Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes/Archive 5

Second effort for a nutshell
I'm asking for help in writing a nutshell for this essay. (See the prior discussion about my nutshell above.) As seen in this deletion review, there's a bloc that thinks that schools, if they exist, should been written about in an article. I can't seem to change minds on this, despite what I think the RfC clearly states. To that end, I think this essay serves Wikipedia best by warning editors that blocs of editors will act contrary to what WP:N might lead you to believe. Here's my proposal:

Again, I'm not trying to re-litigate prior RfCs, AfDs, or such. I only want to craft a nutshell to warn editors that OUTCOMES is about trends in opinion new editors might not have seen. I find it demeaning to (in good faith) nominate articles for deletion only to be countered by editors with calls to "precedent." I think crafting a good nutshell will acknowledge what is going on at AfD and contribute to editor retention. I would prefer to avoid needless fights than re-create them. A nutshell might be the best prevention. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Explain to me the sense in which a secondary school that can be shown to exist is not notable. I just don't understand the problem here. JMWt (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." If schools pass WP:GNG or wP:NCORP then it's not an issue. Schools aren't inherently notable and they never were. This essay documents the disconnect from de jure WP:N. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an explanation. A secondary school which exists must by definition have a fairly significant pool of people who think it is a significant part of their lives - students, parents and the wider community. It must have some level of government support and so on. Just saying schools aren't inherently notable seems to downplay the significant impact that schools have on people's lives. JMWt (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read our notability criteria. They are not based on how important a park or a church or a bridge is to our daily lives. Understanding of the criteria is necessary in the discussion of the nutshell. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 08:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very familiar with the notability criteria and I am aware of characteristics of some things that are deemed to be notable because a whole lot of notoriety must exist for the thing to continue. Usually we determine notoriety by detailed mentions in secondary sources, but almost by necessity there are things that are not mentioned in secondary sources in detail. Schools are one of those. That, it seems to me, is the overwhelming consensus on this issue whenever it has come up. I don't really see why anyone thinks that a real secondary school would not be notable. Campaigning against the obvious consensus on the issue seems like a total waste of time, and hence I will always resist you trying to tip the balance on this. JMWt (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So that's exactly why I'd like to add this banner. Your viewpoint is counter-intuitive. I think a warning at the top about the issue would help clarify. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If a school has not received it, it's not notable regardless of how important it is. Likewise, Alexa ratings, YouTube subscribers, and other measures of things that are meaningful to a significant number of people are not notable if the coverage doesn't exist. The point of all of the RfCs etc. challenging the previous commonly held interpretation of schooloutcomes is that not all schools have this (i.e. it's not the case that sufficient coverage must exist in all cases). Most may, but others may have only routine or local coverage. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. But I'm not trying to re-litigate that because I understand the people that believe all secondary schools are notable won't change their minds. All I want is to put the nutshell at the top so the public that thinks WP:N is the rule knows that this is a political issue and if OUTCOMES lists it, they might tread carefully with a deletion nomination. I think that's only fair. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the question is whether we can ever know if a school has received that kind coverage. It is entirely possible for a school, for example, to have a history written about it which is not available on the internet. There is likely government reports, inspections and other detailed documents about it that exist. If we're saying that these kinds of things don't count, then we're basically saying that secondary schools in a large proportion of the planet are not notable simply because local people do not have access to resources to make them noticeable. And that seems to me to be the main problem here: we can't know what secondary sources exist about a secondary school and hence it saves a whole lot of impossible guesswork to assume that if a secondary school exists, these kinds of secondary sources to show notability must also exist. If we are saying that only coverage in the New Yorker would count, then almost no school is going to have that coverage. JMWt (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sheer idea to allow school based on guesswork and assumptions is fundamentally flawed. We have WP:V as principle. How can you verify the notability when you are not able to proof it with sources? The Banner talk 22:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to know how this nutshell is better than this ombox that appears on the page

I don't agree with the RFC but it seems to me that this box is a factual conclusion from it. I don't see what your proposed nutshell is adding. JMWt (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The ombox specifically addresses SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The nutshell is to sum up the entire OUTCOMES essay, not just the section on schools. Beyond that, the nutshell emphasizes a difference between de jure rules per WP:N and the de facto conclusions listed in OUTCOMES. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I see what you mean now. JMWt (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that "moot" in British English means almost exactly the opposite of its meaning in American English (i.e. open for discussion), so is best avoided on guidelines such as this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. How about we replace moot with pointless? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I protest. This nutshell will almost certainly be misused by the protectors of school articles. They have already trouble acknowledging that the consensus to keep school articles is in fact already gone. This nutshell will only stifle them in their rearguard fight. The Banner talk 10:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * restored after 's removal. I've reverted again not because I have strong feelings about it, but because the objection should at least be addressed before implementing a significant change (i.e. adding a summary of the whole page). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've suffered as much as anyone from DGG and the like pushing their attitude towards schools which aren't notable. The nutshell serves as a warning to well-meaning editors that Wikipedia has a political problem with certain cliques that refuse to follow rules. It is not an endorsement of the cognitive biases that dominate AfDs. As Bryan Caplan has pointed out, when we don't punish voters for being wrong we incentivize their continued support for wrong ideas. I can't fix the admins that think OUTCOMES means whatever they think it means. I can, however, warn Wikipedians about this problem. There's no reason Wikipedians need to get into conflict and become disillusioned over stuff like this. Nutshells, generally, are good for pages like these. If you have better wording to suggest, we can tweak it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The scary part is that you let "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page" overrule policies. Why do we have principles and policies when they can be swept away so easily? The Banner talk 00:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with AfD but why is citing precedent circular reasoning? I don't get the logic of that statement. Precedents can always be challenged but if they exist what is the harm in mentioning that or pointing to a collection of them? In other words, agreeing here that a precedent exists is not the same as agreeing that it is correct. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that the precedent become the unchallenged rule. In the case of schools, articles were kept because earlier similar articles were kept because earlier similar articles were kept because earlier similar articles were kept because earlier similar articles were kept because earlier similar articles were kept because earlier similar articles were kept etc. But the precedent/circular reasoning is not based on policies, guidelines, notability or sources but are mere opinions that they will not allow to be challenged. The Banner talk 00:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, makes sense. With that in mind I would change the second bullet of the nutshell to something like the following:
 * Subject notability is defined in other guides; this page only describes the typical consensus found at discussions and does not stand in place of guidelines or policies.
 * The way it read originally ("While...") made it sound like notability was described both places or there was some leeway in that. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Banner, are there specific changes would you propose to the nutshell to address your concerns? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me see...
 * First line: Before nominating an article for deletion, consider if an existing consensus listed here requires attention by the nominator. This should be replaced by Before nominating an article for deletion, be aware that not all nominations a decided upon are based on policies but sometimes on precedents that can be challenged.
 * Second line: While subject notability is defined in other guides, this page describes the typical consensus found at discussions without regard to guidelines or policies. This should be replaced by (...) found at discussions with disregard to guidelines or policies. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else see a 4RR violation by Rhododendrites that was ignored by Mr. Ballioni? They should both be banned from this page until the page is unprotected.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There was a multiparty edit war going on with no 3RR violations. An uninvolved admin assessed the situation and agreed that it warranted full protection. Even if there was a 3RR violation (which I can't see), the protection policy clearly allows for full protection as an alternative to blocks, and mentions the case of multi-party edit wars as specifically a case where this might be preferable. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites edited thriceon 11/22, two of them together. Am I missing a couple edits? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  04:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Rhododendrites edited thriceon 11/22, two of them together." and one two hours earlier, which is a total of four reverts in less than 5 hours. Everyone else has been participating in spirited editing, not edit warring.  Further, I had the choice to address the edit warring and I chose to make another edit.  Since Rhododendrites is the only one engaged in edit warring here, and since no one who understands the situation has complained, administrators should remove the protection and move on.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction: The "thriceon" edits took place on 11/23, not "11/22". The edit "two hours earlier" occurred on 11/22.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No. He did two reverts (consecutive reverts count as one for 3RR) on 22 November. His last edit to the page before that was on 5 November. There is edit war here over the nutshell with multiple users:, , , , ,. That is six reverts by multiple editors over the same content within a 24 hour period. This is the very definition of a multi-party edit war, and a poster child for when full protection would be considered appropriate under the protection policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you choose to escalate, even after a suggestion that you move on until the page protection was removed.No, I'm not going to accept that I and 3 others were poster children for "edit warring". The WP:Edit warring lede says, "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring."  So actions that are not repeated are not edit warring.  While three of the six edits you've listed are "reverts" those three editors did not repeat the reverts.  Two of the six are repeated reverts by one previously mentioned editor.  For the sixth edit listed, I dispute that my edit meets the definition of a revert.One problem is that you are calling individual "reverts" "edit warring".  Nor as a group were the bulk of the reverts repeated, because the reasoning for the reverts moved.  Multi-party edit warring requires more than one editor involved in repeated reverts.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh for crying out loud. Chris adds a nutshell to a controversial page. No problem so far. Then it was contested. Given there was nothing resembling a firm consensus to add it, when it was contested it needed to be discussed. Jclemens restored it, saying "if this one is wrong, propose an update, don't just remove without replacing, please", which is clearly not how it works when someone boldly adds a summary of a controversial page and someone else contests it, with little-to-no voiced support for the change from other people. I revert, then Chris restores it. Unscintillating then rewrites the newly added churches section adding all sorts of apparently arbitrary numbers (i.e. let's see some data). I revert both, then Unscintillating accuses me of 4RR and at the same time restores both edits. And that's the version has now protected, with both brand new disputed changes in place for some reason (either an oversight, or a misapplication of WP:WRONGVERSION to controversial projectspace page rather than an article content dispute). &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With further review, what I am seeing is that your edits were edits that did not represent your opinion. Since you don't have an opinion, you are not able to participate in any discussion, whether it is an edit discussion, or a discussion on the talk page.  This defeats one of the basic values of the bold edit, which is to identify a stakeholder with a differing opinion.  Your stated ignorance of the churches discussion is total.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How to kill off a discussion... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It might not have been 4RR, but with review of the policy it was 4 reverts that count as 2RR, which still meets the definition of edit warring. And I did not question the 4RR until the page was protected without mentioning your role in the protection.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about precedents for edit warring but if two reverts counts as such, a lot of people are guilty. I think the 3RR sets that line for a reason, not because other edit warring is ok but because that is the point at which a block would be appropriate. Anyway, if we look at the edits of 22-23 November, I see two countable reverts from and two from  so how are you not both guilty of the same thing? Seems like a silly dispute. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are looking at "countable reverts" rather than "repeated reverts", and imposing the idea that there is no edit that does not "reverse" existing material on the page. By that definition all edits are reverts, which doesn't seem reasonable, although I don't see the dividing line defined on the policy page.  Plus you've lost sight of the forest, which is that this is a discussion about the protection.  IMO calling the discussion silly without objecting to the protection is illogical.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would multiple consecutive reverts be counted as more than one? You're not required to edit all at once. There's no warring if things aren't going back and forth. It may require a slight application of common sense but I don't think the definitions are ambiguous. An edit (or sequence of edits) that adds new material can't be a revert, an edit that removes material that was added the past 24 hours must be a revert, and an edit that restores material that was deleted within the past 24 hours must be a revert. This is why a 3RR report asks for the version being reverted to. From my understanding of edit warring there was not a significant degree taking place, and you reverted just as many times for purposes of determining that, so I don't see what you're complaining about. As far as the page protection I disagree with it, there was not significant edit warring and the page is left in a questionable state. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We agree that there was not significant edit warring. I dispute that this edit was a revert, as it advances the edit discussion.  It was certainly not a repeated revert.If there was no significant edit warring, why does ToniBallioni call five editors, and indirectly yourself, "poster children for edit warring"?  1RR is not defined to be edit warring.  2RR is.  Where we disagree is that I object to the 2RR of Rhododendrites being ignored while the page is protected.  A further look at the 2RR shows multiple issues, including the response time, the quality of the edit comments, and the fact that the edits do not represent the opinion of the editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to comment on this before because it is fairly far off topic but you keep using "XRR" inconsistently with what it means. There is only WP:1RR (1 revert rule) and WP:3RR (3 revert rule). There is no 2RR or 4RR, and 2 reverts would only violating the 1RR. It's confusing for you to make up your own acronyms like this because when you say "1RR is not defined to be edit warring. 2RR is." it sounds like you mean that violating the 1RR is not edit warring, which it would certainly be on a page where it applied. Perhaps this confusion is part of the problem. It's a shame to waste space here discussing that, but it is impossible to respond without clearing this up. Anyway, this is definitely a revert because you undo to a substantial degree a change that was made on just the prior edit. Going back to the old version of the nutshell is reverting to it. Restoring the nutshell when it was removed on the prior edit is also reverting. I just wish we could get back to working on refining the content. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we can't have an edit discussion currently on the Project page for churches, I've created a sandbox to resume. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this really getting us any further forward? There are two opposing camps about the notability of schools, surely the point of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that it summarises the position of those who think that there is sufficient precedent and consensus to keep secondary school articles. As I've said above, it is prone to be used prescriptively rather than descriptively, but edit-warring about the wording on this page seems to miss that point. If those who don't think schools should be notable want to, they could always create their own essay summarising the position with its own shortcut so that they then don't have to go through the whole argument every AfD. Maybe just add a shortcut to the RfC so that editors, if they wish, can simply and easily point to that? JMWt (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This isn't about re-litigating SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The nutshell is to specify that the OUTCOMES essay posits arguments commonly made at AfDs without regard to policy. I think this warning is needed because the typical editor, when considering a nomination deletion, might foolishly believe the sole determinant is WP:N unaware of the political issue of editors like you that insist a Pareto-optimal outcome flows from the sentiment "we've always done it that way before". So, yes, this is forward movement. Please get out of my way. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 10:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Woo there sailor, I'm not "in your way". I was simply making the point that instead of reverting and fighting, we could simply see SCHOOLOUTCOMES as one position and yours as another.  Insisting that you are right on a contentious issue isn't going to gain you many friends. JMWt (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * you ask on my talkpage about why I'm returning to SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Well, first because both of us are interested in that OUTCOME and secondly because you said at the start of this discussion:


 * "As seen in this deletion review, there's a bloc that thinks that schools, if they exist, should been written about in an article. I can't seem to change minds on this, despite what I think the RfC clearly states. To that end, I think this essay serves Wikipedia best by warning editors that blocs of editors will act contrary to what WP:N might lead you to believe."


 * Your nutshell is, to negate the bloc - as you describe it - that acts and behaves in ways that you don't agree with on an issue which is contentious. You made this about SCHOOLOUTCOMES when you introduced the nutshell in that way. You are here proposing a nutshell because you think that part of the page is being used in a way that it shouldn't be. As I've noted on this page a long time ago, I've worries about the way that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is being used. But I've also come to see that it is a convenient way to avoid a hell of a lot of arguing about the same point on lots of different AfD. Playing about with the thing doesn't seem to me to be addressing the reality that there are real, and significant, disagreements about how to assess school notability. JMWt (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to make sense of the debate above, but it seems to have become rather sidelined by a discussion about what counts as edit warring. Where do we stand with the (proposed) nutshell? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm tempted to just suggest we delete this page. It can't be all-things-to-all-people and given that the use of at least some OUTLINES in AFD discussions is now frowned on, it seems to be taking up more time than it deserves. JMWt (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an excellent plan. Then we can judge schools based on policies, guidelines and sources as we are supposed to do. And on a contested essay. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The reference to circular reasoning in the proposed nutshell is inappropriate. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Wikipedia ... is not governed by statute ... Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected."  In other words, the establishment of a consensus tends to set a precedent which then gets documented in our guidelines.  We did not and do not start with the rules as a given -- there are no tablets of stone.  If there is some variation between the outcomes and the guidelines then it's the latter which need changing to reflect reality.  Reference to precedents is helpful at forums like AfD as it is obviously sensible for us to be reasonably consistent. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't chimed in  until  now, because the inevitable has happened -  which  I  fully  expected: in a 'nutshell', it's become yet another back-door campaign against   schools by some editors who have established a pattern. It's not so much school articles, as the needless sprees of serial listing at AfD of absolutely non toxic articles for which a clear precedent to keep has been established. Some articles are listed at AfD by relatively clueless newbies who think it's cool to join Wikipedia and start patrolling new articles without any experience. Some are listed by regular editors with a vengeance for some kinds of articles they just don't like. Either way, the people who get hurt are new users who have created non toxic articles in good faith. That's what has to stop. Many people still fail to realise (or pretend not to) that Outcomes is neither a policy, nor a guideline, nor an essay. It's just a factual report on how some types of harmless articles have traditionally been handled - sometimes in their 1,000s. That  said, schools are one of the most  important  features of society, far  more so  than having  had the privilege of eating  in  some dubious, nondescript  Mitchelin starred restaurant  whose 'notability' rests on  the subject  opinion  of one of the Mitchelin Guide food tasters. Without  schools we would be as dumb as grazing  bovines -  without  fancy  restaurants, we would still not  starve. I suggest we take not  only  those restaurants under the loupe, but  also the 250,000 footballers that  no one has ever heard of and who  have contributed nothing  to  the word's pool of knowledge. Outcomes aims at consistency, ad any  amount  of Wikilawyering  or edit warring over notability 'guidelines' is not  only  futile, it's disruptive. Our guidelines are 'supposed' to  have exceptions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And you confirm that it was a covert action to protect non-notable schools. Thank you for that. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the silliest discussions in the history of WP. Unless it's April 1 on your planet, maybe it is best to move on. No nutshell is needed, except perhaps to protect the nuts. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 December 2017
Under the level 3 heading § Populated places, please add. Sam Sailor 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Restaurants
Having nominated several 1-2 sentence restaurants for deletion recently, only to have nearly all end in keep due to them having 1+ Michelin Star, I think we should add an common outcome for restaurants that having Michelin Star means they are automatically notable. (I am not sure about whether inclusion in The World's 50 Best Restaurants suffices, but this is also a sentiment some people expressed). I am personally not that fond of this, but this is a clear outcome at AfD and as such we might as well codify it. Related AfDs: and (de)prods
 * Articles for deletion/Vendome (restaurant)
 * Articles for deletion/Le Calandre
 * Articles for deletion/Bruneau (restaurant)
 * ,, possibly few others I missed. All AfDs above were proceeded by a prod too. If anyone feels like we need to do more practical testing, Category:Restaurant stubs is full of short articles many of which do not say anything outside that the restaurant has a M-star. Ping also User:Necrothesp who was instrumental in ensuring those articles have not been deleted and User:Arxiloxos who also helped to ensure those articles were kept. To avoid similar AfDs in the future a note in this guide would be helpful. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The page already says that "Bars, pubs, cafes, restaurants, and hotels tend not to survive AfD unless multiple independent sources have written about them in non-trivial detail."  So, as usual, each case has to be judged on its merits per the WP:GNG.  As restaurants with Michelin stars are at the non-trivial end of the range and their status will tend to attract coverage, it is surprising that people should be wasting their time nominating them for deletion. I wrote up such a place recently and had no difficulty getting it on the front page, where it attracted lots of readers. Andrew D. (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although that might have something to do with the fact that it was named best restaurant in the world, which hardly makes it representative, even of places with Michelin Star! Cordless Larry (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Black Swan only has one Michelin Star. Places with 3 stars like Vendome are obviously going to be ok as there are only about 100 in the world.  Nominating such a place for deletion merits a truite aux amandes à la poêle. Andrew D. (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My experience with restaurants gave me two insights relevant for this discussion:
 * The single fact that a restaurant is listed in the Michelin Guide does not make the restaurant notable.
 * A restaurant with Michelin stars is, due to the amount of publicity, always notable. The publicity and hype alone will take care of any lack of available sources and makes sure this is solved within a week or two.
 * I assume the same effect is there with the other main restaurant guides. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments above aside, I suspect that you're correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Churches reverted to a version that lasted 30 hours, calling this a "consensus" version
Three points of information follow: 2017-12-09T01:14:02‎ Rhododendrites (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,138 bytes) (-75)‎. . (as per protecting admin's talk page, restoring consensus version prior to bold edits that were somehow edit warred over while accusing me of edit warring. find consensus to change this)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes&action=history
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SQL&action=edit&oldid=813281316#Outcomes
 * == Outcomes ==

At Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, two editors made two bold edits to this controversial page (a summary of the whole page via nutshell and a new section on churches). Both edits were challenged. In both cases, the text was restored without finding consensus on the talk page or overcoming the objections. You protected the page with these bold changes in place, with nothing resembling consensus to add them on the talk page. Can I presume that you will not object to restoring the consensus version of the page once protection is removed? (It would probably be least controversial for you to do this yourself, of course). Thanks. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah no problem. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  21:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"contribs)‎ . . (1,766 bytes) (+1,766)‎ . . (capture of three revisions from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes)" The current version is not acceptable. This essay is about outcomes, stating that it "summarizes how various types of articles, subjects, and issues have often been dealt with on AfD." The section must refer to actual outcomes of AfD nominations. Even the result of a quick survey of last few AfDs would be better than what we have. For example, it could say the following if true: "A church building that is listed in a major registry of historic structures is usually found to be adequate for an article. Non-notable local churches are often merged into the relevant community article." The notability guidelines for historic buildings do not need to be stated here as they are at WP:GEOFEAT. Also, there should be separate statements of outcomes for buildings and congregations, respectively (perhaps separate sub-sections). The congregation may change buildings (e.g., build a new church building), so have church organization/congregation articles been retained after moving from historic buildings to new, non-historic structures? Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomesSandboxForChurches&action=history
 * The third of the above three bullet points is that a churches sandbox was created on 26 November 2017, to restore the ability to discuss using edits. Based on the sandbox, the churches section was stable for 11 days until the protection was lifted.  After the protection was lifted, an editor made a further edit on 7 December.  Yet now on 9 December, we see User:Rhododendrites, claiming to be backed by page-protecting administrator User:SQL, reverting the article to the version of 21 November 2017, claiming that this is a consensus version, while implying that this edit was matched by talk page discussion to show that consensus.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SQL should not have page protected this page as there was only one editor whose edits could have been construed as edit warring. Instead, User:SQL has protracted the repeated reverting.  The root cause remains the same, that one editor believes that "challenging" edits is sufficient to claim that "discussion is required".  The edit comment presented by Rhododendrites for the church section is that the section used "all sorts of numbers", an objection that was used to make reverts to not only the church section but to another section that was not using numbers, diff.  The numbers issue was resolved in 20 minutes by removing the definitions of church size.  But after the page protection, Rhododendrites makes a new complaint, that of "apparently arbitrary numbers", while rewriting history to claim that I mentioned 4RR before the page was page protected.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that four or five editors here are "poster children of edit warring", including Rhododendrites? Unscintillating (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page is for actual outcomes.  Prescriptive rules are not appropriate here.  As there is no consensus for the section about churches, I have removed it. Andrew D. (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed I forgot that the churches section had just been added, so I should've just removed the section. No objection to its removal. Only objection is to Unscintillating's version. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the quote above that you wrote on User talk:SQL on 2 December 2017, you stated that it was "a new section on churches". And your edit comment for the revert as shown above states, "as per protecting admin's talk page".  So somehow you claim to have forgotten something while you were citing it.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I made a mistake while reverting. I went back to one that was less evidently problematic, forgetting that it, too, was recently added. I fail to see how these "gotcha"s add anything to the discussion of the section, though. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit of 9 December restored material removed on 7 December, material which stated, "A church building being listed in a major registry of historic structures may be adequate for an article." Your edit comment doesn't identify that it was restored, or why it was restored.  Your belated explanation is now "less evidently problematic".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ... Keep me posted when you're done with whatever this is that you're doing if you'd like to talk about your proposed megachurches addition. If you're convinced there's some behavioral matter that must be dealt with, take it to ANI. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 00:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be some misconceptions and imbalances here: I'm not determined that there be any mention of churches here. It only came up because I found a church article that seemed to be utterly non-notable when looking at a small town's article and I wondered what the precedents where and if any were summarized. I found that they were not described on this page so I did considerable searching through the completed AfDs to see if there were any major patterns or consensuses. I saw a couple that stood out and added them with citation. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) As I repeatedly explained above both and  can be attributed precisely the same number of reverts during the original period in question, two ( and ), and I have no idea why Unscintillating is so obstinately sticking to their mistaken impression that they are somehow less guilty of edit warring or Rhododentrites is more guilty of it. Unscintillating doesn't even want to accept that their second edit was a revert when it was a blatant example of one. This is not worth rehashing except that it is mystifying that the claim has come up again as it appears to have no reasonable foundation.
 * 2) As explained in the edit summary where I added the churches section this was based on an analysis (search) of actual outcomes and I cited a prominent one for each statement. For historical building status Articles for deletion/Baxterley Church (withdrawn because of SNOW) and for merging into community Articles for deletion/Our Lady of Fatima Church, Kirol. These may only be two examples but they were the most prominent in searches.
 * 3) There is no need to distinguish any further between the use of "church" to mean a building or a congregation because the context for each is clear. Findings for a building which is associated with a congregation would not apply without the building if it is the building that is notable. Maybe the wording could be tweaked.
 * 4) Unscintillating's version, unlike mine, offered zero citations and appeared to conjure standards out of thin air. "Megachurches (weekend attendance >2000) should be presumed notable in preparing an AfD nomination." - where did that come from? Even removing the numbers, where did "megachurches" come from???

Guinness record holders
There have been a fair number of AFDs where the sole claim to notability has been that the subject set a Guinness world record at some point. Since Guinness has published world records in some fairly meaningless categories over the years, I believe the general consensus at such discussions is that holding a Guinness record is not, per se, sufficient evidence of notability. I believe the Outcomes page should be updated to reflect this community consensus. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. While I agree that a Guinness record in and of itself would not satisfy GNG (though it would presumably count as secondary coverage) - in most cases where there is a Guinness record there was some coverage of the record attempt prior to Guinness compiling it (so that's more coverage) and there is quite often some coverage coming off of the inclusion (both of the decision to include, and ongoing "quirk" level coverage). I would tend to think that most Guinness record holders would pass an AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In most cases those people would be BLP1E unless there was some significant coverage of prior events. That said, without a survey of AfDs of Guinness record holders to demonstrate that there is a "common outcome" I do not think it appropriate to include anything on this page about that topic. Jbh  Talk  18:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2018
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Clearly not going to pass. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes → Common outcomes for Afd – What if an article titled Common outcomes gets created and gets an Afd?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The suggested issue seems unlikely to arise, and much less likely to arise than the "main page" issue that has been dismissed several times at Talk:Main Page/Archive 177, Talk:Main Page/Archive 87, etc.; also, I would object to the use of "AfD" in the actual title of the page. Dekimasu よ! 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dekimasu, we cross that bridge when we come to it! There may be a brilliant, simple solution, but this isn't it. This is potential mind game if anyone is inclined to that sort of thing, but for now there doesn't seem to be any reason to move. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated above. In the unlikely event that an article titled "Common outcomes" did exist and then need to have an AfD, we could just title it "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (1st nomination)", and maybe add a hatnote on this page. – Iago Qnsi (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppos This is classic case of a solution looking for problem. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose literally a solution in search of a problem. Jbh  Talk  19:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose If you really think this is a real problem, request salting. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nutshell
An editor (User:Chris troutman) added on 27 April:

WP:BOLD advises that for the Wikipedia namespace "ideas are most commonly raised and discussed first... The admonition 'but please be careful' is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines... it is also often better to discuss potential changes first"). And on the merits, the addition is rather long for a nutshell, is unclear in some places and dubious in others.

So that's two reasons to want to slow down and discuss this and see if we can get some agreement before going forward on this. For my part I'm not agreeing with the "circular reasoning" premise (it's a lot more complicated than that) and not understanding what is meant by "political consensus", for starters, or even generally seeing the need for a nutshell really. Herostratus (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. In particular, I'd strongly quibble with "While subject notability is defined in other guides, this page describes the typical consensus found at discussions without regard to guidelines or policies." — this page doesn't exist without regard to guidelines or policies, but exists as a clarifier of several points of debate about the guidelines and policies. (e.g. "Are unelected candidates for office accepted as notable on GNG grounds just because a handful of local campaign coverage exists?", "Are elementary schools entitled to the same presumption of notability that high schools generally get?", and on and so forth.) So it would be more accurate to say that this page exists in tandem with our notability guidelines and policies, as an extension to clarify some points of consensus that haven't been formally codified in the main notability documents yet, rather than that it exists "without regard" to the main notability documents. Also, "avoid citing this essay at AFD"? What else would this page be for if we're not allowed to use it in the contexts it was designed for? The page content says to avoid over-reliance on it in an AFD discussion — for example, by claiming that a common outcome listed in this page would somehow trump a particular topic's failure to be properly sourceable as actually satisfying a notability standard — but this page's TLDR summary definitely does not include its use in AFD discussions being entirely verboten. There does seem to be a consensus that the SCHOOLOUTCOMES section has crossed into circular reasoning — but that doesn't apply across the board to this entire document. And furthermore, this document does acknowledge that there are sometimes valid reasons (e.g. a particular topic is either less or more sourceable than the norm for its class of topic, and might therefore count as a valid exception to the prevailing consensus) why a particular AFD discussion might land differently than what this document says. I'll grant that people don't always pay as much attention to that part of the equation as they do to "OUTCOMES says keep/delete ergo case closed", but that's more a user education issue than a reason to deprecate this document entirely. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of you (obviously). Revert my change if you must but you're helping no one. If you honestly don't understand I'd be happy to discuss. If you're going to disagree then that's your issue. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the general problem is that we've lost sight of what OUTCOMES are supposed to be for. I seems to me that they're supposed to be descriptive not prescriptive - so to avoid having to show something again for the nth time in the n+1th AfD, it seems reasonable for keep !votes to cite an OUTCOME (accepting that it is shorthand to show how we commonly deal with this kind of notability question). But the problem is that sometimes issues just aren't that clear cut, that the OUTCOME developed in one context and is hard to apply in another consistently and without cultural bias. In practice that means it is very difficult to delete some pages with OUTCOMES and that there are furious discussions about how to apply them fairly (or whether they should be applied at all). Also, it isn't really clear what a AfD closer is supposed to do if someone cites an OUTCOME.  If someone tried to AfD a school that we've got good reason to believe isn't a fake, is using OUTCOME enough to stop the discussion and close?  If not, how does one discuss if a particular situation is an exception to the general rule? If we can't get consensus on what they're for, it is hard to see how we can possibly get consensus on how to write a nutshell.  Generally speaking, I think OUTCOMES have outgrown their usefulness. But then AfDs in general seem to have become a formulaic dance between a very small number of regular contributors, so I'm not really sure how much value the whole process really has. JMWt (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly support the addition of that text to the header. It is underappreciated how much these outcomes can contribute to circular reasoning and get confused with real guidelines. This happens regularly. A better move would be to delete the outcomes page entirely and just let editors reference previous AFDs. But since that's unlikely to happen, this is a step in the right direction. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Statistics
It seems to me this explanatory supplement is full of unsupported assertions: "generally merged," "always kept," "often deleted" and so on. Many of these are very sweeping statements, and it's difficult to judge their accuracy. Is there any way some statistics can be (or have been) gathered to support all these statements, without it being too labor-intensive? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be a lot of work to gather such statistics and so it isn't done. The page is largely worthless for this and other reasons and so I don't usually refer to it.  If I want to cite some precedents at a deletion discussion then I do so directly.  People usually respond by referencing WP:OSE but that's worthless too because it says 'These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid'.  So, each case has to be judged on its merits and the evidence presented. Andrew D. (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is so desperately needed. Editors are mistaking these outcomes for guidelines, and vague adverbs for something meaningful. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting the Politician Guidelines
The guidelines for inclusion of politicians and political figures should be broadened significantly, but in the spirit of incrementalism and building consensus, I would suggest that Wikipedia adopt as a guideline that the nominees of major parties for the position of head of government ought to be considered intrinsically notable. In the United States, this would guarantee Wikipedia pages for the Democratic and Republican nominees for president, for example.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, but this isn't the right place to make this proposal - look at the notability boards instead. SportingFlyer  talk  05:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROADOUTCOMES removal
The following appears in WP:ROADOUTCOMES: In the UK, motorway service areas are not considered to be equal to rest areas in the rest of the world and are generally kept as notable.

It was added in 2009 following this (flawed) AfD: Articles for deletion/Norton Canes services (2nd nomination) by a user who contributed to the AfD, without apparently any discussion. There haven't really been any AfDs on the topic since, and it's unclear to me why UK motorway service areas are greater than rest areas elsewhere based on one or two AfDs from over a decade ago.

I propose removing this line and have these service areas simply refer to WP:GEOFEAT. SportingFlyer  talk  05:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At best, the wording should be removed until the results it presupposes are confirmed with modern AfDs, but since the recent AfDs are trending the other way, that nearly decade-old wording appears to be out of sync with modern practices.  Imzadi 1979  →   04:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removal from WP:ROADOUTCOMES. This was added years ago without proper consensus. There is no reason why a motorway service area in the UK is any more or less notable than one in a different country. Ajf773 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support not for notability issues, but on the basis that it is not a common outcome. I agree with Imzadi1979 that the line should simply be removed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support removal: WP:GEOFEAT is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The entry has been removed from the page.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES
"All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable." That's a bold statement, and one that's outside the scope of this page. There's no doubt that genuine species are almost always kept, but the claim of inherent notability, though often repeated in species AfDs has no backing in policy or guideline.

"Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid"

But WP:N requires significant coverage in multiple sources.

I propose the following alternative to the current text:

194.125.20.218 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Genuine species are almost always kept. Many keep rationales argue that all species are notable.


 * Do not support what makes species A more notable than species B? Species B may have just been discovered and written up in news while little info exists on the more common well known A. There is absolutely no value in devaluing the idea that all species are notable and opening up debate on what makes a notable species. It is not like anyone financially benefits from inclusion, and exclusion just hurts our readers. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Is a fire district a "populated place"?
I have a difference of opinion with another editor about the notability of "populated places", specifically, what constitutes such a place. The dispute involves the Zoneton Fire Protection District and whether it should be a full article or a redirect to Zoneton, Kentucky. The other editor, User:Legacypac, contends that the fire district is "Autonotable as an inhabited place, just like school districts are dealt with" and "An inhabited place - a "district" with taxing authority does not fall under NCORP but is autonotable." I contend that a fire district does not fall under the "populated places" tradition of automatically having an article. I see there have been three failed attempts in the past to come up with a guideline for this concept, see Notability (populated places). But I do agree that there is a consensus at enwiki, see WP:NPLACE, that populated places are entitled to an article even if they do not meet WP:GNG. My understanding of a populated place is that it has a residential identity, as a place where people live; that it has a name; and that it is recognized by some authority (such as the Census Bureau or the U.S. Geological Survey’ Geographical Names Information System). The latter provides a definition of a "populated place": "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries." They distinguish it from "Civil", meaning "A political division formed for administrative purposes (borough, county, incorporated place, municipio, parish, town, township)." It looks to me as if Legacypac is trying to take that latter classification - a political division for administrative purposes - and apply the “populated place” standard to it. I oppose this. There are many, many thousands of these special districts with elected boards and taxing authority: fire protection districts, water conservation districts, zoning boards, business improvement districts, hospital districts. Such districts are very numerous, very local, and very obscure. Just here in San Diego County, there were 19 such specialized districts - the South Bay Irrigation District, the Grossmont Healthcare District, the Julian-Cuyamaca Fire District, etc. - listed on the ballot in the recent election. I guarantee you, none of them has - or deserves - a Wikipedia article. And I contend that the Zoneton Fire Protection District does not deserve one either. It certainly doesn’t qualify under GNG; the article is unreferenced and has been since 2006. What do others think? MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I see no harm in a stub that covers a fire district. The fire district clearly has people living there, has taxing authority, and is more notable with more chance of media coverage than an unincorporated little collection of houses. It is widely agreed that School Districts are notable regardless of how small - they also have a defined area, population, and provide a public service just like a fire district. Who benefits from the exclusion of information on a fire district? Who is harmed by inclusion? There is no profit motive to include them, so they are not spam. We are not running out of pages at Wikipedia. A "fire department" however; can be merged into the municipality/town/city that sponsors it because it is like the building or tax department. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Without going on to the question, such an article should have independent sources in the article to prove notability. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A fire district is clearly not a "populated place," which discusses cities, towns, hamlets, et cetera. It would have to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  23:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and sent this through to AfD. SportingFlyer  talk  23:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A Fire District (distinct from a Fire Department) may not be "sponsored" by a municipality/town/city/county. In this case, and in many other cases, the district is independent from the cities, townships, or portions of the county it serves (so a merge is not appropriate). In these cases, the board is composed of elected officials to the district. --Enos733 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

H-index
Regarding this, what are you basing that on? WP:NPROF is pretty clear that there's not consensus for using h-index for a clear rule. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was basing this on advice given by an experienced WP:AFC reviewer, . I'm struggling reviewing some academic subjects and thought I'd boldly throw something at the wall and see what sticks. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any AfD in which the h-index was the determining factor. Are there any?  Sandstein   16:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a good indicator, but absolutely not a decisive thing to argue at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking into academic indices, it rapidly becomes very complicated, but I reckon I have not seen a single fake PROF with H-index over 40, or a single real PROF with H-index below 20. User:DGG objected, saying that a few very high cited papers can eclipse a low H-index, and I don’t disagree. The most attractive thing about H-index for a first assessment of a new PROF draft is that google scholar has it up top. A very high H-index can come from multiple people having the same name, all being merged, so be careful.  As with any quick and easy indicator, it is not a factor of substance, but is best for discarding at the very low end.  For a professor, An H-index of 1-3 is a joke, 4-10 unrealistic, 10-20 means start looking at the details, 20-40 is worth a careful assessment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"So, ... Hirsch reckons ... h index of 20 is good, 40 is outstanding, and 60 is truly exceptional."
 * does your H-index measure up

Agree with User:Rhododendrites that this cannot be "a clear rule". There are caveats. Ignores the number of co-authors. Always the third author, the essential one for keeping the vacuum pumps working?

It's not an argument for AfD, but it is a useful quick indicator for AfC or NPPatrol. At AfD, H-index is not a good argument. You need to look more critically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Claims to be a professor, but H-index 0-10. Either a fake, or a self-promoting postdoc level researcher.
 * H-index greater than 10? Check out the identity matches the publications.  Look for a couple of very high impact publications (per DGG).
 * H-index 10-20? Is or was a real research.  I have seen cases where they are not a real Prof, but competitive for notability on WP:CORP lines, CEO of a company, probably motivated by self-promotion, but recognizes that WP:PROF is an easier bar to pass that WP:CORP.  these cases are tough.
 * H-index 20-40? Does the material check out?  If it reads OK, it is probably good enough for mainspace, accept from AfC, approve at NPP.
 * H-index 40+? Almost certainly notable, 40 is outstanding, I have never seen one AfD-ed.

I will ping User:Randykitty, who's also often involved in relevant discussions. Btw, what is the best way of quickly finding someone's h-index? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Best way of quickly finding someone's h-index? Google scholar.  scholar.google.com
 * Also, if they are a real WP:PROF-meeting person, they will have a personal staff page and their registered google scholar link linked, to show with their few dozen publications, auto-updating.
 * If they haven't registered, google scholar often has an auto google scholar page for them, made by auto-correlating their name, co-authors, and institutions. This works well for for all but the most common names, if they have enough publications, which is the starting premise here.
 * If I can't find more than a couple of publications, with a no functional google scholar page, they are not a serious or non-early career researcher, and I CSD#G11 tag the new page or draft. This happens a lot.  A lot of recent PhD graduates in certain countries seem to believe that their next step is to put their academic biography on Wikipedia.
 * Google scholar errs by including too many things, over-inflating publication count, citations, and H-index. The google scholar H-index I think is a good tool for excluding easy failures, but is not a good tool for an inclusion threshold.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * actually, the GS numbers correlate with WOS numbers at least in the sciences--but they're generally twice as high. This has been shown a number of times--I've given the citations elsewhere, and I'll look for them again. (FWIW, I did not expect that this would be the case, but it is) . As I explain below, however, h =index measured by anything is not a usable tool for a threshold. It does not distinguish good work from mediocre. Joe, if you disagree, look at my invented numerical example.  DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DGG, I think you misunderstand. I do not suggest using it to distinguish good work from mediocre, I use it to distinguish fake claimants.  H-index 0-10 claiming to be a professor.  I find this correlates with blatant self promotion of a very early career researcher.  10+, you have to look harder.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comment below about fields where it does not apply.  DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The basic standard at WP:PROF is relevant for anyone who does published research in any field, and some of its provision also cover other academics in universities who are known for their teaching or administration in higher education. It does not require the person to hold  a Professor title, or to work primarily as a professor, or even to have ever been a professor. It's just a convenient abbreviation.  Many people in industry puboish--they will usually nowadays have a doctorate, but not necessarily. If they do, and their work has an impact in their field, it is covered.
 * In those fields where publication is primarily by articles in peer-reviewed journals, influence and impact as a researcher is measured roughtly by the citations to ones work. In the scientific world, that's what impact means: citations. Every other factor is really a derivative of that. If you do work that is very hgihly cited, you will achieve prestigious positions such as named chairs, and honors such as fellowhip in the societies such as the American Physical Society. You gets such rank, because people know and respect your work, and cite it.
 * The absolute value of expected citations depends on the publication density in the field. In a field where papers try to be exausive in their referencing, and  contain 100 references on the average,  a great many papers will be cited and the number of refcitations needed for notability will correspondingly high; if papers are written containing citing only the immediately pertinent work, and contain 15 references on the average, then the number of citations will be lower, and the imapct needed for 1ny will be shown by a lower figure. (the concept is known as citation density). The extreme differences in science are between clinical medicine in the first type, and pure mathematics in the second. Then umbers are meaningless without knowing both  the general  field and the specialty . They are also meaningless without knowing the years, because the trend in all fields over the last 100 years has been an increasing number of citation per paper. There's a simple analogy which might make this clearer: is a politician notable if they get 100,000 votes? It depends on the type of position, and the size of the district. Is a baseball player notable for a .300 batting average? It depends on the league, and the position they play.  Winning teams in  (world) football games will make considerably fewer  than 10 points, but not in American  football.
 * We usually decide this based on the opinions of knowledgable people here, but there is an absolutely objective standard: just like election or athletics, compare with the other people. Compare with the people who are unquestionably notable. I've used this, when it's in afield where I'm not familiar. The most cited people in a particular specialty has the largest impact.
 * h index is designed to separate the poor from the mediocre. It does not discriminate between the good mediocre, and the excellent. A h index of 20 can mean 20 papers with between 20 and 30 citations. In most fields of biomedicine, this is not usually notable. Publishing any amount of medium-level work does not make one notable, just as publishing any number of little-read books. But if the h =20 mean 10 papers with 200 citations each, and another 10 with between 20 and 30, then it means notability in any field. It just takes one best-seller.
 * there are other summary measures, described in our various articles. It's been suggested that the combination of h index and total number of citations to everything is the most meaningful summary.
 * the important thing is that researchers, like anyon other people, do not divide naturally into the notable and the non-notable. There are various degrees of notability. What we want to choose as the cut-off for articles in enWP is our own choice entirely. (If we had something more than 2 classes,  like a distinction between brief notices, short articles, and full articles, we could do this more realistically. ) But since we have only 2 levels, I suggest that, in all fields, the level of notability is the level an extremely talented and hard-working person can rationally hope for at the height of their career.   A very good chemist can hope to be a full professor in a research university; not hope for a Nobel prize, except as a fantasy, but also more than instructor in a small college, A extrordinarily good  athlete can hope to get into the Olympics.; winning it is a dream, but local club champion, a disappointment . DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "h index is designed to separate the poor from the mediocre" This is what I am saying, and I agree with everything else.  The inability to find an H-index, or a value 0-10, is a good indicator of the biography being non notable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * this only works in science, or those social sciences which depend upon publication of peer-reviewed articles. Those fields which depend upon publication of books, or publication of articles in very specialized journals, may produce a h index, but it's irrelevant. Such fields include ones like History, philosophy, religion, literature, anthropology, archeology, and some parts of psychology, economics and political science. For such fields, the presence of even one book by an academic publisher is enough chance of notability that it is wise to check further for even a quick screen, and even the the absence of a book or widely cited journal articles, fields like archeology have publication so specialized that it is not a good guide to notability.   Also,, is an even rough cutoff at 10 appropriate in all of mathematics.?   DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reacting to the ping by . I don't have time right now to read through all of the above, so apologies if some of this has already been said. Some random remarks: 1/ The h-index varies with the scientific field. Mathematics is a low citation density field, so an h of 15 is pretty good. Most life sciences are high citation density, so 15 is pretty mediocre. 2/ In most AfDs that I have participated in, an h of 20 is usually taken for satisfying PROF. Personally I think that's too low, but I'm an outlier. 3/ The h-index is not only dependent on the field, but also on the database used to calculate it. The more journals/books/etc a database contains, the more citations are available. In general, the lowest h comes from the Web of Science (many academics have a ResearcherID, which gives citation data without needing a subscription to WoS), because it is the most selective of available databases. Scopus is next, GScholar provides the highest values. It's bot unusual to see somebody have an h of 30 in WoS, 35 in Scopus, and 40 in GScholar. 4/ Unless an h-index is in the really outstanding range (35/40 and higher), I would never take it as proof of notability. But if you're above 20, it tells you to have a closer look. 5/ A very low h-index is not proof of non-notability (you cannot prove a negative and somebody might have an h of 1 but that one paper is of primordial importance), but I actually don't know of any example of somebody being notable as a scientist with such a low h. 6/ In theory it is possible to have an h of 30, by having 30 papers that have each been cited only 30 times. In practice, citation data show almost always a J-shaped distribution (meaning a few very highly cited papers and then a long tail of less-cited (or even non-cited) papers. Still, you have to look at all the data, but usually an h of 30 implies a few papers with hundreds of citations. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks this does at least answer 's question - H-index does apparently come into play in AfDs and 20 is a number that's reportedly been used.
 * We're not trying to set policy here, this page (WP:OUTCOMES) is supposed to be a living document describing current AfD sentiments in order to improve efficiency of the process. In this context, I find 's suggestion that this page point to WP:NPROF unhelpful. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's used, but it's always used wrongly, and I cannot recall any AfD decided on that basis.  DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The basic screen I myself use is academic rank. Regardless of whether we should use rank  as a formal factor,  or which rank we should make the cut-off, the reality is that it is in practice a fairly reliable to whether or not the article will actually be deleted. (There is no point nominating for AfD someone who you think ought not to be in WP, when in practice you can tell the article will nonetheless be kept). It is very rare that someone at the rank of instructor or assistant professor is found notable by WP:PROF, tho sometimes they may receive publicity for other reasons than the impact of their research and GNG has to be considered. In the other direction, it is very rare that someone with a position of a full professor at any university is deleted at AfD, except in the presence of special factors, including prejudice against the field they work in. (This includes not only pseudoscience, and some aspects of human sexuality and genetics, but it has also included such fields as Education, and home economics, where it is one of the reasons for our disproportionately low coverage of women ). Senior lecturers in the UK, tho I think technically equivalent to Associate profesor, are in practice usually found notable . The difficulty come for Associate Professors or, in the UK,  lecturers: our judgements at AfD here been erratic. They are a little more likely to be accepted now than they were 10 years ago.   In deciding which to list for AfD, I look at all available information, and I also look at promotionalism. I'll open a separate section for how I detect promotionalism in articles on academics.  DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think all of the comments are consistent on this point: H-index is not a decisive measure at AfD. A stronger statement that might be agreeable is: H-index is not useful to discuss at AfD.
 * I maintain that H-index from google scholar is an easily accessed indicator for the purpose of AfC and NPP reviewing, for the purpose of rejecting drafts and articles as being based on fake claims that the subject is a notable academic. Never to be relied upon alone.  If the H-index is below 10, I look critically with an eye to rejecting.  Maybe 10 is too high for some fields, ok.  Also note, I am presuming zero independent secondary sources can be found.  This is why I would have mentioned using it, I think it has a use, but I don’t think I ever said it was useful at AfD.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable but should we be mentioning AFC and NPP criteria on this page? ~Kvng (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

NPLACE and uninhabited villages
I've been fixing problems relating to the articles listed at List of villages in Mawal taluka. Among the problems was that the list stated there were 181 villages but the 2011 census records 187. Some of the 187 were uninhabited at that time and the census shows them as such.

I've just created Nandgaon, Mawal but, being uninhabited, it may fall foul of the inherent notability deemed to apply to populated places. I'm guessing that at some point it must have been inhabited, otherwise it would not be considered a village. These uninhabited places have defined boundaries and remain administrative units. Any thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Found a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features) so have moved this query there. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
Should this text be updated to reflect the RFC ruling rather than just note the outcome of that RFC? It would be far less confusing.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was no 'ruling' as such. The closure should be read accurately rather than everyone putting their own spin on what was a vague closure at best and one which is still heavily disputed - except perhaps by the deletionists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a neutral person stumbling across this simply by people linking to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in various AFDs, it's becoming very confusing because people link to it both for and against schools at AFDs; one to point to the old guideline, and the other to point to the RFC overturning the guideline. The RFC may have made a contentious ruling, but what it really does is fairly highlight the lack of consensus now surrounding the old way of thinking. There needs to be some way of fairly expressing that lack of consensus. I believe the updated version does that.4meter4 (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For context, there was a very well attended RfC, which was formally closed by a panel of three administrators with a long, thoughtful close. When there were questions about the close, they posted a bulletpoint summary that was then included on this page. It seems quite clear. A very small number of people who held a different position in the RfC, rather than follow any formal process to challenge a close, proceeded as though it hadn't happened, challenging claims made based on the RfC by saying it was unclear/vague. It's a very frustrating approach, indeed. I feel like the new version does a good job of being clear that most schools are notable, but material may be unavailable online, but that they aren't automatically notable. That seems the main point of the RfC to me. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it could do with updating, regardless of the RfC. "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept" doesn't seem particularly consistent with recent practice, which has seen quite a lot of secondary school articles deleted (see WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive 2). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What should the text say instead? I will support you in a formal proposal to reflect reality.4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The present text reflects the bitter fight that accompanied the RFC. And still people refer to SCHOOLOUTCOMES as argument to keep schools. An explainer beside the RFC would be the best option, in my opinion. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was just going to be to change "have historically been kept" to something like "were historically kept but more recently, some have been deleted for failing to meet WP:GNG". I'm open to more radical change though. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a draft of my suggestion:
 * The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Notability (WP:N) and Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).
 * 1) Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body).
 * 2) Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. At one time, accredited degree-awarding post-secondary and high schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a, schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG.

Basically simplifying, incorporating the RfC, and making some other tweaks (e.g. schools aren't even mentioned at the geography notability guideline). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment How about, "Prior to February 2017, most independently accredited degree-awarding[1] institutions and high schools were historically kept except when zero independent sources could be found to prove that the institution actually existed. An overturned that practice, and now all schools are expected to meet the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:SIGCOV." This would preserve the historical argument while enforcing the RFC consensus.4meter4 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer Rhododendrites's suggested wording. "Prior to February 2017" makes it sound like a sudden change, whereas debates were being had before then, which is what led to the RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I like Rhododendrites's suggested wording as well. Should we make a formal proposal to addopt it and then work towards getting more input to achieve consensus.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There have been no less than 41 revisions to this page this year alone with only minimal discussion. It seems to me that the views of the small number of people involved in these discussions may not reflect overall consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You still do not accept the RFC-outcome? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

, let's not be carried away and assume too much and start generalising - the vast majority of articles at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools/archive 2 are pages that would probably have been deleted anyway - even by me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough deleted secondary school articles in there to justify rewording "have historically been kept" at the very least. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. 1,102 AfD in the sample period. 313 keep, 500 delete, 186 redirect, 59 no consensus. Therefore  'delete' is in the minority. Taking a closer look, the vast majority of the 'delete' were not schools at all, only 26 were High Schools, most of which were dubious and  should have been deleted anyway. If you know how to use regex (I don't) you are welcome to revisit my data, but I don't think it will change much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
 * Comment 1: This is a pretty obscure place, rarely visited by echools editors, to hold this discussion, and with respect a small group of Wikipedians with few schools edits under their belt. A group that is geographically limited and heavily anglophone. There are better places to debate major issues, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools--ClemRutter (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: For the tiny number of cases that haven't been swept away with a speedy delete (lack of volunteers?- change for change sake is harmful to the project.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 3: The description as we all remember it, is so US centric. The suggested improvements just add an additional level of confusion. To find out what a school is- look at our articles! Secondary school gives the table of ISCED levels that you must incorporate in any change to the definition.
 * Can I remind you that Notability as defined in the WP:GNG has a different meaning to that in common speak. We are looking for a mere two non-trivial independant references- by law in most countries, state secondary schools must publish the independant appraisal they unmdergo. By law, school must apply for building control and planning approval for any building work- this is a public document. From a local governmment perspective, schools private and state are expensive drains on public funds so appear regularly in Council minutes. In short all schools fulfil WP:GNG. There was no change there in 2017


 * Our client group of editors need some thing simple or simpler. It is harmful to add trivial caveats, which may discourage occasional editors. I know we all have an autistic tendency for binary precision; but he wishes of the deletionistas for a hard division they can quote at an appeal at WP:AfD is of lesser importance.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment 4: This edit doesn't make sense. In the Uk we put primary schools under the controlling education authority which is not a locality- unless they are part of an academy chain. All primary schools outside academy chains have a governing body. Reading the text, particularly the or, does thatmean  they have a separate article?
 * Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions which excludes colleges of further education which you will see are defined in ISCED as Post-secondary non-tertiary education level 4. High school is a redirect to Secondary school- and should not be used as its definition varies from state to state. There is also [[High school (disambiguation).
 * Far better is Accredited post-secondary institutions (ISCED 2011 levels 4 - 8) and secondary schools (ISCED 2011 levels 2 - 3)are assumed notable unless sources cannot be found to prove their existence. Pre-primary and primary schools (ISCED 2011 levels 0 - 1) should normally be merged into an article on their parent body Simple and avoiding anyones interpretation of Wiki history. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, Clem. I'm not sure I really understand some of your points, though. For example, none of the language about post-secondary/primary/locality has changed. That's all from the previous version. Regarding the last point, however, what that very well attended schools RfC addressed was the claim that secondary schools are "assumed notable" (explicitly finding they while most are notable, they are not automatically so). Regarding comment 1 - it is indeed obscure. The reason the conversations happen here (and the reason for that big RfC) is because several people pointed to this page as sole justification for keeping articles, which is not the purpose of this page. It sounds like that's still happening, so here we are. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not taking any of my comments personally. The deeper I got into the response, the more sure I was that we were talking about a dogs-breakfast of a statement, and I am not surprised that the comments made to Rfc were so varied, and the final statement has created more murk than light. I have attempted to distinguish between Secondary school and secondary education and similarly for primary school and very quickly came upon the ISCED descriptions as a possibly the only route to follow. They had two attempts at defining schools in the global context in spite of having unlimited resources. We, I suspect ended up with the definitions we are arguing about, by incremental concensus and accretion- word by word and have ended up with the jumble of words above. You need to write a definition by first agreeing the concept then to proceed render that into simple sentences. From this starting point, you see that I am against further (in good faith) add-ons, and the response to an inconclusive AfC with a a conclusion is to take a step back, and see if we can use external scholarship to help us out. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Question - The RFC clearly applies to secondary/high schools. Are there any changes to how we want to handle notability of post-secondary institution? The RFC appears to be quiet on this. Is it still safe to assume notability for accredited post-secondary institutions. If so, we should make room for that in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Along those lines I would like to know what our policies are regarding individual departments within universities. That could use some clarity.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BRANCH is relevant (individual divisions, departments ... of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article ... normally be merged into ... parent organization". &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The language there doesn't apply to school departments which are often physically located in the same place as the main university. It's clear from the language that the guideline is specifically referring to professional organizations that have a national or international presence with local chapter organizations, and not to a school/university type situation that has multiple departments (often but not always) in one location. There really should be a separate clearly defined guideline. I know because this has come up in AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Indeed. Seems like I've seen it around, but it may be that what's on this page is the best we have to reflect a typical convention (the "Parts of schools and school-related organizations" section). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Those need to meet WP:GNG or even WP:NORG. Alternatively, they may be created by a WP:SPLIT. WP:ATD tells us that there are better things to do with subtopic articles like this than to delete them and that will often be the overriding AfD argument. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES shouldn't have much to do with this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, . I've edited the language to reflect that the RfC only addressed secondary schools. I did leave mention of post-secondary in there, however, because the statement that most are notable seems uncontroversial. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much clearer if we removed post-secondary schools from the second WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES points and added a third point exclusively about post-secondary. Let me know if you'd like to see a specific proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to be bold to see what people think. I don't know how much more we would say than "most are considered notable". Certainly not all are presumed notable, even if most are notable. In fact, the most recent AfD I've seen on a post-secondary school ended with delete (Articles for deletion/Canadian Business College (2nd nomination)). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done so. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Why does everyone have to confuse the issue by inventing their own vocabulary? I come from a 30 year career in education with experience in all levels primary, middle schools, vocational colleges, and universities; unless the terminology has changed since I retired, all schools after high/secondary are broadly classed as Tertiary education (see, we even have a Wikipedia article for it). And what we are discussing here are secondary/high schools that provide education to legal school leaving age - but which will probably discount developing economies where kids leave school at 12  (if they ever go to school at al). Tertiary educational institutions come under the purview of the Wikiproject Uiversities and not WP:WPSCH.
 * That said, citing the famous RfC is as toothless as citing OUTCOMES itself. The RfC closure, albeit the work of 4 admins, is vague. Please let's also not confuse Wikipedia guidelines with policies - we are discussing guidelines here and guidelines are flexible, otherwise why does every unknown soccer player get an article based simply on an SNG primary source entry in the squad list? IMO schools offer more to society than individual footballers.
 * OUTCOMES has never been used as a notability guideline whether cited in AfD0r not, and now we even have deletionists accusing of its use when it was never even mentioned. What OUTCOMES does is simply document what usually happens to certain types of articles at AfD, and in the case of schools what we do to kindergartens, primary, and secondary schools is a result proven by practice for well over a decade and by literally thousands of AfC closures. How often does this need to be said? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * COMMONOUTCOMES was long misused as a plain argument for keeping schoolarticles. To the point that peoples used it as a policy, although it never was. Without that misuse, the RFC would never have been necessary. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some examples: Articles for deletion/ARS Public School and Articles for deletion/Albany Senior High School, Auckland.  The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually,, you couldn't have chosen two better examples (both kept) to prove yourself wrong! Perhaps one should pay attention to the comments of and  among others. You may have a 'fascination for Mitchelin stars',  this seems to demonstrate however, that you have an undue attention to the deletion of school articles and that you only get half the thousands of your AfD right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, you did not seem to notice that in both cases you used COMMONOUTCOMES as a keep argument, as if it was a policy to build on. I know that the RFC gave you guys a bitter pill to swallow, but I think we have to look forward. Forward, to a future without summaries used as arguments, just because in the past etc. All articles should abide to the same notability guidelines. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There has been a change in the last year or two --not a change 'because of the AfC, but a change in attitude that was also reflected in the AfC. For secondary schools, we now keep separate articles, for all except'' the very weakest articles where there is no more than an identification. This is actually in conformity with one of the basic parts of the GNG--that if there is not enough information to write a meaningful article, there should be a combined rather than separate articles. It makes perfectly good sense to redirect such articles to he town or school district or diocese, or whatever is the appropriate unit.  For primary schools, there's rarely enough for  a meaningful article, so we normally treat them similarly. It's not a question of notability, but a question of practicality. As I see it, the demand for separate articles is an artifact of Google--the emphasis Google puts on titles of WP articles in their ranking algorithm.  I think this would be a very good practice in all fields, actually. We are beginning to do it with towns where we have no more information than a map location. We often do it for books in a series.  I have seen a few examples of doing this in some fields of athletics for those who appeared in a game, but made no meaningful contribution. We could usefully do it with some areas of popular culture. (It means more than just a list of names titles, but a section of an article with whatever information there is.)  We should stop acting as if the concept of notability is a basic principle. The basic principle for coverage  is Verifiability, along with the  NPOV concept of proportional coverage.  The size and prominence of our coverage depends on the verifiable information.  DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice statement, any proof of that? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * this is a statement of what should be our practice, not article content.  DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Early colonists
At Articles for deletion/John Dwight (died 1661) there has been a discussion about our precedents to keep articles about early "migrants from Europe to North America whose family history can be verified ... there has been a longstanding consensus to keep such articles about early colonists, if we can find sources." Pinging and. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this before I created the section below. Not sure how I missed it. Sorry. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Colonists and early settlers
As pointed out by in another discussion, there are a number of precedents establishing notability for colonists and early settlers of places, provided there are enough RS covering them. See, for example, Articles for deletion/Thomas Hastings (colonist), Articles for deletion/William Adams (Dedham), Articles for deletion/Henry Corbin (colonist), Articles for deletion/Louis Sédilot, Articles for deletion/William Arthur Greener Penlington, Articles for deletion/William Jackson (Boston loyalist). Given this, I have created a new section under People. I would welcome tweaks and improvements to the verbiage. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of those mentioned in this and theabove section, they are very variaible in their importance.At the low endwe have Louis Sédilot, who was not among the first hundred settlers of Québec, and had no noticeable effect on the colony.  At the other is JohnAdams Sr., who was a very major presence and influence in the life of the US second President, and is discussed extensively in all biographies of the President.  Of the others, starting from the most justified,  some were members of provincial legislatures ; some ere local officials, f e; some were the fist minister or teacher in the community;  some were economic influence on the town; some at least had  many notable descendants. I think the absolutely minimal criterion should be soemthing special beyond "early", and the way to get there is to be more discriminating in terms of what counts as substantial, and to question whether biographic reminiscences published by descendants  are reliable.  DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * can you please suggest some objective language for what we have done, albeit not the ideal outcome. I'm seeking to find out what we have done in the past as a consensus, to state it succinctly, and to create a new section on the WP:OUTCONES page. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Geographic Names Information System
Should the issue of the GNIS being a blatantly unreliable source for its "populated place" classification be addressed at the WP:PLACEOUTCOMES section? Pinging who've had enough significant involvement in this situation. ミラP 04:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think a specialty US source for specifically US placenames should necessarily be posted at WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. The phrase I might add is Places which are sourced only to directories or gazetteers, without any other sources or evidence of population, are generally deleted. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. ミラP 16:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And undone. There is no way that this discussion has got anywhere near reaching a consensus yet, and no evidence has been provided for this being a common outcome, or for all directories or gazetteers to be on a level with GNIS. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, still way too early to make this change. Thanks to Phil Bridger for the revert. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this change, though a US- or GNIS-specific one is reasonable seeing how many of these articles there are. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Pending 7 and Pending 8 are among the examples of the unreliability of GNIS. Something like The GNIS is unreliable in its classification of "populated places" and places sourced only to this database are often deleted or redirected, though a more explicit change at WP:NGEO calling out GNIS would be optimal. and I are drafting one possible change (mainly changing "legally recognized populated places" to "Primary populated places like cities, towns, and villages" that reflects PlaceOutcomes) that I hope would have your support. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment In regard to GNIS I tend to agree with Reywas92. I also think they are on the right track proposing changing: "legally recognized populated places" to "...Populated places like cities, towns, and villages" The ambiguity of Legally recognized has puzzled many. It is clear that we have less stringent requirements for inclusion of GEO topics and it was designed this way for a good reason. I concur that some further guidance is probably appropriate to save the encyclopedia from thousands of permastubs about empty spaces in the middle-of-nowhere. If we consider SportingFlyer's proposed change I think that the proposal deserves some consideration perhaps with some of the language from Reywas92: GNIS is often unreliable in its classification of populated places: therefore places which are only sourced to directories or gazetteers, without evidence of population, may be deleted or redirected. I think I prefer the use of some less forceful modifiers rather than the harder language in proposals above: blatantly unreliable source....generally deleted & often deleted or redirected I stated GNIS is OFTEN unreliable, rather than GNIS is unreliable. Also I inserted MAY be deleted rather than generally deleted or often deleted. Just some thoughts. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think legally recognised is generally fine, but there's a lot of confusion about what "legally recognised" means in the United States context, where you can have incorporated and unincorporated communities side-by-side. I think incorporated communities instantly pass WP:GEOLAND and unincorporated communities almost certainly pass WP:GEOLAND. This really isn't the case in other countries with higher levels of development which feature more central planning. Plus, GNIS gazettes anything which has been on a map - just because it's been on a map doesn't mean it's populated, but I'd be suspicious of anything that claimed to be older than the 1980s which wasn't listed by the GNIS. The GNIS is not an unreliable source, it's just not a source which can definitively tell us whether WP:GEOLAND has been passed. There's also the census to deal with - if an unincorporated community is a census-designated place, is that "legally recognised?" SportingFlyer  T · C  04:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that this is the "common outcomes" page, which documents how actual AfDs are commonly closed, rather than a place for giving our views about how they should be closed. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaders of subnational (state/provincial) political parties
The current wording in WP:POLOUTCOMES is "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success." However, in the discussion for Tom Morrissey, the former chair of the Arizona Republican Party, not one person suggested that the subject met WP:NPOL. Other state chairs (or vice chairs) recently deleted include Nick Isgro, Ron Oates, Chester McNulty, Girish Chondakar, and Matt Flynn.

I would suggest a revision so the bullet reads: "Leaders of national political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually deleted unless they are notable for other reasons." --Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on my revision? Because one AFD was keep. ミラP 16:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what your revision ("without any other demonstratable notability are usually deleted unless they clear GNG for that role.") means or accomplishes at first glance. --Enos733 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted because the outcome of one AfD does not mean a general change in consensus. I'm not sure which AfD you're referring to, either, but we do not generally keep these articles, and I don't know what "clear GNG for that role" means either - that seems to expand the notability greatly. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * has already pointed out in many of the AFDs made by the same user (who was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after some of them were closed) that they can still clear GNG, which you two agreed that Morrisey did not meet and was therefore deleted at AFD. So should we change that? ミラP 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Organizational chairs of political parties are not the same thing as leaders of political parties, and should not be conflated. However, the most accurate summary of the real situation is indeed that leaders of political parties are normally kept if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sources, and redirected to wherever we're keeping the list of the party's leaders (whether that's in the party's article or in a separate sublist) if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now if you have a chance, can you please run a before at Newspapers and ProQuest on any of the provincial party leaders NL19931993 AFD'd and were not kept, and if each one is found not to clear GNG, redirect them to the associated party? ミラP 03:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out of the list of AfDs Enos733 posted above, only one of them redirects to their political party. I don't agree that there needs to be a redirect to the page about state party. Maybe it's different in Canada to what I'm familiar with, but based on what I've seen of the WP:GNG, state/territory party organisational political leaders just aren't that notable. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, "organizational chairs" of political parties are not the same thing as leaders of political parties. The organizational chair just organizes, while the leader is the person who would be the head of government if the party won an election — so political party leaders have to be treated like US gubernatorial or presidential candidates, not like presidents of the internal org chart. Precisely because there is a significant prospect of their being searched for by readers who are looking for information about them, gubernatorial or presidential candidates who can't be demonstrated as notable enough for a standalone biographical article always get redirected somewhere relevant, such as an article on the election they ran in or a list of the party's gubernatorial candidates, and are never just deleted and left as permanent redlinks — because of their plausibility as search terms, the rule is that a gubernatorial or presidential candidate who is deemed non-notable always still retains a redirect so that people who look for them land somewhere relevant. And again, political party leaders are equivalent to gubernatorial or presidential candidates, because they're the person who would be the head of government if the party were to win an election. They are not equivalent to organizational chairs like the Tom Morressy example who kept getting inappropriately raised in the AFD discussions — they are not internal organizational hacks, they are head of government candidates and have to be treated the same way as head of government candidates everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Populated places
In the populated places section I think we should change the wording on "Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." This needs to be clarified. At least in the US, "suburb" generally refers to a location with its own center of some kind, which would make it equivalent to a larger neighborhood. I would not use the word "suburb" to refer to a housing development. I think neighborhoods with their own center and a history are normally not deleted. The word "suburb" should be altered for clarification.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One other note. While that statement is still structurally usable, it does look a bit silly in some areas. In those areas "suburb" means a legally separate municipality. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "Larger neighborhoods are usually kept if their names are found to have verifiable widespread usage. Smaller residential communities are generally merged under the primary city article." This edit would delete the separate bullet. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, that takes care of the "silly" part but puts it in direct conflict with "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities"  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Smaller unincorporated residential communities" ? --Enos733 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Scotts Corner, California is an unincorporated community that is not a census-designated place, but I believe it would be kept, simply because it is a separate settlement. It may be different if it is a neighborhood within a larger city.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what actually happens at AFD, and I'm no expert on that. But here's my taking a stab at it:


 * If it's a separate, distinct community that is not a part of (governed by) a city, town or village it is generally kept.
 * Neighborhoods that are a part of (governed by) a city, town or village are generally not kept unless they are large and their names have widespread usage in independent reliable sources, and they are not a developer-named subdivision.

<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I would exped anything that has widespread usage in independent reliable sources would meed WP:GNG and be kept. So...
 * Developer-named subdivisions and neighborhoods that are a part of (governed by) a city, town or village are generally not kept unless they are large and their names have widespread usage in independent reliable sources.

~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go with "Developer-named subdivisions and neighborhoods that are a part of (governed by) a city, town or village are generally not kept unless they are large and their names have widespread usage in independent reliable sources." I don't think "large" is a helpful term. --Enos733 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Amending POLOUTCOMES
Based on several AfD discussions (and the initial responses at Articles for deletion/Steven Charles Watkins (politician)), I plan to amend WP:POLOUTCOMES to add the following language: Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010. Candidates for high-profile political offices (such as governor or Congress in the United States) are often found notable. There is no requirement for coverage separate from the political campaign, if that coverage is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is where consensus is at, and I disagree strongly with the wording. While there are a number of candidates for Congress who have been kept, there are probably more that have been deleted or redirected within the past year or so. I would also point to the discussion on Editorofthewiki's page about where consensus is and why consensus developed as it did. I would also point out that many candidates (even those who run for Congress) remain notable only for their campaign and the independent reporting we might hope for is not a given (as biographies may often be from press releases or other non-independent sources). --Enos733 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I disagree with this. Failed candidates are basically WP:BLP1E. Number   5  7  22:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this as well. Not only are candidates WP:BLP1E failures, the wording of the outcome feels very U.S.-centric: does this mean we can have articles for any candidate who gets preselected for a "high-profile" political office such as parliament? SportingFlyer  talk  22:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. A candidate who wins a nominating contest, such as a primary, should gain notability based on that nominating contest.  --47.37.56.179 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

All--Something is wrong here: at Articles for deletion/Wink Hartman there is a discussion that eventually has pointed to this page. I read in the talk page above that Articles for deletion/Steven Charles Watkins (politician) is referenced, and the "candidates" section of the page references Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian. However, I see that this talk page only has three editors involved, and the Siân Gwenllian discussion mentions how one of the editors thanked two others for "falling so neatly into my little trap,' -- so here's some questions: It looks like this is a discussion that somehow is being passed on and operated as a "policy" when it has only achieved a small amount of support.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Are we building "consensus" based on trapping a couple of editors to agreement and calling it good, or shouldn't we have more to it than that?
 * 2) WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline with consensus that states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline."  If someone meets GNG, why isn't that enough?  Or more clearly--if someone meets GNG, why would we deleted the article on that person just because they may be "unelected" ?
 * 3) There's also currently a lot of crossover with WP:ROUTINE where extensive coverage of elections and candidates seems to be confused with tabloid journalism, wedding announcements, sports scores, and "man bites dog" articles that "routine" addresses.
 * There was a discussion that closed earlier in 2019 here about the notability of political candidates Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019. --Enos733 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It seems to me that a result of no consensus would mean that these issues should not be included here or anywhere.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly not support to insert 's proposal. There does seem to be indication that the writeup here may lead AfD participants to believe that failed candidates are not notable, full stop. This is, of course not true. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

meaning of "degree-awarding institutions"
Hello! I nominated to the AFD a set of private, for-profit degree institutions, which were affiliated to a university for providing degrees, as I found they had unreliable sources to support notability. It was pointed out 'degree-awarding' also includes 'teaching at the degree level' and hence is notable. Is that true? My understanding is if they are not notable they would be merged into a list under the university they were affiliated to. Thoughts? Vikram Vincent 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Notability (media) RFC in progress
I boldly added the following notice to the Broadcast media section: The status of Notability (media) is under RFC debate due to inconsistent outcomes for radio stations which lack significant Reliable Source coverage. Alsee (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC on WP:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES as policy at AFD
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)