User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jul 2014

Response
I apologize, but, Jeske is racist towards my cultural group called the Mydkippur. I have received several private messages from him insulting my people. Please remind him to be civil before reminding me to be so. And a reminder, "like you and me" should be "like you and I." :-) 72.48.245.90 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems likely to be a reference to a meme, and thus perhaps not to be taken seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Arumpostasest
Hi Kudpung - I notice you posted some post-RfA sense on this user's page. And I also noticed that he cleared immediately that post-RfA conversation from his talkpage and replaced it with a barnstar - which lead me to suggest he archive instead. But I notice that this barnstar - which purports to be from editor User:Ww2manin - was edited in entirely by Arumpostasest himself. Maybe I'm missing something from the history and/or etiquette here but I wonder about the legality/implications of that. There's no talk page contact between them and Ww2manin has also removed third party content from Arumpostasest's talkpage earlier today (diff at 20.24 11 July) in what looks like a bit of pre-RfA cleaning. There's also - on taking a quick look - some similarity in content interest (Irish subjects for eg). And Ww2manin first supported Arumpostasest's RfA before almost immediately removing it - giving the reason as "I will abstain as I have collaborated with this user on projects before and wish to avoid conflict of interest."!!!

I know this should probably go to a dramahboard as a sock quack but I think it needs an expert eye on it first. Would you take a quick look? Ta, Plutonium27 (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree it all looks suspicious but  I  wouldn't bother using valuable administrative time just for the moment. I've left  a message on  his tp -  let's just  wait  and see what  happens. Thank  you  for your diligence and perhaps you  could keep  an eye on it  and let me know of any  further developments before we create any  overt  drama. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry its taken me a few days to reply but the emphysema has kicked me in the ribs thanx to the UK having one of its occasional hells of heat and humidity. Anyway, thank you for your help: I was hoping you'd understand me being circumspect (I just can't face the admin-wah boards, really). I've seen your message re and will keep a eye on things thataway. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Vibgyor High School
I edited the wikipedia entry for Vibgyor High School page to include a rape incident (with that occured on its premises in its Bangalore campus. But, it has been removed. It needs to be added back to inform the viewers of the page about the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthsl76 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Tanner
Hi,

I've just had a deletion warning about the page on Sandy Tanner - not sure why. The references are correct. Please can you explain?

Many thanks,

Mfs104 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC) mfs104


 * In my  opinion based on  our  policies and guidelines, the article failed to  meet our criteria for notability but  you  removed the PROD notice. The article will now be discussed by  the community  at  Articles for deletion/Sandy Tanner whether it  should be kept  or deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sian S. Rathore
Hi Kudpung, Thank you for your comments on my recent BLP article on Sian S. Rathore. I've added sustantiating arguments and a further source of information about the subject. Please let me know if you need any more information on to reinstate the article. Manc1234 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The best thing  now is to  see how the community's deletion  discussion  develops over the next  7 days. During  that  time you  are welcome to  come up  with  more substantial sources, and arguments within  policy, that  confer notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mike at Eganco Marketing
Just a quick note: On the spam basis alone, it was a good block. But you used uw-softerblock, which also implies the name is part of the block, and per WP:ISU we have allowed names that make clear that a user at an organization is a single person (we call it the "Mark at Alcoa" exception after the first user who got it), so that's not a sound basis for a username block (even if the organization in question has "marketing" in its name). Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, Daniel. I must  have temporarily  ignored WP:ISU or simply  clicked the wrong  criteria button. BTW, In  nearly  500 blocks I've made it's the first  time anyone has queried one, but then none of us are perfect. Thanks again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Locust Fork
The Locust Fork band has the most minimal info I could post to make it relevant. I got a business license, I funded the recording, I oversaw the album being made. They do exist. There is a real album. Granted, it's only sold around 150, but it's real. Please tell me why this needs a speedy deletion.Vorfallic (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for deletion/Locust Fork (band). The reasons are given there. Additionally, you are admitting to a clear Conflict of Interest (which  you  may  not  necessarily  have understood or known about), the article could also  be broadly  construed as promotional. It's always wise to  review our inclusion policies before creating  an article. Hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Conservative Woman
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Conservative Woman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. We all  interpret  the scope and number of RS differently as best  we can within  guidelines. IMO the subject  does not  pass WP:POLITICIAN if it  indeed refers to  the person  who is the subject  of the cited sources, so perhaps an AfD may establish  whether notability  is sufficient  or not on  other grounds. see Articles for deletion/The Conservative Woman.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Note on my talk page
Hello, Kudpung. How very nice to run into you again after a long gap! I fear I was rather stumped by your message, with such things as unreviewings and curatings of which I know nothing, and would be glad if you would lighten my darkness. With very best wishes,  Tim riley  talk    13:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh Gosh! Tim - I'm terribly  sorry. I  was checking  for correct reviewing  by  other patrollers and when I  saw your article I  wanted to  review it and pass it. I  hadn't  realised that  you  are of course autopatrolled so  the green button  automatically  marked it  as 'unreviewed'. If  it's a mistake I  have made, then other patrollers will  have done so  too. We  must  get  the devs to  get  that  button  to  change colour or something  when an article has already  been reviewed. Again, my  sincerest  apologies. BTW, I'll  be in  London 4 - 10 Aug. Take care. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter! I'm inexpert in the ways of admins, and am just grateful someone takes the trouble to do all that work. More power to your elbow, sir!   Tim riley  talk    14:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Escuela Digna Camilo Aguilar
Am I right in assuming that your proposal that an article on a Chilean primary school should redirect to an Irish county was unintentional? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are,but  the other link  was correct. It,s what  comes of pasting  boiler plate  votes to  frustrating  mass AfDs. Thanks for the head up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gerard Newcombe
Hi I'm referring to your message about deletion of a page. I wanted to make this page as 'Biography of Living Person'. How do I do that? I couldn't understand the procedure in help. Of you could please help me that would be great.
 * It already  is a Biography of a Living  Person, but  because it  makes no claims of importance, and because it  is not  referenced, it  looks like a vanity  page and is likely  to  be deleted soon. Wkipdia is not  LinkedIn or Facebook where anyone can list their profile. For more information and the instructions you  need please click  these links: WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. If  you have created the article on  behalf of your employer or client, you  must  also read WP:COI. I  realise that's a lot  of reading  to  do but  it's the downside of editing  on  the Encyclopedia anyone can edit which  nevertheless has a lot  of rules and regulations - needless to  say, we are very  stict  about  BLPs. Please also  remember to log in   when you  edit  articles or post  messages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

School AFDs
Hiya Kudpung, The only tips I have is as soon as there nominated we simply redirect with or without !votes, OR we simply go to AN/ANI & ask for him to be topic banned from nomming schools ?,

3 editors (myself inc) have all nudged him to redirect and he's quite simply staying put & ignoring us all,

It's evidently becoming disruptive, Anyway other than that I don't have much else sorry,

Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Davey, it's actually more than three editors -  it's been going  on  for years. I  have something  planned but  it  won't  be ANI or a block  or a ban. It  will  however need your  support. Let's first  see if he reacts to  my  last  message. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow I think you AGF more than I do!, Ah I wasn't aware of it going on for years, Well lets hope he does the right thing!, Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  22:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about an RFC on schools and notability, save me a seat on the bus. Schools should be a simple WP:N issue.  Not sure who you are having issue with, but I wish we could get this settled once and for all. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . Actually, schools are not as simple as that. For one thing, they  are not  even eligible for WP:A7 which  clearly  infers that  they  enjoy  some exceptional  status.  School  notability  has been the subject  of much  debate over the years, much  of it  precipitated by  a statement  by  Jimmy  Wales a long  time ago that  suggested quite strongly  that  schools are subject  to  special  consideration. None of those debates ended in  consensus, indeed most of them petered out  without  even a closure, but  what  we do  have is a special  dispensation for school  regarding  WP:A7 and and an extremely  strong, but  unwritten consensus through  practice (precedent) on  the way  the community  has adopted for school  notability.


 * The current issue which  is a flare up  of a long, one-going  issue with  one editor who  for several  years has periods of sending  dozens, if not  hundreds, of school articles to  AfD where there is a perfectly  acceptable alternative that  is written in  policy (not a simple guideline). There is very little chance of the current  accepted precedent being  overturned but  but  IMO scouring  the cats of school articles and sending  them to  AfD en masse where 95% of them will  not  conclude with  deletion is neither acceptable nor  conducive to  the interpretation  of the actual  policy  concerning  deletion. Personally, I  don't  care what  ends up  being  a new policy  or guideline for school  notability,as I  have stated many  times, but  what  editors such  as me,  and many  other would like is at  least  consistency  in  the way  school  articles are handled, and that  those who  nominate or post  on  such  AfDs are best  informed of the actual  practice, leaving  them to  get  things changed through  a new RfC rather than trying  to  change policy  through the back-door of a string  of disruptive AfDs.


 * If the dozens of AfDs don't  stop I'm going  to  do  something  that  will, assuming  a consensus, make it  stop. That  said, I  have no  interest  in  getting  an editor  into  trouble (I'm not  that  kind  of admin), but  something  needs to  break and I  spent the whole of yesterday  re-researching  the issue. I'll  save you  a seat  on  the bus. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I can't remember if I've been part of the previous discussions, but I know it is a mess. I've 1800 AFDs behind me, many on schools. I'm saying the solution should be simple: HS or higher is notable, lesser levels must pass GNG on their own, else they will be deleted at AFD or be at least primary verified and redirected to the school district, no CSD.  Simple doesn't always mean easy. I'm pretty sure that I'm on par with DGG on this, and betting your opinion is similar. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , the current practice is the one that  is documented at  WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and wich is evidenced by  1,000s of school  redirects.  and I  are quite happy  with  that  and that's the route we go, without  prdudice to  anything  being  officially  changed, bearing  in  mind that  if it  ain'y  broke, don't  fix it. The current and long ongoing issue is to  prevent the  AfD process from  being  needlessly  gummed up  by  one individual  who cannot  see his way  clear to  accepting  those alternatives to  deletion. he is well  aware of the policies, guideleines and precedents, but  he apparently prefers to  WP:IDHT under the guise that  he does not  feel  competent  to  carry  out  the (less complex and less bureaucratic) alternatives. You  can start  here but  you  will  also nned to  carefully  assimilate all the relevant  threads here too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is consistent with my above comment. I left a short note that is consistent with the comments of others.  I agree this is best handled by friendly discussion.  And if DGG's idea below gets started, count me in as well.  I think that technically we already had consensus but no one made the change, way back in 06 or so. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that we take advantage of the opportunity to do on a more fundamental level what is really necessary: to change Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion.,   DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have supported that  view in  the past,, at  least  the change of name, and in  principle still  do. However,  I  am  concerned that  it  might merely open up  the floodgates for even more  non  essential  AfDs to  a process that  is already  severeley  backlogged (mainly  with complex  AfDs that even admins are reluctant  to  close). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I remain even more concerned about the availability of essentially hidden  deletion by peripheral processes. If there were but one place to look, everyone interested could keep attention there. Even when I was focused on afds, I never got to the other xfds, let alone other requests. We have too many places to watch.  DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a salient point and I've often wondered why  we have do  many  different  XfD. probably  the WP  groupthink  that  everything  needs to  have its own pigeonhole. One place, one list: Pages for Deletion, would, IMO, be much  easier to  maintain  an overview. perhaps if that  were possible, a dropdown menu could offer the !voters and closers a filter option such as:
 * View all
 * View only Articles
 * View only Redirects
 * View only DAB pages
 * View only User space
 * View only Templates
 * View only Categories
 * View only Files
 * View current CSD
 * View current PROD
 * View current BKPPROD
 * View current BKPPROD


 * Perhaps there is also a case for making  redirects appear in the NPP feed, but  we're getting  off topic here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If the tool  at   is working  correctly  it  would appear that   has edited 1,933 AfDs. If  he only  voted on 92, this presupposes that  the other edits were the nominations (or perhaps just  a few isolated non-vote comments); a regex could probably  parse this in  even greater detail.  The vast majority  of the closures were 'redirect'. I  think  this clearly illustrates the issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The analysis is only for most recent 100 of them, it does not imply he nominated the other 1833; Looking manually at his contributions in WP space, limited to page creations, is the best way to see his afd nominations: : it seems his concentration on schools and shopping centers is very recent (and I pretty much agree with him on shopping centers). The temporal pattern of his activity there seems to have very sharp spikes.   DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible to set the tool to show only AfD's nominated by the subject. Here are that person's most recent 200 nominations. Most of their school AfDs resulted in a redirect; the only reason their accuracy count is so high is that the tool scores a redirect the same as a delete. A few others were deleted; none that I can see were kept. They express a fear of making an inappropriate or arbitrary decision if they simply go ahead and redirect, but it looks as if the results of their AfD nominations are pretty much the same as if they had just done it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, I bow to  's accuracy  and must admit  I  ignored that  confusing  feature of the tool. Putting  the results of  through  a regex programme I  have on  my  computer seems to  show that  of those AfD creations, 855 of them had the word 'school' in  them and a further 32 with  the word 'academy'. I  don't  know how to  parse the actual  results of those AfD but  I'm almost  certain  that  the vast  majority  concluded with 'redirect' with just a few being closed as 'keep' and a few being  closed as 'delete'. It  depends how much  time I/we want  to  spend analysing this but  I  think the point is proven, and not  least  by the 2,300 entries in  the 'R from school' cat.


 * There are also other editors who regularly create school  AfDs, tho not  serially  in  large numbers but  they  may  not  be aware of the special  case for schools so I still remain  strongly  inclined towards finding  a way  to  impress upon the community  that  policies (and I'm not  talking  here about guidelines, OUTCOMES, or any  other essays) do  recommend other alternatives to  deletion and one of them is redirect. Perhaps if he could be far, far more selective in  sending  schools to  AfD, we could handle the others. Like you, all  I'm interested in is consistency  until  at  such  time there is a written official  guldeline, but  as we all know from  past  experience this is pretty  unlikely.  All my  other arguments, and those of many  others over the past  4 years can be found in  his talk  page archives, so  although there may  be spikes of activity, it  is far from  being recent. No  one (as yet) has said I'm wrong so  I  believe it's time to  take some action but  one which  is not  necessarily  directed personally  at  Epee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish we had a clearcut notability guideline for schools. We don't. Previous attempts have failed to gain consensus, as I understand it. Lacking such a guideline, it is hard for me to see these AfD nominations as disruptive. Perhaps the editor's reservations are at the outside edge of what's acceptable. Still acceptable though. As long as the community can't come up with a generally accepted guideline, why would we want to censure a good faith editor who is uncomfortable acting alone, and wants additional eyes on these matters? I can sympathize, since I don't perform non-administrative closures, though I know I can. I also don't nominate articles for deletion myself. I want my AfD evaluations to be unaffected by a "deletionist" label. I have no problem with other editors carrying out these actions, if they comply with policies and guidelines. But I am a volunteer here as are all of us. I do what I want to improve the encyclopedia, don't do what makes me uncomfortable, and am also very uncomfortable myself with efforts to pressure a good faith editor to do what they are uncomfortable with doing. Please respect the editor's comfort level.  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . There are clear recommendations in  policy  for 'redirect' as an alternative., and notability and non-notability  has been expressed over a 1,200 times by  the precedent  created by  the community  whether it  is anchored in  policy or guidelines or not; hat  is therefore a consensus. I  fully  empathise with your opinion, but  if you had read the other posts closely, you  would see that  the sheer number  of AfD that  end in  'redirect' are therefore totally  unnecessary and a burden to  the system -  comfort  level  or not. If  making  unilateral  redirects is beyond a user's  comfort level, so  also  should be sending  the articles to  the far more bureaucratic level  of AfD. If  unable to  be far, far more selective in  sending  articles to  AfD, the best  solution therefore would be for such  users to  do  neither. See  also   Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I have read it all closely, Kudpung, and you know that I am in general agreement with you on the preferred outcome, as I have consistently recommended redirecting in such cases, researching and suggesting a redirect target when no one has yet done so. But our failure to agree to a guideline is a community failure, not a failure of the editor in question, who is acting in good faith as I see it. I have never once resented making a "redirect" recommendation in any AfD debate, as that is the appropriate place for the community to debate the matter, as opposed to one person deciding. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I would never criticise an editor  for voting  'redirect' on  such  AfDs. Indeed, it  helps to  substantiate the unwritten clear consensus we do  already  have, and to  reinforce the recommendation  already  laid down in  policy; making  such  AfDs superfluous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, is that the working consensus (which I support) is not enshrined in an actual guideline, and the general policy is so broad that good faith editors may feel uncomfortably "out on a limb" redirecting alone without an explicit guideline to do so. A number of possible solutions have been suggested. Let's work on the best of those. I am unconvinced that beating up on an editor who shares my discomfort with the situation helps solve the problem. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . There is a very strong  precent for the way  schools are handled. It  would take another monumental  RfC to  get  that  changed and the many  others in  the past  have failed to  do  so. Your comments are welcome on  this talk  page of mine but please guard your opinions about  'beating  up  an editor' it  is absolutely not  the case, and is inappropriate. At  this juncture, one editor's actions have merely  served as a catalyst  for discussion. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will refrain from further comment here, then, and apologize for speaking frankly. Consider me chastised. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well since "topic banning the editor isn't an option .... I agree with above some sort of guideline/policy should be created that not only helps him but us I guess, Cheers – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  07:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe  that  some editors can be convinced without  sanctions that  gumming  up  AfD is not  an option. If we can't  achieve that  here or on  their talk  pages by  gentle persuasion, then an RfC of some kind may  be the only  solution, but  I  doubt  that  it  will  be one that  will  attempt  to  get  policies changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I represent another pole of opinion on this as my view is that most respectable schools in countries like the UK are notable by virtue of the regular inspection reports which are detailed, independent and reliable. All such schools therefore pass the WP:GNG but this argument regularly fails to persuade at AFD where most editors seem to have a "four legs good, two legs bad" position, simply going by the age range of the pupils.  I'm going to write up my own primary school at some time and expect to win that one as the school building is listed.  But articles about schools should not have to depend on such extraneous factors.


 * One reason that this issue may be intractable is that everyone went to school and so familiarity breeds contempt. As Parkinson explained: "There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee – what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought – and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting."


 * Andrew (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just adding  two  comments  from  users made at  the VP  recently. Although they  do  not  directly  address the issue at  hand, where notiabilty  for schools  has been brought  up as reasons for sending  th m to  AfD  please read them. and  have  summed up  what  is generally  accepted for schools and why  we handle them the way  we do.

Because otherwise we will spend half our time at AfD debating the intricacies of just what sources are sufficiently "substantial" and "reliable", and will probably end up debating this not just for all the secondary school and colleges, but all the primary schools. Depending on whether you want to keep them or not, it is possible to interpret the sourcing requirements of the GNG to produce any wanted result for almost all articles of this nature. The current system is not, as you seem to think, an inclusive rule only, it is equally an exclusive rule, for not giving articles to primary schools, of which there are many times the number compared to secondary schools. The probable accuracy or even repeatability of our AfD determinations back 7 years ago was about 80% at most, meaning that almost any school could be removed after 4 or 5 afds, & those who wanted to avoid school articles did just such nominations. Simultaneously, those who wanted to keep the articles spent most of their time here on finding recondite secondary sources,which in general are available for most primary as well as secondary schools if you look hard enough, though it can take hours. And what's the point of it all? If, like now, we cover about 20 or 30% of secondary schools that would have trouble passing the GNG interpreted rigidly, WP is not paper; if we merge all the primary schools into the school districts as at present, the key links for the information are still available. What we can not accommodate is wasting the energy of all of us interested in notability, inclusionist-minded and exculsionist-minded both, at these afds, when there are so many really harmful articles, especially promotional articles and poorly sourced BLPs, that we need to remove. It's a matter of practicality, not of principle. The real problem here, is that similar decision points would be useful for many other types of articles, particularly those subject to WP:LOCAL. where the same ambiguity of the detailed specifications of the GNG can yield any wanted result. (And again, with almost random results, except when do we have such convenient cut off points as local or state branches of national organizations.) DGG ( talk|TB| ) 9:35 am, 14 June 2014, Saturday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC+7)

Apologies I have been somewhat distracted of late and this discussion fell off my radar. I am not sure how often this has been raised here or elsewhere. That needs to be looked into as suggested. As much as I disagree with the current guidelines, I don't want to waste everyone's time by revising a subject that may have been addressed in the recent past. -Ad Orientem (talk|TB|) 9:22 pm, 16 July 2014, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+7)

My position has long been that specific notability guidelines (Schools, PROF, etc.) should serve as effective heuristics for when a subject would likely meet the GNG after a concerted search. Where they are effective, we should keep the specific guideline. Where they aren't we should (I realize there's no consensus for this, but whatever) direct the specific notability guideline directly to the trash and rely on the GNG. In this case if your argument is that the de facto notability guideline for schools (which is to say that secondary and post secondary schools in anglophone countries are automatically notable) isn't a good proxy for the GNG, your proposal should simply be to implement the GNG. No additional bullet points are needed.

In a practical sense, we don't delete articles on schools for 3 reasons, 2 of which are widely admitted and one of which is a nasty secret (:P). First, schools do tend to be notable, in the main. Secondary and post-secondary schools are usually the subject of some articles somewhere, even if they aren't easily found online. We have enough articles on schools and have had enough deletion debates about schools to build strong priors about the existence of sourcing. This speaks directly to my heuristic statement above. Second, people like writing about schools. "But Protonk," you interject, "people like writing about bands and we delete them all the same! WP:OSE, BBQ, BSG, etc." While it's true that reader/editor interest doesn't speak to policy, we should all kinda be aware that readers write articles. Rejecting wholesale reader interest should be done only if we have a pretty good reason for it and shouldn't be done if we can find even one decent argument against it. Third, we have a bias toward schools, colleges and other nominally "non-profit" ventures. We don't see them as agents acting in their own interest, rather they're semi-public pieces of the civic landscape. A small high school with about as much sourcing as an equally sized silicon valley startup will not get the same negative attention because we're not on the lookout for the school's self-promotion. Your high school has bricks and teachers? Good enough for us. Your company has an office and employees? Piss off until the Times reports on it. I'm not saying we need to upend that tradition (attempting to do so would be even more fruitless than making notability sensible!), but we should be aware it exists. What I would suggest is that we start thinking about schools (especially post-secondary schools) as agents who will act in their own interest, often inflating their importance beyond what can be supported by sourcing.

All that said, I doubt this is going anywhere (no offense intended Ad Orientem), as it is fighting against years of tradition and for the most part our heuristic basically works. Protonk (talk|TB|) 14:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is time to start an RFC on the schools. After all, it isn't perennial if you don't shake that Magic 8 ball every now and then.  I would also be up for one on Articles for Discussion, but only one at a time.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: White Lotus Tea Club
Hello Kudpung. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of White Lotus Tea Club, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK  11:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Still not notable so sent  to  AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and heading for a very  clear deletion at Articles for deletion/White Lotus Tea Club. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your essay
I just read the essay you linked to the current ongoing RfA. There are few links directing to toolservers tools which are no more active. I guess the tool has been moved to toolswmf, so please update it. BTW it was a good essay though I'm not a registered user but I like it  101.221.131.154 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)