Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

How should the presumptions in SNG be tested/challenged?

Presumptions of notability as used in various SNGs all say "sources are likely to exist" or similar wording. However when an unsourced article which has existed under the "protection" of such a presumption is challenged people use the presumption itself to defend it. How should we go about the process of challenging the presumption itself? There should be an AFD in which using the presumtion as a keep argument is disallowed, or alternatively the presumtion must have a defined "shelf life" - such as if no sources have been added within x months the article's is no longer "protected" by the SNG. What say you all? Roger (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the context of DEADLINE, that presumption should last as reasonable a time as we would expect sources to have come about or been found, which is on the order of years in most cases. There's no fixed time frame, there's no set number of how many attempts at AFD need to be run, just that if at a point that sources should exist by that point and there's very clear evidence that none really do, then trying to stick to the SNG clause for presumed notability will fail. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The way I read [[WP:AfD] and WP:NRVE I would say that the guesswork ends when an AfD is filed. WP:NRVE states: "(..) However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. (...)" Ergo, time to give those sources. The Banner talk 03:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest starting the nomination out by acknowledging the SNG's presumption... and then noting the steps you took to see whether that presumption was accurate in the specific case under discussion (ie I would lay out what I did to try to find sources, and then argue that the lack of success leads you to the conclusion that Article X may be a rare exception to the general presumption of the SNG.) Doing this harmonizes GNG with the SNG... it acknowledges that while it is normally correct to assume that sources should exist... in the specific case under discussion, it appears that they don't. (this of course, requires you to do some fairly extensive work looking for sources, to make sure that they don't exist. You would look like an idiot if two minutes after nominating, ten people came up with sources.) Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This I agree with but I will point out that SNGs assume not only existing sources but also the potential of future sources that will come along to help expand the article. (Note that this is not a CRYSTAL issue - we are starting on an established fact of something that has happened that we can verify to meet the SNG). That sort of sets how long it should take for sources to appear and before the presumption of notability granted by an SNG may waiver. Take a case of a business that may meet WP:ORG but not the GNG - we give it an article that's rather brief. In, say, 5 years, the company has since gone out of business and otherwise has no impact. We can then start to expect that if one were to challenge the notability of that company 5+ years out, after their closure, that we can reasonably assert that it is unlikely new sources will come out, and a good faith effort for existing sources has fallen flat, and thus that presumption granted by ORG will be considered nullified and deletion a reasonably option. But I definitely agree with BB that one has to definitely show they've made a great effort to locate existing sources to even start a reasonable base case for deletion. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
(Its a side track, but... in many ways, Org is actually stricter than GNG... so, I can't think of an organization that would meet ORG and not meet GNG. The other way around? maybe. This isn't the case with most of our other SNGs. So... the advice to explain how you bent over backwards and did cartwheels in an effort to find a source... and to demonstrate how you were unsuccessful still applies.) Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested guideline addition

Since all High schools and colleges are kept by overwhelming consensus in virtually every AFD I've seen them nominated in over the years, lets just state they are all notable. Please participate in the strawpoll so we can gain consensus on this. Remember, there are ways to be notable other than getting coverage. WP:NOTABILITY even states you are notable if you meet the general notability guideline, which is coverage, or one of the subject specific guidelines. Dream Focus 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Should all colleges be considered notable?

(addition)To clarify, this means this means accredited degree-issuing institutions, not diploma mills and whatnot.
  • Yes Dream Focus 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes Any college awarding any kind of degree should be considered notable, may be they are not on par with Harward but that doesn't reduce the notability of any college --sarvajna (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - I'd be fine with this one, though it could be more generalized as "higher education". Tarc (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes provided they are officially recognized and not diploma mills --Cyclopiatalk 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Partial I would limit this presumed notability to only colleges that are accredited by their appropriate government. This is not saying unaccredited colleges can't be notable, they just don't have the immediate presumption. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. For all accredited colleges. Not for crammers, language schools and the like. I'd go for "tertiary educational institutions" as opposed to "colleges". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely NOT - no topic is inherently notable. Yes, there is a very strong presumption of notability with colleges and universities (because it is highly likely that sources will exist to establish notability)... but there will be the occasional exceptions, and we must allow for them. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No - An organization should be kept because it is notable, not because it is an educational business as opposed to a construction business. Are most high schools or colleges notable? Maybe (Jimbo doesn't think so), but that doesn't mean that they are notable by default. An article should stand on its own merits, not because similar articles that exist are notable. A proposal to say that all construction companies are automatically notable would fail in a heartbeat; this is not a special exception. - SudoGhost 15:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - The reason for this is that experience has shown that with enough local research high school articles can be made to meet WP:ORG. In many countries outside of the Anglosphere, Internet coverage of educational establishments is sparse so local searches need to be carried out and there is no time limit for these. This is important to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes for accredited, degree-granting institutions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Question: accredited by whom? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NO The fact that a school exists, does not make it notable. Local pride is also not a factor in notability. Only when a school has "something special", backed up by non-local, independent, reliable third-party sources (so not the local or regional newspaper, the school website or the school district website), is the school possible noteworthy. The Banner talk 16:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No I don't think we can presume notability of all colleges all colleges are notable, and I agree Banner and SudoGhost's arguments. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the college is accredited and verified, there should be a presumption of notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes Wikipedia is often an early port of call when considering a college or university. While a Wikipedia article is not a prospectus, it can give a flavour of the establishment in an impartial way and give links to the establishment's own prospectus and often, depending on the info-boxes at the end of the article. Martinvl (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not because in much of the world, starting a "college" just means filing a bit of paperwork. I could start one today, sitting at my laptop. It'll cost me, let's see, US $30 to incorporate a non-profit and then I have a "college". Anything that calls itself, or is commonly called, a "college" includes all the [[diploma mill]s out there. Now, a regionally accredited college in the US (or the equivalent elsewhere) is always going to exceed the sourcing standards set forth here. It won't be "inherently" notable, but it will be actually and provably notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NoWhatamIdoing's !vote wasn't there when I read this, but he's right. Colleges, schools, (and radio stations, a pet peeve of mine) shouldn't be seen as inherently notable, they should still have to meet our standard criteria for notability as described at WP:GNG. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No if you include any institution that calls itself a college. Yes, maybe, for accredited degree-issuing institutions, accredited by a recognized accreditation organization. (Some problems of definition there, but there some dubious institutions around that "accredit" diploma mills). JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Without voting one way or the other, it is important to note that a very important distinction exists between "presumed to be able to easily meet the requirements of WP:GNG" and "does not have to meet the requirements of WP:GNG". I am uncertain at which definition is meant by "inherently notable". We need to use unambiguous language. No topic should be exempt from GNG, but some topics are unlikely to ever NOT meet it. Most genuine accredited colleges and universities should easily be able to meet it, but that doesn't mean that they are exempt from it, just that it would be hard to imagine that they wouldn't. --Jayron32 05:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No nothing is inherently notable. We need to have sources to demonstrate notability in every article, no matter what the subject is. ThemFromSpace 04:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes on a rebuttable presumption basis for degree giving institutions, as I cannot think of a scenario on which a degree giving institution couldn't be shown to notable relatively easily, making the point arguably mute. For this reason, unlike schools, the notability of universities and equivalents has not historically been subject to much dispute, beyond debates on how many articles Wikipedia should have on one, e.g. articles on individual campuses, student unions e.t.c. On the side note, editors should note that degree giving institutions are under the jurisdiction of WP:UNI not WP:WPSCH, so the former should be notified if this discussion goes on further. I also agree with others that debating "colleges" without a clear definition is pointless. CT Cooper · talk 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • YES - They should all be presumed notable, because experience has shown that even the most obscure example inevitably produces the required sourcing, and it wastes a great deal of time on everybody's part to assume otherwise in those freak events when this is not so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NO, absolutely not. Everything that has an entry in the encyclopedia should show why it deserves to be there. The indiscriminate collection of non-notable information hurts the credibility of the project. Unless we can show that the article on the individual school would be in a real, paper encyclopedia, we don't need it here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes and even were there no other arguments I would say this simply on the basis that otherwise we shall increase the workload at AfD , and end up with contradictory and random results, especially in the less well documented countries. There are some times where consistency is better than precision, and this is one of them . These provide a way for young contributors to get started. The need to keep the encyclopedia going is basic to everything; as long as WP:V is met, Notability is much less important than users. We can have an encyclopedia with carrying degrees of notability; we cannot have one without continually attracting new volunteer users. The underlying principle is the basic IAR principle that whatever is necessary to help preserve the encyclopedia is justifiable, and the rules must permit it. If someone's idea of the abstract concept of notability conflicts, the abstract concept must defer to real necessity. And even more than high schools, notability will be met: colleges have graduates, and some of them become notable, and even back in the days 6 years ago when we did not accept this rule, that was one of the key factors. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, provided they are on government lists as providing recognised degrees. The only exception for a Wikipedia article would be a non accredited college that is notable for not being notable: i.e. plenty of RS that have exposed it as a diploma mill or some other fraud. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes if it is a suitably accredited college which grants degrees recognized by government and other major colleges, as opposed to being a diploma mill. This merely formalizes the obvious consensus of hundreds of AFDs over the past several years. The consensus of hundreds of editors in years of AFDs trumps the whims of a very few persons seeking here to force their personal preference on the community as if they were lawgivers. Edison (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, with caveats. All legitimately accredited/licensed/approved (terminology may vary) tertiary education institutions that grant degrees of some sort should be treated as notable except in extraordinary situations where information indicates otherwise. In addition, many non-approved/non-accredited schools are notable, but this should be determined by the existence of third-party reliable sourcing. I must note that the matter of what is "approved", "licensed", "accredited", etc., is not necessarily a straightforward judgment. Some entities claim approval or accreditation from entities that are not engaged in accreditation or school approval (such as UNESCO, a Better Business Bureau, or a government agency that issues business licenses to businesses of all types), from fake entities or other accreditors lacking legitimacy. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think we have to be honest and admit that there are many categories of articles (such as villages or members of national legislatures) that have inherent notability, colleges are one of them. JASpencer (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Should all high schools be considered notable?

  • Yes Dream Focus 14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes --Cyclopiatalk 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No Unless there's a way to do something equivalent to accredited colleges. Again, this is not saying no high school can be notable, just that we can't presume notability just because it exists. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely NOT - no topic is inherently notable. I would be comfortable with saying that there is a general presumption of notability with high schools (because it is likely that sources will exist to establish notability)... but there will be exceptions, and we must allow for them. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - same reasons as above. TerriersFan (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes for accredited, diploma-granting secondary schools. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NO The fact that a school exists, does not make it notable. Local pride is also not a factor in notability. Only when a school has "something special", backed up by non-local, independent, reliable third-party sources (so not the local or regional newspaper, the school website or the school district website), is the school possible noteworthy. The Banner talk 16:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No The mere existence of a high school does not make it notable enough to receive its own standalone article. It could be mentioned in the local city's article and the name of the high school redirected to the relevant section. Unless the high school has done something noteworthy, I don't think we should presume all high schools are notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - If it is a verifiable secondary school, it should be presumed to be notable, in accordance with 10 years of AfD history as I've documented at User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs. This presumption should be able to be overcome, however, in cases of very small schools or other appropriate cases. The presumption however, will make any AfDs much more efficient (though they've been relatively efficient for years, this would help).--Milowent • hasspoken 17:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    I agree that all verifiable secondary schools should be presumed notable such as for the purposes of NPP/CSD or AFC; however, if notability is challenged (AFD) then I think the presumption ends and notability must be verifiably demonstrated, not presumed. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Honestly, because this concept is being considered as an addition to a notability guideline, we should be asking ourselves to challenge what has been 10 years of near automatic "keeps". Certainly the reasoning for these keeps should influence the discussion, but the argument cannot be "well, we've kept them for the last 10 years, therefore they must be kept". While I don't agree with SudoGhost on his points, the argument that OUTCOMES has been a snowball effect without any clear reason why it started must be considered. If the argument for the last ten years has always been "well, it's listed at OUTCOMES, so it should be kept", that's no basis for a notability consider. However, I'm certain that in those ten years, more rationale arguments have been provided, focusing on sourcing and the like. That's the argument that should be built on. It's reasonable for accredited colleges, but Im not so sure on high schools. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No because it's more complicated than that. Is any established, government-run high school notable? Very probably. Is any old high school, including the literally thousands of "private high schools" in California that are actually homeschools with only one, two or three students "enrolled" notable? Certainly not—not even if they put up a website so that you (and the universities they're applying to) can "verify" via a WP:SPS that they exist.
    You've got to think about the edge cases. Very small schools are almost never notable. High schools in rural areas of developing countries (e.g., the best students in the village study with the local iman) are almost never notable. We could support a statement like "It is almost always the case that companies traded on major stock exchanges, restaurants listed in the Michelin Guide, universities, colleges, and larger high schools, and similarly prominent organizations meet the sourcing requirements if a diligent search for sources is made." That's not the same thing as saying "My high school of 300 students is inherently notable, and so is every high school that our football team plays, even if nobody can actually find any sources except the school's own website". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NoAll organisations should be treated the same. As for the 10 years, that simply means that when our standards were laxer than they all now they all slipped through, and then that was held as precedent. I was told the same thing about radio stations - that a precedent set a number of years go meant all radio stations were notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No I think that interpreting WP:N one way in most of the encyclopedia and other ways in certain subject areas is a slippery slope, and as far as I'm concerned any sourcing belongs in a given article—not cited for the first time in an AfD discussion. Miniapolis (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No - Without repeating what I said above, the same thing applies here. - SudoGhost 19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What I said above (my nonvote comment) applies here as well. --Jayron32 05:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No Strongly so, for the same reason I stated above. ThemFromSpace 04:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment note this recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang, which closed as keep, apparently on the lamentable basis of arguments that it is already policy that schools are notable, regardless of the lack of any RS to evidence that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No Permastubs are useless and against policy; Wikipedia is not a directory. Schools should be redirected to an education section in the article about their location unless there are non-routine, independent sources available that are sufficient to build an article. Common outcomes, at this point, are circular; all schools are notable because they are usually kept at AfD and they are kept at AfD because all schools are notable. Danger! High voltage! 22:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Verifiablity prohibits unsourceable articles. NOT prohibits directory-type articles, which permastubs about high schools are. Though it's just a guideline, Notability prohibits articles without significant, non-routine, independent coverage. Yes, there's no sentence in any policy that states "permastubs aren't allowed" but synthesis is allowed outside of articles, no? Danger! High voltage! 23:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed with WP:V, but we're surely not talking of unverifiable stuff. WP:N (or better, a sub-guideline of it), well, we're discussing it here: you can't use the current notability guideline to rebuke proposed modifications to it -it's like a legislator saying "We can't change the law to make marijuana legal because the law says marijuana is illegal". Finally, that stubs are "directory-type" articles and thu WP:NOT rejects them is your own bizarre interpretation of the policy. I see nothing "directory-type" in stubs, whatever this definition actually means. --Cyclopiatalk 01:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Some permastubs might provide only directory-type information: "Foo School is a school whose website is at fooschool.org" or "Foo School is a school located at 123 Main Street in Foo, Blah". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing sums it up. I'm not talking about all stubs. I'm talking about school permastubs, to which nothing can ever be legitimately added apart from that which might be found on this sort of site. There are plenty of topics about which there's nothing to be said that is verifiable; many of those are schools. And granted, we're talking about changing the notability guideline, but changing it to some things don't have to be notable to get an article, in which case why bother with it at all. It would save a lot of time at deletion. Danger! High voltage! 07:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, as a "rebuttable presumption". We have been over all this so many times before. Having the discussion yet again is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. -- Alarics (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes as a rebuttable presumption, meaning that I personally wouldn't bother to challenge to notability of high/secondary schools since I have almost always found them to be notable with a small amount research, and I therefore believe inclusion debates are best focused on primary/elementary/middle schools. However, if someone chooses to challenge such a presumption then sources would have to be listed somewhere on Wikipedia after a reasonable period of time which meet the standard required in either the WP:GNG or WP:ORG as currently written, or both. After that, I would happily accept the merging of salvageable content if practical, or deletion if not. Such decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis though, for instance I would give more leeway to school articles in non-English speaking countries than in other cases. I could quite easily have crafted this into a no vote, because it's not a simple yes/no question. On stubs, as the author of WP:POTENTIAL, I would say that if a topic is notable it is permitted to have an article on it whether its a stub or not - so permastubs does not mean all stubs. I've never cited WP:OUTCOMES in an AfD, because the page should accurately record how policies and guidelines are being interpreted in AfDs, not how the page itself is being interpreted, and over-reliance on this page seems to be making the case for school article notability appear weaker than it actually is. CT Cooper · talk 21:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • YES - They should all be presumed notable, because experience has shown that even the most obscure example inevitably produces the required sourcing, and it wastes a great deal of time on everybody's part to assume otherwise in those freak events when this is not so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NO, absolutely not. Everything that has an entry in the encyclopedia should show why it deserves to be there. The indiscriminate collection of non-notable information hurts the credibility of the project. Unless we can show that the article on the individual school would be in a real, paper encyclopedia, we don't need it here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes and even were there no other arguments I would say this simply on the basis that otherwise we shall double the workload at AfD , and end up with contradictory and random results. There are some times where consistency is better than precision, and this is one of them . These provide a way for young contributors to get started. The need to keep the encyclopedia going is basic to everything; as long as WP:V is met, Notability is much less important than users. We can have an encyclopedia with carrying degrees of notability; we cannot have one without continually attracting new volunteer users. The underlying principle is the basic IAR principle that whatever is necessary to help preserve the encyclopedia is justifiable, and the rules must permit it. If someone's idea of the abstract concept of notability conflicts, the abstract concept must defer to real necessity. DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes if it is a verifiable public or well established private secondary school and not just a "home school" or small and transitory educational effort in a church. This merely states the widespread consensus exhibited in hundreds of afds by thousands of editors (who should not be dismissed as mere fans of schools). Years ago when the consensus was less clear I undertook to find the coverage needed in reliable sources to satisfy WP:N for high schools and found it was not that difficult. Edison (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes , and I'm fed up with having to explain why on every new perennial dscussion about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No. and I'm just as fed up as Kudpung in the opposite direction, having to continually state that nothing, nothing at all, is inherently notable. If it's notable, sources will be readily available.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No and yes. "Inherent notability" does not apply, but because experience indicates that almost all secondary schools can be demonstrated to be notable by WP:GNG and WP:ORG if sufficient research is done, all such schools should be presumed notable unless and until thorough investigation demonstrates the contrary. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No in theory, Yes in practice. The line of inherent notability probably stops between degree awarding colleges and high schools. However in practice there will probably always be enough sources. JASpencer (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Common Outcomes

Now that it is clear that there is no overwelming support for a blanket notability offer, I think we have to look at the effect of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. This is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy now, often used as a argument for keep-votes.

It is in fact the same discussion as above: do schools need a blanket keep argument or should they be judged on notability. So the question is in fact "Should the Common Outcomes regarding to schools be kept?". I like to hear your opinions. The Banner talk 21:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG).
    • Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia.
    • Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
    • Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are being deleted.
Should the Common Outcomes regarding to schools be kept?
Everything in the common outcome does appear true. Is there some part of the section that you think is not? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People tend to give keep votes, because of the Common Outcomes. There are loads of school articles kept because of Common Outcomes, that are only sourced with the school website (= selfpromo) or the local schooldistrict (= not an independent source). The Banner talk 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't actually matter what the article is sourced with. It only matters what the article could be sourced with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think common outcomes should ever be cited in a deletion discussion. Perhaps it should be modified to state that although schools are usually kept, the fact that they are usually kept is not a valid argument when the notability has been challenged such as at AFD. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I would definitely say there is at least minimum consensus that any accredited (*) degree-granting college or universe is presumed notable, with the (*) cavaet of having an explicit definition of what accredited means (which I'm taking as a government or appropriate agency having reviewed and reported the school as such). ("Joe's Beauty College, accredited by Joe Smith!" is not going to work). Make something precise on this - with the verification being through the proving of the accredition, and you have something. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Presumed notable, so you guess that they are notable. The Banner talk 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No, this is coming from WP:N; a requirement for a standalone article is that the topic is presumed notable, whether by the GNG or a sub-notability guideline. The reason for "presumed" is that that means that by good faith we should allow such articles time to grow and develop because the topics are presumed notable. However, because consensus can change, that notability may be challenged at a future date if the article otherwise lacks sources or other facets that we would have expected to be present for a notable topic. So basically that's just saying that when one declares a topic is notable on WP, it is not an indefinitely protection from any AFD challenge in the future. In this case of the above, talking about accredited degree-granting schools, it is hard to envision a case of these where there is not some type of documentation from the school or the local region it is in to fill out an article, it just may take time to acquire that information. So here, we allow the evidence of the school being accredited and degree-granting (which should be a source that has to be provided) as the presumption of notability, so that the article is given proper time to grow and develop. I personally do not believe that all "colleges" can do that, and don't believe that necessarily extends to high schools as well. Of course, if these others can meet the GNG, then all the better for them so they can have an article. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
What WP:N is saying is that if it meets one of the notability guidelines it is presumed notable. That doesn't mean any specific type of article is presumed notable without meeting one of those guidelines, it says nothing like that, so I don't know why you cited WP:N. I don't think you should be trying to word an essay in such a way that it contradicts what the guideline is saying as a result of the lack of consensus for it here. WP:ORGSIG pretty clearly spells out that no, schools do not get a free pass on the notability question, it doesn't matter what kind of school it is. If what you're suggesting truly is the "consensus", then show that consensus by changing the guideline. - SudoGhost 23:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
" then show that consensus by changing the guideline." - That's what we're trying to decide. --Cyclopiatalk 23:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Cyclopia's got it. Right now, SudoGhost, you are exactly right - no notability guideline says that any type of school is notable for any reason, short of passing the GNG, but OUTCOMES says they are always kept, so clearly theres a strong likelihood that we (collectively) think they are presumably notable. The above poll started by DreamFocus shows, at minimum, strong support to change ORG to include a presumption of notability for accredited degree-granting colleges. That's the change we're discussing before actually adding it in. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Collectively? I don't think so. And the poll shows no strong support, but some support. (9 yes/1 partly/6 no and 6 yes/8 no) The Banner talk 23:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that most schools aren't currently considered notable, but what I have an issue with is how this is suddenly turning into "since most schools are notable, notability isn't required." It doesn't matter how many articles about actors are kept at AfD, each article about an actor must demonstrate notability. The same goes for businesses, or non-profits. Schools are no different. - SudoGhost 23:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Just using the college straw poll, some of who say "no" are supporting the inclusion if the requirement is limited to accredited universities. And to Sudo, you need to recognize that the GNG is not the only way to tell if a topic is presumed notable for the GNG. Now granted because of COI issues, I can understand why ORG doesn't have obvious criteria because that would a way for companies that want to get themselves listed on WP play with the rules to get it there. Which is probably why in the straw poll the limitation is set to accredited degree-granting schools, as that assures at least one third-party source - the accreding agency - to avoid the COI problems. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I never at any point came anywhere close to suggesting that the WP:GNG was the only criteria for showing notability, or that a topic is presumed to be notable, so I have absolutely no idea why you felt the need to say that; you misread something somehwere. What I am suggesting is exactly what WP:N is saying, that a topic is presumed notable if it meets some notability guideline. WP:N does not suggest in any way that a topic is presumed notable without meeting a notability guideline. - SudoGhost 00:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
And that's why this discussion is here, to add a criteria for schools to a notability guideline (specifically this one, ORG), such that we reduce (perhaps eliminate?) the OUTCOMES statement on schools and instead have a notability-based reason to include. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, so you presume that this school is notable? Plantage Mavo The Banner talk 23:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no evidence that the school was accredited or gave degrees, so no, per what I believe the consensus is, we wouldn't consider that notable (but per OUTCOMES, you'd have to fight tooth and nail to have it deleted.) A comment to the above is that if these criteria are added to ORG, we have to reasonably expect OUTCOMES to change to "pull out" the categories that have been covered, and likely with workding as Whatamidoing explains below. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a thought: instead of deciding which schools "count" in terms of if the accreditation is sufficient to us or if the diploma is "good enough" to our estimation, how about we let reliable sources decide which schools warrant articles, by demonstrating notability? Other organizations have to show notability, and it seems to work pretty well everywhere else on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The whole reason we have subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:ORG and WP:BIO and others is when it is recongized that there are cases where sourcing is likely going to be present for a topic but it may take time to gather and locate such sources, thus presuming that the topic is notable and allowing it a stand-alone that has time (per no deadline to develop and encourage others to help find and include sources. That's why they are alternatives for the presumption of notability to the current GNG. The question being asked here is that can we say the same for some subset of colleges and high schools. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SudoGhost here. I think that presumed notable is fine for things like AFC/NPP/CSD, but that when an article's notability is challenged at AFD, the presumption must end and notability must be verifiably supported by reliable sources. Common outcomes should never be used at AFD, and a notice should be placed on the page stating that these are not valid arguments at an AFD discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
But that's not how it works (Dream Focus and I have argued on this point before but I'm pretty sure we are in agreement here) - if you take an article that meets one of the subject specific notability guidelines but does not yet meet the GNG, most of the time you will find the AFD closed entirely in favor of keeping the article. This comes from WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (the box being the list of subject-specific notability guidelines). It would require a major sea change to alter this behavior at AFD. Mind you, eventually, maybe after 10 years and 3-4 repeated AFDs that have closed "keep" based on meeting a subject-specific notability guideline, the patience of the consensus may give out if no additional sourcing can be found and deletion will occur (hence the presumption of notability, not guaranty), but in the short-term, as long as verifiable evidence is presented that the topic meets a subject-specific notability guideline, the AFD is 99 times out of 100 close in favor of keep. That said, I do agree with the concern of using "this is listed at OUTCOMES so should be kept" as an argument at AFD (it is snowball propagation), but that's an entirely separate issue here from asserting that schools that meet a certain requirement are presumed notable. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I think adding to the notability guideline that colleges are presumed notable will only continue bypassing the need to demonstrate it. With regard to the Common Outcomes, we should add a notice discouraging editors from using them in lieu of actual arguments at AFD. I'm not very good at drafting these kinds of things. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
And this "bypassing" happens all the time with other topic areas: there's lots of athletes, buildings, books, soundtracks, etc. that pass their subject-area notability guideline but don't pass the GNG, but are kept if challenged at AFD. This is the SOP for those subject-specific guidelines. What we don't want is the allowance of a class where anything less than a majority of the members would lack any chance of finding reliable sourcing at all. For example we wouldn't even think about saying "every elementary school should be presumed notable", because its highly unlikely that the majority of such are. But if we consider the limited group of accredited degree-giving colleges, that's likely a problem. There may be a few that slip through that never can be shown notable, but the net cast allows only those that we want (where souring is very likley possible) to be kept. Do note that I started a dicussion WT:ATA to suggest a line to add OUTCOMES as a bad deletion argument. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing that's been done in the past with SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and that might be useful to introduce again, is to say "Most, but not all", rather than just "Most". Yes, the meaning is the same, but being explicit about it tends to help some editors figure out that m-o-s-t doesn't spell "all". IMO this would be particularly important for larger middle schools/junior highs, since most of them actually are demonstrably notable according to the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an older version that I liked, and that might be a source of some improvements for the existing one:
  • Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is WP:ORG. All schools, like all other subjects, require verifiable evidence of their notability in the form of independent sources (e.g., not the school's own website).
    • Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia.
    • Government-run universities (anywhere in the world) and high schools in the US and Canada are almost always kept, unless they cannot be verified to exist, because a thorough search for third-party sources nearly always supports a claim of notability.
    • Schools that are being planned or built, home schools, tiny or obscure independent schools and parochial schools, and other schools for which no or very few independent published sources exist get deleted.
    • "Schools" that do not provide a general education, such as a dance school or art school for children, must demonstrate notability like any other business or non-governmental organization.
There was also a version once that talked about "schools for younger children", which I think was good because it obviates the need to talk about preschools or Kindergartens as well as making sense no matter what the editor's local area calls these schools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I like this version as well... it does a very good job of explaining why the outcomes occur as they do (for example: "..because a thorough search for third-party sources nearly always supports a claim of notability"). It also lays out that there will be occasional situations where notability can not be supported (ie no sources). Blueboar (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is it limited to "government run universities"? There are thousands of notable private colleges and universities in the world. Shouldn't it be "universities and colleges accredited by a government or other major accrediting agency"? You already have the modifier "almost always kept".
'Common outcomes' are just that and are not a guideline or a policy. The proposed rewording is invalid because it does not reflect the outcomes. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the problem is that they are used as a policy. Quite often, the Common Outcomes are mentioned as reason to keep a school article, like in the discussions about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balmoral High School (Belfast, Northern Ireland) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salfia Muslim Institute. Just because of that the wording has to be changed to offer more clarity that Common Outcomes is not a keep-argument. The Banner talk 23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
And, more recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang. I would urge everyone involved in this debate, on either side, to read the comments on that AfD, and then on the accompanying (and ongoing) deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Tenby International School has been relisted and, interestingly, the first comment there starts "secondary schools are customarily considered notable enough for Wikipedia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
...and closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just having been alerted to the existence of this discussion from the pages I watch on schools issues, I have three further thoughts to share:

  • The phrase Now that it is clear that there is no overwelming support is usually a euphemism for: I have ignored all that has been written and will carry on doing what I always wanted to..
  • All the pontificating is counter-productive until you define the age groups attached to the terms- Collège/College is a common term for educational establishments catering for youngsters from 11 upwards ranging in merit from the non-selective state funded establishment to the private dance school -all of which is familiar to those on WP:SCHOOLS. Similarly a Technical High School can be a research university with graduate entry. For discussions of definitions see [www.unesco.org/education/framework.pdf Unesco definitions]
  • Selecting notability on internet presence is a deeply political act

--ClemRutter (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Start counting the votes, mate. Or is your comment a euphemism for: I have ignored all that has been written and will carry on doing what I always wanted to..? The Banner talk 18:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
At the moment it's 10:8 for inherent notablity of colleges (not counting Masem and Jayron's comments) and 8:10 against inherent notability of high schools, for those keeping score at home. Danger! High voltage! 08:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I would much rather we select notability based on reliable sources, which is a deeply Wikipedia act. A source need not be online to be a reliable source, so the "internet presence" thing doesn't mean anything. - SudoGhost 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"Internet presence" is usually taken to mean my own website, blog, Twitter feed, etc., not "presence of some information about me on the Internet". As such, internet presence is pretty irrelevant to notability. It's the information from independent sources that we value, not what I post about myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting comment here: Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Makes it clear again that the Outcomes are either completely misunderstood or misused. The Banner talk 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
As I note above; that closed as "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

If we're agreed that there is no general presumption of notability for schools, perhaps it's time to remove their exclusion from the CSD category for organisations? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The exemption to educational institutions does at face value look rather strange, but even before there was a written exemption, admins would routinely decline A7s for schools simply because it caused too much trouble; speedy deletion is supposed to be for deletions which don't cause controversy, and so any decision to revoke may not make a lot of difference. A7 is one of the most misunderstood and misused criteria on the CFD as it is, so on that basis alone I'm not keen to support any attempt to expand its coverage. CT Cooper · talk 11:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is a perfect time to use OUTCOMES as a a valid argument! CSD is for non-controversial deletions or deletions which are backed by strong consensus that we don't keep certain types of articles. But per OUTCOMES, we usually do keep schools, so removing the exception from A7 would not be at all appropriate. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd have to agree here; I certainly don't see enough consensus to swing from the "currect" position of "all schools are kept at AFD" to "schools can be speedily deleted". The fact its been at OUTCOMES for long enough is a reason not to make it a CSD. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think schools should be removed from that exception just yet either, if at all. I don't think school articles should be "automatically notable", but I don't think they should be speedy deleted either; given that sources can generally be found for most schools if a school article is to be deleted, I'd rather it be as the result of a discussion and consensus as opposed to a speedy deletion. - SudoGhost 18:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if we were not to accept automatically notable, and I think the above discussions show we do not have consensus for ending the practice, every school deletion will always be controversial. Even for elementary schools, they can always be merged into the town or district--if existence can be shown there is never the need for actual full deletion. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Worked example

I read a book a while ago by someone who was commissioned by a government agency to write a "local history" sort of book. Here's the information about a school that I remember from the book:

  • There are (explicitly stated in the book) no surviving newspapers or similar reliable sources from that period in that area.
  • There are (again, explicitly stated in the book) almost no surviving government records from that time period.
  • No former students or other people with first-hand knowledge of the school had been located.
  • Only (again, explicitly stated in the book) the following facts are known:
    • The school was in existence for about three years. The exact opening date is unknown.
    • It served all the children in a small, temporary settlement. (It was a sort of temporary town for a particular mining or logging project.) It had maybe two dozen students total.
    • The exact location is unknown. Nothing is known about the nature or location of the school building other than it was somewhere in the small settlement.
    • The school closed when the settlement suddenly disappeared. (It was always expected to disappear whenever the trees were cut or the mine closed or whatever.)
  • If you look up the location on a map, you could figure out which school serves that area now (if anyone lived there, which I'm not sure anyone does, because I believe that it's in the middle of a nature preserve now).

This is literally all the information that is known about this school except one fact that I'm withholding, which is whether or not it conferred diplomas. So here's what I'd like to know: Should the English Wikipedia have an article about this school? Should we, if it conferred at least one diploma? Should we not, even if it did, since we'll never be able to find more than one independent source? Should we not, since we'll never be able to write more than a couple of sentences about it? How would you evaluate this particular school's notability? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If a full article can not be fleshed out due to the nonexistance of reliable sources, then it is not notable regardless of its degree-giving status. Tidbits of history like this school are great in articles about local history. But if the sum of all present knowledge results in a perma-stub, we shouldn't have an article devoted to it (good rule of thumb for any minor historical topic). ThemFromSpace 21:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
and the information you give can be supplemented by archeology. it will certainly be possible for historical archeology to find the location, it will probably be possible for further historical research to find further information fro m accounts of the people who attended, even if no such accounts are known, and, when the US (I assume its US) is covered as thoroly by local archeologists & historians as some parts of the world, there may yet be an article. Once you've seen what can be done by professionals with places and institutions and people from the early middle ages where much less evidence than this seems at first to be there, I'd be reluctant to say anything couldn't be expanded. there is not and never has been a policy against stubs, It's not necessarily that productive to make them, but it can be even less productive to remove them. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
DGG, have you been gazing into your WP:CRYSTAL ball much? The school I'm talking about was open for a couple years more than a century ago. Everyone involved in it is dead. You're pinning your hopes of "accounts of the people who attended" on the hope that someone will discover a mention of it in his great-great-grandmother's diary and get that diary published.
The settlement is (presumably) notable, but there is no guarantee that archaeological work will be able to tell you which of several rectangular buildings (probably the same fire-prone white-washed wood as most school buildings of the time) is the one where the students had their classes. Archaeology isn't likely to determine the name of the school, which you'll notice is not listed among the known facts.
But let's stop looking in our crystal balls. Assume that this really is all the information you're going to get in the foreseeable future. How much of an article could you write now, and do you think that two or three sentences in a single local history book is a good reason to accept an article now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Next steps

Given that , in how I read the above straw poll, that there is agreement that as long as we limit the statement for notability to colleges/universities that are degree-giving and accredited, and that these terms are clearly defined, that there is support to have an SNG that presumes such schools are notable. For all other colleges/universities and for any high school/secondary school, that presumption is not backed by consensus but that doesn't mean we rush to delete them, as I would then argue that the language in OUTCOMES (either the current version or the version above) stills hold true that as an OUTCOME we have not really deleted high schools or the others in the past. But again, it is important to stress that OUTCOME is not a guideline or policy, and itself says it shouldn't be used as an argument at AFD, so it is not an iron-clad reason to keep any such articles on these, but if any doubt is raised in the AFD, we should err on the side of OUTCOMES. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not happy with the "presumption". You can fairly guess that a degree-giving university (et al) is notable, but it should be properly proven with sources when challenged. The Banner talk 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
When any SNG gives presumed notability, that means that we assume, by good faith, that the topic is notable and merits a standalone article while sources are located (you still need the necessary WP:V sourcing to show that it exists and not a fake entry). The presumed notability can be challenged, but because of WP:DEADLINE, most editors will not rush to delete something that is presumed notable. Only if it should have been possible to find sources after a long length of time (years) and nothing has come to light that the presumption may no longer be appropriate, and the article deleted. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you also ready, based on the straw poll, to presume that secondary (high) schools are NOT notable until proof is shown by multiple, independent, verifiable & reliable sources? GregJackP Boomer! 13:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
They wouldn't have presumed notability but it would also be disingenuous to remove the statement from OUTCOMES that allows these to be kept in general (as - well, we're not changing the historical observation). But again, we need to stress that OUTCOMES is not a valid argument in deletion and should be considered only as a default "keep" closure if there's no clear consensus from other arguments. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
If you feel comfortable changing the statement on colleges based on the straw poll, then you should also be comfortable with changing the statement on secondary schools. The margins and arguments are the same in both cases. GregJackP Boomer! 15:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
OUTCOMES is supposed to document historical patterns at AFD where other situations do not cover them. It is still a truism that high schools have generally been kept at AFD; no discussion can change that. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Then why change the text on colleges? Don't pick and chose, either use it all or none of it. GregJackP Boomer! 17:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Having a criterion that is listed in an subject specific notability guideline is a strong reason to keep an article over the claim that all articles of a certain type are kept due to OUTCOMES. (overly simple but an SNG is a guideline, OUTCOMES is an essay, and the former outweighs the latter). --MASEM (t) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And having a criterion that is listed in a subject specific notability guideline, regarding high schools is a strong reason to delete those articles that are not notable, but have been kept due to OUTCOMES. It still works both ways. If the reason is sufficient for justifying retaining articles, it is sufficient for deleting articles that don't belong in the project. Why else did we have a poll? Just to find ways to justify retention, but ignore it if it doesn't support retention? GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The poll first highlights that OUTCOMES is being misused as an argument in AFD. We don't keep articles simply because OUTCOMES typically retains such articles - that's the slippery slope problem. And the fact the poll above suggests there's no consensus for an SNG-type allowance means that their retention is not so cut and dried as some think. So first thing is to make sure people remember that OUTCOMES should be considered a default result if consensus is not very clear on keep or deletion.
Once you get past that, now if one comes across a high school that they can prove exists, but otherwise shows no evidence of notability, now the ball's in the court of those that want to retain the article to show there's something more than just that for OUTCOMES to be considered valid. For accredited colleges, the barrier for retention is much easier - proof that it exists as an accredited college. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There is bo consensus to require accredited. In fact, sometimes the unaccredited institutions get all the more information about them--and sometimes the controversy over whether or not it is accredited is the most easily documented thing about the place. All there was at the start of the discussion was the initial limitation of the discussion to the ones that were accredited. What is true, is that it can sometimes be much harder for an unaccredited school to prove real existence. Similarly for degree-granting-that is a concept that can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. Many colleges in India --some of them very highly notable--for example do not actually give formal degrees of their own, but certificates to permit the students to be given degrees by a college that is accredited to give them. We've also usually interpreted degree in the US to mean junior college degrees, but in some countries these would not be formal degrees, but some sort of certificate. It can be hard to differentiate a trade school that gives an associates degree from one that doesnt. I agree there is not consensus to consider all of these possibilities as invariably notable, but neither is there consensus not to. Actual afd discussions have been inconsistent, and some I've !voted delete on have been kept. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus to exclude articles on unaccredited schools, but there appears to be a consensus that only the regular, general education, accredited colleges and universities are the ones whose notability should be assumed. After all, we don't want to presume notability for "Bob's Beauty College", even though one-room places to learn how to cut hair frequently call themselves "colleges". "Big State University" can be safely assumed to be notable; "Bob's One-Room Beauty College" needs to prove it by supplying sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Point of order A few editors here seek to set policy or to change guidelines. This should be listed at Centralized Discussions so as to afford more editors the opportunity to share their views. Edison (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I Propose that we have no separate criteria for schools (of any levels)

Determining WP:Notability for schools is actually quite simple... are there independent reliable sources that discuss the school? If yes, then we know the school is notable enough for an article... if no, then it isn't. This is, of course, the standard criteria we already state in this guideline (for all organizations, institutions, companies, etc.). In short, I see no reason to discuss schools separately from any other organization, institution, company, etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I support your proposal. Notability of schools/colleges/universities, for the purposes of AfD, should be determined by the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So the question becomes, why are these schools being kept when GNG isn't shown? It must be the slippery slope of OUTCOMES, which is being used as a reason to keep, and that should not be the case. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Do we then need a guideline that says to use the GNG for schools? Though it seems redundant, I would support that if you think it would help against OUTCOMES-based !votes. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal above is simply to maintain the status quo, that there are no separate criteria. Which is pretty much the way every conversation on the issue since 2004 has come out.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Which basically means we have a class of articles that are free to ignore the GNG when challenges, because "that's the way it's been". I understand the argument on OUTCOMES around towns and settlements in that there will likely be sources in time that document these. The question is begged for schools , particularly when schools are kept despite strong arguments that no third-party sources exist to discuss them in detail. This is the problem with how OUTCOMES has been used at AFD. -MASEM (t) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The way to respond to an OUTCOMES-only argument is to say "many schools can be shown to meet WP:GNG, but this one cannot." And then, in most cases, it will be shown to meet WP:GNG. In some it may not.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative (that no sources at all exist for meeting the GNG). It is always the case that those wanting to retain the article have to show how the GNG is being met, not the other way around. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We should make sure wp:gng is calibrated right and eliminate all SNG's, not multiply them. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Just let them take the WP:GNG-hurdle, but that means that the Common Outcomes on schools should be removed. That is now misused as a backdoor to keep school articles, how insignificant or rotten the article is (i.e. like Plantage Mavo) The Banner talk 21:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Followed your link and found a laughable stub. I then googled and came up with a well written history of an interesting small school that was in existence for 27 years, and the article plotted gentrification and social change in a community. (I have added it to the stub) The photos displayed could be worked up as a case study of the clean modernist architecture of the polder lands. It does rather show that notability is not the same as bad writing- and even so two references had been give. I am appalled by the standard of some of these stubs; they are very rough- but had I the time most could be worked up. Being appalled is my problem- as I am prone to forget what it was like to write the first new article- and without this flawed effort I would never have cyber-visited this community. I'll keep on taking the mince pies- Prettige kerstdagen! --ClemRutter (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The website you mentioned is a personal reflection of two alumni, the two mentioned sources are social media (Hyves is a outperformed collegue of Fb, Schoolbank.nl is similar to www.classmates.com). None of them a reliable sources... The Banner talk 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The pope publishes on Twitter, for God's sake. It is the quality of the source not where it is published that matters. Any school that has ever received state funding will be extensively documented though it may not yet be online. Any school that has ever entered a pupil for an external exam will be documented and qa'ed. That is two sources so that WP:GNG is fulfilled. (I do think the wording of WP:GNG significant coverage is counter intuitive and flaky) I share your prejudices re Facebook and Friends Reunited- but my prejudices are so last millenium. If some one has the time and inclination even this rubbish piece can be rescued using those rubbish references. This piece still had a mountain to climb to become a Start- and we don't bite newbies. Keep taking the mince pies. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that sounds very much like routine coverage to me. It is just a record that the school exists and get Government money. Not proof of notability. The Banner talk 12:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC).
No- that's not it at all. When a school receives funding it is constantly monitored by the the funding authority. When I sat on the Medway Education authority, my officers had to justify the sum that went annually to each school and wrote a detailed document to committee each March. This document is a matter of public record and a copy is available in the archives in perpetuity. When the political hue of the council changed, we or they demanded a summary of our portfolio. This went into detailed analysis of the history of each building- the academic record- social economic description of the intake. Reading these and WP GA is a seemless transfer. This is a matter of public record- when we decided to merge a school a public enquiry was needed, and the independent inspector wrote a report to HM Government which again had to give these details.(This gov. report a snippet when the council attemted to close a minuscule school.) Local government archives are a rich source data. It is impossible for a state school to avoid such scrutiny- it is a process like going for FA. It is routine that all schools are documented- but notability is counter intuitive! Shall I put those mince pies on to warm? --ClemRutter (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we have discussed it earlier that the British schoolreport do not prove notability of schools. It is not an independent source as it is ordered, paid and published by the government. It can give valuable information about size, program and quality of the school but the report on its own is just plain routine. The Banner talk 19:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
A lot had been repeated- but another thought- if you are driving from your current home back to your roots, via Sheerness or Dover you must be passing within a few miles of me. Gives us bell- and break your journey and we can continue this over a pot of coffee and a pile of papers. Serious offer. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, but I am not going to Holland for Christmas. And besides that, while travelling by car Harwich/Hook of Holland would be far handier for me, but normally, I just take the plane. I know quite well what kind of papers are available. In a big city as Groningen, where I used to live, there was one major newspaper (circulation far more then a 100.000) covering city and 3 provinces. Even the special city edition hardly covered schools, unless they had done something special, like winning major prices, new or burned down buildings or visiting aldermen.(Thank God, I don't remember any serious incidents.) On the other hand, schools did get a lot of attention in the local community papers (circulation between 500 to 10.000, depending on neighbourhood size), mostly on request or prepared articles. Those community newspapers, even those with big circulations, are no valid sources for proving notability as they are not independent (I have worked for a couple, as a volunteer and professionally). The Banner talk 13:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem I see a lot of times when schools are challenged, that those supporting them pull out these sources that would barely pass our normal standards for RS for any other topic, and then claim the GNG is met. Or say, here are these sources, so OUTCOMES says we keep. If we are going to stick to GNG for schools we have to remove the normal allowance for OUTCOMES, you can't have it both ways. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting enough is that I got a warning that challenging schools at AfD is considered disruptive editing. To me, this only prove how desperate some guys are to keep articles about schools. Just like all articles, they just have to meet WP:GNG (and WP:ORG). When it fails WP:GNG is should be deleted (or improved), not kept by the backdoor of Common Outcomes. The Banner talk 15:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I think that because schools are the centres of their communities and that therefore a lot of the coverage is going to be local schools need a more nuanced approach. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Schools may be the center of your community, but they are not the center of everyone's community. In much of the world, either the religious institutions or the market are the center of the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, yes, where there are no schools they're not the centre of their communities but that's like saying that where there aren't hospitals/clinics, healthcare tends to be given by provided by witchdoctors. On the other hand, if you go to any country with a school system you will notice that villages/towns tend to be built around some combination of (a) a school; (b) a piece of transport infrastructure (such as a railway station or a road junction), which are generally notable; and/or (c) some site of heritage value, which are generally notable (list not exhaustive). Often, religious institutions (particularly here in Australia) are historically linked to schools in some way where they occur together. Rowena, New South Wales, demonstrates the point: it's a school with a couple of houses around it. The same goes for more urban areas. I argue for a separate criteria such that we don't have to have those "dozens of weekyly AfD debates" on whatever. Where there is a bias for certain types of articles and against others, for no actual reason than an arbitrary category is silly and unproductive to the point of creating an encyclopedia. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No, your professional experience is misleading you. There is a school near my home. It's a typical, government-run, general-education school. Several hundred kids attend it. It is not, however, the center of my community. Except for the one neighbor whose daughter went to school there, neither I nor any of my neighbors have ever set foot on the property. I've lived near this school for about fifteen years and never had any reason to be there. A place that nobody ever goes to doesn't sound very central to our lives, does it? As far as I can tell, the actual community center here is either the dog park or the grocery store.
You're a teacher, so schools are obviously significant in your life. What I'd like you to learn is that most adults don't share your experience, especially if we don't have kids ourselves (and even then, the school is "the center of the community" only until the kids are out of school, and then they never go back). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to directly address the question of schools in this guideline. IMO substantial independent sourcing is available for practically all "normal", general-education schools/colleges/universities, including schools for young children. There are about ten million schools in the world. The community doesn't appear to want ten million separate articles about schools (else it would quit trying to delete articles about relatively famous schools below the high school level with such lousy excuses as 'OUTCOMES says we don't keep articles about elementary schools').
So the question is what we want. We want well-sourced articles, and the two-independent-sources minimum put forward by this guideline seems to be easily achievable by basically any school that we want an article on. We want the fewest number of needless AFDs possible. And we don't want to declare high schools to have a magic, unimpeachable, inherent notability (a status we don't even confer to articles like George Washington, Queen Victoria, or Earth).
One way to reduce needless AFDs on schools, without going the untenable, easily hoax-able route of "let's have an article for any alleged school that appears to have its own website" is to use schools as an example of something that is easily sourced. We could accurately say something like this:

"Even a brief search almost always results in a substantial list of independent reliable sources for major organizations, such as Fortune 500 companies and major universities. Locating sources for significant local institutions, such as local schools and hospitals, often requires a thorough search, including a search of local newspapers, but such searches are almost always successful at proving the organization's notability."

This could go under WP:ORGSIG's statement repudiating inherent notability. (It might also stop the occasional question about why Fortune 500 companies aren't automatically notable.) What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - You will be very very very hard pressed to find a school that hasn't been covered, probably many times, in the local and not so local press. Schools routinely have contests with other schools, compete in state and national events etc. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I would not be hard pressed to find a school that hasn't been covered in the local press ... for example the relatively small private New England boarding school that I attended has (as far as I know) never been covered in the local papers. As a boarding school, most of the school's clientele do not live in the local area... so there is not much incentive for the local papers to cover news from the school. The local community are not alumni, and their children are rarely students at the school. The local community does not really care about the school's sports competitions (which are against other small boarding schools). The school does not bother to submit stories to the local papers, since it has its own student paper and alumni magazine that can be mailed to the parents and alumni to keep informed of what is happening at the school. This isn't at all uncommon for private schools in the US... coverage in the local paper is actually fairly rare.
Please don't assume that because something happens in your community, with your local school, it must be true in every community, or with every school. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If your school was in a smaller town, it was probably the subject of a newspaper article when it opened, because it affected the local economy. But a small school (a few dozen students) opening in a large place (London or NYC) might well go unnoticed or get only a single paragraph.
But I agree that people are making assumptions here, both about what a school is and what gets covered. A school in a town without its own newspaper (e.g., most of the world 100 years ago) wouldn't have sources. What used to called dame schools and their modern equivalents tend not to result in sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
A small private boarding school is a different animal from a public secondary school. But I would think that you would be suprised even with a small private school. There could have been ground breaking ceremonies, incidents that occurred there. Interviews about the school in the local papers, coverage in magizines about private schools, etc., etc., not to mention any number of things that could have resulted from the various alumni. I count myself as a deletionist, I think my record will confirm that, but I also hate things that waste a lot of everyone's time...and running a thousand secondary schools through the AfD process just so you can catch the one that can't be sourced will waste a lot of time and energy. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You're still assuming that the school is located in a place well-served by newspapers, rather than in a rural area of a developing country. How many newspapers do you suppose there are in Sudan these days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: "coverage in magazines about private schools, etc., etc."... oh, sure... I was not trying to say that my boarding school is not notable (its actually quite notable)... I was only refuting the assumption that local press will always cover a school. I completely agree that there is a strong likelihood of finding some kind of sourcing for the vast majority of schools in the US ... but we can not assume it when it comes to specific schools in the US, and as WAID correctly points out, we can not assume coverage in sources for all schools everywhere. We actually have to search for sources and find out for sure. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - no separate criteria proposal

As noted above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenby International School, Penang (2nd nomination) (just closed as keep) is instructional. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And it was entirely appropriate... the article was appropriately nominated for deletion due to apparent lack of sources... and appropriately kept once sources were found. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
We - rightly - require more of sources than their mere existence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming to believe there is a thin group of editors that are, unintentionally, wall-gardening school articles (not as aggressive or bitter as the MMA article group, but it is obviously there.) They rest on OUTCOMES as an AFD rationale (when its not supposed to be) and argue that notability is there for these articles when they are not. Clearly, there's only limited cases where some would even consider the presumed notability for a school, and argued here, that even the GNG should be the only metric they have to meet. At this point, I don't care if OUTCOMES has 10 years of history - it's breaking the treatment of schools relative to any other type of institution. The Tenby article is a good case in point. All that is is a data dump from primary sources about small school. That's not an encyclopedic article and given how hard it was to find a few more sources, I doubt it can become one in the future. We'd never allow a company article that was that much of a data dump, a school article should not be treated any differently. (the arguement that schools are important to the community they are in is bogus - its rarely the individual schools but the school system that is the factor) What's in OUTCOMES needs to be removed, and, if desired, replaced with subject specific notability guidelines or simply a fallback to the GNG. --MASEM (t) 06:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are some editors who are unduly expanding the GNG to cover all possible topics, whether it is or is not rationally applicable. It doesn't work for schools, because in small cities there is always local press, and in large cities there are locally-oriented newspapers. The situation at AfD before we accepted the common outcome was that for both primary and secondary schools there were dozens of weekly AfD debates on the exact interpretation of "substantial" and "indiscriminate" coverage. As almost always the sources were sufficiently borderline that they could be argued in either direction, the results were rather random and tended to reflect the persistence that particular week of particular editors. The same, for that matter, seems to me true of the MMA events--I have insufficient interest in these article to read them carefully enough to debate intelligently, but again the decisions were based on quibbling over the details of sources and other borderline factors, and the results were rather random and tended to reflect the persistence that particular week of particular editors. Before we had a rough consensus of inhabited places, the exact same thing happened: we had endless useless discussions about the details and reliability of various maps and gazetteers, in this case often whether they constitued primary of secondary sourcing when they could in fact equally well be seen as either.
We are best served by doing constructive work on actual articles, which is not usually compatible with spending great efforts at either AfD or policy discussions. GTven a fundamental disagreement, how then can we proceed? I think best by compromise. For schools, they fortunately fit into two groups universities/secondary & primary/intermediate. So we draw an arbitrary line there, and let it go at that. For any one of us, some things will be decided wrong, but no more than if we argued them all at great length. Masem, you were responsible for effective working agreements in our handling of fiction, tho the present situation probably fully satisfies nobody, and the the stubborn opposition of a few people prevented it ever being a formal guideline, or a formal agreement of the right wording of the relevant portions of WP:NOT, Your work there is my model in the arguments here. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The arguments that are being used here start with the viewpoint of "we need to include every college and high school"; with the fiction one, the question was more "how do we make fiction topics work under the GNG"; as no topic is inherently notable, the schools approach is inappropriate. The inclusion of every town and village makes sense as that fulfills the gazetteer aspect of WP, but this argument doesn't extend to schools - most gazetteers don't work at the level of schools, and if they were, then we should have articles on every church, government building, and the like (which we don't). Just because we can document a topic doesn't mean we have to, particularly if it creates a topic-level bias compared to other topics. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Tenby article was kept because it met GNG. Stop jousting at windmills folks, we have an encyclopedia to write here. Can anyone help me expand Lake Maumelle? I ran across it in a mirthful attempt to write an article about a long closed school to show its notability. But then I saw we already have 1000s of articles like that.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Arguably the AFD was closed that way but the sources on the page are far from secondary or independent (in my opinion). But, DRV is not AFD#2, so there's no point in challenging that closure this soon based on that point. And no, this isn't a windmill - this is recognizing that something that is long-standing is a self-propagating problem that needs to be fixed lest it continue to grow and worsen. Part of this is the fact that some believe OUTCOMES is a valid AFD rationale, but that never has been the case. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the solution is to block all editors commenting on notability issues unless they have unbroken track record of making more than 50% of their edits in the (Article) namespace. This discussion having buried itself we now can jump down a section and discuss it all over.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I see nothing fundamental to the concept of a school which would necessitate a separate criteria for inclusion. Standard guidelines seem to address the topic sufficiently. Sædontalk 10:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - As an ideal concept, I'm completely happy with just sticking with the WP:GNG, as SNGs, including this one, seem to cause more trouble than there worth and its clear that no specific discussion on schools in either direction will ever get discussion in this guideline. But by the GNG, I mean the GNG as currently written and not the vision of a few. A classic example being the "local sources" notability fallacy - some are unreliable, some are routine (this word is also overused in my opinion, but that's for another debate) yes, just like any other source, but there is no justification for blanket discrimination against nor has any community consensus being presented for this view. I and other editors dealt with this extensively in the last debate on schools, so I won't repeat myself further here - see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 94#Should schools have to meet GNG. CT Cooper · talk 16:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the difference? Perhaps I am not understanding, there is ALREADY no separate criteria for schools, so a support vote is the same as keeping the status quo, am I correct? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something? I am not always at the top of my game before Coffee and on Christmas of all days. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There have been OUTCOMES-based votes at AFD, so this affirms that the GNG should be met for a school to be considered notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The only notability guideline that applies directly to schools is presently the GNG - there's no special subject-specific one. Ergo, at AFD school articles should demonstrate notability to be kept. However, as Odie points out , there is a essay OUTCOMES where school articles are often kept on the argument that sourcing can be found. --MASEM (t)
I still don't understand. Are you saying that WP:OUTCOMES should be thrown out? Or that it doesn't apply to schools? It clearly does. I just had two schools up for AfD that had to be closed with snow keeps, not a single delete vote. The wonderful Wikipedian was apparently doing an experiment (Which is great!), and the result was that WP:OUTCOMES apparently applies to schools (at least secondary schools) in a big way. If the intent of this vote is to remove WP:OUTCOMES from any consideration, I would say that it was just proven valuable. If the idea is to remove schools from WP:OUTCOMES, then I would say that the evidence bears out that the essay applies to secondary schools as much or more than any of the other categories. So no, I do not follow the logic of this vote. The intended result of this consensus should be made clear. As far as I can tell, support and oppose votes will still maintain the status quo either way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not experimenting. Schools without shown notability should be removed. That they kept based on Comon Outcomes is an affront. Common Outcomes is in fact overwriting WP:GNG. So yes, Common Outcomes should be thrown out. Not because what it says (it is a summery of the past AfDs), but because the way it is used/misunderstood/misused. The Banner talk 03:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I must apologize to you. I thought you described your AfD nominations (which were closed as WP:SNOW and had no votes to delete) as an experiment, and thanks for making this vote clear. I understand now. WP:OUTCOMES is not an affront in my opinion, and should not be thrown out. I am deletionist in nature, but I also hate things that waste a lot of time for a lot of people. Placing 1000 schools up for AfD in order to find the odd article that would be anything but a snow keep is a waste of a lot of editor's time in my very humble opinion. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that if the snow keeps are simply arguing on OUTCOMES and show no attempt at finding sources, that's breaking the intent of OUTCOMES (which is not to be used as a AFD reason). I don't think anyone is suggestion putting 1000s of school articles to AFD to test them, but that when schools that come along that clearly fail the GNG and no one can even point to a third-party source, a keep based on OUTCOME arguments is completely bogus. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
More then likely other groups of editors will outgrow the US-group of editors. More then likely, that will break the consensus to keep every US-school, regardless if it passes or fails WP:GNG. When that time is here, a massacre will follow unless somebody starts upgrading the present articles to WP:GNG-level. Don't start crying then, I've warned you. The Banner talk 04:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As proceedure. Notability of schools/colleges/universities is already determined by GNG. There is already no separate criteria for schools. This vote serves no purpose. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - schools are not fundamentally organisations and/or companies the way this guideline is designed. That is (for instance) why they're excluded from CSD#A7. They're covered by N, OUTCOMES, whatever (although again note that policies are descriptive, not prescriptive - if we're keeping schools where the policy says we shouldn't be, it's the policy that needs to be fixed, not the practice). WilyD 13:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Consistency in what's included/excluded makes for the best authoring/editing environment. Producing this encyclopaedia is a lot of work. Why would anyone want to create and improve articles that might be arbitrarily deleted? WilyD 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the WP:GNG is a pretty consistent criteria, whereas claiming inherent notability is inconsistent with every policy and guideline on Wikipedia that I'm aware of. Saying "Every article has to show notability according to one guideline or the other, except for schools" seems to be quite the opposite of consistency. - SudoGhost 02:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's possible that we could fix SCHOOLOUTCOMES by adding a boilerplate "warning" to that section that directly says something like "This section describes what happens in most AFDs related to schools. The normal outcome may not be appropriate for any specific school. If you believe that a school is notable, do not vote at AFD "per OUTCOMES". Closing admins may ignore such responses. Instead, find the required evidence of notability in the form of multiple independent published sources" or explain in your own words why you believe this school should be treated the same as (or different from) average schools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OUTCOMES is a valid reference. After all these perennial discussions about school notability, when will peple finally realise that OUTCOMES is neither a policy, nor a guideline, nor an essay. It's a chronicle. So rather than provide links to the 1,000s of AfD that have been closed a certain way, in AfDs we link perfectly legitimately to the page that chronicles the facts. The facts are that the policy/guideline for schools' notability has been clearly established by precedent. There's no going back, and serious editors are not going to launch mass deletions of 1,000s of school articles if we did. It would be mass disruption and most of us have got better things to do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And this is why OUTCOMES is bad when it is used as an argument without other merit at AFD. Again, I point out that OUTCOMES even says "DO NOT USE AT AFD". In light of the lack of direct SNG guidance on schools, it is appropriate to say at AFD something along the lines "I found a few references that support this school and given our tendancy to not delete school articles from OUTCOMES, it should be kept."; but too many times the argument is "KEEP - We don't delete schools per OUTCOME". Remember OUTCOMES says nothing about notability, it is just a record. We should not fear the mass deletion of 1000s of article as long as we have proper grandfathering steps in place to give editors time to fix them up, were we to enforce notability requirements. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful to cite the cat created by {{R from school}} and to create a cat School AfD closed as 'keep' . Either way, the result will still come up with the summary mentioned in Outcomes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's ORG, not GNG

This has come up several times, and it's wrong, so let me clarify: The "ruling guideline" for school notability is ORG. It has been ORG for years. The lead to org says,

This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, educational institutions, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc.

The primary criteria repeats this:

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources.

WP:CLUB mentions schools:

Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.

So you aren't "stuck with" just the GNG, and we do have a SNG that addresses schools right here at ORG. This fact is even mentioned at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

When I read the first lines of I see something else, more restrictive: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The Banner talk 21:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I do have to say that WP:ORG comes remarkably close to being essentially a focused restatement of GNG (it's certainly closer to GNG than any of our other SNGs). Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The wording at WP:N seems pretty clear to me: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." One does overrule the other; editors are free to cite or use either at their discretion. CT Cooper · talk 21:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Michelin Guide etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay. Let's break this down:

General comments
  • It was hard to read and understand what was proposed here, but I think I got it: The point was that the Michelin Guide needed to be removed from the footnote, given that it was not an example of a good sign of notability, in this case, for a restarurant.
  • The discussion was broke into two. I see some sensible comments that, in some words, explain how the Michelin Guide is a good sign for notability, and can count towards notability, provided that secondary sources, not linked to the restaurant, or to the guide, exist and can be added to the article.
Detailed comments
  • Pyrope: Pyrope's position was that it was not appropriate to add the guide into that footnote because the guide alone was not proof enough that notability has been met, which is correct. Although, I consider that this is somewhat obvious, and my interpretation of the footnote is that the guide can be counted towards notability, but it does not demonstrate, by itself, notability.
  • The Banner: The Banner's main message was that being awarded a star, or appearing in the guide, was a strong sign of incoming notability, or existing notability. However, he did sate that independent, secondary sources were needed to showcase this notability, as the guide alone was not a strong indicator to suffice the general notability guideline.
  • Masem: Masem's main comments rounded about the possibility that, if being in the guide always led to notability (e.g. secondary sources could be found for every restaurant awarded a star) then we could add a special section dedicated to restaurants with this caveat as one of the criterions used to measure the notability of restaurants. He also positioned himself against the footnote, if it meant that being listed at the guide was enough for notability.
  • WhatamIdoing: WhatamIdoing's comments mostly aligned with those from The Banner, with some tweaks.
  • Jerem43: Jerem43's comments aligned, in part, with those from Pyrope. He has stated that there was not a clear consensus to include it (or to remove it?) and that it should not be there.
  • Hoary: Hoary Makes a sensible point: Some users may read the footnote and write an article about a restaurant thinking that using the Michelin Guide would be enough for that matter. I can see how this statement can be debunked, provided that, as WhatamIdoing and Banner says, secondary sources can be found.
Result
  • There is no clear consensus on this discussion. Although, I find the ones supporting the inclusion of the guide as an example to be the strongest ones. My read of the discussion tells me that there is no trouble to keep the Michelin Guide in there, as well as adding more examples of notable lists that can count towards notability, but are not enough to demonstrate it by themselves.
  • I'd also recommend (similar to what some users proposed) to do some tweaks to the wording of the footnote to be more explicit. Something along the lines of:
    Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is notable (examples include the Fortune 500 or the Michelin Guide). However, in the case that a subject is included in a notable list of this type, independent secondary sources should be provided to showcase the notability of the subject.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ21 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a rather sweeping statement in one of the footnotes that implies inclusion within the Michelin Guide imparts inherited notability on a restaurant. This was added with no discussion or justification. As far as I can see the statement is false. While gaining a Michelin star or two may be notable when considering the history of a restaurant, there seems to be nothing that supports this being a good marker that the restaurant itself is notable. In the popular imagination Michelin stars may be an impressive achievement, but they seem to impart little cultural and societal impact. If the possession of a star really did have such an effect you would expect to see copious sources that satisfy WP:GNG for a majority of starred establishments, but this isn't so. Indeed, for many such restaurants, even those with multiple stars, not a single GNG compliant source seems to exist (e.g. Aan de Poel). Can anyone provide some evidence that actually proves the phrasing as currently stated? If not, this blanket exemption really should be removed and all restaurants judged on their own merit. Pyrope 00:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As a note, I remembered there was a recent discussion about that same change here.
I would argue against the footnote. Being listed in Michelin would be a source that counts towards "significant coverage" for the GNG, but just being listed is not sufficient for demonstration of presumed notability, particularly since we are usually talking about one-off, single owner restaurants. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging that, my brief search of the archives missed it. I see that the issue has been around the block and still with no credible support for the statement as it stands. This is disappointing. Pyrope 00:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This has been an ongoing issue and needs to be addressed. This little codicil was added by a single editor without discussion and has caused much unneeded controversy since. I for one want to see it gone.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I am particularly against the notion that an entry in the Mitchelin Guide alone confers notability. This was brought up a while back in a discussion at WT:WPSCH where a user who mass creates restaurant stubs insists that his Mitchelin Star restaurants are more notable than schools and then proceeded to AfD dozens of school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not a case of "if you get a star, then you're inherently notable". It's a case of "if you get the publicity that always occurs when a restaurant gets a star, then you're provably notable". We have never—not once—seen a restaurant with a Michelin star that did not manage to meet the GNG if we had an editor who did a proper search (including in non-English sources, for restaurants in non-English countries). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
See my comment to The Banner below. Responsibility for finding suitable and substantial notability indications that satisfy WP:GNG lies with the editor claiming notability for a subject. It isn't up to everyone else to make your case for you. Pyrope 17:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, this is an argument for removing the criteria, since it is GNG that shows notability not the Michelin star. I agree, we should not have extraneous criteria that says that 'x is presumed notable' unless it actually shows notability in and of itself. LK (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no criterion. There's an explanatory footnote that says that, although normal "Top 100" lists are garbage sources, in a few instances, being on a list that is famous for producing a media frenzy (like Fortune 500 or the Michelin Guide) is a good indication that the subject is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with the removal of the footnote. As both well-known Michelin-opponents had mentioned time and time before: a restaurant awarded one or more stars in the Michelin Guide does not make a restaurant automatically notable. That is true, the mentioning in the Guide alone is not enough. But it is a fact that nowadays even the presentation of a new Guide is so hyped up, that every restaurant awarded a star has enough publicity to be considered notable within 48 other after the presentation. It does not make any difference for the restaurants and chefs when that footnote is removed. On the other hand, it saves a few editors in countries without Michelin Guide from frustrations, headaches and acid regurgitation. The Banner talk 13:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a start. It isn't a case of being a "Michelin opponent" (yet again you resort to abuse rather than cogent argument) but that your claims about its inheritable notability are simply not substantiated by evidence. You claim that every restaurant has sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG "within 48 hours" of a new guide's publication. I'd like to see evidence of that. The example article I gave above has not one single source that goes toward WP:GNG. All of them are insignificant or simple directory entries. Please do show me where the multiple, significant, secondary, reliable sources are. Where are the articles discussing the restaurant and its impact? Where are the articles discussing the food culture and cuisine that marks the restaurant as special? Instead you have used the Michelin guide (or historical refactored versions thereof), a site that appears to be a user-generated review site, and a news article about the restaurant's sommelier that only mentions restaurant's name once and provides no information about it other than its location. The only source that even gets close to being satisfactory for WP:GNG is a very brief news article in a trade publication that marks the restaurant having joined a trade organisation and reached its two star rating. This is still a very weak indication that a general interest encyclopedia like Wikipedia should be wasting time with the subject, and if you go and read WP:GNG you will see that simple news coverage is generally not considered significant. So, once again, if this restaurant is notable as you claim, where are the articles that support this? Pyrope 17:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
True, if you refuse to see the evidence, you will not see the evidence. You are just bluntly ignoring WP:GNG that states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. and The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.. The Banner talk 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
An example, starting of with the press release of Michelin (link unavailable due to spamfilter) at 26 November 2012, announcing that restaurant Han Ting Cuisine had received its first Michelin star. Articles about the star for Han Ting in de Volkskrant: 26/11/12, 14:47, 26/11/12, 11:52. Dagblad van het Noorden: 26 november 2012, 12:43. Nu.nl: 26 november 2012 12:07. Spits (newspaper): 27-11-12 08:09. Others: [1], [2], Agripress (Belgium).
That are 2 national newspapers (I left other national newspapers out because the article was too similar), one important news site, and one "local" paper (covering with its sister papers the provinces Groningen (province), Drenthe and Friesland). The Banner talk 22:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Intercalating information post hoc is a fairly cheap device. This would have been better in response to the point below, as it was added after it, rather than trying to appear pre-emptive. Add in the fact that those sites don't dicuss the subect I asked about but rather a completely different restaurant and I can't help but feel you are trying to dodge the subject and obscure th lack of your own efforts. What you could have done is what WhatamIdoing actually did bother to do, below. Try harder if you want me to take you seriously. Pyrope 22:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't bother about it, Pyrope. With PAs like this, I don't feel the need to take you serious. The Banner talk 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The key there being the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources". You haven't addressed my points regarding your failure to provide this. If you can't provide "significant coverage in reliable sources" then the assumption must be that there isn't any, therefore the subject isn't notable. Once again, provide the evidence for your claims, don't just quote guidelines and throw out unfounded accusations. Pyrope 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Pyrope, you do seem to be missing that point. Notability is determined by whether sources were ever published in the real world, not by whether any editor has typed them into the article. For example, a quick search shows that restaurant is discussed in these newspaper articles: [3][4][5][6] The first link alone gives you about 600 words entirely about the restaurant, which amply fulfills the minimum standard for "significant coverage". (I do hope that we don't need to talk about whether the largest newspaper in the entire country counts as a "reliable source".) And that's just stuff that's free and online in the space of a few minutes, through the simple expedient of looking up a couple of newspapers near the restaurant. If I'd actually done a thorough search, I'd have to include regional magazines and publications that focus on food or restaurants, travel guides, and other books. (Also, I'd probably have to learn how to read Dutch.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be a nice effort, WhatamIdoing, but Google Translate can at least give you an idea about the contents of a source. The Banner talk 22:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
A fair question to ask: Is it that the inclusion within the Michelin guide a point of note that local/region sources to grab onto and thus provide post-publication coverage? That is, consider the case of most movies that are nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, as it is well known that these typically get a boost in interest when those nominations are revealed. In the same idea here, is the entry in the Guide going to draw a crowd to it (which is likely going to include people that want to publish about it)? Is this sufficiently common enough across the globe that we consider it a highly likely effect that being in the Guide will bring sources? If this is not sufficiently universal, then this is not advice we want to give. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be universal. Getting a star, at least, pretty much guarantees multiple reporters pounding on your door. As I said above, no editor has ever come up empty-handed if he did a diligent search for sources on these restaurants. The most that the "anti-Michelin" editors have been able to complain about is that those sources do not always appear in the first versions of the articles, and that the best sources are not usually in English if the restaurant is not in an English-speaking country.
If memory serves, the archived discussion above even links to a proper reliable source that talks about the media frenzy that results from the Guide's announcements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There will be a lot of publicity after the awarding of a Michelin star. Restaurants regarded fit for a star also get a lot of publicity, like restaurant "Bolenius". But most restaurants already have quite some publicity on websites and in newspapers long before they get awarded by Michelin. The Banner talk 23:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Yet more assumptions about my attitude toward Michelin, wow, please do just try to maintain focus on the subject won't you? I'm not missing any point, what I am trying to do is highlight that it is WP:GNG that determines notability, not some poorly thought through, undiscussed addendum to this specific guide. As I said above, the responsibility for diligent searches rests on the editor claiming notability and the throwaway exemption clause simply allows lazy editors to try an circumvent that and only use the easiest, and commonly poorest, sources. Thank you for actually bothering to dig up those sources, the first of which does seem to be WP:GNG compliant, but plenty of them do not. A passing reference in article about starred restaurants, again that only confirms it exists and has some, seems to me to fail the significance test. As GNG states, the article subject doesn't have to be the main subject of a source to satisfy the guideline, but it does have to have significant coverage within it. A name check does not do this. Inclusion in the Telegraaf's top ten is more interesting and seems to be better than borderline. Still, that's only one and a bit sources that you have identified, and this still leaves me uneasy about your rather sweeping claims about media coverage always stemming from Michelin inclusion, especially as the restaurant we are using as an example has two stars and not just one. I firmly take your point about the existence of sources rather than the inclusion of sources being the point, this was never the issue, but when challenged these sources ought to be abundant and readily available. If this clause is to remain in the guide then that should be the case for all Michelin restaurants, not just two stars and up, and ought to be true at all times. I'm still not convinced that this is the case, and the simplest solution is that restaurants revert to being judged by WP:GNG as everything else should be. Pyrope 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate them for deletion when you feel that those articles are not okay and fail the notability guidelines. The Banner talk 01:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I used scare quotes around the phrase "anti-Michelin" for a reason.
  • The GNG is not the only method of determining notability. The SNGs are equally valid, and it's up to editors at a given AFD to choose which method they believe is best suited to the subject at hand. In fact, it's normal for this particular SNG to be considered the standard when restaurants or other businesses are being considered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
But the GNG is the gold standard. By invoking this SNG, with its ill-considered get out clause, you are lowering the standard. Pyrope 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
What is your point? With or without this footnote, all recent Michelin restaurant will easily pass WP:GNG. The footnote has no influence at all in that respect. The Banner talk 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no "get out clause". The footnote explains reality, which is that a Top 10 Restaurants list on Joe's blog is worthless, but that there are a few lists that are so famous for generating publicity (e.g., Fortune 500, which nobody ever contests, and the Michelin Guide) that listing there does actually indicate that the sources (very likely) exist.
There is no exemption based on this. Fortune 500 companies have the same requirements as restaurants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, the exemption exists for both, which rather highlights the odd disparity. On the one hand you have an exemption from the usual standards of proof for a limited number of enormous, mostly multinational, billion dollar enterprises that tend to remain stable on a decadal timescale. On the other you have tens of thousands of small, commonly independent, mainly owner-operated businesses, that flicker in and out of existence like moths around a blowtorch. By comparing the two you are rather making my case for me here. Pyrope 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between "counts towards notability" (what it says) and "completely exempts the subject from any notability requirements" (something it has never said)?
I've been one of the primary editors on this guideline for years now. I assure you that if we actually meant for that sentence to be interpreted as "exempt from notability requirements", it would say exactly that, in precisely those words. It does not say that because we do not mean that. It says:
  • inclusion in normal lists ("Joe's Top 10 Favorite Restaurants") does not count at all, and
  • inclusion in some very famous, very publicity-oriented lists, does count towards notability. (Please take careful note of the gap between "counts toward", which any independent reliable source does, and "conclusively proves", which no single source does for any business or organization.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, this whole section starts with a sentence that states "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." (my emphasis). This is followed by the opening paragraph of the Depth of Coverage subsection that includes "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. These, taken together, indicate that if the depth of coverage is substantial a single source could indeed be used (and has been used by some editors) to demonstrate that a subject is notable. This is in direct contradiction to your statement above. The subsection then goes on to list "works carrying merely trivial coverage", that includes "lists of similar organizations". It is this last item that the footnote under discussion relates to, and the footnote exempts the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide. The problem with your argument is that "counts towards notability" is an ambiguous and unhelpful phrase. As the lead in to this section talks directly about a significant depth of coverage being sufficient that only one source may be needed, a count of one is by implication sufficient. Whether it was your intention or not, taken as a whole this section implies that inclusion in the Michelin Guide indicates a depth of coverage great enough that only one source, Michelin, need be used. Pyrope 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If we meant "inclusion in the Michelin Guide indicates a depth of coverage great enough that only one source, Michelin, need be used", we would have said so directly. We do not ay that because we do not mean that. What we say currently is, "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is notable (examples include the Fortune 500 or a Michelin Guide to restaurants)." What we mean is what it says: inclusion in a notable list (there are very few) counts toward notability. In the case of a business that gets very little coverage (just its name, or little more than that) in that list, then inclusion in that list "counts toward" notability—but it doesn't count very much towards notability. There is no contradiction here. Depth of coverage matters. Most lists do not count at all. A few (notable) lists count for something. There is no assertion that even the most famous lists count for very much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If it is the case, in answer to my question, that being in the Michelin guide nearly certainly will bring additional non-local sources to a restaurant, then it seems to follow that we should have an SNG section on restaurants to document the "being listed in a Michelin guide" as a sign of presumed notability. (This can be a new section under Alternatives... here about restaurants). --MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It may be that, so far, we have yet to see a case where a restaurant that gained a Michelin star did not supbsequently get lots and lots of attention (and thus pass GNG)... but, what do we do when such a case does occur. Take the following hypothetical... a really excellent (but unknown) chef opens a restaurant in January... Michelin reviewer is in town during Feb and writes up the restaurant giving it stars... In March the chef has a heart attack and dies... the restaurant closes... The rest of the media don't bother to report on the closed restaurant of a dead chef. Sure, had the chef not died, and had the restaurant remained open, it probably would have been given lots and lots of attention ... but the reality is different... the reality in my hypothetical is that it didn't receive lots and lots of attention after being given a star. So... Should we have an article on the restaurant? Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Not a realistic scenario, as a restaurant is visited multiple times through out the year. And "new" chefs have to prove the quality of their cooking over a longer period. Michelin starred restaurants don't flicker in and out of existence like moths around a blowtorch, as Pyrope thinks. The situation with The Commons Restaurant, where chefs departed shortly after being awarded a Michelin star is not too common, but retaining the star twice is a near miracle. The Banner talk 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The SNG criteria are guidelines, meaning there are exceptions. So if we wrote into this, that we presume an restaurant notable if it receives a Michelin star, then we allow it to have an article, as long as we can source the Michelin star. Now, ten years down the road, the restaurant never gets a mention in any reliable source, then we consider that presumption bad, and likely would delete it (that's why notability is presumed, as that assessment can change). The thing we don't want is a lot of these restaurant presumed notability to fail this way in writing the SNG - meaning that we need to reasonably sure that this is a near universal truth (avoid false positives). No SNG needs to be 100% perfect, but if even only 1 in 10 restaurant routinely fail this criteria, then we can't use it as a criteria. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment - The issue with using the Michelin guide is its subjective nature. As a review, and that is what is, it doesn't provide a subjective set of information regarding the subject. Also, its status differs from nation to nation - in France it is a bible, while in the States it is just another travel guide. I agree that it can generate press, unto itself it cannot by its subjective nature be a valid source that can establish notability. If there is anything that is added regarding we have to quite strongly state that secondary, subjective sources will be needed to establish notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • The fact that it is just another travel guide in the US, as you state, has no influence on the importance of the Guide Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Portugal or HongKong. And for those countries, it is an important source generating a lot of publicity. The Banner talk 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
          • You just ignored what I said. It has differing levels of importance globally, and using the US was just one such example (I am an American, so I used what I know). What of the other 200 or so nations globally? Yes I can agree that it can generate publicity, but appearing in it doesn't connote notability. By accounts, it is not reliable either, read its article, as I have advocated numerous times in the past to you. It has problems with reviewers not having set metrics to determine what constitutes a quality place, as well as accusations of favoritism and other problems. Because of these issues it doesn't meet the standards of reliability that WP requires to establish notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
              • I did not ignore what you said, I was reflecting on the position and status of the Michelin Guide in western Europe and a few others.
              • And secondly, I know that just being mentioned in the Michelin Guide is not enough to be notable. Some restaurants are, indeed, just mentioned. Does that make them notable: not automatically, you need more sources to prove that but it is a strong hint. Some are awarded a Bib Gourmand. Does that make them notable: likely but not automatically, you need more sources to prove that but it is a very strong hint. Some are awarded stars. Does that make them notable: extremely likely but still not automatically, you need more sources to prove that. But it is for 99.999999% sure that you will find independent and reliable sources to prove the notability.
              • And the accusation of favoritism? I have heard that accusation by now against every food guide, mostly by people not mentiuoned in the guide. If you can find me a 100% neutral guide, let me now. You have something rare at hand. It would be nice to have another guide with reputation just as good as Michelin's, but covering another type of cooking (Spanish, Chinese, you name it) to work from beside the Michelin Guide. The Michelin Guide is nor the Holy Grail, nor the Devil, but a Guide! The Banner talk 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
            • If you are unfamiliar with the problems and reliability issues relating to the Michelin Guide, Banner, I'd point you toward AA Gill's recent article in Vanity Fair that summarises many of them neatly. Gill is something of a professional controversialist, so the parts of the article that are opinion are intentionally inflammatory, but his factual points are valid. Pyrope 22:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        "The issue with using the Michelin guide is its subjective nature."
        Who cares if it's subjective? Reliable sources are not required to be non-subjective. Biased, opinionated, and totally subjective sources can still be 100% reliable for notability purposes. For notability purposes, what we care about is that someone paid attention to the subject. If that attention takes the form of providing a non-scientific assessment, then that's fine. If it weren't fine, we'd have to delete nearly every article about controversies, political ideas, films, television shows, works of fiction, economics, fine arts, and the humanities. A couple of major subjective sources on fine art installations demonstrate notability for the artworks, and a couple of major subjective sources equally demonstrate notability for restaurants. Jerem43 has repeatedly told us how much he hates subjective sources, but his distaste for subjectivity doesn't matter: the community accepts such sources for notability purposes without reservation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we draw this discussion to a close? In fact, I even support the removal of the Michelin Guide out the footnote with the following arguments:

  1. It saves Pyrope a lot of headaches
  2. It saves Jeremy a lot of headaches
  3. It saves the Community a lot of drawn out discussions
  4. It does not matter a thing if the mention is there or not. Michelin starred restaurants still have to pass WP:GNG and so far, I haven't seen anyone fail. In effect, removal will have no real effect or value.

So, let us kick it out and restore peace on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Restore peace on Wikipedia? Where's the fun in that? Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be better to re-phrase it to communicate the fact more clearly. Something like "Mere inclusion on a typical list of "top 10 businesses" does not count towards notability, but inclusion in some very prominent lists, such as Fortune 500, the Michelin Guide, and the Financial Times Global 500, suggests that the business is notable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I suggest to change the text from the Michelin Guide to the Michelin Guide (for Michelin starred restaurants) The Banner talk 01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I've  Done it. Feel free to tweak if you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a bad idea. The general consensus was to eliminate the line in its entirety, which I have. I have put in a reasonable substitution in the U.S. News and World Reports annual Hospital's report which is a widely respected and quoted ranking of American hospitals. If you can find something that is more globally pertinent than that, then do so. But I do not agree with the inclusion of the Micheline guide. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there was no consensus to remove it completely, as nobody seriously replied on my proposal. The Banner talk 01:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right. And per WP:BRD it was challenged and removed and since there is no consensus for it to be there it shouldn't be there. Your edit warring. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should remove it. I don't mind adding the US News and World Report list of best hospitals, though. It's never difficult to find sources for regular hospitals if you do a proper search (exactly like schools: the local newspaper will always have stories about them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
So, like everything else, let the standard be GNG. The more this discussion drags on, the more I am failing to see the purpose of this entire page. Agreement to remove the line was clear, with even The Banner indicating that removal would be the best option. Your understanding of English is clearly faulty, as to imagine that just because an action is not explicitly stated then that action is precluded is to ignore many idiomatic elements of the English language. Believe me, I operate in a world of policy documents and mission statements, and there are never ending games involved by all parties in interpretation. As an example, if everything written was entirely black and white then we wouldn't need lawyers. As I explained above, this whole section seems to distinctly undermine and reduce the standards set by GNG. GNG states that multiple sources are always needed, this page says almost. If I were someone who has been involved in writing this page I'd be worried that what I think the page says and what the page actually says are at odds with one another. We need to clean up the text and, yes, remove the footnote entirely. Pyrope 20:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL, the result is not satisfactory so you start the mess al over again. Perennial, my friend, perennial. The Banner talk 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it was sorted. It just needed some one to find time to act on what had been suggested by you. I for one have been busy lately. Of course if you go back and change your mind I'm going to speak up. You have a very odd debating style that you think contradicting yourself is a good idea. Pyrope 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
SNGs are permitted to deviate from the GNG's requirement for multiple sources, and many do (e.g., for species and athletes in the Olympic Games). This SNG is actually one of the most restrictive, because it emphasizes that even a dozen sources, all in your hometown newspaper, aren't enough. You've got to have some notice outside of your hometown newspaper to qualify under CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course they are permitted to deviate if evidence can be shown, and a debate is engaged, that the deviation is justified. This isn't the case here on either point: the proof has certainly not been shown, and there was no debate before including the get out clause. This SNG may be more restrictive in part, but it is less restrictive in others. As I have pointed out. That it lacks internal consistency is another reason for opening the debate wider, but I think we should resolve this first. Pyrope 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Michelin Guide etc.

The discussion has become very long and I wanted to add an edit point.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets step back and look at this and then use the rules of Wikipedia.

  1. The codicil was added without consensus or discussion.
  2. It was challenged, and multiple discussions were had over its inclusion, with no consensus ever really reached.
  3. It was finally removed after discussion where there was a consensus over its inclusion.was that it should be removed.
  4. It was reinserted, despite there was not a consensus on its being a consensus that it shouldn't be there.
  5. Buyer's remorse sets in andDespite there not be a consensus on its inclusion, people try to reverse force their positions and undo what has been decided go against Wikipedia policy.

Have I summed it up?

I am removing per the consensus WP:BRD, and if you want to reinstate it begin a proper discussion. Any further moves to add it back in is edit warring and will be reported as such. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Jeremy, there was no consensus. The Banner talk 12:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
But there was: you, me, Jeremy, Kudpung and LK all provided sound reasons and expressed a preference to remove the footnote, Blueboar and Masem asked pertinent questions regarding the justification and assumptions behind the footnote but did not offer a strong opinion on the way forward, and only Whatamidoing maintained a unequivocally favourable stance. Given I have shown above that WhatamIdoing appears not to fully understand the wording of this SNG her stance is moot. I can see the point she is trying to make, and there is some validity to it, but the current wording of the SNG does not reflect this intention. Your own position has flipped back and forth a couple of times, and whenever you have been asked to substantiate your sometime preference to retain the footnote you have fallen back on to woolly assertions and abuse. Consensus doesn't mean 100% support. Pyrope 19:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a polite way to say "You don't seem to understand English very well". Presumably you are trying to find the same way to say that to me. You have not "shown above that WhatamIdoing appears not to fully understand the wording of this SNG". You have shown that you cannot understand the difference between what it says:

[Editors may demonstrate notability using] all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ...inclusion in lists of similar organizations...unless the list itself is notable (examples include the Fortune 500 or starred restaurants in the Michelin Guide).

i.e., there is an exception to the exception, such that notable lists may be used exactly like any other reliable source, and what you think it says, which seem to be "notable lists conclusively prove notability and you never need any other source". How you get from what it says to this odd idea is beyond me, but if you'd like, I can recommend a few FAC folks who would be able to explain the grammar to you and reassure you that "you can't use most lists at all, but you can use notable lists just like any other source" is not a get-out-of-sourcing-free card. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but you have rather nicely made my point for me. The sentence you provided states that notability can be shown by all sources except trivial ones, and that Fortune 500 and Michelin are not trivial. Ergo, Michelin and Fortune 500 are sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. It's pretty clear. However, your extensional arguments are undermined by the rest of the section. The lead sentences in that subsection outlines that in some cases a single non-trivial source can be used. That's what the "almost" means. That you don't seem to understand that "almost" means "not quite", and in this context "on not every occasion", is between you and your dictionary. As I said before, if you have a section that implies only one significant source need be used in some circumstances and that Michelin and Fortune "count towards" this, then you are implying that these alone can be used. If you want the guideline to actually say what you already think it says you need to remove the "almost" from the explanatory section and make other tweaks for clarity. You would be looking for a structure something like this:

A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. A single independent source is never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. [subsection break] Depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. The depth of coverage must be substantial and multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

That formulation explicitly states what I think you have in your head. The formulation as it exists at present does not. At present you have the implication that a single source is sufficient, and that Michelin can be such a source. However, your arguments on here indicate that this isn't what you intend. If you want multiple sources at all times then the guideline must state that multiple sources are required at all times; "almost" contradicts this. Pyrope 20:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if it is possible that one non-trivial source is sufficient (a claim that I'm personally not sure is actually true, and most of CORP is written to discourage attempts at single-source notability claims), that does not mean that this single source is sufficient.
"Maybe, possibly, on rare occasions, one really incredible single source might be sufficient" does not mean "Specifically the Michelin Guide is sufficient". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I've already broken this down for you further up the page. If you like I could do it again using words of one syllable? However, in short, the guideline as written does not support you interpretation. Huffing and puffing and trying to blow the house down with hot air isn't going to change that. Pyrope 21:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized something amongst all this posturing, The discussion is not about whether it should be removed, it is whether it should be included per WP:BRD. The point is that the codicil was added boldy but without discussion. We've discussed it ad nauseum at this point and there is no consensus (including all of the discussions, consensus can change and this was a consensus that it goes) that it should stay or go and per Wikipedia policy it needs to be removed. Since this is an official policy of Wikipedia, we should be following the proper procedure when modifying it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, your idea is inaccurate in that it fails to account for the timespan involved. That phrase has been in this guideline for a couple of years. If there is no consensus to make a change, then there is no consensus to remove it. It's well beyond BRD. (ORG is also not a policy.) The proper procedure is to get consensus to make a change. Bold edits are one way of determining consensus. When a sentence sticks around for two years in a guideline, it has (or had) consensus, and you need to demonstrate a positive consensus to make tje change that you want to see.
And if the guy who made the removal proposal most recently says there is no consensus to implement his proposal to remove it, then it's very likely that there actually is no consensus to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That was sarcasm. The consensus was to remove it. The point I was making is that your arguments that there was no consensus are as foolish as the one I just made. I am just so sick of this argument despite multiple discussions and policies being pointed out to you.. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing consensus. I'm seeing disagreement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Saying or doing nothing is something else than consensus. I think people are getting a bit sick of the perennial proposals against Michelin starred restaurants. The Banner talk 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Speaking for me, I'm sick of your trying to 'debate' something without offering any evidence. Try harder. Pyrope 21:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The disagreement is you two, five others have stated that it isn't appropriate for inclusion. When the majority agrees on something that is a consensus. As Pyrope has stated consensus doesn't need to be unanimous. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for a request for closure from an independent admin to come in and take a look at this and close it as needed after nearly three weeks this needs to end. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right with the remark that consensus doesn't need to be unanimous. But that does not mean that the consensus goes your way. The Banner talk 14:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Um, I don't actually count that many people against it. Jerem43 and Pyrope are clearly against it, of course, and The Banner and I clearly support it. As for the other three who have commented, here's my view:
  • Kudpung's sole comment is against the idea that "the Mitchelin Guide alone confers notability", which the guideline has never said. Pyrope's inability to understand it notwithstanding, it says that all reliable sources "count", except lists of similar businesses do not count at all, unless those lists are notable, in which case, they do count just like any other reliable source. (I could probably reduce that statement to formal logic, if Pyrope's familiar with the symbols there and believes it would help him. 'An exception to an exception' is not that complicated.)
  • Although skeptical originally, Masem now seems to support it. At least, I don't think that "we should have an SNG section on restaurants to document the "being listed in a Michelin guide" as a sign of presumed notability" (10 January comments) indicates opposition. Do you?
  • I'm not sure what to make of Blueboar's comments, which seem to be more about asking questions than about expressing a firm opinion in either direction.
So that looks pretty much like three plainly in favor of it, two plainly opposed, one (Kudpung) opposed to something that it doesn't say but not expressing an opinion on what it actually does say, and one unknown. In short, I think that means no consensus for a change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A long way above: The fact that it is just another travel guide in the US, as you state, has no influence on the importance of the Guide Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Japan, Belgium, Portugal or HongKong. And for those countries, it is an important source generating a lot of publicity. As it happens, I'm in Japan. While I do not claim expertise about the kind of restaurants that get Michelin stars, this surprises me. One should also bear in mind the meagre amount of Japanese newspaper content that gets onto the web and stays there. However, I googled what's liberally regarded as "news" about the Japanese-language equivalent of MICHELIN + RESTAURANT + JAPAN and got an unimpressive total of "About 325 results". Top of the list was this article, a translation of "Is the Michelin Guide relevant in Asia?" (WSJ). A rather odd article, and one that grudgingly concludes that the three volumes that it discusses (which are all about Japan) are "relevant" (to what?) but that gets to this conclusion via a very familiar set of complaints. It seems that not much faith is put in these books here in Japan. And Google News suggests not so very much is said about them. By contrast, one of the popular (and hugely more inclusive) web-based guides is Tabelog; the (identically defined) "news" about this totaled "About 2,350 results". All in all I'd say that the area-relevant Michelin guide is merely one arbiter among many. ¶ As for other countries, it's been some years since I felt like splurging in either France or Britain, but I got the impression that Gault Millau was better for the former and The Good Food Guide better for the latter. ¶ Anyway, if either of the two last-mentioned guides, or Michelin, or any of the various Japanese guides, or any other guide really does propel a restaurant to fame, then we can expect this fame to be reflected in reliable sources, no? It's not as if fancy meals were a subject overlooked by newspapers. -- Hoary (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the Guide itself gets press; it's whether the restaurants listed in it get press. So far, we've never seen a Michelin-starred restaurant for which a thorough search failed to produce many sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, do Michelin-starred restaurants exist for which a thorough search would fail to provide many sources, or don't they? First, let's suppose that they do. Then inclusion in Michelin says nothing definitive about the existence of ample sources. Now let's suppose that they don't. Then one can simply demand these sources. Either way, inclusion in Michelin strikes me as a factor that could impel somebody to think about creating an article (and Michelin itself would be one source). But as nothing more. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Up until now, I have not found any Michelin starred restaurant in Ireland or The Netherlands failing to have sources available. On the other hand, I take the Michelin Guide as a very strong indicator that there are sources out there to prove the notability but I don't take the Michelin Guide as only proof. The Banner talk 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_11&oldid=1145840120"