This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability (schools) page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 21 days
![]() |
This page is the result of a Village Pump proposal on 2007-11-21.
Given in this page and its talk page as 'failed to meet community consensus' and 'unsuccessful', should it be just speedily deleted? It's hard to make an article about a 'non-notable' school and seeing in a recent AfD, this policy has backfired and used in vain, and many of the 'delete' reasons for it have been strongly slammed by a lot of others. - ÆÅM «( fætsøn!) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I will agree that this policy, as written, will still not get a consensus of people to sign on to it, today or in the immediate future. However, if you look at all of the school-related AfDs in the past year or so (if not longer) you will see that the participants in these deletion discussions are essentially following the recommendations of this proposal and that the results of these AfDs -- in which nearly all high schools are kept and most elementary schools are merged -- basically operate as if this proposal was in effect as policy. While this may bode well for establishing consensus in the future, another alternative is to create a results / precedent-based attempt at policy that uses these AfD results to show what the characteristics are of articles that are kept vs. those of ones that are deleted / merged. We can then use these experiential distinctions as the basis of a guideline that can be formalized into policy later down the road. My proposed guideline would enumerate the characteristics of articles that have been retained at AfD and would allow a future AfD participant to argue that the article under consideration should be kept because it matches the characteristics of those kept in the past per precedent, or be merged / deleted because it doesn't. Regardless of the next steps with this proposal here and irrespective of the fact that this is not de jure policy or if this essay is marked as historical, we are essentially observing this as policy on a de facto basis. Alansohn ( talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There are two tags for notability essays which did not achieve consensus for acceptance as guideline. They come between the tag for "official" guideline and the tag for rejected, and give a more rounded explanation of the situation. The tags are {{ Notability essay}} and {{ essay-project-note}}. I have placed the {{ Notability essay}} on this essay as being the more appropriate, though {{ essay-project-note}} is the more common tag and may be used instead. The reason for {{ Notability essay}} is where it is a felt that a WikiProject is not firmly involved. SilkTork * YES! 00:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Change shortcuts to point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education instead of this page.-- RadioFan ( talk) 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Bearian has written a useful essay giving his 7 out of ten approach for assessing school notability.-- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Notability (schools) page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 21 days
![]() |
This page is the result of a Village Pump proposal on 2007-11-21.
Given in this page and its talk page as 'failed to meet community consensus' and 'unsuccessful', should it be just speedily deleted? It's hard to make an article about a 'non-notable' school and seeing in a recent AfD, this policy has backfired and used in vain, and many of the 'delete' reasons for it have been strongly slammed by a lot of others. - ÆÅM «( fætsøn!) 05:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I will agree that this policy, as written, will still not get a consensus of people to sign on to it, today or in the immediate future. However, if you look at all of the school-related AfDs in the past year or so (if not longer) you will see that the participants in these deletion discussions are essentially following the recommendations of this proposal and that the results of these AfDs -- in which nearly all high schools are kept and most elementary schools are merged -- basically operate as if this proposal was in effect as policy. While this may bode well for establishing consensus in the future, another alternative is to create a results / precedent-based attempt at policy that uses these AfD results to show what the characteristics are of articles that are kept vs. those of ones that are deleted / merged. We can then use these experiential distinctions as the basis of a guideline that can be formalized into policy later down the road. My proposed guideline would enumerate the characteristics of articles that have been retained at AfD and would allow a future AfD participant to argue that the article under consideration should be kept because it matches the characteristics of those kept in the past per precedent, or be merged / deleted because it doesn't. Regardless of the next steps with this proposal here and irrespective of the fact that this is not de jure policy or if this essay is marked as historical, we are essentially observing this as policy on a de facto basis. Alansohn ( talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There are two tags for notability essays which did not achieve consensus for acceptance as guideline. They come between the tag for "official" guideline and the tag for rejected, and give a more rounded explanation of the situation. The tags are {{ Notability essay}} and {{ essay-project-note}}. I have placed the {{ Notability essay}} on this essay as being the more appropriate, though {{ essay-project-note}} is the more common tag and may be used instead. The reason for {{ Notability essay}} is where it is a felt that a WikiProject is not firmly involved. SilkTork * YES! 00:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Change shortcuts to point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education instead of this page.-- RadioFan ( talk) 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Bearian has written a useful essay giving his 7 out of ten approach for assessing school notability.-- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)