Clarawood ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overturn The article was listed AfD at 17.40 on 23rd March. This was done by –Davey2010Talk in response to an ask by CDRL102. By 18.46 on the same day the discussion had been closed with a Userfied result after contributions from only these two. The admin moved what still existed to CDRL102's userspace and therefore Clarawood itself became a target for speedy deletion which then happened at 2.54 on 25th March by Malcolmxl5. As the creator of the article I therefore had no opportunity to discuss the assertions of those involved. I have already raised the issue with Malcolmx15 with no result. WP:AFD states the following "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus". It also states "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies". Neither of these happened in the case of Clarawood. It also states "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{ notability}}, {{ hoax}}, {{ original research}}, or {{ advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Again such a procedure did not happen in the case of Clarawood and my comments on talk pages were ignored, with some disdain and assertion rather than evidence I must add. The editor who nominatd for AfD went as far as to delete talk comments of mine. It must also be noted that the editor who started things with a huge sweeping edit and assertions that the article was unreferenced has a history of unnecessary and unwelcome edits which are reversed according to their talk page. In short I am convinced proper procedure was not followed, that the article was not in the state it was asserted to be in (ie non notable, unreferenced and biased trivia), that there was no opportunity to discuss the issues in a constructive way (it was gone before I even knew it was listed AfD) and as previously requested from the closing admin I would like Clarawood returned to the state it was in at 21.21 on 22nd March. I am prepared to expand on the General References quoted though this could be quite lengthy and I recall reading somewhere in the guidelines that in cases of multiple citations and attributions a general reference is more practical. I have absolutely no doubt as to the notability of the subject. Thankyou Clarawood123 ( talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Clarawood123 I did add tags, you deleted them. CDRL102 ( talk) 22:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Also for all, See User:CDRL102/Clarawood for the article in it's current form and its edit history. CDRL102 ( talk) 22:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The article was in a crap state and although I nominated it at AFD I wasn't aware CDRL wanted it kept (Had I known I would've skipped the AFD and userfied it), Anyway at the time of moving the article it failed notability guidelines and needed severe improvement and to me userfying was better than outright deleting, Clarawood123 is a resident of the estate (She admitted this on the talkpage) and although I have no problems with that it all seems to me like "I want my estate to have an article regardless of notability polices etc etc",

Ayway at the end of the day reversing this would only end up with the article deleted and so with the greatest of respect CW123 should probably be thanking their lucky stars that they can still edit it as opposed to writing the entire thing from scratch and to be totally honest I cant understand why CW123 even has an issue with it being in the "sandbox".... – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The page is where it belongs: userified for referencing, and also for rewriting in the appropriate tone of a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore on procedural grounds. Davey2010 nominated the article for deletion; it received one !vote which was a "keep", and then Davey2010 closed the discussion as "userfied" just over one hour after opening it. "userfied" was not the consensus outcome of a proper deletion discussion, and even if it had been, Davey2010 was obviously not the appropriate person to be closing it. Davey2010 then moved the article to userspace, with an edit summary "Userfied per AFD". Every part of this was inappropriate, and points 1 and 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE apply. The current userspace revision of the article is reasonable and in good enough state to be moved back to mainspace (though I do not know what the outcome of a real AfD would be). The least-worst outcome would be to void this utterly unsafe AfD and put everything back to where it was beforehand. Alternatively (if consensus is against me on that part) we should formally overturn the unreliable AfD but take no other action. Thparkth ( talk) 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• 1 - That's absolute bollocks - There was nothing inappropriate about it at all!, 2 - I myself and CDRL were both happy with userfy so therefore I pretty much withdrew but either way keeping the AFD open would've been a waste of time for everyone and IMHO had the it been open it would've either been closed as userfy or delete....., If CDRL wants it back in the mainspace he knows where my talkpage is, Whatever happened to WP:AGF on this place. – Davey2010 ^Talk 04:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• So just to be clear - you are doubling-down on it being appropriate to close an AfD that you also opened, and then rely on that self-authored AfD outcome to perform your desired action? You should have withdrawn your nomination rather than closing the discussion with a definite outcome. Thparkth ( talk) 10:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Incorrect - userfying wasn't my desired outcome .... My desired outcome would've been this to be deleted however someone had faith & hope in the article and as I said Userfying seemed the best choice here, I do admit I should've closed it as Withdrawn which would've been better, – Davey2010 ^Talk 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• It was tagged for "not being properly written". WP:VERIFY states "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible". There was no discussion of how it was improperly written, no evidence to demonstrate the same and no opportunity to rebuff that assertion. It was also tagged for notability. WP:NOTE states the following "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list...Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search...If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate". WP:VERIFY goes on to say "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access". I have indeed previously dicussed that just because Davey and CDRL did not know much of Clarawood or that the article was not written exactly as they might write it, it did not mean that it was a bad article or that it should be deleted or edited in the fashion that CDRL did. One of the arguments used by CDRL for removing a very substantial portion of the article was that the information was not unique to Clarawood. The same might be said for numerous facts about numerous places and / or people, subjects, history etc. Whilst some information might be true about other places as well, eg being demographically predominantly white and Protestant, this does not mean that it is not true about Clarawood. I did tell them that all info could be backed up and added the general reference section.

In terms of process WP:DELETE states "If the major stakeholders have not been notified of the proposed deletion or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible". It also says "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. For instance, if it the entire page is found to be a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant".

WP:USERFY#NO states "Userfication of an article that is the subject of an ongoing AfD is disruptive to the AfD process. The editor desiring to userfy the article must wait until the process has been concluded. Note that, if all participants agree, the AfD can be closed early in favor of userfication". It is clear I didn't even get a chance to participate and I think as the writer and creator of the article I could be classed as a "major stakeholder".

Further Davey in their comment above asserts that the article will be deleted if restored. This is the whole point - he is asserting things without facts or evidence or discussion based upon his personal opinion. I have previously suggested that if the article as now sitting in CDRL's box is restored it will be non-factual and I can back that statement up. This is why I have asked for it to be restored to the condition previously mentioned and I will certainly then add further info and refs to satisfy detractors Clarawood123 ( talk) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This is all a bit of a pity as I'm sure everybody has been acting with good intentions. Clarawood123 is a new editor who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's maze of article policies and guidelines and more discussion about how to improve the article would have been the better way to go rather than nominating the article for deletion. There is generally no rush to delete articles that have the possibility of being improved. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Good Shepherd English School ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As far as I can see this was a clear no consensus result and not a delete result. It also seems like a rather perverse and controversial closing decision, as articles on verified secondary schools are invariably kept (and the closer himself noted that he was sure that it would be taken to DRV). Much has been made of the fact that the keepers have mentioned a consensus to keep secondary school articles and/or pointed to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It has been claimed that this is not a valid argument. What those opposing this do not seem to realise (although it has been pointed out to them) is that citing this essay is not suggesting it is a policy or even a guideline. It is merely shorthand for pointing out that a consensus to keep verified secondary schools exists and has existed for a number of years. Barely a single article on a verified secondary school has been deleted in years. I see no reason to make an exception for this one, especially when there was certainly no consensus to delete it. Whatever policy or guidelines may say, it is a fact that certain categories of articles are generally kept (e.g. recognised settlements, members of national and sub-national legislatures, railway stations) because a consensus to keep them all exists. Secondary schools also fall into this category. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Regarding the comment that "What those opposing this do not seem to realise (although it has been pointed out to them) is that citing this essay is not suggesting it is a policy or even a guideline", note that the final keep comment does refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a guideline. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, this is still just being used as shorthand for "it didn't meet the standard of referencing and verification at which consensus has been reached to keep". Let's face it, there is a fine line between a guideline and a consensus which has not yet been given the status of a guideline. There have been attempts in the past to make the consensus on secondary schools a guideline (in the same vein as WP:POLITICIAN, say), but unfortunately these have been undermined by a couple of opponents who have wittered on about how they're right and the rest of us are wrong until the whole thing just petered out as these things are sadly wont to do. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Do not use shorthand, just say what you intend to say. Not everybody understands your lingo. The Banner  talk 17:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

You most certainly do! As does almost every other editor who contributes to school AfD discussions. Let's not get pedantic. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

As I said to Necrothesp earlier, I don't mind this being overturned; what I'm really secretly hoping for is that we get a real guideline. I completely agree that it's sad if stuff peters out. Drmies ( talk) 17:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I completely agree with that. We certainly need the longstanding consensus enshrined in guidelines as it has been in WP:POLITICIAN and other similar categories of article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Can we get a temp undelete here? Sources are discussed in the AfD and to evaluate the claim of not meeting WP:N we'll need to see those. Hobit ( talk) 16:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Done. — Cryptic 17:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I agree. With sincere respect to User:Drmies, who knows more about Wikipedia than I ever will, I think this should have been closed as "no consensus". It was on its way to a clear keep until after the relisting, when it was cited in a discussion at the Village Pump as a possible test case for SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As a result of that, several people came to this article from the Village Pump discussion, and !voted "delete" specifically because they wanted to challenge the SCHOOLOUTCOMES tradition. I noted this in my "keep" argument; I also stated that this school "like virtually all secondary schools IS notable." Apparently Drmies missed that when he concluded that "the [keep !voters] do not argue that the subject passes GNG". This controversial "delete" closure (which Drmies knew would be controversial) will now be gleefully cited as evidence against SCHOOLOUTCOMES, although IMO there was no clear consensus to delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • MelanieN, I don't agree with your assessment about how much I know; the more I'm here the less I know. And I read your statement--it's just that, yes, you state it, but stating it don't make it so, unfortunately. The article from the New Indian Express leaves a lot to be desired in terms of its discussion of the school, and the ICBSE entry strikes me as, well, at least primary, and the content seems to be user/school submitted. When I try to find out what the ICBSE is I get an ad for Thai women. Now, Central Board of Secondary Education is a "real" organization, with real standing, sure--but I note also that since 2001 the school is "provisionally" accepted. In other words, those references aren't really strong in terms of the GNG. What that means in terms of SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a different matter, and that it passes the GNG is disputed by other participants in that discussion. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 18:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete School Outcomes is a summery, not a keep-argument. The notability of scholls (and other articles) should be proved by facts and sources in the article but SCHOOLOUTCOMES tend to be used when those sources fail to appear or fail to prove notability. The Banner  talk 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - As long as AfD is based on the strength of arguments that apply policies and guidelines to the subject rather than a vote count, delete seems like the most sensible close. Even when challenged, those arguing keep did not attempt to refute any of the reasons given for deletion, but instead persisted to in arguing for WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES bypassing/trumping notability guidelines. As this topic is sprawled out on multiple pages right now, I don't want to repeat myself too much or get into parallel discussions. Suffice to say the subject of WP:OUTCOMES is fraught and many people have offered rather strong opinions on the matter. My own is simply that if there's sufficient consensus to treat WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES like a guideline such that verifiability=notability, then it needs to be a guideline. Until then arguments based only on that essay do not refute arguments based on guidelines. When it's added to a guideline, the article could be restored, but until then I don't know how you can justify keeping an article when no policy or guideline-based arguments were presented in favor of keeping it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close For too long SCHOOLOUTCOMES has been- often unintentionally no doubt- treated as policy rather than guide. As per User:Rhododendrites, it is not a Get Out of Jail Free card for any educational establishment that would otherwise fail WP:GNG. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for the undelete. I can't find sources enough to meet WP:N even with a fairly expansive view of that guideline. At the same time, I strongly suspect there is coverage out there, just that it's not easily found in English. That's sort of the point of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Further, there appear to be multiple schools in India with a similar name, making things even more challenging. I'd likely have !voted to keep on the argument that it's extremely likely there is reasonable coverage out there, but until sources are found, I can't claim the AfD was closed incorrectly. Until we have reasonable sources, we are forced to rely on primary sources to an extent I'm uncomfortable. So weak endorse with the understanding I'll move to recommending restoring the article if we can find more than we have (the one independent source in the article just isn't enough and I can't find anything else). If we do keep the article, it should be reduced down to things we can find independent sources for... Hobit ( talk) 18:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I've thought about it some more. I think Thparkth and S Marshall have good points. Not ones I entirely agree with. Clearly numbers are important, but strength of argument is also. That SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay _does_ matter. But it is a darn longstanding essay that no one can argue doesn't document what we've done for years and years. And I think it would be a bad thing to reopen that in a single AfD. Better to try to find a new consensus. That said, I _really_ dislike the article we have/had. It's all based on primary sources and as simple as it is, feels spamish. I'd prefer we strip it down to what we can get from independent sources as a way forward. So while I think this was a reasonable close in the individual case (though I think even there, NC was a better reading), I think it's a bad close for the encyclopedia. So overturn to NC with some reluctance Hobit ( talk) 13:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Before an influx of WP:POINTY !votes by editors seeking to abolish the long-standing consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this AfD was heading towards keep. This influx was an abuse of process and totally against all guidelines. At the very least this particular AfD should have been closed as no consensus, just on the numbers alone. I have thought of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a de facto guideline as, it appears, many others did. If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is disputed, change it via proper process and by a proper and genuine community consultation. On a sidenote, WP:GEOBIAS assures us that no American school would have been deleted in similar circumstances. I believe that Wikipedia functioning as a gazetteer means secondary schools should be considered inherently notable. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • AusLondoner, sorry, but it's not votes but arguments--you know this. And I don't know the motivation of those voting this way or that; please AGF. Drmies ( talk) 18:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. GNG overrides any local consensus in a particular topic area as it reflects the general consensus of the entire encyclopedia. Gamaliel ( talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES exists because there are pretty well always enough sources to establish notability in the case of a secondary school. The problem in the particulars is that outside North America, those sources are less likely to be online (and language issues may complicate search for those that are). Another complicating factor is that Google is not neutral in what it serves up. Wikiproject India has a special Google search link for English-language Indian newspapers, and although my computer is horribly slow this morning and the background on that search page keeps taking ages to load, by searching on Good Shepherd English School Karaikal I was able to find a slew of brief mentions that I believe illustrate that that rule of thumb obtains in this case, too: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Some of these call the school by a slightly different name, "Senior Secondary School", "Matriculation School" - noting that may help unearth more sources. There are presumably also non-English sources. I note that although the sources I found are mostly about the school's celebration of various special days, they give the names of principal and chairman and one is about an association the school has joined, so they could be used to support a couple of added facts in the article. In other words, IMO the deletion discussion bogged down and for whatever reason, not all available sources were uncovered; it is a test case of SCHOOLOUTCOMES, one that demonstrates that yes, the generalization is almost always valid, although it can be very hard to find the sources. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The keep arguments were the ones that followed the general consensus for these articles. OtherwiseThe current article is not promotional, and the schools compromise is one of the fe rational things we've done with respect to notability. The practical rule was adopted to avoid the previous 20 or so hotly disputed AfD discussions a day, with results no better than random, depending mainly on who had enough energy to push in one direction or another. I strongly urge us to adopt similar rules for as many types of articles as possible. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but the effort spent in debating the nuances does hurt us, because we would do much better to devote our work to sourcing and improving the millions of weak articles. (I don't think we need a test case to show that schooloutcomes gives the same results as the GNG--the GNG is a guideline to which we an simply make exceptions, and this is one of them. But it is possible to find references for any high school--the question is alwsys the smae as with other applications ofthe GNG, whether they are references substantial & independent & reliable--and those three words can in many cases be interpreted however one pleases to get the result one desires. Much better a rule like SCHOOLOUTCOMES. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • DGG, the problem is, and this AfD points that out, is that "per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" is not generally accepted. I just do not see why we do not go the obvious route and try to make a guideline out of this, so we can get away from the circularity. Drmies ( talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - agree with both DGG and Yngvadottir. My own view is that avoiding endless battles over high school notability is nothing but a positive. I'm currently reviewing all mineral articles for minor fixes, where if GNG was applied, 80-90% would have to be deleted. However, consensus is that mineral articles are kept even if only enough sourcing exists to pass WP:V. There is nothing inherently wrong with consensus overriding guidelines where it makes sense to do so. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • But VMS Mosaic, which consensus is that? I suppose there was a consensus to write up SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but in this particular AfD there was no consensus to stick with that ... though (not guideline). I suppose I'm not quite clear what you're pointing at when you say "consensus can override guideline": do you mean that the consensus (of the essay) overrides the guidelines (or rather policy) of GNG? Don't get me wrong: I also don't want endless battles. Enshrine SCHOOLOUTCOMES as guideline and it's over. Drmies ( talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • First, just for the record, WP:N is a guideline, not a policy; any guideline can be overridden by consensus. But to your point, let's make SCHOOLOUTCOMES a guideline and put an end to this. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

agreed it would be better formalized, but guidelines are made by consistent practice as well as by formal decision. An informal rule that is occasionally challenged but essentially always upheld is a valid guideline. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Occasionally? It is and was far more often challenged than "occasionally". The Banner  talk 15:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

In that case, I'm sure you'll explain to us why almost no secondary school article is ever deleted at AfD and why very few editors even vote delete on those discussions. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse delete Let me first say that, in general, I am an inclusionist. The relevant guideline in this case is WP:GNG. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is part of an essay and doesn't trump the guideline. Nevertheless, it should receive due weight. The essay basically states that high schools were (thus far) usually or always were kept in AfDs. These outcomes would have been in line with the relevant guideline, i.e. GNG. If by guideline this particular article should nevertheless be deleted, schooloutcomes should be read as a precaution that more independent, verifiable sources could be out there. If after careful research these sources aren't found, the guideline trumps the essay. gidonb ( talk) 17:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• It would be a shame to decide to end the very longstanding and widely-accepted WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES on the basis of the technicality that it's only labelled as an essay. It is, in fact, very longstanding custom and practice here and it makes a great deal of sense, at least to anyone who thinks editor recruitment and retention is a bigger deal than our increasingly obsessive focus on notability. School articles are not usually puff pieces written by marketers.— S Marshall T/ C 07:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree in principle. But in researching this school, it feels like a scam of sorts--or at least a questionable school. The one solid news report we have is of students being beaten for not paying fees and the school website has spelling errors that shouldn't get past a 3rd grade reader. Our article seems to be based almost entirely on that website. So while I agree with SCHOOLOUTCOMES, even if it were a guideline, I'd still probably support dropping this down to things that can be verified by independent sources (which in this case might be that it is a school and what its address is). Hobit ( talk) 13:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The key distinction here is prescriptive versus descriptive. Outcomes is a descriptive essay. Usually high schools have been kept. That much is true and useful to take into consideration. Care should be taken, however, not to use this descriptive truth as a prescriptive statement. Every case should be critically reviewed by our guidelines, which are prescriptive. In the discussion under review the nay sayers made better use of the relevant documents, hence the closure was correct and a possible overturn should be rejected. gidonb ( talk) 00:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • I rather disagree with you. Notability is a tool and like all tools it's only as good as the person using it. Its purpose, in origin, was for detecting and removing marketing spam and that's what it should be used for. Using it on everything is, generally, a waste of your time and ultimately of other editors' time at AfD, so people who overapply the notability guideline are wasting the encyclopaedia's only real limited resource. Which is why it's worth taking a stand on this.— S Marshall T/ C 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Your response strengthens my previous statement because, if this evolving importance of notability that you observed is true, then it is a positive, important, and from an operational view even necessary development that over time we produced a critical look at each and every article in our encyclopedia. Personally, I try not to be harsh on any subject, but elementary proof of existence and importance is essential for the credibility and usability of Wikipedia. It impacts the overall quality of our project. gidonb ( talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
          • We have articles on things that don't exist, like Bigfoot, and on things that aren't important, like the village of Where the Heck in Styx County, Nebraska (pop. 92). Wikipedia has very little credibility and that's a good thing: we shouldn't pretend to be credible. We already have a massive problem with people trusting us more than they should. If I had my way the disclaimer that's linked from every page would have much greater prominence. It should probably be in flashing, bright red text.— S Marshall T/ C 16:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply
            • Bigfoot is a legend and exists as such. The legend is well documented in this hoax film, in tv programs, movies, books, articles, etc. A town with 92 folks may seem unimportant to you, but there are people who breath in this place 24 hours a day, for many years. A high school can likewise be important, I do not reject the premise of the outcomes essay altogether, just differ on its importance, definitely next to guidelines or policies. The rest of your ideas are also peculiar, but this may be a good outlet to send them into the world! gidonb ( talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. The status of WP:OUTCOMES doesn't actually matter. Notability is ultimately determined by the consensus of participants at an AfD (not by any essay, guideline, or policy), and those participants can cite any essay or guideline they like in making their arguments. The argument that "we should keep this verifiable high school article because we should be consistent with how we normally treat verifiable high school articles" is a competent one that should be given significant weight by an AfD closer, whether made explicitly as I just did or in shorthand by reference to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The only way to find a "delete" consensus in this AfD is by entirely discounting the SCHOOLOUTCOMES "keep" arguments as the closer appears to have done. This was erroneous in my opinion and so the AfD outcome is unsafe. In fact there was no consensus at this discussion, as indeed there is no consensus on the subject of high school notability in the wider community. Thparkth ( talk) 11:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus AFD is an opportunity for people to express their opinions. Some people may think the notability criteria must be strictly met and will !vote accordingly. Other people may think they are guidelines to be treated with common sense and with occasional exceptions. Other people may think a consistency of approach across articles is valuable and they may want to avert the shooting arcade game aspects of AFD. Now, it would be wonderful if all these folks could present fully-argued, erudite, considered and considerate accounts of why they feel the way they do. However for those who do not have the time, inclination or ability to do this I think their opinions should be considered even if their rationales are as brief as " WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". They should be taken to mean they approve of school articles being kept along the terms of that essay. I do not mean that all arguments should be accepted. If someone says an article should be deleted because no references are to be found on a topic and then Cunard comes along with a barrow load of references, the initial opinion should be disregarded. If someone says keep because there are multiple references about a person but these turn out to be about someone else, the argument for "keep" should be given no weight. In my experience closers rarely confuse strength of argument with vehemence of argument but I think some closers (but not in this case) think that the strong arguments are those they agree with. Thincat ( talk) 09:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, a courageous call perhaps, but one that I cannot find fault with. Once we disregard the "Keep" arguments which are variants of 'Keep per this essay that does not enjoy consensus support', then there's not really any policy based reasons advanced for keeping it, possibly with the exception of User:MelanieN's post, which despite making an unsubstantiated accusation of canvassing, at least attempted to get the article to cross the GNG as well. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 04:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC). reply

From what I see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES enjoys broad support. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC) reply

While it has its supporters, I think the fact we're even having this discussion would indicate that it is hardly a wide consensus. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 05:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC). reply

@ Lankiveil: I think you're making the time-old mistake of thinking a couple extremely vocal people makes "hardly a wide consensus". ansh 666 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn due to canvassing from the RfC at WT:AFD, as noted by other editors above. SST flyer 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Could you clarify where the canvassing took place, SSTflyer? I don't see any note about this or about an RfC above. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Special:Diff/712702051. My mistake, the RfC is at WT:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. SST flyer 09:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • That RfC was opened after the AfD closed, though (in response to it), so I don't see how it could have had an impact on the deletion decision. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • If the claim is that I engaged in canvassing at WP:VPP, then I don't see how my post there falls foul of WP:CANVASS. I certainly didn't select an audience on the basis of their opinions, and indeed didn't contact individual editors. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse these days it seems that we have developed a rather self supporting argument that says we don't delete these because they are normally kept with each time we do that just reinforcing the rule, this flies in the face of consensus building and "consensus can change". -- 82.14.37.32 ( talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The consensus clearly hasn't changed, since other secondary school articles are still being kept at AfD. This is an anomalous result that was certainly not a clear delete case and flies in the face of both consensus and consistency. Had it been a clear delete result then that would have been different; it was most certainly not. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • But the consensus is clearly being contested. And quite often. The Banner  talk 14:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Almost always by the same editors, who are strangely enough the ones who don't agree with it. Once again, not everyone has to agree with a consensus for it to be a consensus. I don't agree with every consensus on Wikipedia either. That doesn't mean I don't accept them as the collective will of the greater part of the editing community. To do otherwise once a clear consensus has been reached is merely disruptive. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
        • There has to be a way for people who disagree with a consensus to be able to challenge it, though, otherwise consensus could never change. While behaviour that ignores consensus is disruptive, I don't see how making delete arguments in AfD discussions could be considered disruptive. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Aha, there is the classic "disruptive" argument to quell an unwelcome discussion. But did you also notice that the defenders of Common Outcomes are also almost the same few editors every time? The Banner  talk 16:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• I should just log in with one of my secret alternate accounts and close this is "highly contentious; no consensus." However this cookie ends up crumbling, I think the length of this discussion and the variety of arguments confirm what I foresaw (or feared) when I closed the AfD. Wikipedia, for better or for worse, is kind of a bureaucracy, pace DGG, whose point on practice is well taken ("guidelines are made by consistent practice as well as by formal decision")--but it's optimistic, as this case proves: we like rules and in many cases we need them.

  Consistent practice would have worked in this case if (and I'm hypothesizing here) the sourcing had been just a little bit better; in most cases, that is never a problem in the first place. Whether secondary schools should be automatically notable is not really the discussion here; I closed the AfD the way I did because the participants had opinions about SCHOOLOUTCOMES and noted GNG/sourcing problems. (S Marshall, it's entirely possible that schools are written up with promotion in mind, esp. if it's schools whose status in for instance a public education system is a bit unclear, as seems to be the case here.) For all practical purposes, and in most AfD discussions, secondary schools are automatically notable. I do not deny that SCHOOLOUTCOMES has great validity, but the extent of that validity is clearly unclear. What's left is to write it up then, as a subsection of NCORP or whatever is more appropriate. More than likely there will be consensus for it. I nominate User:S Marshall to do so--S Marshall, that won't "end" SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it will be a promotion. Drmies ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Drmies: I found more sources! Enough mentions, with MelanieN's entire article, for the school to squeak by under the GNG in my estimation. Unfortunately we are here at a page where what we have to assess is the merits of your close, rather than the merits of the issue. That constrains me. I wish we still had the ARS, who would have known about the specialized search over at Wikiproject India. (Instead we have at least one participant here arguing that the school itself must be some sort of scam, based on the quality of English on its website. Unfortunately that is in my experience typical for English-language schools in India; I suppose the websites are written by students familiar with web-page design, and not by the English teachers. However, whatever teh truth of that, our opinion about whether a school is good should never be the basis of whether we have an article on it.) I find myself reluctant either to say that the AfD participants did a poor job or that you did a poor job, but that's my brief. Either that or recreating the article myself or editing the temporarily deleted version, either of which would be taken as disruptive editing or simple cheek. I'm not sure this is winnable, and it will serve as an ugly precedent. Is there a win-win solution here? Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Thincat. In short: people are lazy. Also, User:Milowent/History of High School AfDs. ansh 666 22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closer correctly didn't give much weight to opinions based on the "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" page, because it is an essay and not a community-adopted policy or guideline. Admins are expected to weight the strength of arguments in closing AfDs, and they are supposed to do so based on policies and guidelines because these alone express a wider community consensus.  Sandstein  07:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply