Wikipedia talk:Notability (schools)/Archive 1

Radiant's summary
Conclusions written, Radiant_* 10:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think the conclusions are acceptable. The main point is that there no longer is any general consensus to delete schools like there was a few months ago. With every single school vfd ending with a keep, or at least "no consensus", it should be obvious that nominating a school article for deletion will be fruitless, like it or not. Sjakkalle 11:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can say I don't like them, but I will follow the consensus. Much work has been put by many people on these guidelines, so this deserves my utmost respect and admiration. Sarg 19:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that remark. I'm already glad that we had this discussion. Radiant_* 08:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the summary. In particular:
 * 1. I don't think we have consensus on " Do not nominate schools for deletion.".
 * 2. I don't recall even seeing "Do not unmerge or split out school stubs" discussed. It seems counter-intuitive to me. Splitting out a stub is the first step in creating a new article.
 * 3. "If a school appears on VfD anyway, do not comment your vote more than strictly necessary" I don't understand why this has been suggested at all. It seems very odd to want less discussion when deletion is being proposed.  We should be encouraging more discussion.
 * 4. "If there are already sufficient votes, consider not voting at all." Seems to be standard VfD etiquette, although I personally don't agree with discouraging people from stating their opinion and would never take notice of such a suggestion for the simple reason that I cannot use the current state of the discussion to predict with certainty whether my not contributing would affect the outcome.
 * 7. "Repetitive arguments are considered harmful." Not really.  In particular, overuse of the notability criterion has been very successfully discredited by repeated challenge.  There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion.

I think the summary doesn't really summarise anything that can be described as a consensus.

I have tolerated, and not objected to, Radiant's attempts to halt discussions of VfDs, mainly because they seemd to be doomed to failure as everyone was (rightly in my opinion) ignoring them. This should not be interpreted as agreement that this is the correct course of action, or even a particularly morally defensible one. I don't think it's right to try to halt discussion and if I thought it had a chance of succeeding I would object strongly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That summary isn't a summary - it's just some suggestions to keep people from heated argument (mostly on VfD). As it says on the top, "I propose these rules of thumb. This is not any kind of policy or guideline" (please reword if it's unclear). In particular, nominating a school for VfD doesn't really serve any purpose other than to aggravate some people. Also, it doesn't say "do not unmerge stubs", it says "do not unmerge stubs unless you expand them". Of course, unmerging and expansion is beneficial. Finally, the problem with repetitive argument is that it causes wikistress and prevents people from doing anything constructive. Radiant_* 10:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've written a summary page of all school VfDs since late February. It also contains a link to a similar summary, in a different format, running from May to November last year.  We should probably refer people contemplating school article deletion to those summaries.


 * Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive


 * --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. But would it be a suggestion to tabulate that? Or in some other way make the outcomes more clear. Btw I'd say we also provide a link to the longest/ugliest VfD school debate we could find, just to provide an example of how not do it. Radiant_* 13:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * The outcome of each discussion follows the name of the article. The name of the article is linked to the article itself (as you'd expect) and the summary of the outcome is linked to the VfD page.  If you think tabulating would help, go for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've put it on my to-do list. Radiant_* 14:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Radiant_* 07:55, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The compromise suggested on this project page is agreeable to me; granted, I have problems with some parts, but I feel that, if these suggestions are followed, no verifiable schools will have their information delted from Wikipedia and every secondary school has a chance to have its own article, with a little work.

I don't, however, plan to stop voting on school articles. If someone is foolish enough to VfD a verifiable article on a school rather than add to it or merge, then the VfD is going to be flooded with votes. I don't want to take the chance of the article being deleted because I didn't vote.

Good job on the compromise. Cheers--BaronLarf 15:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Listing the VfD nominators and delete voters as part of a moribund schools deletion campaign is adding fuel to the fire and will lead many to vote no only because of that statement.  If there is a campaign, it is over deleting stubs that will not be expanded on articles of quetionable notability.  Vegaswikian 19:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Radiant! is a bit disillusioned and, without my support in doing so, replaced the Schools summary we all more or less agreed to with a rather purple bit of advocacy that I wrote today to describe my own candid view of the current state of affairs. I agree that we disagree about the nature of the campaign; it's not evident to me that there is any campaign to keep stubs that will not be expanded--indeed there's abundant counter-evidence.  However, on the other side, the Neutrality and Dunc VfD listings both caused a large increase in the number of deletion listings in May and June, and were in my opinion obviously part of a failed campaign to delete school articles in significant numbers.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well done
I just saw this page and thought to myself, wow, this page is amazing, considering everything that has happened in the past on these matters. I just want to say well done to everyone who contributed, and thank you. smoddy 20:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll second that; great job everyone, and thanks. --Spangineer ( háblame  ) 10:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

notpolicy
I've put the notpolicy header on this, since there has been no formal vote of consensus on this supposed policy. RickK 19:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is a vote necessary for a "guideline" status? If so, then let's have one. --BaronLarf 19:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

If a lot of people agree to it and follow it, it'll be a guideline. We don't need a vote. I suggest we treat it as a guideline, and people who disagree with bits can discuss, edit, etc. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a large number of people who object to this "guideline" in toto. Let's have a vote. RickK 20:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are many objections to this compromise, wouldn't a better idea be to talk it through? I haven't seen too many objections on this talk page, which made me think there was somewhat of a consensus.  Let's keep working, then, if that's not the case.  A vote then would be premature. Cheers.  --BaronLarf 21:37, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if there were many objectors. We've been discussing this for weeks. A vote? No thanks. Very unwikilike. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So instead, we get the people who place schools on VfD being pointed to this page as if it were policy, and that doesn't solve the problem. There are lots of people who don't think that non-notable schools should have articles, and others who think that every single school in the world is notable, this doesn't solve that dichotomy. Just trying to claim that this page somehow solves the problem does not solve it. RickK 22:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's trying to argue that this is policy, but I think that we need to work together to find a compromise that everyone can live with to prevent VfD wars like happened last month. (I thought that we had one, but I guess not.)  What about the proposal do you think needs changing?  If there are "a large number" of people lurking around who also disagree with the proposal, I'd recommend that they speak up as well.
 * It's not that I'm against the notion of a vote, it's that I think that a vote should be the last step to prove that a consensus has indeed been reached. If there are still many people disagreeing, then a vote would just be divisive.  If the vote showed that many were against the compromise, we'd have to start all over again anyway.  Cheers.--BaronLarf 00:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't it good enough to simply leave it as RickK (oops, meant Radiant!) had it originally, as a "suggestion"? I think Tony is wrong about the number of objectors, but I fully agree with him that a vote is unwise and is likely to simply aggravate people on both sides.  I would vote no to making this a guideline, but I am OK with it simply being a suggestion.  All the same, I will follow this arrangement even if it remains only a suggestion for as long as it is clear that it is the best arrangement that is politically feasible.  I don't anticipate much movement on this any time soon, so I think it is the best arrangement that people on both sides will tolerate right now and probably for the forseeable future.  Frankly although I don't think it's a very good arrangement, it is better than I thought was likely to be achieved and it is better than where we were before.  I would treat this like the U.S. handled its involvement in Vietnam &mdash; declare victory and get out as quickly as possible.  I think it can have a beneficial effect left as a suggestion. Quale 01:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with people calling it whatever they want. It's obviously a de facto guideline because a lot of people are now following it, but I'm not hung up on the word guideline, which is in the end just a name. Advice, suggestions, call it whatever you want. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This was never intended as policy or guideline, merely a suggestion. The 'rules of thumb' I wrote are something that would reduce the sometimes-violent discussion on schools, but only if people voluntarily abide with them (and some people do). It was never the intent to force them upon anyone. *People are, of course, still welcome to join discussion here and express their opinion. I've summarized the earlier discussion and highlighted the points that most people agree upon (or at least, find acceptable). That doesn't mean there cannot be further progress.
 * As a side point, I would strongly advise against voting on this (see WP:EVILVOTE for an example of what might happen). Radiant_* 09:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion from Votes for deletion/Edison high school
Tony, you said that as more people cite this page it becomes a guideline. My comment was, how do we make it NOT a guideline, since it's not proven that there is consensus to use it as a guideline. If there isn't a vote on the matter, how do those of us who disagree with it make our objections known, if it's given to us as a fait accompli that we have to live with this? Baronlarf calls this a "compromise", but what's the compromise? Those of us who don't think that every single school that ever existed is notable, have just been shouted down, and our objections ignored. RickK 04:11, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the compromise was that school-stubs should be merged back into their school districts. Most stubs are allowed to continue living on until someone expands them, but this compromise curtailed that while keeping the information in Wikipedia.  --BaronLarf 04:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support this position. What matters is having the information available.  Having too many articles that are poorly written or very short hurts the quality of the entire effort.  Search is your friend in finding things.  By watching for school stubs and either merging or expanding before someone wants a VfD avoids a lot of conflict. Vegaswikian 04:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree with the compromise, I don't like calling it a guideline, either. A "guideline" draws a clear line even by it's very name. These are suggestions to avoid conflict. That's what the discussion was centered on, and they seem to be gaining some real traction in that use. Calling them "guidelines" or "semi-policy" or "proposed policy" won't help that goal. Regarding the merges, remember that someone has to do the actual work to accomplish this. Just do it and refer to this compromise and see if that's enough to defuse any tension. (Unfortunately, that means the person who wants to merge is usually going to have to research and create an article on a school district each time.) If refering to these suggestions isn't enough to defuse tension, we still have the ability to discuss things on a case by case basis. -- Un focused  05:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And how does this presumed compromise gibe with the keep votes on the page indicated? RickK 06:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge is a form of keep and is part of being Bold. Vegaswikian 06:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The compromise should be that people who dislike school articles no longer nominate them for deletion but instead merge them somewhere appropriate, and that people who like school articles do not undo said merge unless they expand the article so that it's no longer a stub. As Vegas says, merge is a form of keep.
 * As it is a compromise, it is probably not ideal to most people, but it should at least be acceptable to them. RickK, I would like to hear what you propose as an alternative. Recently, there was a flood of school nominations on VfD, and the effect was 1) to clog up VfD; 2) to aggravate a number of editors; and 3) none of them was deleted. I am willing to live with #3, but I find #1 and particularly #2 unacceptable. Radiant_* 09:42, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * As a side point, if someone says "keep per WP:SCH" that does not in any way imply that SCH would be policy, guideline or anything else. If I vote "keep per User:Sjakalle", for instance, that doesn't imply either that Sjakalle is policy. It just means that my vote is based on the reasoning explained by him. Radiant_* 09:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing a few partial merges, and even one or two redirects without any attempt at merge. Those will either be reverted or properly merged by me, according to how much time I have to spare when I spot them. Usually they come through in batches so I just revert unless a clear good-faith attempt has been made. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer RickK's question, which I still am not sure I fully understand: if you don't agree with a guideline, don't cite it. It's just a record of best practise based on experience, and not policy. The fewer people who cite WP:SCH, the less firm a guideline it is.

On the distinction between a guideline and a "suggestion to avoid conflict", I don't see one. People should feel free to call it whatever they like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * People are not really free to call it whatever they like, if it says "guideline" at the top of the page. I see that's been removed, so it should no longer be an issue.  -- Un  focused  14:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy described guidelines as "informal rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases". I think this applies here. I'll restore it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly dispute that Radiant!'s writeup represents a consensus. Your own interpretation of consensus on VfD requires a greater than 75% delete vote.  I don't think this proposal has that level of agreement. Quale 15:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh more like 80%. Feel free to edit it some more until you agree with it. I'm far from convinced that these suggestions do not command a thumping great, convincing consensus. They're just really observations of what we all know--that Wikipedia has shown itself historically to be extremely reluctant to delete schools but we can all live with the principle of merging stubs of negligible content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you don't agree with a guideline, don't cite it. So then, every time I see somebody cite it as if it were chiseled in stone on Mount Sinai, I should say, "This is not policy nor has it been proven to be consensus"? RickK 66.60.159.190 16:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Descriptions of this as a compromise are completely inaccurate. The total sum of the "compromise" made by school inclusionists is that they might follow WP policy and allow stubs to be merged. For those who feel that school subjects should be notable for inclusion as is required for nearly any other subject matter, what is required is nothing less than total surrender.

I think there are a significant number of wikipedians who are willing to avoid putting schools on VfD because they recognize the reality that in the current political environment, any verifiable school stub will be kept. This is a pragmatic view, not a philosophical one. I think that many of those same people would also be unwilling to agree to the principle that all schools are encyclopedically notable. This battle has been fought and will continue to be fought for a while over things such as masts, fancruft, blogs, etc. Taking an empirical view, I think the general trend has been towards greater inclusionism. I am very glad that WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:FICT were not decided today or I suspect that WP would be home for a lot more vanity. It seems to me that WP:FICT is already under seige.

Looking at Radiant!'s writeup, I think my only mojor concern is with the Notability section. I will consider how that might be edited to acknowledge the views of those who feel that schools do not deserve a blanket exemption from encyclopedic notability requirements. Others may object to other parts of the writeup.

There is another issue with the wording that points out the problem in saying that this is a consensus view. The 6th Rule of Thumb says we should all agree to disagree. I agree with that, but agree to disagree isn't language that sounds like it supports the consensus required to call this a guideline. That's why I think calling these suggestions is the most accurate description. Quale 16:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This continuing discussion leads me to believe that these suggestions have not in fact been "generally accepted by consensus", yet are still acceptable to a large number of Wikipedia editors. They may have been accepted by "consent" of those opposed, but that's not at all the same as "consensus" of the whole.  I don't believe they've met the standard required to be called "guidelines", but I'm not interested in a revert war.


 * If Tony Sidaway is convinced they command a convincing consensus, then I think he should consider setting a vote to demonstrate that. Otherwise, I think leaving the "guideline" template off is more appropriate.  This is in spite of my personal belief that they would make pretty good guidelines.


 * I think even some who would object to calling these guidelines will still give their consent to the use of these suggestions, myself as an example. Not voting is the better option here.  The truce we've found through these suggestions is too new for both voting, and calling them "guidelines".  Let's let the dust settle for a bit.  -- Un  focused  16:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Unfocused. More has been accomplished than I expected, and I think people would be relieved to have a timeout so I suggest leaving the guideline template off for now. Tony, do you want to vote instead? Quale 16:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree to go along with Quale and Unfocused to agree to disagree, only so long as the inclusionists quit pointing to this page as if it were policy. So long as they continue to do so, I will continue to reject any such terminology or any terminology similar to that. I still think the notpolicy header should be on the article. RickK 66.60.159.190 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * RickK, the template you applied to this article has already been voted for and slated for deletion and needs to be orphaned prior to doing so. I removed it.  -- Un  focused  21:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's claiming that this is policy. It's a guideline, a set of suggestions that there is wide agreement on and that have been found to be useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I find your repeated tagging of these suggestions as a guideline to be obnoxious. I suspect that people tire of reminding you that you do not speak for all of wikipedia. If you want to persist, I ask that you call a vote. If your perception of widespread agreement is correct, the vote will pass and you will have what you want. Otherwise leave it as a proposal. Thank you. Quale 08:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I've had my last go and honestly I don't think it matters whether it's tagged or not. This page is obviously a guideline and is being widely used as such, but those who want to call it something else are welcome to do so. I'm not going to get into a sterile debate about it; in time it will be universally recognised as a guideline and I see no sense in hurrying along a process which is happening at its own pace. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you came to this beneficence only after tagging it as a guideline 3 times, each time being told that it was inappropriate? That's not really what I would expect from someone who thinks it doesn't matter. Early in the discussion, before you first tagged it as a guideline, Radiance!, who wrote the summary, clearly stated that it was not and was not intended to be a guideline or policy. You flat out said that it is a guideline because you think there's consensus, and you repeated this over and over without any evidence at all. This is disputed by me and RickK, and that lead Unfocused to conclude that consensus is doubtful or at least uncertain. You continue to say it's a guideline, but as far as I can see on this talk page, you're the only one doing so and four wikipedians have registered the opposite view. If you were ever accused of arrogant disregard of opinions you don't agree with, this sort of behavior might be a clue why. Quale 07:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still do believe that it's a guideline but I dont have a problem with those who deny that it is. I'm happy to call it a whatever-it-is. The word used doesn't matter, the nature of the article is self-evident. We all know what it is. It's a whatever-it-is, which is widely cited and followed (perforce) as a result of the experience of seventy straight failed nominations for deletion of school articles in a row over the space of six weeks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must also take issue with your claim that I've claimed that there's consensus in the absence of evidence. There is clearly a consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Call the vote and put your money where your mouth is. I see no such evidence, and if you're so confident, you know how to prove it and end any questions. Quale 02:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The consensus has been established overwhelmingly by vote. Out of 75 deletion listings of school articles in May, 65 have been closed with a "keep" result so far, some of them by an overwhelming "keep" vote, which is very unusual on VfD. None of the school articles listed for deletion in May were deleted and the 7 discussions that are still awaiting closure all seem to be running overwhelming "keep" votes. Of the other three articles listed, two were withdrawn by the nominator and one, a school playing field, was turned into a merge & redirect.

In April, only 2 school articles were deleted out of 20 nominated for deletion. In March, only 6 out of 29 and in February only 12 out of 35.

This article simply reflects the facts on the ground. People contemplating listing school articles for deletion should be aware of the consensus on VfD and the relatively painless alternatives, and people making school articles should be aware of the most successful strategy for creating school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "The consensus has been established overwhelmingly by vote"? I'm calling you out.  The articles aren't being closed with a "keep" result, they're being closed with a "no consensus" result.  No consensus to delete isn't the same as consensus to keep.  Which school articles got an "overwhelming keep vote"?  AFAIK, Permian High School is the only one that will receive a consensus keep vote, but it isn't closed yet, so clearly you have other examples in mind.  I haven't been counting votes, but I don't recall a single other school recently on VfD that didn't receive a "no consensus" result.  Point out some examples.  My impression is that almost all the school VfDs end up somewhere in the range of 2/3 to 3/2 keep/delete votes &mdash; nowhere near 1/4 or 4/1 consensus decisions.  Quale 19:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I class an "overwhelming keep vote" as one where the votes to keep exceed those to delete. The consensus is established by what Wikipedia will and won't do. The consensus at present is that Wikipedia won't delete school articles unless they're considered to be utterly beyond hope. No school article since April 22 has been considered to be that far gone, and only two school articles (out of 20 listed) were deleted in April.

I could go into detail, but the current prognosis for a school deletion listing is that it has an at least evens chance of keep votes exceeding deletes.

I have no idea what the term "calling you out" means.

If you claim that "articles aren't being closed with a keep result", I suggest that you visit the following article where I have catalogued all school VfDs going back to late January, recording the result in the closer's own words. If the closer said "no consensus" the words no consensus will appear. If he uses the word "keep", that appears there. If he uses the word "kept", that appears there. You will note that the words "no consensus" appear only twice in May, and six times in April. The word "keep" appears innumerable times.


 * Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive

This is not an argument about semantics so I accept your argument on consensus--there is no overwhelming consensus to keep individual articles. But at best that is an argument that only has partial relevance. In practice the consensus on Wikipedia is that we'll not delete without a rough consensus to delete. There are two consensuses there. By accepting the first consensus we arrive at the consensual result that school articles are virtually undeletable.

This is the reality. School articles are so difficult to delete that it's hardly worth bothering. This document simply signposts what should be done about school articles. No need for discussion, just merge. This has long been part of Wikipedia's deletion policy. It's just time we paid more attention to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "I class an "overwhelming keep vote" as one where the votes to keep exceed those to delete."
 * What kind of a classification is that? You're saying that 50% + 1 vote is "overwhelming"?  I would call that a highly disputed vote, not an overwhelming one.  Even if it were, how could that possibly lead anyone to conclude that there's a consensus that Radiant!'s suggestions are a Wikipedia guideline, as you continue to claim ad nauseam?  You're admitting that there are votes with majority delete, and that's your evidence that there's a consensus?


 * To quote you again:
 * "If the closer said "no consensus" the words no consensus will appear. If he uses the word "keep", that appears there. If he uses the word "kept", that appears there.  You will note that the words "no consensus" appear only twice in May, and six times in April.  The word "keep" appears innumerable times.
 * I understand why you tabulate your results in this fashion, but you are deliberately misrepresenting what it means. There are only two practical outcomes of a VfD: consensus to delete or no consensus to delete.  No consensus to delete can be broken down into consensus to keep or no consensus reached, but admins closing VfDs are understandably lax in distinguishing these cases since there's no practical difference in the outcome.  VfDs don't have to be closed with "no consensus", so some admins use it, many don't.  That doesn't make every article on VfD that is kept a consensus to keep.  In this case it doesn't make any of these school articles a consensus to keep, despite the impression you're struggling so hard to give.


 * I asked you to give me some examples where there was an "overwhelming keep vote" -- your own words. Now when I call you out you admit that there is no overwhelming consensus to keep school articles.   What is "overwhelming consensus"?  Is it different than "consensus"?  Are you saying that an "overwhelming keep vote" isn't the same as a consensus to keep?  Would an overwhelming delete vote be the same as a consensus to delete?


 * The ironic thing is that I agree with you on the practical effect: school articles are so hard to delete that it's not worth bothering. I won't nominate schools for VfD any time in the forseeable future, and I urge others to avoid making those nominations as well.  The WP:SCH suggestions about handling school stubs are an improvement over current practice and I would be pleased to not have schools nominated for VfD for the next long while.  At the same time, I will not be pleased if school inclusionists try to dictate WP policy.


 * WP requires a very high level of agreement for consensus, which makes consensus a difficult standard to meet. This deliberately chosen philosophy makes articles easy to create and hard to delete, and policy hard to create and easy to dispute.  You are perfectly happy to embrace the consensus requirement for delete in VfD because it makes it easy to keep school articles.  At the same time, the requirement for consensus that makes it hard to create guidelines might be awkward for you if you actually felt the need to apply the same consensus standard to conclude that WP:SCH is accepted as a guideline.   I find it utterly baffling that you can make the leap from the observation that school articles on VfD will not get a consensus to delete to your conclusion that there's "clearly a consensus" that WP:SCH is accepted as a Wikipedia guideline.  You start with an accurate and more than amply demonstrated observation but then leave the tracks completely. Quale 06:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You write: You're saying that 50% + 1 vote is "overwhelming"?

Yes, and thumpingly so. To delete, a rough consensus is required. Where most people vote to keep, this is an overwhelming rejection of the proposal to delete the article.

You write, how could that possibly lead anyone to conclude that there's a consensus that Radiant!'s suggestions are a Wikipedia guideline?

Now looking at your wording. You present a subtle change in argument. Supposedly I'm saying: "there's a consensus that Radiant!'s suggestions are a Wikipedia guideline". This is not my claim. It is my claim that WP:SCH (which you erroneously describe as "Radiant!'s suggestions") "illustrates standards or behaviors which many editors agree with in principle and generally follow." I quote from Template:Guideline. Note that some guidelines are considered controversial, for instance Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about. I consider that WP:SCH enjoys extremely wide support, and probably a consensus. By all Wikipedia standards, it is a guideline. However I'm not hung up on use of that word and we'll call it whatever you like. A rose smells just as sweet by another name.

It's pretty hard to argue with WP:SCH, when only two schools out of 20 listed were deleted in April and no schools out of 75 listed were deleted in May (the 5 pending discussions will clearly not close with delete). You yourself say you won't be listing schools for deletion and will "urge others to avoid making those nominations". In other words, you support WP:SCH even while you claim that you do not.

On your continued misrepresentation of the nature of WP:SCH, I would like to remind you that it's merely a summary of the results of a discussion that took place over two weeks involving separate proposals by at least ten different participants. You yourself participated in the discussion, repeatedly expressing the opinion (which enjoyed wide support) that a merge proposal was the only hope for agreement. Now you have the merge proposal and you claim you don't support it while simultaneously claiming that you do.

You write: VfDs don't have to be closed with "no consensus", so some admins use it, many don't. That doesn't make every article on VfD that is kept a consensus to keep. Absolutely. But this isn't what you said. You said that "articles aren't being closed with a keep result". I showed that an overwhelming majority are. The closers use those precise words "keep" or kept" in nearly every single case.

Again you use this odd and puzzling term "I call you out". What on earth does it mean? That you disagree with me? This is obvious, but why use this obscure and arcane language? Of course we disagree with one another. This is permitted, there's nothing wrong with it and we don't have to grope for our thesaurus when this happens.

You write: you admit that there is no overwhelming consensus to keep school articles

Clearly this is incorrect. 95 schools listed for deletion in April and May. Only 2 deleted. That's an utterly overwhelming consensus to keep school articles.

You write: I will not be pleased if school inclusionists try to dictate WP policy.

I agree with you absolutely on this.

You write: ''the requirement for consensus that makes it hard to create guidelines might be awkward for you if you actually felt the need to apply the same consensus standard to conclude that WP:SCH is accepted as a guideline. ''

We already have consensus. We have a consensus that articles are not to be deleted unless they raise a rough consensus to delete. The result of some 95 listings for deletion in April and May is that schools are deletable only in exceedingly rare cases (2 out of 90 closed discussions so far, headed for 2 out of 95).

You seem to be saying that somehow WP:SCH is some shopping list flung together and imposed in the absence of consensus. I believe this is absolutely unsustainable. You present no credible evidence, only an argument based on what looks like vote lawyering, in the teeth of overwhelming statistical evidence that shows that WP:SCH accurately represents best practise, and in spite of your own agreement that school deletions are a lost cause and your personal commitment to urge others to refrain from listing schools for deletion.

I removed a phrase from your edit that seemed to suggest in extremely strong terms that I was being dishonest. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not true that I simultaneously support WP:SCH and say that I don't support it, or the other way around. I am very clear in saying that as a practical matter for the benefit of smooth functioning of WP and VfD, I recommend that wikipedians voluntarily follow the WP:SCH suggestions to merge and avoid school VfD nominations.  I do not support it as consensus policy or guideline.  I would think that that position would be easy enough to understand, particularly  if you look at WP:SCH and consider that all the "compromise" was made on one side of the issue.  WP:SCH asks nothing of school inclusionists except to follow well established wikipedia policy for handling stubs, and they are immunized from notability requirements that apply in other subject categories such as WP:BIO, WP:FICT, and WP:MUSIC. If you really think that school inclusionists shouldn't be allowed to dictate policy, then you can start by not making that attempt yourself.


 * I fail to understand what "consensus that school articles are not to be deleted" is supposed to mean, when there has been no such consensus vote shown anywhere on any of these issues. School articles are not being deleted, but that hasn't resulted from any consensus because Wikipedia policy does not require consensus for an article to survive VfD.  In fact whether school articles should be deleted is highly disputed.  Your logical fallacy here is so simple as to be absurd and you are the one who is repeatedly misrepresenting the conclusions that can be drawn from the VfD votes.  If a single vote shows wikipedians to be split 60-40 on an issue, or 40-60 on an issue, and then you vote on precisely that same issue 70 times and each vote consisting of largely the same voters shows them split roughly the same way each time, that doesn't make a consensus for anything.  Consensus has nothing to do with the number of times votes are held and everything to do with the results each time votes are held.  In fact repeated votes with failure to achieve consensus on either side completely disproves your argument.  This point is so simple that it's stunning that you continue to claim otherwise.


 * As for my comments on "no consensus" vs "keep", you again completely skirt the issue. I'm asking you straight out, given VfD closing procedures and practice, what conclusions can be drawn from an admin's use of the phrase "keep" compared to "no consensus"?  You make a very big deal of this, but examinations of the votes themselves show that the terms are not consistently applied.  I invited you to show examples of "overwhelming keep votes" and your answer is typical of your argumentation in general: you engage in what we arcanely like to call "moving the goalpoasts" by using a definition of overwhelming that is tortured in the extreme.  You also fail to answer my questions about what "overwhelming consensus" means.  Is this different than consensus?  Show me examples of May school VfDs that received a consensus keep rather than a failure to achieve consensus to delete.


 * It isn't my job to prove that there's no consensus for WP:SCH -- the burden is completely on the side claiming consensus. (Looking at this discussion, you seem to be the only one doing so.)  Your purported evidence of consensus is beyond bizarre since it repeatedly shows no more than 55% or so of wikipedians agreeing on the issue.  The fact that this result has been tested by vote over 70 times and opinion is still highly divided is my evidence of no consensus.


 * I'll close by asking you to explain also why you choose loaded and misleading language like "overwhelming keep vote" when it appears that you simply mean what anybody else would call "majority keep vote". How has the clarity and accuracy of your communication has been improved by this choice of words?  Under the circumstances, it's absurdly hypocritical for you to accuse anyone of vote lawyering.  Quale 17:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kadoori Agricultural High School
Unless someone works on Kadoori Agricultural High School someone will put it on VfD. If you look at the article you will see why it really needs help. It is so bad that I have no idea where to merge it! Vegaswikian 23:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does it need work more than any other? Yitzhak Rabin is an alumnus, it's the undeletable stub, if that claim is verifiable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? This is not the "let's make sure that all school articles pass VfD" page. RickK 00:13, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, of course that is precisely the purpose of the page--to ensure that such school articles as are made on Wikipedia are of sufficient quality as to not require deletion in the consensus opinion of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's the case then I will cease to participate in the discussion since you've hijacked it into a "Let's make sure every school that has ever existed have an article" and you continue to attack the people who list schools on the VfD page. RickK 21:10, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I did make some regrettable statements expressing my extreme bemusement at the continued nominations, which I have come to regard as doomed. Although this was based on firm evidence, some of my comments were not helpful and only served to raise the emotional temperature. I have withdrawn them and apologised.

On the idea that I have hijacked this article and turned it into a "Let's make sure every school that has ever existed have an article" page, clearly that's incorrect because if I believed this and acted on it then I'd delete the suggestions on merging. I am not so radical a mergist as Radiant!, but I am a member of that group and would far rather see a few redirects to one substantial article on a school district than a bunch of withered stubs and not article on the district. Of course I do still observe that successful deletions of school articles are becoming rarer than hen's teeth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Zen-master
Zen Master inserted a template with the edit summary "this can't be anything more than a {proposed} policy without a vote, can it?".

Well obviously a policy can (and many of our policies did) emerge without a vote, but that misses the point by a mile. I've heard nobody suggest that this should be a policy. It isn't policy material.

Also it isn't really a proposed whatever-it-is. It's just whatever-it-is. A summary of a discussion we had over a couple of weeks. There is broad and very widespread agreement over the summary. It is cited a lot as jolly good advice. Please let's not pretend that it's a proposal, it's just a summary. I'd call it a guideline but understand that this may upset some people so I'll say it's a whatever-it-is and lots of people think it contains some jolly good ideas. It isn't a proposal and it isn't intended to have any teeth. The advice it contains is supposed to be self-evidently good advice, born or experience, and I think it does a very good job of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Does this mean you are going to create a {whatever-it-is} template header? ;-) zen master   T  22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I dunno. I thought I'd start out with thingumajig for work my way up. ;)

Seriously, there are a lot of raw nerves around, and saying that this is a proposed anything would only upset people. It isn't policy, it isn't anything frightening, it has no teeth, it's just a bunch of what a lot of people agree are jolly good ideas. So I'd like to lay off the templates and see if this whatever-it-is remains popular and widely cited and followed. If it is, it really doesn't matter what it's called, it'll have proven useful. If it isn't well it's best forgotten. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Think twice before nominating"?
Let's change it from "Do not nominate schools for deletion" to "think twice before nominating schools..." That should be easier for everyone to live with, and feel less oppressive to school deletionists. Kappa 23:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be underlined by evidence, which we have in abundance. As I said on a VfD thread earlier today, between 22 April and today some 70 school VfDs have been started, discussed and closed.  Not one of those 70 school-related articles was deleted.  Even the school playing field article was kept as a redirect.  That isn't an argument for not nominating (as you recognise) but it's a very good pointer for those who might be thinking of deletion and, if they were aware of the likely outcome, would probably just opt for a quick merge and move on to the next--and there's nothing wrong with that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stub growth?
I would prefer if this page stayed neutral in the debate between 'all stubs will organically grow' and 'stubs are not helpful'. Neither has been empirically proven, so I see no reason why NPOV shouldn't apply here, thus imho we should avoid terms like 'most', 'every' or 'rarely' related to either group. Radiant_* 12:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well none of the edits on this page have come close to saying that all stubs will organically grow, but I think the presumption that they're useless flies in the face of the facts. The current version gives some random articles that I selected using WikiWax. Well over half the articles I found had grown substantially from very short stubs. The reason many short stubs appear on VfD is that they're nominated for deletion very early in their lives, usually within a few weeks and sometimes within the first day. Significant organic growth in general takes place on timescales of months, six months being a typical period from initial creation. Often school articles are listed for deletion long before this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, present wording sounds fair to me. Radiant_* 14:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a strong minority against stubs, which doesn't bother me much because if someone VfDs a stub it just gets a quickie expansion and is usually kept anyway. Recommending larger articles earlier is not something I'm wildly enthusiastic about--it's a Wiki, we should use bluelink placeholders in preference to redlinks because then we can spot and correct namespace collisions quicker. I can live with it though as the final effect is not significantly differen. Stub articles capable of quick expansion still won't get deleted, stubs not VfD'd will still grow organically and soon there will be so many school articles that the rate of creation will exceed the rate at which they can reasonably be listed on VfD. In fact I suspect this point has already been reached. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, these days there's a centralized movement for improving school articles, and I don't believe that was the case three months earlier. I'd say that's a huge improvement. Whether or not people like school articles, I'd say most anyone prefers good school articles to stubby ones. Radiant_* 14:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

My ideal article on a British school tells me where it's located, what kind of school it is, the name of the local education authority, where the latest inspection report is, and possibly the school website's URL. Some editors might regard that as stubby--some might even regard it as inadequate--but this information alone would permit me to find more about the school quickly.

A few of us have worked on the school districts system for the United States in an organized, hierarchical way because that's a particularly effective way to start improving school articles. Information can be placed at a level in the hierarchy that is comfortable for the consensus, and calls for outright deletion are unlikely to prevail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

School Stubs
I quite like seeing school articles with worthwhile information in. However, I believe when Jimbo OK'd school articles in principle, he did mention 'as long as they're not mass-inserting a ton of one line stubs. '. Well, there seems to be a ton of one line stubs on schools being mass-inserted at the moment, and every one is put up for VfD by the same people (today it's been Dunc-something or other), then the same people vote to 'keep' every time, (Tony Sidaway, Kappa et al). And most of the time, these articles remain as stubs (or merely have a template added; this in itself does not stop them being a stub).

I'm not sure if this is the right place for a proposal (please, if it's not, someone feel free to transpose it), but perhaps there needs to be some sort of intermediate 'expand this school article' flag on articles such as school stubs, and if they're not expanded beyond one line spammy stubs (as 90% of them remain) within 7 days, they then get deleted? Proto 15:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea would be to merge them actually. If someone has suddenly started inserting a bunch of one-line stubs, perhaps they are doing it to prove a Point. Kappa 16:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence for the mass insertion of stubs. I'm not seeing that. Although we're getting mass nominations of school articles for deletion (Neutrality accounted for the vast bulk of all nominations for May in a three-day binge) the articles themselves, where stubs, are not all by the same author. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also this whole "expand in seven days or else" attitude is nonsense. Significant organic growth can typically take six months. We can afford to give articles decades to mature. When people say "these article remain as stubs" they're talking about articles that don't get edited for a month or so. That's utterly unrealistic. Examining older school articles shows that they do indeed grow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is totally unacceptable
This is just Radiant's attempt to make his point of view authoritative. There is no consensus that merging is a good idea. It is Radiant's personal hobbyhorse. It is not the option that is chosen in votes for deletion. CalJW 05:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If the page is not acceptable to you, state your objections so we can discuss them. It's easier to tear things down then to give objective criticism.  --BaronLarf 05:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

This is not simply Radiant's "personal hobbyhorse". I disagree with Radiant frequently, yet I chose to participate here during the earlier parts of the discussions. Several others, myself included, helped develop the current page in cooperation. Please join the conversation instead of attacking the results so far. Also, go ahead and edit the main article page. The results of our earlier discussion are valuable, but they're not sacred. Comment here on the talk page why, and accept that you'll be reverted or re-edited frequently on such a contentious issue. Let's all see everyone else's proposals. Most of all, maintain patience, good faith, and participate. If we do this, we'll find a way to get along, or at least continue in 'polite disagreement'. (It's much better than the alternatives.) -- Un focused 06:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thing is, you have to look at what is happening on the ground. 75 school articles were listed for deletion in May.  Of those, 65 have been closed so far with a keep decision, 2 nominations were withdrawn and the schools were also kept, one school playing field was merged into its related school article.  No school articles were deleted.  There are six pending (unclosed) discussions from May and, although I won't be closing the discussions, I have experience with closing VfDs and I know how it's done, and they all look like strong keepers to me.


 * Since some of the keep closings, deletionists, mergists and inclusionists have cooperated in merging some of the smaller school stub articles into school district articles, a huge hierarchy of which is currently being developed by inclusionists and mergists.


 * Thus we have an incredibly strong consensus for merge. Because schools have become well-nigh undeletable, merging is the way to go. It's quick, it's easy, and you don't need to wait a couple of weeks for a discussion to finish and (in the rare event of a delete consensus) the article to be deleted.


 * You may want to write off the advice on this page as someone's personal hobby horse, but you'd be wrong. It's a very accurate observation of the way things are on Wikipedia with respect to school articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Twice I have seen two-liners about schools, and I have just gone ahead and merged them here and here, then informed the authors that it is to prevent a long and protracted debate. The times I vote on the school VFDs it is usually a merge vote. The discussion nobodies "hobby horse", it is an observation of the current situation, and a suggestion as to how to put an end to the "meaningless" VFD discussions on schools. ("Meaningless" meaning that such VFDs are doomed to failure from the start, frankly I cannot see much meaning in opening VFDs just to allow people to vote delete). It is not an authorative policy, semi-policy or anything like that, neither should it be pretended to be one. When someone votes "Keep per Wikipedia:Schools" it means "keep, all my reasons for wanting this kept are described in the Wikipedia:Schools discussion." Deleters are also free to refer to this page. It is entirely up to each individual whether he or she wants to follow this suggestion, just as it is entirely up to each individual to decide on what subjects he or she feels are and are not encyclopedic. But if many enough, say 50%, of users agree to this, and take preemptive action to merge school articles before somebody slaps a vfd-tag on them, we will cut significantly down on the number of school VFDs, thereby saving time for more useful tasks, and that I think is in everyones interest, inclusionists and deletionists. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Last night I was thinking to myself that if the keep voters would spend 50% of the time that they spend voting fixing the really stubby articles by either merging, well that would be a lot more then 50%, or expanding the article, there would be a lot fewer school VfD votes. There are a lot of borderline personal attacks against individuals for putting up schools on VfD, even if the article has only 3 words of information not already listed somewhere else.  I suspect that this effort is antagonizing a lot of editors unless it produces some concrete improvements in articles and does not appear to be a group keep editors who don't even read what they are voting on or make any effort to function a editors for the articles they are so passionate about.  No matter how you vote, you have to admit that these school votes are a part of the VfD load problems.  Also if people are still putting up schools, it says that there is no consensus, especially if they are still getting a good number of delete votes.

How can this project improve the quality of wikipedia when some are not willing to work towards a consensus? Voting keep, on poor quality articles lowers the quality of the entire wikipedia project. Those votes are not harmless. If you care about this effort, then either vote to delete articles that basically say nothing after they have been around for 30 days. After all, no body cared enough to expand the nothingness that was there, so starting from scratch might be better.

I'll add that cleaning up is not easy. I worked on one article yesterday that wound up as a dba page and move, a major rewrite of another dab page, a major expansion of a school district article and some other work. While some here are trying to reach a consensus, others appear to be fighting it. We need to be a part of the solution and not the problem! Vegaswikian 18:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a profoundly unwikilike comment and really assumes bad faith. I have never knowingly voted keep on a bad article.  However there are some peoplr who consider stub articles to be unacceptable.  It should not be assumed that all people share this view. Cleaning up is easy if you don't insist on turning every stub into an all-singing, all-dancing article. Some subjects should always remain stubs, in my view.  A stub article on a subject that is referenced in many places is better than a duplication of small but non-trivial content.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a load of garbage this page has turned into. Tony, it's pretty hard to assume good faith when you and your inclusionist cohorts are trying to hijack this page into a "how to keep all schoolcruft" and then keep trying to claim that the discussion is closed. RickK 06:46, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)