Talk:Community Consolidated School District 15

Plum Grove section
Please discuss here before trying to delete the entire Plum Grove section again. The longstanding status of this article has been to include the Plum Grove section and this should not be changed without good cause. "Not notable" is not a valid reason because notability is the standard for a topic to get its own article; non notable topics may still be covered in other articles. The information in the Plum Grove section is verifiable and informative, and I see no reason why it should be deleted.   Mysteryman blue  07:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

To add onto this: if there are specific problems or subsections that need to be dealt with, that can be discussed. However, the wholesale removal of a verifiable section for "notability" reasons is entirely outside of policy.   Mysteryman blue  07:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Mysterymanblue added to this article, the contents of the deleted article Plum Grove Junior High School. Some history:
 * August 11, 2016 - Mysterymanblue created an article about Plum Grove Junior High School.
 * September 10, 2016 - The article was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Plum Grove Junior High School, and closed as "redirect".
 * September 16, 2016 - Article was redirected.
 * January 1, 2018 - Mysterymanblue re-created their deleted article with this edit at Community Consolidated School District 15.
 * July 11, 2018 - Mysterymanblue edited the deleted article, and changed the target of the redirect to Community Consolidated School District 15.
 * Mysterymanblue is now edit warring to keep their deleted article tucked inside another article, misidentify the deletion as a "merge". Magnolia677 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted for notability reasons. Please read WP:N: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Including the article information within another article is not "recreating the article." You have not stated a valid reason for this section to be deleted. Please engage on the merits of the case. Thanks.   Mysteryman blue  18:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AFTDEL says, "after the page is deleted from Wikipedia, do not immediately put the page back up!", while WP:SALT explains that there is actually a process for preventing the re-creation of "pages that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated". What you did has the appearance of recreating the article in a way that makes it appear less obvious.  I urge you to please revert your edit, and recreate the article in a more transparent way. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * articles deleted for notability reasons may (and often do) have nothing wrong with their content. Notability is a question of whether a topic should get its own page, not whether the topic should be discussed on Wikipedia at all. The issue with the Plum Grove Junior High page was that it was deemed not notable to have its own page. The DR did not close with a consensus that there was anything wrong with the page except that it shouldn't be on its own page. The article was not written in a promotional way, and it actually cites a good deal of reliable secondary sources. I will also note that some content was removed from the time of the deletion nomination and today to improve coverage and make it fit better into the broader article. Adding information to a section of another page does not constitute "recreating a page," and "the appearance of recreating a page" is not a policy-based reason for deleting verifiable information from Wikipedia. The notability issue was solved when the Plum Grove topic was removed from its own article; please say what is specifically wrong with the Plum Grove section so that we can improve it instead of rashly deleting a large amount of content from this page.   Mysteryman blue  00:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the undue weight this one school adds to the article, per WP:DUE? Magnolia677 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mysterymanblue}} In pop culture subsection - you've listed an alumnus with no citation that they are an alumnus; this person is not notable (they don't have a Wikipedia article), so shouldn't be listed at all.[[User:RickH86|RickH86 (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment you will note I have reverted your addition of the disputed material. This is my edit summary paraphrased:PGJHS is already LISTED with the other JHSs, as is customary; but the amount of material you wish to add is WP:UNDUE (<--click link): 10K bytes on just JHS? And you are mistaken: the WP:ONUS (<--click link) is on the editor wishing to insert disputed content, not who wishes to remove it. In other words, you.Note also that both UNDUE and ONUS are policy, which means they should almost always be followed for reasons of neutrality and verifiability, themselves among the five pillars of Wikipedia. I admit, I was surprised to see that you have been here some time with over 2K edits; your editing pattern suggested otherwise (that's why my edit summary advised clicking the links—often, new editors don't know they're clickable!). In any case, you have now been reverted by two separate editors; in line with that, I have left you a reminder on your talk regarding our policy vis á vis edit warring.you should continue presenting your case for including the PGJHS material here, rather than reverting, although I advise you are unlikely to be successful: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is pretty clear that Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them, and I'm afraid the problems it has had with asbestos, etc., are unlikely to be deemed sufficient to bear the weight required for a a clear claim to notability.   SN54129  19:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hate to belabor this point, but I will continue to reiterate this as long as it continues to be brought up; notability is the bar for inclusion as an independent article. Notability does not apply to sections within other articles. Yes, there is a bar for inclusion of content in general, but that standard is a bit more nebulous and subjective, and notability policy does not speak to it. So we do not need to show that the material on Plum Grove Junior High Schools constitutes a clear claim to notability. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is also about deleting whole articles on the basis of notability, so it does not apply here. (It is also an argument to avoid as it promotes circular reasoning about school coverage.)
 * has notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools of this discussion. Per WP:APPNOTE, "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made". As they have declined to make a note here of the notification, this message will serve as that note.
 * As for alleged edit warring: I stand by my decision to revert the two removals. Yes the onus is on me to show that "disputed" content should be included, but there must be an actual, valid reason for a dispute. When the removing editor cites only notability as the reason for removal, and notability explicitly does not apply to portions of pages, there is no valid dispute over the content. Of course, there can be disagreements over the bounds of guidelines, but when a guideline so explicitly does not apply to a situation, I see no particular issue in twice reverting an action. Now that we are having a bona fide discussion about a valid concern with the article, I will gladly engage in this discussion. I would not, did not, and will not revert the removal of the Plum Grove Junior High School section for a third time without some resolution here.
 * In the past half-day, editors have leveraged several valid concerns with the coverage of Plum Grove Junior High that I will now engage with.
 * says that the discussion of the school in popular culture (specifically in a non-notable book by a non-notable author) is inappropriate. I agree. I would not have added that section if the article existed today.
 * Another concern is WP:UNDUE. Specifically, the amount of Plum Grove Junior High School-related content in proportion to the rest of the content of this article is inappropriate. My favored way of dealing with this is to improve coverage of the district’s history, politics, and other schools, rather than deleting the content which I view as valuable and informative. I will talk with one of the editors who worked on this article to see if they would be willing to help me improve coverage of the other schools in the district.
 * The final concern also has to do with WP:UNDUE; it’s that the amount of detail in the Plum Grove section is unwarranted. This is ultimately highly subjective, but I will try my best. You can see here some proposed cuts/edits to the article. I will note that I do not think that we should discount the 1994 air quality controversy as too mundane. It was covered quite extensively by the Chicago Tribune and was the central subject of a chapter in a book about air quality. There may be some tendency to say that The Chicago Tribune is a local newspaper. However, The Chicago Tribune rarely covers suburban education issues to this level of detail, demonstrating the level of importance that this controversy had.
 * In every case, I have a strong preference to WP:PRESERVE the content of the Plum Grove section as much as possible, as we are required to do by policy.
 *   Mysteryman blue  00:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment has nominated the subpage being used for workshopping improvements to this section, mentioned above, for speedy deletion. I do not understand why. This is a very common way to improve articles when content is considered not yet suitable for main space. The stated deletion reason is WP:CSD, which "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." This content is no longer substantially identical to the version that was deleted from Wikipedia all those years ago because I am updating it to be closer to your demands. Also, this reason for deletion does not apply because it is being done for the specific purpose of improving the article.
 * This action has the effect of stifling my attempts to address any of the concerns that others have raised about this section. I ask that the speedy deletion nomination be immediately withdrawn.   Mysteryman blue  12:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You have also nominated this subpage for deletion. Why? I will note that criterion WP:G8 "excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia". The use of talk subpages to workshop improvements to articles is well established (see WP:WORP).   Mysteryman blue  12:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To respond, it appears you are circumventing the outcome of a deletion discussion, and the fact that the three school photos in the article were taken by you, tells me you have a personal connection to this community. If an enormous section of text was added for every elementary and junior high school in this district, the article would be too long, and each school would need to be spun off into its own article, but few if any of those school articles would be notable, including Plum Grove Junior High School.  If you want to re-create your article, just remove the redirect and create a new article which is significantly more notable than the first one you created.  What should not be done is awkwardly shoehorn the contents of a deleted article into some other only-partially related article, and hope no one notices.  But arguing "we have a policy to preserve stuff" when someone re-deletes your deleted article, is a bit like the guy who murdered his parents and then asked the judge for leniency because he's now an orphan. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, please don't dox me. I'd appreciate it if you would self-redact your comment. I have nothing that could be considered a conflict of interest with the school or the school district, and I would rather this information not be associated with my account.
 * I also find your comparison of me to a child who murdered his parents in very poor taste. Please keep this conversation civil.
 * But to the substance of our discussion: I am trying to address your concerns. At the workpage, I have already deleted over 4000 bytes of content to attempt to fulfill your and other demands that the content is far too detailed. I also propose creating sections on other aspects of the district. But now the issue is apparently that covering every school would make this article too long.
 * The truth is that 6000 bytes on each JHS and simply listing out each elementary school would make this article about 24,000 bytes longer. (I do not propose covering elementary schools more in depth because, unlike the junior high schools, they have almost no independent reporting on them.) The article would still be well within the 50,000 byte limit set by WP:CANYOUREADTHIS, with extra room left to cover other aspects of the district. In other words, the article would not be too long.
 * I hate to keep bringing this up, but I will have to as long as this argument is made: recreating a deleted article of content within a section of another page is not "recreating the article," and it certainly is not in violation of the AfD process. The deletion discussion ended with a consensus that the article was not notable, which is to say that it should not have its own article on Wikipedia. However, as mentioned above, that is not a consensus that the information should be discussed nowhere on Wikipedia. In fact, the consensus in the deletion discussion found that this CCSD15 article was the most appropriate place for the PGJHS topic to live. So your assertion that the "Plum Grove Junior High School" topic is only "partially related" to CCSD15 is a bit ridiculous: this is the closest article to the PGJH topic on Wikipedia, and this the most appropriate place for information about the school. What you suggest—recreating the article—is in fact one of the few ways I could contravene the deletion consensus. (Note it is impossible to write a "more notable article"; topics, not articles, have notability.) Please find a policy or guideline-based reason for the wholesale removal of this content instead of saying that I am trying to circumvent the deletion discussion.
 * The appearance is that you are set on deleting this section no matter what improvements I or others make to it. If this is the case, this conversation is pointless, and I will attempt to seek some form of mediation. If this is not the case (which I think and hope to be true), then I need you to either work with me or stop obstructing. Because instead of giving me feedback on the proposed changes I made to the section, you tried to get the workpage where those changes were being workshopped deleted, a request that was denied by . And instead of engaging with my proposed changes, you are continuing to discuss why a notability-based deletion of an article should bind what we do to a modified section of a different (but related) article. We are supposed to fix content instead of deleting it, and we are supposed to try to build consensus. I am trying to do that. Are you?
 *   Mysteryman blue  19:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree to one sentence of general information being added about each of the non-notable schools (founding date; defining characteristic). After all, this article isn't about individual schools. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea: Why not make this into a gridded list, with up to a paragraph or so on each school allowed? Something like List_of_Dallas_Independent_School_District_schools. I support having up to a paragraph on Plum Grove Junior High, with the paragraph sourced from mostly newspaper articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)