Talk:Lutheran High School West

Advertisement
This page reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like an advertisement. Perhaps we should fix it by making it more closely resemble a page like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.183.247 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable alumni
Please be sure to read WP:WPSCH/AG in regards to who should be listed in a Notable alumni section. Simply having a source does not automatically mean they should be included. So far, all three have failed Wikipedia's notability policy for lack of significant coverage or for the threshold required for professional athletes. Neither athlete listed thus far has actually played in a major league, so unless they are notable in something else, they are not notable for their athletic accomplishments (see WP:ATH for the policy on notability in professional athletics). Notable alumni sections are for connecting related articles; they aren't for schools to highlight successful alumni. General rule of thumb (exceptions as appropriate) is to only include someone if an article exists on them and there is verification the person went to the school. If you think someone is notable enough for the list, they should usually be notable enough for their own article. The place to assert notability, though, isn't in an alumni list. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Since the three alumni are redlinked, and since there are no sources showing that they attended the school, is there any policy-based reason to keep them in the list? —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No, which is why I have removed them again. They already fail WP:N even without supporting sources they attended the school. The closest possible future article (at least at this point) is the hockey player since he's in the NY Rangers' system, but hasn't played for them yet, but that's IF he ever plays for the Rangers. Between the lack of cooperation with a single-purpose editor and the sudden creation of a disruptive troll account using my name (which has mostly edited this article), this article may need some protection for a bit. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Good men, I will be relisting the Notable Alumni list later this afternoon. I understand that your attempted edits were done in good faith, and I commend you for your efforts. Perhaps you are just new to this process (to which I say: "Welcome and thank you!"), but the WP:N guidelines are not being violated. For the sake of education purposes, I will explain: Now, I have mentioned this several times upon reinstating the list, and the edit is always undone citing some new reason for its lack of notability. Gentlemen, I ask that you come up with an actual case before deleting this list. I grow quite weary of satisfying your requirements, and then having to re-satisfy your new requirements. I'd hate to suggest such a thing, but the evidence leads me to a place where I just have to confirm for my own sake: Is it possible that these edits are a part of some anti-Lutheran agenda you are carrying out? I certainly hope this is not the case, as it would clearly violate the standards set forth by WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:CENSOR, and WP:NOTPROPAGANDA.
 * For Ben Miller: You have repeatedly linked to WP:NGRIDIRON, yet I don't believe that you have read the article. To satisfy the WP:N requirements of notability for an NFL player, they must "have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game" (WP:NGRIDIRON clause 1).  Ben Miller has most certainly appeared in at least one game, and the reference alludes to that fact. Besides his professional career, Ben Miller has also coached for University of Illinois as well of the Air Force Academy.  His notability is not questionable.
 * For Mike Clum: To satisfy the minimum basic requirements for notability standards (see WP:BASIC)), Mike Clum must "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is obviously true for Clum, and therefore the case is closed.
 * For Tim Gettinger: The source I referenced states that Gettinger played for the OHL All-Rookie Team in 2015, which satisfies the minimum requirements of WP:NHOCKEY (However, we all hope to see his career come into full fruition)

P.s. directed towards user: c.fred Do I detect a slight hint of The King's English in your vocabulary? I spent a semester abroad in Manchester during my college days and your written English reminds me of some of my dear friends from that period. -- Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

p.s.s The claim that I must provide several sources for each alumni is unprecedented. These men did attend the school, as I was affiliated with the school while they were there. If there is a problem with an unreferenced claim coming from a primary source, then 90% of this page must be deleted due to lack of references (see WP:REF). I encourage you to read other notable alumni pages from the area to solidify my argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot base information on your first-hand knowledge; please re-read WP:Reliable sources. Further, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with the school. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, FWIW, I did just vet another article today where somebody added an alumnus to the list in that article. Said alum had an article, and the article provided a sourced statement that he attended the school. So, that name stayed in the list, no problem. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, the issue for notability is whether articles could be created about these people. If they're notable enough to be included in the list, it generally follows that an article should exist (or at least be in the process of being created), since the notability requirements are the same for both. Their mention of notability shouldn't only be here since the mentions in notable alumni lists are very brief. I wouldn't have an issue if articles existed for any of these individuals. I've edited hundreds of high school, university, and city articles with "notable people" sections and that has been the general rule in deciding what to include. Please do not take it personally or as something against the school.
 * NHOCKEY #3 says "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star)" for the Ontario Hockey League (OHL). His NHL bio page says Gettinger was on the 2015 all-rookie team, not the First Team. While certainly successful, it's not quite notable yet. It won't surprise me if he soon becomes notable, but even when/if he does, an article should be created before something is mentioned here.
 * Ben Miller's stats page lists two seasons (2003 and 2004) and under "G" (games) and "GS" (games started), it has zero for both years. So while he was on an NFL roster, he unfortunately never played for any team. WP:NGRIDIRON requires the person to "have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues..." (NFL, CFL, AFL, AAFC, etc.) for notability.
 * For Clum, while he's certainly been successful, the only third party sources I found were the 2017 Forbes article previously linked, along with a 2014 article from the local Freshwater Cleveland site, and a 2018 Q&A article from Next Gen Summit, a group his company produced a promotional video for. All other links are to things like his Twitter, LinkedIn profile, business pages, etc., plus articles from his high school days when he was on the LW golf team. Does it satisfy significant coverage? Personally, I think it falls more under WP:ROUTINE at this point, but other editors may disagree. Again, if you feel it's a strong enough case to be included here, then there's no reason to not create at least a stub article and then link it here. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An article that mentioned that Clum played golf at LW would satisfy the requirement that we source the assertion that he attended. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to assume the anonymous edit inserting new non-notable people into the list is from. Please read WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL, both of which seem to be issues here, on top of a clear case of conflict of interest. Another key policy you need to be aware of and abide by is WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Consensus is how articles work here. C.Fred and I have explained our position as editors who have edited hundreds of similar articles for years and why the inclusions are not appropriate at this time. WP:IINFO (part of WP:NOT) says "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Yes, we can verify that these people exist, went to LW, and have been successful. That does not equal notability. The sources for the owner of Melt Bar & Gril merely demonstrate that he exists and that his restaurant got a good review nine years ago and 10 years ago. His restaurant was the subject of the articles (and for the Cleveland.com one, he's mentioned in passing in one sentence), not him. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is Arthur Fonzarelli 1738 going on record and addressing the claims made by JR above: I am very familiar with the WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL guidelines, and I concur that they are issues here. In fact, the reality of the situation would suggest a hint of hypocrisy on your end, but that is neither here nor there. You have just claimed, in the writing above, that your position on this matter is correct despite the fact that I have shown time and time again how the WP:N guidelines have not been violated. In doing so, you have just admitted to at least a single-editor, or even perhaps a multiple-editor (I cannot speak for your affiliates) ownership of the article in dispute, which is in clear violation of WP:OWN. I have fixed all brought up issues, yet more and more issues keep "appearing" as I seem to resolve the others. As for the "conflict of interest" remark, this is baseless. I said that I was affiliated with the institution at one point in time, which does not constitute a true conflict of interest. Is it being suggested that I cannot edit the page because I once had an affiliation with the institution? Where would most of the page's information come from in that case? Now, as for the aforementioned alumni, they are most certainly notable by the standards of WP:N. Fish, for example, was on four different TV shows and double digit news outlets, which more than satisfies the "media coverage" clause of WP:BIO. By all of the standards set forth in WP:N, the motion should stand. Rather than attacking me, explain how WP:N was violated. -- Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why the names in question do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:N, even why specific sources aren't valid (such as the Cleveland.com source for Fish), in some cases multiple times. Again, since you feel so strongly, by all means, submit article requests to WP:AFC for each name. An article will make this conversation moot. C.Fred and I are members of the Schools Wikiproject, so we have edited hundreds of related articles and are familiar with the precedents and procedures for school articles, particularly notable alumni lists, mostly from experience and in discussing various issues and problems with other editors. Feel free to join it. I have requested other editors from the project to also weigh in with their opinions. They may agree with you; they may not. Again, the point of the lists is to connect related articles, not to highlight alumni. The article is about the school, not the people who went there, which is why the sources needed for establishing notability aren't really appropriate in this article and why school and city articles in general aren't good places for attempting to establish notability of another subject (in this case a person). At no point have I attacked you personally in any way. All of my arguments have cited relevant policy and precedent. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Art Fonz 1738 here: The goal of the NA list is not to "highlight alumni" (although, anyone who thinks that any notable alumni list on this site exists solely to link two pages together is fooling themselves), but to enhance the page's content by providing "useful information about a school and its alumni" (please see Notable alumni). While you are entitled to your own opinions, the doctrine of this site has defined the NA list as such. Furthermore, in reference to your and CF's claim suggesting that the alumni need their own page, please see our alma maters' pages (Kent State University, Case Western Reserve University, Johns Hopkins University, & Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and see for yourself that these institutions' notable alumni and people lists regularly lack their own separate pages. Why are we trying to hold LW's page to a significantly higher standard than our prestigious institutions' pages? With regards to bringing this to the attention of higher-ups, this matter seems to be rather trivial - I mean, this is a small high school in the Midwest. The last time this was up for debate on WP, it seems as if the guidelines of this site would be on my side. So, upon adding a better source for Fish, and red-linking both alumni, I will reinstate the list. \ -- Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The List of Kent State University alumni currently has around 200 people listed and *two* of them lack articles (one is red linked, one isn't linked). Both are likely to get removed. The fact that other alumni lists have names on there that really shouldn't be doesn't mean this article should. That's an argument known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and with lists that large could simply be a matter of oversight or editors not seeing it yet. As for WP:Notable alumni, be aware that page is not an official policy. The official policy is at WP:LISTBIO, which says "articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability." (emphasis added) In the end, I'm holding this page to the same standard I have "held" other high school and university articles to. In no way am I singling out or doing anything different than I have done elsewhere. Other editors who are in the Schools Wikiproject are doing the same thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , no you won't. The article is fully protected, directly as a result of your horrible behavior in this thread.  Please be advised that was the "kinder, gentler" route.  You've behaved outside of expected community norms so far a block would have been also quite appropriate.  At this point the only edits that can be made to this page must be made by an administrator. This is temporary, but know this, and I am not in the habit of joking or making idle threats when it comes to things like this:  If you reinstate any (ANY) of the content you have added again after the protection is lifted without gaining a consensus here first, I will immediately move to have you blocked, and with nearly seven years of experience in looking at situations like this, I'm highly confident getting it will be no problem.
 * All new users come to Wikipedia with some level of misconception of what it is and how it works. You share the common misconception that content is decided by rules. It is not. Consensus decides content (there are only two or three exceptions to that.  Our rules on copyright and potentially libelous content are hard and fast, and our policies on child protection nearly so.  Also, the Wikimedia foundation reserves the right (which they use very seldom) to unilaterally and without explanation remove certain content via a WP:LEGAL edit, usually due to some sort of legal action taken against them.). Consensus is obtained by reasoned discussion on talk pages like this, arguing to policies and guidelines by using reliable sources. They are not dictated by you saying, "I think I'm right, so I'm putting it back".  This is disruptive editing, and as I said above you've done enough of it already that if you repeat it, you will almost certainly be blocked.  Further, one of our pillar policies is WP:AGF.  When Jon removed your initial edit back on the 5th, you immediately put it back, and again replaced it over and over, even though many highly experienced editors removed it.  Your posts here have been extremely condescending, to the point of being laughable.  You have made 17 edits to Wikipedia.  Jon has made almost 18,000.  Additionally, Jon has been the primary author of several of the very best articles on US high schools in the encyclopedia. C.Fred has made almost 170,000 edits and has earned the trust of the community enough to be an administrator. I have roughly 78,000 edits on Wikipedia, and my skills at editing articles on schools were thought highly enough by someone to make me one of the coordinators of WikiProject Schools.  So I ask you, logically speaking, who do you think is in a better position to know whether you are correctly applying Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and community norms better: you or any of those reverting you?
 * Of all the people you have tried to add as a redlink here, the only one you could ever succeed with is the hockey player. Per the special (sometimes "single") notability guideline WP:NHOCKEY, he will be notabable as soon as he gets an actual game played in the AHL on his stats.  That, barring injury, will occur shortly after hockey season begins here in a month or so.  However, best practice would still be to write the article first, making it a blue link, not a red one. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the football player will ever be notable. Any of the others you have entered would need to meet GNG, the basic notability guideline (it's interpreted specifically for biographies at WP:ANYBIO).  Unless a person has been the sole subject of a full length book, published by a mainstream or university publishing house, the general minimum number of sources needed to show notability is 3-5, depending on how much they source and how overall reliable they are. Those sources must be detailed discussion of the subject, and must be entirely independent of him or her. And if it is not included in any of the sources, to include them here, a citation to attendance is needed.  BTW, the school's alumni website is not a reliable source and cannot be used for citing attendance (see WP:RS). Standard editing practice on school articles is (and no this isn't written down anywhere, but any editor that frequently edits school articles would happily verify that, but you shouldn't need to ask per AGF), unless you can show a red link can unambiguously be a blue link with one or two sources, you need to write the article first.  That would require the subject meet a SNG.  The only two subjects you brought forth that even are subject to SNGs are the hockey player and the football player.
 * Do yourself and everyone else a favor. Start over, both from your the standpoint of your edits, and from the standpoint of your interactions.  Your best bet would be to leave a short message indicating you understand what's been said here, and move on so the protection can be lifted.  Best practice would be to issue an apology, but I have no need to hear it and I doubt the others do either.  Because AGF. Something that you need to digest, and quickly. John from Idegon (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a human being, and I have my rights. I will wait for this case to be considered by the administrators. In the mean time, mind you, experience does not necessarily indicate superiority. I think I have provided evidence for my argument, and I think that this list is warranted as it enhances the article. At the very least, we've determined that many pages seemingly stellar notable alumni lists are in dire need of significant revision under JR, CF, and apparently your standards. So by all means, move to have me banned. Explain to the admins why you want someone who is trying to make this site better removed from the editorial board. Frankly, I suggest you rethink your standpoint with your interactions with others on this site. It is very unbecoming. Also, I don't really understand what you are talking about with regards to "copyright" and "libelous content". What on earth does that have to do with the notable alumni list I wrote? That's a classic strawman. I infringed on no copywritten materials, and committed no acts libel, so it is appalling to suggest any of those claims. I have already discussed the issue regarding individual pages, but your comments referring to WP:RS seem to be just plain wrong. It was demanded of me proof that the alumni had attended the school, so I provided a source. To say that source isn't reliable for that purpose is foolish. That source, for that purpose, is probably the best online source in existence. Furthermore, the "I think I'm right, so I'm putting it back" argument was used by both parties in the dispute, so don't be unjust here.

Finally, in response to the "who would know the community norms better?" comment, I would say "me". I am familiar with the way this editorial process on these matters operate on a day to day basis on this site, and I am frankly disgusted. My disgust and others' lack of disgust proves that I am more aware of the editorial shortcomings of this subject's board. This site has the potential to be a crowning jewel of mankind, and it is being chiseled away into smaller and smaller pieces every day by editors who regularly violate WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (talk • contribs) 07:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

WOW it looks like a lot went on here - sorry I've been away at my wife's son's baseball tournament in Milwaukee. I'm gonna add back Ben miller back - you have my word that not only did he go to Lutheran West he also played on the Brownies - great guy and should definitely be on this list in my opinion. Let me know if you have any questions. XXXTENTOTINOSCIONESE (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)xx


 * The trouble is that you're not a reliable source. How would anyone be able to verify that you are who you say you are and that you actually have the knowledge that you claim? As explained above, Ben Miller is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Please don't add him again. Indyguy (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Same for the others too. If you truly think they meet WP:N, by all means, go create articles on them. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Demographics
Now maybe I'm just a "new fish" editor here, but I've noticed that this page includes a student body demographics tab from a few years back. For some reason, the data clumps both Pacific Islanders and Asian Americans together, yet the source that is referenced for this information does not do this (the source referenced here actually says that there are zero Pacific Islanders in this set, so it is actually even misleading to clump these ethnic groups into one another). I could be wrong, but I think there's even a US Supreme Court case that specifically ruled that these are two separate racial/cultural groups. I'm not entirely convinced that this data is encyclopedic by WP:PAPER standards, nor do I think that the information is particularly interesting or notable by WP:N guidelines. Besides, if any institution wanted this data, they would have not trouble finding it. Furthermore, I think a case could be made (although I'm not personally trying to make this case) that because the class sizes are so small for this particular institution, the demographic data can be seen as releasing personal information about the students, which is potentially unsafe. Is there a reason we are keeping this data posted? If not, I move we remove this data. I could be missing some key information here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Best.

p.s. The data set belongs to the 2015-2016 school year, so it's not even specifically relevant anymore for a school of such a small sample size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardo Saunders x6CA (talk • contribs) 09:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue I see is that the rest of the article is so scant that it overwhelms the page. If we had an overview section, it would be better to mention the demographics as a sentence of prose within that section. I don't see a personal information issue to just present an overview; that would only become a problem is we had a table of, say, SAT scores disaggregated by race (which should not be in the article regardless of student-body size). I'm going to make a bold edit to revise the text. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , all of the newish editors on this page are blocked as socks of each other, something I suspected all along. Over the next few weeks either myself or Jon will fill the article back out with "standard" stuff like athletics and arts. The tabular demographics section won't be lonely for long. FYI, NCES just switched back to separating Asian and Pacific islanders on the last update, and boilerplate sections like this were not nessecarily changed in layout to reflect this. If they stay separate come February, we'll get them separated when they update again. That's a change to over 20,000 articles. John from Idegon (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)