User:Herostratus/Email chain

Setting this up for discussion of the schooloutcomes closure. I will add in someguy1221 to this once he replies to my email. I will post a comment addressing the RFC substantively in a few hours, but I wanted to get everything started.

-Tazerdadog Tazerdadog (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (MST)


 * Getting the ball rolling with some thoughts:


 * My rough count of the !votes is 48 support and 50 oppose. Of course, this is not a vote. Many supporters indicated that they were supporting the status quo, not the broader question of automatic notability. Of course, this is not a vote, so let's quickly move on.


 * The opposers have a stronger policy-based argument. Requiring GNG in all cases is a perfectly sensible position as far as policies are concerned.


 * The supporters had some arguments that are less well-supported by policy. Supporting because that's how wikipedia has always done it and it has historically served us well is a poor argument.  Similarly, worrying about a flood of  AFD's is something to worry about in an implementation, but not really germane to whether we should change the policy.  I also think we can discount opinions that argue that school articles can be kept as a recruiting/demonstration tool for new editors.


 * Not all of the support arguments were weak. The argument that the sources generally exist for schools, but are unusually inaccessible because they are concentrated heavily in print and local media is very valid.  Furthermore, the supporters have a real argument that removing schooloutcomes will increase systematic bias.


 * Fundamentally, I think there are three closes available to us:


 * 1) Secondary schools should be automatically notable. This seems to go against both the numbers and strength of argument in this RFC.


 * 2) There is no consensus in this discussion. Schooloutcomes continues to state that schools are presumed (but not guaranteed) to be notable, and it can continue to be cited in AFD's as a summary of the arguments in favor of keeping articles on secondary schools, and noting the need to do a more thorough than usual search for sources.  At a minimum, such a search should include local print media, not just what is available online.  I think that the correct closure for the RFC is along these lines.


 * 3) Declare schooloutcomes dead. This isn't really the question that was asked in the RFC.    I also don't think there is a consensus for it even if it was the question.  It had marginally more support, and significantly better arguments, but I don't think it got to rough consensus.


 * Tazerdadog (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2017 (MST)


 * Adding someguy1221 into this discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2017 (MST)


 * From my first impressions, consensus is leaning heavily towards abolishing SCHOOLOUTCOMES, based on the strength of the arguments, but I don't think it is strong enough to call it an actual consensus.


 * I'll have a more detailed analysis tomorrow in the late morning or early afternoon. The Wordsmith Talk to me 10:20, 17 February 2017 (MST)

That RFC makes my brain hurt... but let's see if I can't get some thoughts down before the pain goes away.

I think there are three main points to consider:

1. The ultimate question is "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?"

2. SCHOOLOUTCOMES (as mentioned by Kudpung) is not specifically mentioned in the RFC itself.

3. NewYorkActuary (about 3/4 to the bottom) makes a very good point, that there has never been a true consensus about either OUTCOMES or the implied/automatic/presumed notability of schools. It's been a contentious issue from the get-go.

For brevity, I'm going to shorthand SCHOOLOUTCOMES to SO.

As mentioned, the !votes are nearly split. In a rough count of the "types" of support/oppose rationale, I come up with about ten broad categories for each, but as mentioned initially by Tazerdadog many of the support categories are rather weak ("it will be disruptive", "they deserve an exception", "schools are important to their communities") while the oppose categories are mostly policy-based (GNG, NOTINHERITED, MILL, VAND, etc). This tips the overall consensus towards oppose, but I'm not overly convinced that it's enough for an outright rejection of the actual question (especially in light of point #3).

I think there's only one consensus to come to, that of "no consensus" (otherwise we'll be drawn and quartered). In other words, the direct answer to the proposed question is "there is no consensus that schools are presumed notable" (basically Tazerdadog's point #2). However, the arguments presented by the oppose camp (in my mind) mean that SO should not be used as a reason for keeping (or deleting, to be fair).

I just re-read SO, and it states nothing about policy. It simply says "usually high schools are kept". The catch-22 argument, therefore, becomes a bit stronger as a valid oppose rationale. So, in opposition to Tazerdadog, I think that SO should not be used in AFDs. I think that it has merit, but holds about as much weight as BEFORE (i.e. if someone breaks it, the worst that happens is a trouting).

In other words, there is no consensus that schools are automatically presumed notable (i.e. schools still have to follow GNG and ORG), and SO should not be used as a "keep" argument.

Primefac (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2017 (MST)


 * Perhaps we should make a close based around the following points:


 * 1) No consensus (although leaning no) on whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable.


 * 2) SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, but SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. (i.e. not prohibited, but discouraged and potentially discounted in them.)


 * 3) Articles on extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media. A deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources.  If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them.  [We'd really need a definition for deep, I propose checked local print media in addition to an online search]


 * It's worth noting that the closeness of this RFC implies that schools are special. If the question was (e.g.) Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?, I would expect the result to be decided quickly and with snowballs.  The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.


 * Tazerdadog (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2017 (MST)


 * I can get behind that, in particular #2.


 * Primefac (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2017 (MST)

Ok, proposing an actual text for closure.

" The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement.  However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument.  The opposers have a strong policy-based argument.  Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies.  The arguments of the supporters were more mixed.  Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted.  Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong.

Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this lean stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools.  This argument has been rejected by the community.  Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a  statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. (i.e. not prohibited, but discouraged and potentially discounted in them.)

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. I would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.

It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the arguments to avoid in AfDs list is undesirable. Editors who mass-nominate school articles should be asked to stop."

Commentary on this version is welcome.

Tazerdadog (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * Just me being nitpicky:


 * 1) Third paragraph, second sentence, needs a closing "


 * 2) Fifth paragraph, change "I would" to "we would" since there are more than one of us ;-)


 * 3) Final paragraph, I think the "arguments to avoid in AFDs" list bit should be written like that (in quotes, ital only added for emphasis), because otherwise it's a bit messy to read.


 * Overall I think it's very well-worded, brings in both sides and explains how we came to our decision. My only issue is with the last sentence, as it is kind of a BEANs way of phrasing it. However, I can't think of anything better to replace it with, and it's better than no BEANs at all...


 * Primefac (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * I agree with all of your changes.


 * I'm going to give our other 2 co-closers 24 hours to post issues/suggestions, and then post it up so that the tarring and feathering process can begin.


 * Tazerdadog (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * It can't be any worse than the DM close ;-)


 * Primefac (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * I think the draft is a solid summary of the important points in the right proportions. I agree with Primefac's changes, and regarding the last sentence I would just cut it. "asked to stop" is a meaningless and toothless phrase, and we don't have the authority to do anything meaningful about it. If it stays in, we would just be inviting an ANI thread for anyone who nominates more than one school article.


 * I believe the wording in the third paragraph (about using SO in AFDs) should be slightly stronger. I think there's sufficient consensus (and basic logic) that SO is not actually an argument at all for what should be done with any particular article.


 * Everything else appears to be right on the nose. Excellent job on the draft.


 * The Wordsmith Talk to me 08:33, 22 February 2017 (MST)

An updated closing statement including Primefac's fixes, and attempting to address The Wordsmith's concerns. I tries to dix the final sentence instead of deleting it. I have also fixed a run-on sentence in the first paragraph:

" The question asked in this RFC was whether extant secondary schools should be presumed to be notable. Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement.  However, this is a discussion, and not a vote, and what truly matters is the strength of each side's argument.  The opposers have a strong policy-based argument.  Requiring the GNG to be satisfied in all cases is a perfectly sensible position, and one that is consistent with all applicable policies.  The arguments of the supporters were more mixed.  Some arguments, such as "Schools are important to their communities", "Automatic notability of schools are how Wikipedia has always done it, and this has historically served us well", and "School articles are valuable as a recruitment tool for new editors" do not make much sense and were discounted.  Another common argument was that removing the protections secondary schools have historically enjoyed at AfD would lead to a flood of mass AfDing. This is a concern to be addressed in a hypothetical implementation, but is not germane to the question of whether those protections should exist. These opinions were partially or fully discounted in our evaluation. The supporters did have some very good arguments mixed in with the poor ones. The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase systematic bias is very strong.

Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this lean stops short of a rough consensus. Whether or not the community has actually formed a consensus to reject the statement posed in the RFC is a distinction without a difference - Either way the proposed change will not be adopted.

Over the course of the discussion, the conversation expanded to include the proper role of SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special. We would expect an RFC asking "Should artists whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" would be closed quickly and with snowballs. The fact that this was not the case for schools is telling.

It's further worth noting that a flood of AfDs following the addition of SO to the "arguments to avoid in AfDs" list is undesirable. Editors are asked to refrain from making indiscriminate or excessive nominations."

Commentary is once again welcomed.

Tazerdadog (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * A+


 * Primefac (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * Looks good to me. The new version addresses my concerns, and I have nothing else substantial to change. One minor thing is that in the second paragraph, "lean" is awkward and should be cut. The sentence would be better reading "we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus"


 * Other than that one niggle, I endorse the close.


 * The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:01, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * Good catch, Wordsmith.


 * Primefac (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2017 (MST)


 * I have posted the closure at the RFC. It is waiting for your countersignature.  Thank you all for your assistance.


 * Tazerdadog (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2017 (MST)