because so far, this has never become a guideline/policy and discussions about it flare up now and then. Maybe it is time to check the amount of consensus? - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Like TheBanner said earlier, the fact that there have been -and still are- thousands of AfDs about >high schools, could also be interpreted as a lack of consensus. If there were consensus, those schools would not be nominated in the first place, would they? - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
At some point it's going to have to happen. There's just too much repetitive conflict over this issue. I'd strongly suggest collaboration to develop whatever question the RfC will ask, though (i.e. create an RfC subpage to develop it and notify past participants, perhaps)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a lack of consensus, HyperGaruda, but a very serious lack of control over who is allowed to patrol new pages and tag or nominate pages for deletion. As Milowent states above, there have been 1,000s of AfD where high schools have been kept. What is the closure of an AfD if it's not based on a consesus? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I really would not mind keeping schools based on inherent notability, if there actually were a guideline/policy that is based on a sound reasoning of why a school's notability can coexist with e.g. WP:GNG. In other words, I want to see the consensus translated into a guideline/policy, so that we can finally put these endless walls of texts to rest. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Point is that the keep-faction is, although rather small, highly focal and influential under admins. But the fact is that their argument is in fact "a school must be kept because we kept schools before". Not any policy or content arguments. The Banner talk 11:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • It may be small (since most discussions on Wikipedia have few contributors), but clearly not as small as the other "faction"! As for being vocal, it's you who are challenging the status quo. Vocally. And why on earth would the fact that some of us are admins make any difference? That's an argument from a bitter minority member if ever I heard one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggest that the best venue for any proposal to clarify (or alter existing) guidelines on this subject is the Village Pump WP:VPR. For the record, I strongly disagree with the near carte blanche notability for schools, but I accept that it is what it is. It is maddening but themz the rulez until they aint. Still, consensus can change. If someone thinks that there is a consensus to revoke the near blank check notability for schools then post the proposal and let's start the voting. FWIW I have long since stopped editing or reviewing (NPP etc.) school related articles because of my strong disagreement with the way this has been handled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the matter with school articles anyway?[edit]

It's not as if they are toxic or something. Why can't users use their time better to go after spammers, trolls, and vandals instead. Now, if we want something toxic, we could try eating at all those Mitchelin starred restaurants that are considered inherently notable after a quick visit and and arbitrary, unilateral evaluation by someone who risked getting food poisoning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In that case, let's make it a guideline that schools are notable. I do worry, however, that this essay is being cited as a reason to keep even completely unsourced articles (e.g. at the now closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapha International School). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is kept mainly so that we editors don't have to waste time, I have to disappoint you. School articles are frequently vandalised by its students and are often "of promotional tone" (read: spam). Deleting non-notable schools at least takes away part of the vandalism magnets, giving us time to tend to more pressing business. I think the main problem with the essay, is that people take great exception to exceptions on WP:GNG, which aren't even official exceptions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, consensus can change, but in this case, I see no evidence that it has changed. No need to over-emphasize the distinction between policies, guidelines and widely cited and respected essays. After all, WP:BRD is "just an essay" but has incredible power here. We have a working "grand compromise" that verifiable accredited secondary schools are widely acknowledged as notable, while only a tiny percentage of historic or achitecturally significant primary schools are accepted as notable. This is a useful working tool that greatly reduces the volunteer load at AfD, but editors who have logical good-faith arguments against it are always welcome to try. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Funny to see the keep-faction kicking around in desperation but still not coming with content or policy based arguments. By the way, Kudpung, the articles I write about Michelin starred restaurants are properly sourced conform WP:RS and often backed up by articles in national newspapers. The Banner talk 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Why would the keep faction be "kicking around in desperation"? Are we losing the argument or something? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The thing that most people are missing is that OUTCOMES isn't even an essay. It's purely a page that accurately compiles and reports facts. It is neither a guideline nor an opinion piece that reflects the mood of its contributors. Secondly, I can personally attest that while in some people's opinions school articles may be a magnet for vandalism, so are a great many other kinds of articles and being a target for vandals is absolutely no reason whatsoever to decimate the number of school articles in Wikipedia. School articles are far less likely to attract spam than popular but basically non notable restaurants. I'm probably right in saying that a lot more people go to school than eat out at some over priced pompous eatery, and that chairs and tables and a fancy kitchen have never contributed anything to anyone's general education. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you will be surprised how many peoples choice of education (and career) is influenced by food or drink.
    • But it is nice to hear that you state that Common Outcomes has no status at all and is just a summery. The Banner talk 11:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I think that it would be a wonderful thing if this encyclopedia had well-referenced articles about every single accredited secondary school and every single Michelin starred restaurant on this planet of ours. I think that setting out to delete such articles is a fool's errand, but everyone gets to choose how they contribute here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • "But it is nice to hear that you state that Common Outcomes has no status at all and is just a summery". Odd, because that's what we've been saying the whole time! It's a summary of consensus, nothing more. Who claimed it was anything else? You've tried to claim we're claiming it's something else, but that's not the same thing at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Please read the opening statements of this long discussion. The Banner talk 18:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
          • Funnily enough, I read them before I wrote anything. Your point is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Cullen328's earlier comment here: consensus does not appear to have changed. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Well then, if there is an unchanged consensus, promote it to a guideline and be done with it. - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
... and forget the idea of making a quality encyclopaedia! The Banner talk 14:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm off to create 500 BLPs on pageant winners just to distract you now, Banner!--Milowenthasspoken 20:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting! At least it will distract you from defending schools based on Common Outcomes only. Face-smile.svg The Banner talk 21:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
My friends at Köksal Ersayın Anatolian High School will be sad to learn this!--Milowenthasspoken 04:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Secondary schools and verifiability[edit]

Lately, it seems that some editors are voting to keep articles on schools, when the article asserts that they are secondary schools, citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, despite the lack of sources to verify that status. I noticed this during the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapha International School, where AusLondonder stated "The opening sentence describes the school as 'Rapha International Secondary School'", without taking into account that that sentence was not sourced. Lemongirl942 (tipped off by Rebbing) has also brought to my attention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl, about an article that was kept despite having no sources. The essay states that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". I think it's worth reminding editors of that sourcing point (also, presumably in the case of a school, the source shouldn't only verify that it exists, but also that it is in fact a secondary school), as it seems that it's being ignored in some cases. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yong Peng High School was also closed as keep with no sources having been provided or discussed. Lemongirl942, would you be able to check whether it exists and is a secondary school, since you seem to have a good knowledge of the Malaysian sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I have seen secondary school articles get deleted because there is no way to verify them. The burden should still be on those using this essay to check first. ansh666 17:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I found and added a source for Yong Peng High School at least. This really should have been done as part of the AfD process, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Cordless Larry Oops, this slipped off my radar somehow. The school is a genuine school. It is actually a Chinese independent high school. Due to a complicated history of race relations in Malaysia, these schools are legitimate but not regulated by the Malaysian MOE. So these schools will not be listed in the MOE website. However, that doesn't mean these schools are unregulated - they are regulated by a different organisation called United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia. This school is listed on their website. You can think of it as a parallel education system which is "tolerated" by the government. The school leaving certificate is accepted by most international universities. There are 60 such schools in Malaysia and this school is one of them. See [1], [2]. These schools also tend to have exchange programmes with certain Taiwanese schools [3]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I am disappointed that I often see SCHOOLOUTCOMES treated like it's black letter policy. As far as I can tell, it's not been established by consensus, and there's nothing in the guidelines that would explain why a corporation should be exempt from the notability requirement merely because its product is education—or why the common outcomes of similar deletion discussions should dictate every deletion outcome. If we wanted that, we could extend the SCHOOLOUTCOMES principle a little further and create an ARTICLEOUTCOMES that says all articles are usually kept.
In the Eden AFD, SCHOOLOUTCOMES was cited as though it trumped our verifiability, notability, and promotional policies. A sysop actually chided the nominator for having the audacity to bring it. Yet this was what the article looked like at the time of nomination. In my view, there ought to be a CSD criterion for that, and I'm surprised the student names, identification numbers, and grades didn't get oversighted.
After the AFD, another editor stubified it, and I redirected it to Education in Nepal, because there wasn't even the faintest whiff of a reference anywhere, but those trimmings were reverted with a note that the AFD decided the matter already. It seems to me a complete abdication of the project's principles, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Rebbing 21:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone has reinstated the content without adding sources, Rebbing, then I think that should be reverted per WP:BURDEN. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
What to do about an AfD you disagree with is: first, discuss with the closing admin; then, if not happy, go to WP:Deletion review. I have listed this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21#Eden English School Btl. JohnCD (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hence why I raised the issue with you last night. I still feel that the unverified material should not have been restored though, regardless of the outcome of the AfD. In hindsight, a better option would have been to leave the article in place but with the content removed, apart from a sentence saying that it is a school. Thanks for stubbing the article and opening the review. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Another one that survived AfD with no sources is Mount Star Secondary School. I've not been able to find sources, so I have nominated it for second AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

For sure, the keep-faction will start a campaign to keep this: Satshimulia High School. The Banner talk 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Just my 2¢ but instead of editors simply saying "Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" they should actually provide sources which to me makes far more sense than simply saying keep per a policy and leaving the entire article to just rot (AFD isn't for cleanup and I agree whole heartedly with that however providing atleast one source is better than saying keep per whatever and providing no sources at all), ... There's tons of secondary schools, colleges, unis etc on here all unsourced and all won't ever be improved and as I said on one of the school AFDs yesterday IMHO it's a waste of time keeping some of these around especially when there's barely any content, You're better off visiting the schools website, Anyway sorry ranting on. –Davey2010Talk 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is this going to be a rehash of the discussion above that was close nearly four months ago? You can all rest assured that it is highly unlikely that anything will change in the foreseeable future. OUTCOMES is not an essay, it is an accurate documentation of the way school aricles are handled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you read my initial comment at the top of this thread, Kudpung, you'll see that the issue is slightly different this time. Rather than being a debate about the status of SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as previous discussions were, this is about articles that have been kept despite being unsourced, citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES despite the fact that the outcomes essay clearly states that consensus has been to keep them only when there are independent sources. So, this is about upholding the consensus rather than challenging it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

AfC: Proposal to Strengthen WP:V by Requiring at Least One Reliable Source for All New Articles[edit]

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump that may be related to the topic of this page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Need for an RfC on schools' notability[edit]

Can I draw everyone's attention to the conclusion of Coffee's closing remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden English School Btl? Coffee notes that there is a need for an RfC to resolve the clash between WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which reflects current consensus, and our notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. I am raising this issue here to get input on how the RfC might be worded, and where the best place for it to take place would be. Thoughts welcome... Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Notability is a weak concept – that's why it's a guideline rather than a hard policy. For example the current Olympics will be generating a slew of BLPs for the athletes who participated but in many cases you will struggle to find independent, detailed, reliable sources about those people. I doubt that an RfC is going to achieve much in resolving this long-standing difficulty. Andrew D. (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I ran across an AfD debate for an unreferenced article about an Olympic athlete Arthur Busch the other day. This is not a contemporary athlete - he competed in a minor sport in Mexico City in 1968, long before the internet. I was easily able, on my smart phone, to find six good sources and add them as properly formatted references to the article, which I also expanded. The notion that sources are hard to find for 2016 Olympic athletes seems bizarre to me. As for schools, we have an excellent working compromise: Verifiable, accredited secondary schools are notable. The vast majority of primary schools aren't, unless they are historically or architecturally significant. Why rock the boat when the current informal consensus works so well? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The relevant thing about that Arthur Busch article is that one of the few biographical facts it contains is the name of the school that the person went to and it's a blue link. The source supporting this fact is a link to the school's web site. Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, one possible outcome of an RfC could be to write the consensus into the notability guidelines. That would be worth "rocking the boat", in my view. I'm not actually sure that the informal consensus is working well, though. We still get quite a few AfDs for secondary schools, and as the discussion two threads above indicates, some editors seem to now be arguing that secondary school articles should be kept even when they are not verified by independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The boat should be rocked and if necessary, even turned upside down. The referral to COMMONOUTCOMES as an argument for keeping school-articles, is proof of the lack of arguments based on real policies. I do not care what the result of the RfC will be, as long as it leads to a proper notability policy based on objective data. The Banner talk 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Once heard the argument that when you could not find sources for a school, you just did not search hard enough.
  • As I see it, ORG is the guideline, and it requires that schools meet the same criteria as other organizations: significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See NSCHOOLS ("All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either [ORG] or the general notability guideline, or both."); cf. ORGSIG ("No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.").

    The problem is that a handful of active AFD participants would prefer substitute their own criteria for the criteria endorsed by the broader community. As shown by the recent RFCs (1, 2) about relaxing the notability requirement for subjects affected by systemic bias, the community has no interest in such things. If the community is unwilling to make small concessions to the notability requirement for minority subjects, it stands to reason that it would be even less receptive to the idea of replacing notability with mere existence for an entire class of subjects.

    As this is an ongoing problem, I strongly support calling an RFC to confirm what our guidelines already say, perhaps with stronger wording: that all schools must have actual significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and that AFD voters are expected to follow them rather than voting their consciences. Rebbing 09:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • And with the sources present. The Banner talk 16:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (The Banner talk: Oh my God. Can I marry you?? No, seriously— if you are single, you should call me. I have this same thought about school articles several times a day these days (I really, really need to get out more) and you are the only person to articulate it this well. I will call my mom about a wedding date. I am free in October. You can let me know. That is so drippy that it is starting to sound sarcastic. That's not how I mean it!!! KDS4444 (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)).
  • Thanks for the input so far. Can I ask that people hold back with their views on the notability of schools for now (save that for the RfC, if it happens), and instead focus on the issue of whether and where we should hold an RfC, and how it should be worded? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I would have no problem with an RfC, as the longstanding consensus that all verified secondary schools are notable certainly does need to be written into the guidelines to stop the few vocal editors who disagree with the consensus (and, indeed, claim there isn't one) from continually nominating them for deletion and claiming that theirs is the one true opinion "supported by guidelines" (so there! Because, as we all know, Wikipedia is governed by unwavering bureaucratic rules which cannot be varied in any way) and that consensus at AfD (note that in my long experience almost no AfD on a verified secondary school has ever been closed as delete, which certainly appears to meet the definition of consensus) is meaningless. However, I would warn that in my experience RfCs usually peter out with no real result and end up being closed with little effect after interest is lost, so I'm not entirely sure of their efficacy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I've looked at the AFD in question now. It was very well attended and an RfC would therefore tend to be just a rerun which would result in a similar lack of consensus. Note that it is our policy that our guidelines should be based upon such outcomes rather than being prescriptive rules, "the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted ..." Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind an RFC but I need to think how to word it. I'm personally satisfied with SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an acceptable compromise. What I would personally prefer is that participants in AfDs actually make efforts to show that the school is verified and accredited. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Andrew Davidson, Cullen328, The Banner, Rebbing, Necrothesp, Lemongirl942, Piotrus and other page watchers: after a few recent no-consensus secondary school AfDs and a delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bal Vikash Secondary School has been closed as no consensus with the closer, Black Kite, also recommending an RFC. Given that this isn't the first time that this has been suggested, is it time to actually hold one? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, KDS4444, I missed you off my list of pings of editors who had previously commented. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The current policy is based on what what Jimbo said many years ago.

if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do.

— Jimmy Wales, 7 November 2003

So, they were talking about about this back then and we're still talking about it now. But, does all our experience since then indicate that there's significant problem? My impression is that Jimbo was right; that this is not a big deal and so we should continue to be relaxed about it. Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Cordless Larry I was about to post here as well. I think now that there have been multiple AfDs with closes suggesting an RfC now is the time. I still think SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a good compromise, and actually see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arya Kanya Girls Inter College, Hardoi as a good example of it working (there were reasons brought forth why the consensus at SCHOOLOUTCOMES shouldn't apply in this case.) I would like to see something focusing on what Lemongirl brought up: whether a school is verifiable to exist and whether or not it is accredited. The close school AfDs almost invariably deal with South Asia, where the verifiability is a huge concern given a lack of sources as Davey2010 and I have pointed out in some of these discussions, and I think getting clarity on what should be required for schools would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • IMHO an RFC is probably needed, India schools get next to none coverage so it is a tough one, I generally believe with schools if one source can be provided then that should be enough to Keep, If a source cannot be provided then the article should deleted, Mentions etc are good enough for me but as I say with India schools in the mix it's hard what to go with but on the whole I agree an RFC should be started. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would totally support an RfC. Also, I find the argument, "It isn't hurting anything" to be less than compelling. "It isn't hurting anything" is as bad as "We couldn't think of a reason to keep it, but we did anyway because that seemed nice." It makes it really hard to participate in deletion discussions when the rules for one or another class of articles are so very different from all the others. I do not accept that school articles should be entitled to be an exception. Also, just because we can (have an article on a given school) doesn't mean we should. KDS4444 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Likewise. Standards should be consistent. I'm aware of the argument "the kids can learn to edit on their own school article, cut 'em some slack" but what they're often learning is that WP articles can be totally unsourced, full of trivial or ephemeral detail and flowery descriptions, promotional... and may then go away and edit their favourite politician or film star to the same standard: Noyster (talk), 09:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • May I remind you gently Noyster, this isn't the RfC yet, we're just discussing whether to hold one: Noyster (talk), 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes sorry, getting carried away there. There obviously needs to be an RfC, because this school outcomes thing isn't based on any policy or guideline, and indeed often leads us to act differently to how we would if we followed the general and specific notability guidelines we've got: Noyster (talk), 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hold on, aren't you just being bureaucratic there? Apart from wanting to slavishly follow the book, is there any harm done by continuing to handle school articles as we do now?: Noyster (talk), 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Damn right there is, because... I'll stop there: Noyster (talk), 19:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey Noyster, you all right? Is everything okay out there? Face-tongue.svg ansh666 20:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for the useful reminder that this isn't an RFC yet, Noyster. I think we have rough agreement to hold one, though. Now the question is, should it be held here and be about proposed changes to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, or should it be at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), with reference to WP:NSCHOOL? Any suggestions for the wording of the question? Something like Are verified secondary schools inherently notable?, or is that too simple? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like that phrasing mainly for inherent. I don't think even a lot of the people who like SCHOOLOUTCOMES would agree with that. Nothing is inherently notable WP:NRV. I certainly wouldn't argue that at least. The question here is whether secondary schools or above are presumed notable and would prefer wording to that effect. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether it should be held here or at the talk page for WP:NSCHOOL. If it is at WP:NSCHOOL, I would prefer it to be an RfC about updating the wording of that section. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The wording just above should cover it. The preferred venue would be the talk page for WP:ORG. We cannot logically propose changes to SCHOOLOUTCOMES as that page is couched as descriptive, not prescriptive: it purports to say "the common outcomes have been...", not "the criteria for school articles to be kept should be..." which is what we want to be discussing: Noyster (talk), 23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that wording. I'd recommend holding off on starting the RfC until sometime next week though to give others you have pinged a chance to comment on the questions, etc. because of the holidays. I'm also pinging BU Rob13 since he closed the last RfC here with a recommendation for the next one to be at WP:VPP. I don't have a strong preference on where to hold the RfC, but would be interested in his thoughts on the location. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd recommend VPP, yeah. Individual policy/guideline talk pages tend not to be watched too closely. VPP will get a good exposure to lots of editors interested in this area as well as editors who are perfectly neutral a priori. A neutral notice on the relevant talk pages would be a good idea as well. ~ Rob13Talk 21:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I was also going to suggest a neutral listing on WP:CENT given SCHOOLOUTCOMES weird place as a descriptive essay that is often cited in deletion discussions. Establishing a formal consensus one way or another on the notability of schools would have a major impact on AfD and I think getting as broad an audience as possible is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both. I'll leave it until next week. I wonder whether, in addition to the question, a summary of the developments that have led up to this would be helpful, or if that should be left to the comments. The advantage of the latter is that it makes it easier to have a question that everyone can agree is neutral. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: I think it is probably fine to go ahead with opening an RfC now since no one else has commented. I'd say a simple question would allow a focus on whether the presumption exists rather than the outcomes. I'm also fine with giving background if other prefer that. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I hope to start the RfC at the weekend, but it would be good to have a few volunteers lined up to help publicise it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, are you happy to place a notice at WP:CENT? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, done. I've also placed a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've left notices at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability of school hymns?[edit]

I have nominated the article, U.P. Naming Mahal, the hymn for the University of the Philippines, for deletion. So far that nomination has failed to garner any traction either to keep or to delete. It doesn't look like there are any guidelines for what "usually" happens with school hymns (certainly some of these are genuinely notable and warrant full articles, but I suspect many, many others are simply fluff added by current or former students or faculty wanting to spotlight their school's song). This strikes me as something similar to a school mascot or a school club, subjects which have often encountered difficulty (generally, not universally) in becoming genuinely notable. Does anyone know of any past discussions on topics like this and who can give me some links to show how those discussions turned out?? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

KDS4444 I remember one I had sent to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malayan Hymn. In general, if the hymn is unique to one university, I would suggest a bold redirect. If more than one, then simply delete. Of course if third party reliable sources can show it is independently notable, then no harm in keeping (but this is very rare). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
If there's no special guidelines or anything else, then WP:GNG is the way to go. ansh666 18:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Museums[edit]

It has been my experience that museums are always notable. Any objections to adding such a note here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't say that I have seen that and the word "always' should probably be avoided when discussing notability. Do you have some examples from AfD discussions showing this consensus? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
For now all I have is my personal experience at relatively frequent AfD participant in which I have never seen a museum deleted, and I several times voted with 'keep, museums are always notable', and nobody correct me. I will ping a user who I know is active at AFD and whom I think as leaning towards deletionist side for their thoughts: User:SwisterTwister - can you think if any example of a museum that was deleted? I will also ping User:DGG, who I just noticed has prodded Patriots Museum of Brazilian Emigration. I will finally ping User:Onel5969 whose comments at Talk:Shipwreck Conservation Centre have inspired me to ask this. Final note: I will notify WikiProject Museums of this discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping (again) Piotrus - As I said on the article's talk page, I am unaware of any inherent notability clause for museums. WP:GEOFEAT does not mention it, nor does WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MAPOUTCOMES in particular. WP:NPLACE (also in outcomes) does say that attractions "often survive AfD", but that does not mean that they are automatically considered notable. Onel5969 TT me 19:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I have seen very few if any museums deleted. The one I prodded, and which I will bring to AfD if necessary is a small personal collection with a grandiose title. Almost all of the "historical" objects are mere replicas, and the artists of the paintings are non notable. I consider it an exception. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I concur, I especially attempt to AfC accept the obviously good ones and these consist of major museums thus the better chances. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strange, because I'm pretty sure I've seen quite a few small and insignificant museums deleted. Remember, a "museum" can consist of one room! I'm really not sure that the municipal museum of a village or small town (and there are thousands of such minuscule museums), for example, should be accepted as inherently notable, although large museums obviously should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Summarizing the discussion, which has stalled, I think we could write something like this: "Vast majority of museums are considered notable. What occasionally can get deleted are articles about small and insignificant museums, usually private collections housed in a single room, about which there is no coverage except their own webpage.' Would adding such a sentence be satisfactory to everyone? @Onel5969, DGG, SwisterTwister, and Necrothesp: If anyone feels we need a bigger consensus, feel free to canvass for more participation, but I'd hope we can just add this sentence (and of course, you are welcome to refine it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I support what Piotrus just said; it describes accurately what normally happens here. That's the purpose of this page--not to change consensus, but to summarize it. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


RfC about beauty pageants contestants[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As a side comment, there has been discussion about adding something to WP:Notability (people), but there is not a proposal for something being added to OUTCOMES at this time.—CaroleHenson(talk) 14:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
True, but more opinions = better. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-notability of losing candidates[edit]

It says, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted."

I wonder why this should be so? If you get on the ballot at all, it means that you passed some sort of vetting. Typically, it means you either got the voters to give you a certain number of signatures, or you got nominated in a primary. Let's suppose you then lose the general election with 49 percent of the vote. That still means that, perhaps, thousands of people voted for you (or in some cases, voted against the other guy). It's something. You may not have passed the ultimate test imposed by our political system, but you passed every test up till that point, and almost cleared the final one.

And along the way, you probably got significant media coverage, which is what's most relevant when it comes to passing the WP:GNG. Candidates who run for office will usually be asked by the media, "Are you on the ballot yet? No? Okay, contact me after you get on the ballot." They tend to view collecting those signatures as enough of an accomplishment to make the candidate worth writing an in-depth story about. The whole point of the GNG is that we follow the media's lead, rather than making up our own rules (aside from the GNG) about what's notable.

So I wonder how it came to be that this is a common outcome. I suspect it's because of the pervasive FEAR OF SPAM. There's always the worry that people will clog up the wiki with promotional stuff if we don't set more stringent rules concerning inclusion of whatever they would want to promote. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is just that there are many thousands of candidate for office below the national level and there are thousands of people who stand for election who are only notable for having stood for election. I think the example you cite is a very specific example in your jurisdiction and many other candidates are not chosen in that way - and I think a candidate would stood in a major election and managed 49% is very likely notable even if he hasn't done anything else of note. The problem is that if this outcome was worded in any other way then we'd get arguments about (for example) a candidate who stood for a British parliamentary seat and won 500 votes. To me this is just obvious: losing candidates in sub-national elections are not usually notable - but in particular cases they might be, for example if they've stood for mayor of a big city and just missed winning etc. JMWt (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The core issue, as JMWt points out, is that there are thousands upon thousands of candidates in each general election. Multiply that by factors such as the sheer number of countries on earth which hold democratic elections, the fact that many of those countries also have subnational divisions (provinces, states, départements, etc.) which have their own separate democratic elections, add in towns and cities on top of that, and it would be quite simply unsustainable for us to accept candidacy as a notability claim in and of itself. Add in the fact that there's little to no ongoing interest in the losing candidates after the election is over, meaning that we don't have the personpower needed to properly maintain the articles (e.g. defending them against BLP-violating claims about what a bastard they were to the cashier at McDonald's five years after the election was over) afterward, multiply that by the fact that WP:BLP1E constrains the article-eligibility of a person who's only notable for a single event, and it's clearer why we simply can't accept candidacy as grounds for an article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

City Councilmembers[edit]

In November, MB298 inserted "or cities with populations of greater than 500,000" to the sentence "City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London, or cities with populations of greater than 500,000." I do not think this is the community consensus. At about the same time as this entry was made, there were on going AfDs about the meaning of a "global city" and the consensus was that consensus had changed (see Winnipeg (WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Lubosch (2nd nomination)) and Glasgow (WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Coleshill). In both cases, the city population is over 500,000). While I could be bold and remove the addition, I believe with policy and essays, changes should be brought to the talk page first. --Enos733 (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the above, it seems to me that recent practice suggests that this number is not one that sways relevant AfD discussions in favour of keep. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was definitely a personal opinion — possibly by someone who was trying to alter the outcome of certain discussions by self-creating a new keep criterion, although I haven't investigated whether that's actually the case or not. Consensus has never favoured the automatic inclusion of city councillors in cities with a population of 500K or more — just in Canada alone, we have deleted city councillors in cities such as Hamilton, Surrey, Winnipeg, Mississauga and Quebec City, all of which pass that population bar. Rather, the test for an automatic WP:NPOL pass has always hinged on the city having global city status — for any city outside of that class, 500K+ or not, the only other path to includability for a city councillor is to pass WP:GNG on a depth and volume of sourcing that marks them out as significantly more notable than the norm — for instance, despite Winnipeg's inability to hand its city councillors an automatic NPOL pass, I haven't nominated Russ Wyatt for deletion, as his article cites over 60 references and so I'd get trouted for disregarding GNG if I tried. (And for that matter, even in the global cities, the councillors still aren't exempted from having to clear GNG, but can still be deleted without prejudice against future recreation if the sourcing sucks.)
Unlike Enos, I do feel comfortable removing non-consensual changes to policies and guidelines — there would have to be a discussion favouring that statement before it could be added to POLOUTCOMES in the first place, rather than its removal depending on a consensus to take it away. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Nutshell[edit]

An editor (User:Chris troutman) added on 27 April:

WP:BOLD advises that for the Wikipedia namespace "ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first... The admonition 'but please be careful' is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines... it is also often better to discuss potential changes first"). And on the merits, the addition is rather long for a nutshell, is unclear in some places and dubious in others.

So that's two reasons to want to slow down and discuss this and see if we can get some agreement before going forward on this. For my part I'm not agreeing with the "circular reasoning" premise (it's a lot more complicated than that) and not understanding what is meant by "political consensus", for starters, or even generally seeing the need for a nutshell really. Herostratus (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I have to agree. In particular, I'd strongly quibble with "While subject notability is defined in other guides, this page describes the typical consensus found at discussions without regard to guidelines or policies." — this page doesn't exist without regard to guidelines or policies, but exists as a clarifier of several points of debate about the guidelines and policies. (e.g. "Are unelected candidates for office accepted as notable on GNG grounds just because a handful of local campaign coverage exists?", "Are elementary schools entitled to the same presumption of notability that high schools generally get?", and on and so forth.) So it would be more accurate to say that this page exists in tandem with our notability guidelines and policies, as an extension to clarify some points of consensus that haven't been formally codified in the main notability documents yet, rather than that it exists "without regard" to the main notability documents.
    Also, "avoid citing this essay at AFD"? What else would this page be for if we're not allowed to use it in the contexts it was designed for? The page content says to avoid over-reliance on it in an AFD discussion — for example, by claiming that a common outcome listed in this page would somehow trump a particular topic's failure to be properly sourceable as actually satisfying a notability standard — but this page's TLDR summary definitely does not include its use in AFD discussions being entirely verboten. There does seem to be a consensus that the SCHOOLOUTCOMES section has crossed into circular reasoning — but that doesn't apply across the board to this entire document. And furthermore, this document does acknowledge that there are sometimes valid reasons (e.g. a particular topic is either less or more sourceable than the norm for its class of topic, and might therefore count as a valid exception to the prevailing consensus) why a particular AFD discussion might land differently than what this document says. I'll grant that people don't always pay as much attention to that part of the equation as they do to "OUTCOMES says keep/delete ergo case closed", but that's more a user education issue than a reason to deprecate this document entirely. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree with both of you (obviously). Revert my change if you must but you're helping no one. If you honestly don't understand I'd be happy to discuss. If you're going to disagree then that's your issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the general problem is that we've lost sight of what OUTCOMES are supposed to be for. I seems to me that they're supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive - so to avoid having to show something again for the nth time in the n+1th AfD, it seems reasonable for keep !votes to cite an OUTCOME (accepting that it is shorthand to show how we commonly deal with this kind of notability question). But the problem is that sometimes issues just aren't that clear cut, that the OUTCOME developed in one context and is hard to apply in another consistently and without cultural bias. In practice that means it is very difficult to delete some pages with OUTCOMES and that there are furious discussions about how to apply them fairly (or whether they should be applied at all). Also, it isn't really clear what a AfD closer is supposed to do if someone cites an OUTCOME. If someone tried to AfD a school that we've got good reason to believe isn't a fake, is using OUTCOME enough to stop the discussion and close? If not, how does one discuss if a particular situation is an exception to the general rule? If we can't get consensus on what they're for, it is hard to see how we can possibly get consensus on how to write a nutshell. Generally speaking, I think OUTCOMES have outgrown their usefulness. But then AfDs in general seem to have become a formulaic dance between a very small number of regular contributors, so I'm not really sure how much value the whole process really has. JMWt (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we have a WP:TRUMPOUTCOMES?[edit]

There have been a fair number of deletion discussions recently regarding Donald Trump in social media: [4] [5] [6]. Would it make sense to discuss and clarify what should happen to articles about them? I admit it might be a bit premature, but it seems likely to me that these discussions will come up on a very regular basis for the next 3.5 years. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Use of OUTCOMES has led to circular reasoning. It would not make sense to encourage editors to engage in a cognitive bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
We should make WP:OUTCOMES great again instead. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
No Trump related articles have been fairly common at AfD. Some have been kept and some haven't. The only thing that could be said is that each article is judged individually on its merits and in light of our guidelines and policies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing Fictional Elements outcomes[edit]

Proposed to add:

Fictional Elements
"Fictional Elements which have no non-primary sourcing are generally merged or redirected to the fictional work in which they appear. This can include fictional characters, locations, organizations, game elements, or similar entities. Redirecting is generally done with history intact, so that interested editors can merge content to the target appropriately.
  • Individual episodes are generally merged or redirected to the season in which they appear.
  • Fictional characters, combat units, and the like which belong to a notable fictional franchise rather than a single work are often redirected to one or more lists of similar content spanning that fictional franchise."
This is designed to increase consistency and mirror current practice. Right now even though WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R are part of deletion policy, the individual conclusion of any particular AfD is quite random, depending on who shows up to !vote, and which admin closes
Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Having participated in many such AFDs over the years, I can attest that the individual conclusion of particular AFD is indeed quite random, and depends strongly on both who shows up to !vote and which admin closes. That said, I have seen "merge" results far more often than "keep" or outright "delete" when the notability of fictional elements of a clearly notable work are in question. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned by JMWt in an earlier discussion, common outcomes is "descriptive not prescriptive." We can't "design to increase consistency and mirror current practice" because the consensus has become that this "promotes circular reasoning." Jack N. Stock (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure we can. By describing past practice, we encourage consistency. That's the whole point of this essay. Jclemens (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

YouTube subscribers[edit]

I've reverted the addition of this text:

Internet celebrities such as YouTubers are invariably deleted if they have less than 1,000,000 subscribers. Having a greater number of subscribers never confers notability on its own; there must be substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources per the general notability guideline.

"invariably deleted if they have less than 1,000,000 subscribers" is inaccurate and seems incompatible with basic guidelines. The latter part is part of the notability criteria rather than a common outcome. Just clicking through the first several names on List of YouTubers we can see many channels with fewer than 1m subscribers that would certainly not be deleted if nominated... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe the essay that I linked to in the edit summary is the most complete review of AfD outcomes about YouTubers. The essay has been a part of WikiProject YouTube for nearly two months. The data I have collected, while not exhaustive, supports the common outcome that I added. I believe 'invariably' is correct but if it is too strong a word, perhaps suggest a better one. If anyone believes that my proposed edit does not actually reflect consensus then please recommend how I should better establish consensus. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Surely this page is about the outcomes of actual AfDs, not about whether articles that have never been nominated for deletion would be deleted if they were nominated? The latter part of my edit reflects that time after time, AfD outcomes reflect that AfD contributors state that subscriber counts alone are insufficient evidence of notability and that if there's no substantial coverage outside of YouTube and the unreliable sources that are associated with it such as fan wikis, the outcome is delete. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
One issue I forgot to mention: "1,000,000 subscribers" is not a metric that applies to all "internet celebrities", but rather seems specific to YouTube (and maybe e.g. Twitch?). But back to the main issue, the text would need to apply to any article about a YouTuber that's nominated. There's not much point in pulling statistics about AfD outcomes unless to help with future discussions. At minimum, "invariably" would have to mean that you have checked all of the examples for exceptions.
But putting "unvariably" aside for a moment, I think that my underlying concern is that subscriber count is explicitly irrelevant to determinations of notability. It may be an indication that sources exist, and as such may be a useful footnote in an SNG, but including such a metric here, IMO, goes too far in giving the impression that subscriber count matters in AfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW if there were more data (I feel like I've even participated in more discussions of Internet celebrities myself than are listed in that table), and if it were consistent enough, I'd probably be more inclined to support adding something carefully worded like "Though YouTube subscriber counts do not contribute to a subject's notability, most YouTubers with fewer than 1,000,000 subscribers and no other other claim to notability have not received sufficient coverage to be kept at AfD." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Beautifully worded, Rhododendrites - that is exactly what I was aiming to communicate. Nowhere had I found a clear statement that "YouTube subscriber counts do not contribute to a subject's notability" even though that is, I am sure, the consensus at AfD, and it is that seeming omission that I would like to see addressed in this article. You clearly still have a reservation though - can you elaborate? If you agree that your version reflects consensus, is more data really needed? Or are you saying that the jury's still out on this? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: not sure if you saw my reply above? I'd be keen to know what you think the best way forward is. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)