Talk:Edgewood High School (Indiana)

Untitled
See Notability (schools) where it states that high schools are inherently notable. The ref provided is a State Goverment site, nothing to sneeze at. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 09:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a PROPOSED guideline page (and that option is just 1 of the proposals for schools, one that has very little support on the talk page), that means it has no affect on any articles right now. A state goverment website which covers every high school (or just about) in a state means nothing.  TJ   Spyke   09:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the other sourcing I just added? AnteaterZot (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
Assessing as Stub / Low. Generally needs expanding, more sources, and a info-box added. Some pictures including the school logo would be good. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports
The directory of sports offered, sourced to http://edgewoodmustangsathletics.com/, is promotional. Only those sports reported in proper third-party sources, should appear here. If that means none appear, so be it. --John (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's nothing promotional about simply mentioning which sports a school offers. In fact, under the extracurricular activities section of WP:WPSCH/AG it says to "Mention the sports team(s) of the school " Meters (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with . The justification for removal is fallacious. The requirement is that it CAN be sourced to third party sources. In the US, all high school sports gets some level of press coverage. The operational standard is to source a listing to the school if no other source is available for convenient verification. In Indiana it so happens that there is one available. That is not always the case but it in no way changes the encyclopedic nature of the content. I'll be restoring the content and adding a better source soon. If you disagree with the guidelines,  make a case there to change them. This seems somewhat POINTY to me. John from Idegon (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTSOAPBOX says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources" and I think this trumps your project guidelines. We cannot carry material which appears promotional and is sourced only to a self-published source. There are loads of cheap and free hosts out there if you want to produce listings for schools which do not rise to the level of coverage at Wikipedia. For our standards though, we would need better sourcing, or this stuff would need to be removed again. --John (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don;t label the sources I added as possibly unreliable. A primary source does not mean it is unreliable. The school's own listing of what teams it has, and the athletic association's listing of what sports it sanctions are perfectly valid primary sources. Meters (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So would we then need to carry on our Walmart article a full listing of the products it sells, sourced to www.walmart.com? I think that if you ask yourself this question honestly, you will see why the policy I quoted to you is in place. --John (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote come from the policy section on Advertising, marketing or public relations, which does not apply to this material. I've already said I don't think this material is promotional. If you want to insist on a third party reference for what sports a school offers then by all means go and find one, but "promotional" is not a question of which source is used. Promotional material is promotional regardless of how it's sourced. A school's listing of its sports, and an athletic association's listing of its sports are primary, not promotional. You seem to be arguing that a third party source for this information would mean that you no longer considered it promotional. Ignoring the off topic and incomprehensible argument about Walmart. Meters (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you do not comprehend my point. I wonder why you would think that schools would be exempt from our policy on advertising, marketing and public relations? --John (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is verified to a third party source. IHSAA is the independent sanctioning body for all high school sports in Indiana. WP:BURDEN has been met. We are not showing notability here. It isn't necessary for article content. However, I can tell you that the Indianapolis Star publishes the full brackets for all classes for every high school sport's state tournament.  The key word in the policy you quoted is "verifiable". It does not say verified. You want to take 8 or 10 hours and go dig up all the brackets for 15-16, feel free. It would only serve to clutter the article in extreme. I am going to reword the intro to reflect sanctioned sports and remove the two entries that are not. I'm also going to remove the tags. You do not have anything like a consensus to support your position on the reliability of the sources. I'll also notify the two projects that this page is under. John from Idegon (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry we disagree. Schools engage in boosterism as much as companies do, and it seems obvious that the relevant policy I quoted applies here. Wikipedia is not an advertising site; just as "mission statements" and the like need to be removed on sight, so do non-notable listings of sports or subjects, unless they have attracted significant coverage in the real world. --John (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to article subjects, not to article contents. If someone was attempting to write an article about, say, the school's football team then notability would have to be considered. A simple listing of the sports offered at the school is not promotional and does not need to be notable. It just needs to be to be verifiable, and it is. User:John from Idegon has even replaced my ref with an improved sports association ref showing which of the sports the school participates in so we no longer need the primary school ref you were worried about. Meters (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - so what encyclopedic purpose does it serve then? What does the general reader learn from reading that this high school in Indiana allows students to do "Cross country (boys and girls), Football (boys), Golf (girls), Soccer (girls & boys), Tennis (boys), Volleyball (girls)", and all the rest? Don't most high schools do these sports? Can you see how this is like listing at the Walmart article something like: "Walmart sells the following brands of orange juice: [insert long list]", sourced to the Walmart site? Now, if we could find a really good source for a statement like "Edgewood is the only Indiana school to offer quidditch lessons", that would be worth noting. I sometimes see similar with lists of subjects taught. Most schools follow a prescribed curriculum and these, like sports, tend to be generic among schools. There is really no need to state and restate them in each school article. It looks like boosterism and does not aid our readers, who will likely correctly assume that an American high school will have a football team. If any of these claims are noteworthy, they will have appeared in sources beyond the school's own website and a generic list. --John (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB allows articles to cite information published by the subject for non-controversial statements. EyeTripleE (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Allows, not requires. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve here, in this specific case? --John (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think discussion of the school's extracurricular programs is in general needed for comprehensive coverage of the school. If you look at our American FA and GA class school articles (e.g. Auburn_High_School_(Alabama), Amador_Valley_High_School you will see that this information is almost always, if not always, included. While you assert the content isn't encyclopedic, I don't believe most readers and editors share this view. I think a reader of an article on an American high school is generally going to expect this information to be present. That said, the information can be reformulated to take up less space. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see why so much valuable editing time is being spent on this stub of a school article. I find it risible that there are more words on this talk  page than on the entire article. All it can say about itself is listing its sports teams, but I expect our American cousins find us Brits just as eccentric for writing about A-Levels and other university entrance standards. Compare with a run-of-the-mill UK school Pershore High School. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)