Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School week


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete due to lack of sources and WP:OR. There is some feeling that it might be possible to write a useful article about this topic, but the current article isn't it. If anybody wants to try that, I would suggest trying a new version in draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

School week

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An older article that has been tagged for multiple issues for many years. PRODed at one stage, the PROD was removed without addressing the issue. Concern was: The average school week in the UK is Monday to Friday and I don't feel this is a relevant topic on Wikipedia, it is not updated and is a poor article and considering we do already have a page for the Work Week on wikipedia which is alot more informative, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend hence this page should be deleted and we should keep the more informative one called "WorkWeek". I am adding to this that it is an essay or WP:Original research. In any case, it's unreferenced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unsourced common knowledge that repeats Workweek and weekend '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLUE and WP:V, sources are not normally required for common knowledge. Andrew D. (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge/Redirect to Workweek and weekend, very valid search term. ansh 666 19:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think a merge and/or redirect is the correct way to go; school and work are similar enough to where they fit in the same article, and a potential comparison section would be better off in a single article than split over two. ansh 666 16:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is obviously totally inadequate, but we should certainly have an article about the hours of schooling that are provided around the world. Is there any other article that covers this properly? The fact this this is common knowledge, as said above, is a reason to have an article, not to not have one. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A good source for this kind of topic is A Time For Every Purpose which has a chapter about the various hours scheduled for schooling.  Some place have tried a four day school week and there are substantial sources about this such as Practical Strategies for School Principals.  The effectiveness of different durations has been compared across many countries in works such as Effectiveness of Time Investments in Education.  The topic is therefore notable and its current deficiencies are acceptable per our editing policy which states that " Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome". Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The standard school and work week are indeed common knowledge.  Andrew D.'s sources perhaps demonstrate a need for an article on Alternative school week proposals (or similar), but we do have an article already on Four-day week that could also possibly accommodate that information.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn fails to explain why we should delete common knowledge. We have an article about even more fundamental concepts such as school and week, even though most people know what they are.  The job of an encyclopedia is to cover everything, not just obscure and esoteric information. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we don't have any such job: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Or, to be more correct, the WP community has come to a long-standing consensus that we do not cover everything.  In line with that, I don't see that my earlier statement needs justification other than to say that I believe I suggested two good and useful alternatives to simply removing the information completely.  Cheers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If we don't remove the information completely then that's a keep, not a delete. Delete means that everything has to go.  Once you start keeping bits then you have to keep the page for attribution. Andrew D. (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a policy reason that this page cannot be deleted while an interested editor cannot go to, say, Four-day week and start adding new information like the sources you mentioned. They weren't there before, so attribution to previous versions is moot.  That said, I'm content to let the admins parse what was said into functional steps however they want and I think we are nibbling around the same concept. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The admins tend to be bilious types like Sandstein below but what's needed is a more constructive approach. The four-day school week has a lot of coverage in English language sources because this has been tried in the USA.  But four days is obviously not the only possibility.  In ancient Rome, they used to have a 7-day school week with a day off to fit their habit of 8-day weeks.  In France, we find that "Students go to school between 24 and 28 hours a week, spread over four, four and a half, or five days depending on the region. Students preparing the baccalauréat may have as many as 40 hours per week. Some schools close on Wednesday afternoons and older pupils may have lessons on a Saturday. Although Saturday classes were once a common practice in French primary schools, this has been phased out and replaced by a longer school year."  I am quite capable of making something of the topic from such sources but am disinclined to do so while unhelpful admins threaten to delete the work.  See WP:INSPECTOR... Andrew D. (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic might or might not be theoretically notable, but the content is unsourced crap. I am not in favor of keeping crap. No objection to recreation by somebody competent.  Sandstein   16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.