Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bethel Christian School (Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana)

Addendum
Because the discussion on the main page was closed, I'd like to reply on this talk page.

I found that the Jennings Daily News doesn't keep archives of older publications, and the library that does have the archives requires in-person visits for their microfilms. I don't have the means of doing that right now, sadly. And therefore I have no plans, at the moment, for DRV. I believe, though, that it's important to say that not everything is online throughout AFD discussions, and that it's important to tell people to look in microfilms to obtain content to source notability.

Indeed Notability says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

I personally believe, and I emphasize believe, that newspaper articles from two different authors in the same publication should be counted as "multiple" for the purposes of establishing notability for a Wikipedia article related to a non-profit private school. This is because I feel doing so gives fairness towards rural community topics, which are a minority and which need coverage on Wikipedia. I believe rural residents should see their educational institutions represented on Wikipedia and that this would incentivize them to contribute.

However, even with that aside, it is possible that there used to be other rural newspapers which could have given coverage to this school. The American media market has seen many smaller newspapers disappear, especially in rural areas (which is why I strongly believe this stringent notability criterion needs to be re-examined/interpreted less stringently, because otherwise it becomes increasingly difficult to source rural-oriented topics). WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * What you are missing is that the purpose of the notability guidelines is to ensure that an encyclopaedic article can be written about the subject. Now encyclopaedic articles are tertiary sources. They take secondary sourced information and summarise that information in an encyclopaedic entry. In this case no secondary sources are known to exist, and they probably don't exist. When you talk about newspapers, what you are talking about are primary sources. Now primary sources are the bread and butter of the historian. They are exactly what a historian needs for their project, and so they will find those microfilm articles and read them, analyse them, synthesise and produce a work. But these historians are writing the history, the secondary source. A historian undertakes original research and synthesises sources. They may defend a thesis to their peers, and they may publish that work. We can hope they will do this for subjects such as rural schools. When they do there will be secondary sources from which an encycloapedic article can be written. If that is what you want to do here, though, then you are at the wrong wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. However, take a look at Wikiversity which is there for the purpose of original research. Also there may be a place for this kind of thing at Wikibooks although that project discourages OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are secondary sources. A primary source would be something published by the school, school district or local government. ~Kvng (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They are primary when reporting news. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS, or WP:PRIMARY, especially note d. Or any book on historiography. For instance, here's what Donnelly and Norton say:  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware that technically in academia they may be treated as primary sources, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for the general public, not an academia encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia practices, for most subjects, newspapers are secondary sources. This User:Jimbo Wales response shows that for social sciences and humanities newspapers are shown as secondary, not primary: Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26 (see how he cites the BBC and Washington Post). In medical related articles, popular journalism is treated as primary. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I cited Wikipedia policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Jimbo Wales is a co-founder of Wikipedia. His word is not absolute, but nonetheless he has... quite a bit of influence. Remember the words on the page of policy are not the only thing, but also how the words are applied. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe primary vs. secondary is the wrong argument. Notability is established by WP:42. The policy requirements are WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT. For covering most topics, newspapers generally meet both requirements. ~Kvng (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG has five bullet points. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Which dovetails into Identifying_and_using_primary_sources. It says "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events" ... but from my experience, non-routine SIGCOV newspaper articles always have some sort of analysis, which means for most topics they count as secondary sources, which means they count for notability, full stop. Example outcome: Articles for deletion/Lakota Tech High School. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You will note that I said: They are primary when reporting news. That statement is correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But they are secondary when they have any kind of analysis, and the outcome means they are notable. That means cases like Articles for deletion/Lakota Tech High School resolve to keep. That also means we perhaps need to re-clarify in every discussion that newspaper articles present notability in most cases, and they need to.
 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That means notability-giving sources need to be ones the general public has access to: which in this case, is popular journalism. Otherwise, the project dries up. When I say "newspaper articles usually present notability for most subjects" that is a necessary condition of this project's success. There are exceptions like WP:MEDRS (and perhaps ancient history/subjects often misinterpreted in popular journalism), but a high school article ought to, should, and does get notability from newspaper articles. Actual practice shows this. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But they are secondary when they have any kind of analysis, and the outcome means they are notable. looks like a non sequitur. Yes, if there is analysis, the analysis is secondary, and yet reporting remains primary. The existence of analysis does not change the nature of the reporting. They are discursive primary sources, and the question of whether information in the source is primary or secondary will then depend on the question you ask of it. If a source reports a football match between two schools, and then adds on a history of football (but not a history of the schools) then the source is a primary source for the school, but a secondary source for football. But here, I was careful in my wording. The source is a primary source when reporting news. That is policy, and yes, an academic view too. Particularly relevant when we are talking about writing a history of a school based on newspaper sources. It is possible that newspaper sources will contain secondary analysis or history about a school. That happens. I always look hard for such sources in deletion discussions for schools, and often find them. But the vast majority of newspaper articles about a school are events listings, fixtures, results, awards and the like. Sometimes there is a report of some happening. The vast majority of such information is primary.Wikipedia is indeed the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. And because most people do not have training as editors, nor as writers, nor as historians, it is not surprising that journalism is over-used in Wikipedia. But there is a policy, and this is it. You appear to be of the view that any high school should have an article, whether notable or not. I have some sympathy with that view, but it is not the policy. The policy as it stands is that a school article must meet GNG, and GNG states that sources should be secondary. Because, once again, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We are writing the encyclopaedic articles, not the historical ones.And one final point: Although individual schools may not be notable, simply because there are not enough secondary sources about them, that does not preclude writing about them in other articles, such as the article about the town or community. When information is sparse, placing that information inside a wider context often serves the reader much better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Indeed a WP:Routine article about some student winning an award, a routine football match of the schools, etc. doesn't add to the notability about the school. The kinds of sources that I typically use that show non-routine coverage for a high school tend to have:
 * The historical background before a school's opening (for example articles about Frassati Catholic High School in north Houston described the state of Catholic education in north Houston before the school's opening)
 * Information on construction of the building, opening of the buildings, renovations/expansions of the building
 * The impact of the school's opening on attendance boundaries of other schools (if a public school): for example some schools are relieved when another school
 * The relationship between a school and a neighborhood (and whether area parents send their kids to the school): See Bay View High School (Milwaukee), a case where many local parents stopped sending their kids to the school
 * Describing the ethnic/cultural background of a school's students and impact on school operations (for example, Fordson High School in Dearborn, Michigan)
 * Describing a major shift in the leadership (change in principals and results)
 * A major change in the school's structure (adding/removing grade levels) - Example: Ray Brooks School
 * A school closing permanently and its effect - Also: Ray Brooks School
 * Information about its curriculum and how that makes the school different from other schools. - Example: Japanese School of New York, which was compared and contrasted to local American schools in 1980s news coverage
 * For example, the Lakota Tech High School article is sourced to articles about its construction/opening and the impact of its athletic policies in the COVID-19 era. Several editors have been savvy on finding sources that have non-routine info on high schools, and one can see patterns in various AFD submissions which result in keep.
 * In particular, for Bethel Christian School, I was looking for articles about its construction and opening, which by default aren't routine and would be present in the vast majority of schools' histories (and therefore, in my view, means the majority of senior high schools in the United States would be eligible for articles, since newspapers report on constructions/openings of these schools). Of course, it's impossible for me to start this particular article because I can't access the microfilms which would have these construction/openings articles about this school.
 * 2. Considering how typically busy a lot of working adults are, especially when they have to feed children/keep the lights on/work to satisfaction difficult jobs, a lot of editors are simply never going to get extensive training on historiography/how to be a historian. Newspapers are simply what's accessible to these working adults, and while there are cases where articles can and should be shifted towards more scholarly sources, I think in many cases newspapers are going to be the backbone of RS coverage of certain topics. Additionally, Wikipedia also needs to rely on newspapers when describing current events (when major current events happen, the newspapers cover them!). One of the key traits that makes Wikipedia differ from Britannica is its adaptability and not being limited as a traditional encyclopedia, and I remember in the early 2000s seeing articles on things that didn't seem possible to be in an encyclopedia before, especially on local area history and culture. As Wikipedia developed, I found that responsiveness to current events became one of Wikipedia's strengths, and using newspaper articles as sourcing makes that possible.
 * 3. Indeed we have policies, but even with them there are times when how they are applied need to be considered. Five_pillars states "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
 * 4. I often do have information about individual schools, as per Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, in school district/archdiocesan related lists (mainly North American public and Catholic schools) and municipal lists (for private schools and public schools outside of North America). Example: A lot of Catholic elementaries across the US have closed, and articles like List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago are good ways of keeping track of closures of grade schools (I don't make individual articles on most grade/middle/K-8 schools, but cover them collectively in lists like this)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ROUTINE is off topic. We were talking about primary sources. I disagree that anything that has a report of construction is automatically notable. You could suggest it as an SNG I suppose. Don't think it would stick.
 * You make a lovely case for laissez-faire. But it trips over WP:NOT.
 * Of course. But personally I don't think the encyclopaedia is improved by this kind of thing: Elkhart Christian Academy (taken entirely at random - for all I know secondary sources may exist there. I haven't checked). I know the argument is that this might be improved, but when most of our pages look like this, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia, it is a maintenance headache. Keeping pages that cannot have encyclopaedic content does not improve an encyclopaedia. I expect we won't see eye to eye on that, so perhaps we should park any appeal to the five pillars on the grounds that it includes a dose of ideology, and just stick to the policy.Also, while picking on random schools, see the eponymous Bethel High School (Virginia) - a school that has more than a stub article, but not a single secondary source (and almost no primary sources). Also one of the oldest extant citation needed tags on Wikipedia. Ideologically, is that helpful? Is any of that information even true? How do we know? For the avoidance of doubt, my instinct would be to improve that page and not delete it. But the point is that what improves an encyclopaedia is to have encyclopaedic content on it based on secondary sources, and not stuff like "at least one more shooter [is] likely to gain a scholarship in the near future." (undated but at least 17 years ago).
 * Sounds good.
 * Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently Notability_(organizations_and_companies) governs schools, and the example at Notability_(organizations_and_companies) for organizations states that a New York Times article would be a secondary source ("The New York Times article is reliable, independent, and secondary"). Anyhow, construction articles often mention how the existence of a new high school changes things, such as communities/neighborhoods having a closer school (see Big Bend High School), or other high schools that were overcrowded being relieved of students (see Felix Varela Senior High School), the school consolidation process (see Gadsden County High School), and/or facilities that characterize the building (see Manvel High School). Also it can explain the process of choosing a school's name (see Alonzo and Tracy Mourning Senior High Biscayne Bay Campus) and/or choosing the school's identity (West Gadsden High School).
 * My point is that needing to respect keeping an encyclopedia to its mission needs to be balanced with maintaining dynamism that helped Wikipedia blossom and thrive. Laissez-faire was, in the early days, one of the things that made Wikipedia Wikipedia. It wasn't the stodgy, old, limited Britannica or Encarta. It was young, hip, and could make an encyclopedia stretch farther than was thought possible. Wikipedia redefined what an encyclopedia was, and what it could do. Now, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, with usage surpassing Britannica, and Encarta is no more. Of course it's 2024, and Wikipedia needs more stringent governance now than in the past.
 * Thankfully the Daily Press is on Newspapers.com and I was able to get some needed articles to fill in the source profile for Bethel HS. Unfortunately the newspaper for Elkhart, Indiana (the Elkhart Truth) only has issues from 2006 on Newspapers.com, and I haven't yet found such articles on Newspaperarchive either. I will also try to find coverage in published books, on Google Books (I've used that resource too). I think the way to solve this general issue is to have a few examples of an article on a typical American high school which has sufficient coverage, and tell editors "if you get this kind of coverage, the article will be kept." It puts it on those editors to improve the articles and gives us better relations with the general working class as they see a path forward to keeping these articles.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is not always a secondary source. The example specifically says this is a brief mention of a company while pointing out a missing feature in a rival's product when compared to the product by Acme. So the question one is asking is, "is this source a primary source about the company?" and the answer is no. The company is mentioned as background (and too briefly for SIGCOV in that example), but the article is occasioned by discussion of the rival, which may be a detailed analysis of that rival for some reason (secondary) or it may be because of reporting of some event, perhaps the rival laying off staff or something (primary). Either way this specific background is secondary to the occasion of the article. But the point is that it is wrongheaded to simply assume that all sources in a class of sources (New York Times articles) are secondary by nature. They are not. Inasmuch as they are reporting news, they are primary. Where they are providing detailed analysis of a topic or history they are secondary (or, wrt history, often tertiary - which leads me on a whole other tangent about newspaper sources in ancient/medieval history articles that I shall not go into here). Regarding construction articles, I am not saying such articles are all primary - it is a matter of analysis of the source. But I certainly don't think it is a shortcut to notability either.
 * Yes. I understood that was your view and don't really disagree. Especially agree with the last sentence.
 * I saw your updates and thanks for these. I would suggest we remove the information with the 17 year old citation request though. It seems to be undue. Regarding the Indiana school, I did literally find it entirely at random. I don't intend to nominate it for deletion, but here is an interesting thought: AfD is not for cleanup, but a nomination does see forgotten stub articles get serious editor attention for the first time. Were I or anyone else to nominate it, it would either vanish from the encyclopaedia, or it would be improved as a result. The process is not for cleanup, but that is often the result. I think your idea of examples of a school that has significant coverage is a good idea. I also think that while WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is deprecated, and rightly so as it was too granular, there would be a case for a more nuanced notability guideline. The only problem is this: a new SNG for schools would save editor effort at deletion discussions, by establishing criteria to show likely notability. But if we saved editor effort at AfD, that article improvement that comes from AfD would be reduced. Note that the Indiana school was PRODed in the past, and the PROD was removed simply because it was a secondary school. No article improvement resulted.So, much to think about there, but this is the wrong place for that SNG discussion. If you ever decide to start a discussion at a suitable venue, please do ping me in, and I'll do likewise should I start one.
 * Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)