Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7

Centralized Discussion

This is a central discussion to discuss whether schools should continue to enjoy blanket exceptions from Speedy Deletion Criteria A7:

• Articles about real real people, organizations (eg bands, clubs, companies, etc., except schools), or web content are not shows why the subject is important or significant . This differs from the verifiability and reliability of the source, and is a lower standard than notability. A7 only applies only to articles about web content and articles about people and organizations themselves, not articles about books, albums, software, and so on. A7 does not no apply to any article that makes any claim of significance or credible interest even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the credibility of the claim is unclear, you may correct the article itself, file a deletion, or a list of articles in the article to remove.

School exemption was added on October 2, 2008. The words used previously using the school as an example of the "controversial" type, that suggested do not use CSD-A7 . Since October 2, CSD-A7 is no longer applied to schools. Note: Struck suggests... at 15:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC) per #Masions below. Thank you Davidwild. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)

Clarification : It looks like this editing from over a year ago is where school origin is no exception. ??? ????? Od Mishehu 13:54, December 25, 2008 (UTC)

There has been discussion on Wikipedia Talk: Criteria for quick removal for several days on whether the school should be released from A7.

Exempt from A7 is not an exception of notability , it just means if the school article does not claim notability, it can not be deleted quickly via A7, it should be quickly deleted through some other means, removed via WP: PROD or WP : AFD, or better yet, improved. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, December 24, 2008 (UTC)

I will list some options for discussion. Feel free to add more. At this stage, it's time to brainstorm.

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7

Option 1: School is still excluded

Not doing anything. Leave such criteria.

Option 1 Discussion

• Please read my comments on Wikipedia: School/Criteria WikiProject for Quick Elimination A7 # Misunderstanding before contributing. Davewild (talk) 09:04, December 24, 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note: There is no need to read this comment if you would like to support the school release. Note how Davewild-supported positions, without exception, do not have this disclaimer. travb (talk) 20:52, January 7, 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do not support the position is no exception. My comment here is to state my thinking that this RFC is not regulated as well as I think it should and there is no real difference between option 1 or 2 that I support. Davewild (talk) 21:00, January 7, 2009 (UTC)

My apology (travb) Ikip (talk) 10:33, January 19, 2009 (UTC)

• This is just a retread of the old school inclusion, the 2004-2005 exclusion debate. As Jim Wales writes:
  "If someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accommodate them, even if we hope they will not do it.And it's true * even if * we have to react differently if someone comes and starts en masse.add an article in every high school in the world Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I started writing articles about my high school, Randolph School, from Huntsville, Alabama. I can write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can be easily verified by anyone who visits their website.
  So I think people should relax and accommodate me. It does not hurt anything. That's a great article, I'm a good contributor, so cutting me off some leeway is a perfectly natural thing to do. "
  I encourage these removal editors to take Jimbo advice and relax, there are many other contributors you can delete each day, without removing the school as well. travb (talk) 20:57, January 7, 2009 (UTC)
• Leave well - due to speedies without community consensus, they should be limited to uncontroversial removal. All schools can be sourced to some extent (is it enough to meet WP: ORG depends on the case in question) so it is an assessment of whether each is important. TerriersFan (talk) 02:54, January 15, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Option 2: Revert to previous words: Carefully practice

Simply return to the previous words: Other article types are not eligible for deletion by these criteria. If controversial, like school, include articles in Articles to remove.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Option 3: Do not mention school

Take out all references to the school. Expect A7 nominees and delimeters to evaluate the same articles as they do with other organizations.

Option 3 Discussion

This option sounds best to me. CSD A7 does have to be school-agnostic. Whether an article's topic is a school should not affect whether articles deserve removal one way or another. Judge on notability, not schooliness. - Cyde Weys 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• This seems the most logical. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• This implies another extreme: that schools are exactly the same as other organizations and such articles can not be fixed to satisfy WP: NOTE. If that's the case, why do we even have the Wikipedia section: Notability # Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, Alternative for deletion, and discussion of deletion? It clearly says on Wikipedia: Criteria for quick removal that "Before nominating an article for quick removal, consider whether it can be fixed, reduced to stub, merged or diverted elsewhere or dealt with some other action that is less than deletion. , quick deletion may be inappropriate. "Wikipedia: Deletion_policy # Process_interaction states that pages for quick deletion should not have" fixed "or" no consensus "on the deletion discussion. However, join/redirect, save, and no consensus is often the case for school articles in Afd. I need evidence of such consensus to line up school articles in the same category as other organizations; in which discussion of deletion indicates that the abolition is never controversial or has no reasonable doubt? Where is the evidence that all organizations are mentioned as often as schools in magazines, newspapers, books, and television programs? --Jh12 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Most of this discussion revolves around misleading ideas, the public decides that companies and organizations should be on A7. They did not do it. Schools must remain outside, together with companies and organizations. travb (talk) 20:49, January 7, 2009 (UTC)
• This will be fine. Stifle (talk) 20:45, January 17, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Option 4: Do not mention the school, with the understanding that the no article should be quickly deleted unless AfD for the article would be obviously not controversial.

The list of CSD criteria is some imperfect attempt at capturing a series of conservative situations in which an article will obviously fail on AfD. In a perfect world, where all administrators act with common sense, the CSD criterion is simply not necessary; This is not our world, unfortunately, so we filter the spirit of the law into a set of (mostly) unambiguous rules. The reason the school was released from A7, as mentioned above, is that school articles regularly graduate from AfD. I fully support the removal of school exemption from A7 as an excess of bureaucracy and crawling instructions if we all agree to be conservative about removing articles quickly, only doing so when we believe removal is not controversial. On the contrary, I strongly oppose the abolition of exceptions if there is a possibility of the following scenarios: A7's revelation is revised, and in a short time some overzealous administrators quickly remove dozens of existing school articles that have survived or have not even been sent to AfD in the past. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:29, December 26, 2008 (UTC)

Option 4 Discussion

• That's not really true. Our quick removal criteria are a set of narrowly defined criteria in which people consider it relatively safe (ie no encyclopedia content will be removed by mistake) for deletion decisions made by a single eye pair - delete administrators. In other words, they are articles that can be safely deleted "in view" by any administrator, in connection with cultural biases and experiences that all administrators must have, leading them to not know about any possible subject that can be covered by encyclopedias, and errors which can be generated from such a bias.

  This is why they are almost entirely content-based, with an assessment that can be made mechanically by the administrator ("Does this content copy wholesale from somewhere?" "Does this content make sense as English prose?" "Is this just a user testing the editing function? Is this article empty? "" Does this article identify the subject being discussed, provide the context for any editor capable of doing it? "And so on.) Without relying on factors that can vary from administrator to administrator (such as their personal knowledge on individual topics) or on factors that are only can be safely defined by the entire editor community as a whole (as if the source exists for the subject), with many editors providing multiple cut Swiss cheese to ensure that the wrong answer is not up. In other words: All other deletions can only be done safely after a different pair of eyes, from various editors, with sufficient time for discussion and research, have reviewed the article.

  And the reason why school articles have been excluded from criterion # A7 has nothing to do with success rates in AFD, and all that relates to the fact that criterion # A7 was never intended (from the beginning) to cover controversial cases. School articles - all school articles - have been the subject of long controversy for at least 5 years, now. It is not as factional as it was a few years ago, but controversy still exists. Uncle G (talk) 05:15, December 28, 2008 (UTC)

Looking at WP history: Speedy. In some cases, A7 expansions involve only eight editors, and sometimes as few as one editor. (See below). One editor decides the fate of 2 million articles, and the behavior of tens of thousands of editors.

Again and again I've seen in AfDs that nominated editors, often an administrator, do not take the time to research articles even on google before choosing them for removal. travb (talk) 19:49, January 7, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Option 5: A7 is returned to: people/futility pages and highly commercially famous companies

"Laws like sausage - it's best not to see them made." - Associated with Otto von Bismarck

I suggest that we return A7 to version only with people pages/futility, and non commercially famous organizations. "Organizations (eg Bands, clubs, companies, etc., Except schools) and parts of web content are discarded, until RfC starts to decide if this policy is fixed.

Wikipedia: The criteria for quick deletion is one of only a few policies, affecting 2 million articles, and the behavior of tens of thousands of editors. Although the implications of this policy are far-reaching, it is often only a handful of editors who decide policies for all wikipedia.

The original page reads:

Ordinary person or group/vanity page. Articles about real people, groups of people, bands or clubs that do not state the importance or importance of the subject. If the statement is disputed or controversial, it must be brought to AfD instead.

• In September 2006, the editor posted a concern about the web page. After the conversation on the talk page, and post about conversation at the village pump, 14 people gave their opinion. Of those 14, 2 opposed, 4 did not comment on policy, and 8 people supported policy changes. A veteran editor says, a poll is not even needed. Because 8 people, A7 for web pages is now official policy. Edit the differences here
• On October 1, 2006, the editor posted a legal opinion by Brad Patrick, a wikipedia lawyer: "At the request of Brad Patrick, this also includes a prominent commercial page for unfamiliar companies." On the same day, other editors changed "blatant commercial pages for unfamiliar companies" to "corporations". Because 1 editor, all new company entries can now be deleted quickly. Edit the differences here

If we will have RfC for school, we also have to have RfC to:

1. what companies can be quickly removed, is "overtly commercial", as wikipedia lawyers are required, still standard?
2. for web page entries.

Any new entry to Wikipedia: Criteria for quick deletion requires more power to decide what should be on wikipedia away from the average editor. If the administrator will decide for himself what should and should not be on wikipedia, we have to tell them what rules they follow to delete without any input from the community.

How many times have you been in an article for the Removal and nominees debate, often an administrator, not doing homework, do not even bother to take 5 seconds to see if there is an entry on google for the page they are removing? Journalists have written many times that their entries are quickly removed, not because they are not well known, but because administrators do not take the time to research the pages. This same journalist then came back and added an easy-to-find reference to the page, and the page is here today.

Nine wikipedians (those who created these two A7 policies) should not have the power to remove everything we have built or everything we will build on wikipedia. travb (talk) 09:28, January 8, 2009 (UTC)

Option 5 Discussion

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Option n: Your options here

Options n Discussion

src: upload.wikimedia.org

General Discussion

A general discussion here.

Silly Question

This is not about notability, Infact A7 makes it clear "This is different from the verifiability and reliability of the source, and is a lower standard than notability" and "A7 no no is valid for any article that makes any claim of significance or credible importance even if the claim is not endorsed by a trusted source ". Gnevin (talk) 10:12, December 24, 2008 (UTC)

• Yes but quick deletion is only for articles that are typically removed in AFD. Schools are usually not removed in AFD. It is obviously wrong to remove a quick article that will not be removed if they are more discussed in AFD. I have shown some examples of the above articles in schools that do not make claims for importance or significance but that are easily stored in AFD. Davewild (talk) 10:17, December 24, 2008 (UTC)
• The quick deletion point is that we delete things we know will be deleted in AfD, saving time (and where it may be a bit urgent, with attack pages & copyright infringement.) Highschools are almost universally stored in AfD , another school - dependent. But where AFD will not be lopesided, or where it might result in "keep", the quick deletion should not be applied Wily D 17:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Quick deletion is about safety decision-making by only one person. This is a not shortcut for what will be "inevitable". Actually it is not possible to formulate rules, which can be applied to a view by one person, such as what is definitely removed in AFD. Quick deletions include content-based and mechanically-implemented tests that can be securely implemented by just one person , with limited knowledge and subject abilities, with the belief that the outcome is the right decision. See above. This is why criterion # A7 speaks of "claims" of "significance or importance", and sets a lower limit for "not deleted" results than AFD. This is a limited test that can be (believed) to be safely applied by only one person, on the view, with the belief that the result will not be wrong, to stub on the wrong encyclopaedia subject removed on sight, rather than going into the normal article expansion process. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's a bit of both. The reason for the quick removal required in the first place is because we get a huge flood of new articles every day. Many of them should be removed. If we take any new articles that need to be removed through discussion, AfD will be overwhelmed beyond the ability to function. So, we secretly took clear cases and shot them at sight, and used AFD for cases where there were further doubts as to whether there might be potential. As for Davewild, above, some AfD wrongly closes (and if the article really does not even say so much significance, somebody counts the hand rather than the evaluated argument, and should have closed it as delete) does not mean we should not speed things up. AfD is closed in the wrong way often, see WP: DRV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, December 28, 2008 (UTC)
      • The examples where I say no important statement is since the beginning of AFD, not at the end where the articles have been fixed. If you feel they are wrong then take them to a removal review but I doubt they will be canceled. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

reason for existing words

For schools at primary and secondary levels that can be shown to have a real existence, the actual abolition of lack of uncertainty is never the appropriate option. Not that they should all have articles - but they can at least always be merged into school districts, or other bodies, or, failing, into the territory. I have never seen any real primary or secondary school so it can not be noted that lists in such articles with redirects will at least not be appropriate.

To safeguard rather than merge, whatever we say here, there is a practical consensus in AfD that almost any real high school exists will justify an article, because enough information to justify storage can always be found if sought thoroughly including in printed sources.. Some of the disputed cases are cases where due to our cultural bias, such a search is almost impossible at the moment. There is a similar practical consensus that, in the absence of great rewards or something similar, primary schools are rarely important enough for separate articles and should be combined. It is much easier to get consensus in AfD than on policy or guidance pages, because a small minority here can maintain unlimited consensus, while in AfD there must be a decision one way or another, and the absence of consensus is defended by default.

Because removal due to lack of uncertainty is almost never a solution, quickly because of the lack of helplessness is a solution that is increasingly unavailable. In fact, for high school, there is no prod as long as some information is available, since a good faith number of etablished editors will always contest prod & so it's useless.

I myself, I do not think all high schools really matter; & amp; when I came here two years ago I told to remove about 1/4 people. But very many of them, and the time spent discussing each of them in AfD is not worth it, given that the decision is not too much improvement rather than random. Trying to remove 20% or more of unimportant ones is not worth the time, when the result is we only remove about half of which should be removed and removed at least the same amount of which should be stored. Others assure me that we will make fewer mistakes if we just take everything. Our goal is to build an encyclopaedia, not have endless dispute over small articles in AfD.

Since there is no way to build a stable consensus on anything on Wikipedia, I anticipate to repeat this at least once every six months in one of a dozen places where discussions can be reopened.

Now, as for CSD A7, we may be able to find better ways or exceptional words, to make it clear that schools can be quickly removed for various other reasons - copyvio, BLP, vandalism, test pages, blank. I practice I personally quickly delete a few weeks as admin. The reason it is so valuable to determine the school especially there, is that there are so many school articles submitted, because this is a clear subject for beginners on wikipedia. Speedy for what often happens - weird case should go to Afd for community, not 2 editor.

WP is not seriously harmed by some articles about a slightly less prominent subject - WP is much more aggrieved by advertising and self-promotion, not to mention bad writing, errors and really bad vandalism. That's where we have to devote our main effort. That's the bad thing people notice. DGG (talk) 05:15, December 25, 2008 (UTC)

• What about unpopular schools and private elementary schools? ? I opened my phonebook and saw almost all preschool and private primary schools and very few of them are famous in any way, and most of them do not have sensible redirects or possible redirects removed in RfD as spamcruft. "First XYZ Church Day Care and School" serving the age of 6 months to grade 1, can theoretically be transferred to First XYZ Church or its parent city, but First XYZ Church may also not be well known and drive to the city will be a diversion from something which is by no means encyclopaedic. Likewise "Happy Unconnected and Uncensored Unconditional Unconditioned and Uniform Preschools", which is a nurturing glorified day that employs a true teacher because it is good for businesses not having business on Wikipedia and, hindering false claims of incompetence, does not exist business wasting time in AFD. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:35, December 25, 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe I'm reading this. So of course, there are commercial companies that call themselves "schools" despite having carelessness to do with actual education, but they look like straw humans. Surely we can handle them without manipulating the "notability" requirements of the actual school. That said, I am somewhat confused that the current words were once considered necessary (it surprised me that other reasonable people would interpret "bands, clubs, companies, etc." to enter "school" in the first place). Unfortunately there may not be a very easy way to ban the use of "db -nn" for anything and everything without any list and everything in the criteria. Blurry. - CharlotteWebb 15:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WP: NOTCENSORED

The thing that school claims - boiled - is an organization: if it claims to be unfeasible, it avoids fast. If not, A7 is there to remove the craporama. And Uncensored has nothing to do with it - it's not a policy to include every thing indiscriminately. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, for the US I would say anything under the National Education Statistics Center is definitely a kind of school. Someone has not fully explained to me exactly how quick removal is the best choice for a school article that does not confirm it. This is what I read in Wikipedia lead: Criteria for quick deletion:

From what I read, the quick removal says not only that this school article does not affirm, but there is no doubt whether the school itself can be known, that it is impossible for the article to be fixed to assert, and the article is not can be merged or transferred to district/local district articles.

Again, I disagree with the concept that schools are equivalent to any organization. I have seen too many Afds for high school where there are ready sources available to form some form of notability. Even then, there are times when the editor does not agree on what constitutes a notability: Top.01% according to Newsweek, Top 1%? Quick deletion assumes there is a community consensus for deletions that I do not believe exist. I think the concept of a quick transfer of elementary school articles is an option that should be explored, not a policy in which every school article that does not fit a single admin definition from a reputable organization can be removed without prior discussion. --Jh12 (talk) 20:22, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, censorship or not censor the problem besides, when exactly is the school not famous to the point that needed immediately? With individuals, I can see quickly become precise because there will always be popular people in schools, organizations, or cities who think themselves too tall and create articles about themselves, but schools can be handled with PROD do not think about it. Unfortunately there are cases where school articles need to be accelerated, but unavailability is not a reason in those cases; sometimes there are school articles created that meet other CSDs. In short: schools can go to PROD unless they meet the criteria for quick removal other than A7, such as attack or copyright pages. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Message) 23:08, January 9, 2009 (UTC)

No, you oversimplify things. Articles can only be through proposed removal if its deletion is not controversial. Let's say you found a school article with the following content:

The LycÃÆ' Â © e Louis-le-Grand (sometimes dubbed LLG ) is a public high school located in Paris, widely regarded as one of the most demanding in France. Formerly known as the Collège de Clermont, it was named in Louis XIV the honor of France after he visited the school and offered his protection.

You searched for "LycÃÆ' Â © e Louis-le-Grand" on Google and did not find any English references. Even if you believe this article should be removed, it should be brought to the article to be removed rather than using the proposed deletion; this is not a "controversial deleted candidate" because the article makes the claim inappropriate. Instead of using simplified "rules", use good judgment when deciding which removal process will be used. There is nothing wrong with bringing an article to AFD to get someone else's opinion. Somno (talk) 03:37, January 10, 2009 (UTC)

Technically, any article that has never been created or sent to the country can be encouraged, whether such deletion will be controversial or not. Quoting from the current policy version: "Proposed deletion is a way to suggest that an article is controversial is a deleted candidate" [emphasis added]. If I think, in good faith, that it will not be controversial, I have to produce it and tell the main contributors. People keep an eye on pending products. If I am wrong, it will probably be pressed before the product runs out. Now, if I act bad and encourage a major university or even a renowned college, or in this case a good middle school, it will probably make me experience the problem of vandalism. Personally, I do not see the point of deleting an existing school article unless there is no logical redirection target. Either leave the article or redirect it, do not delete it. However, this is far from the topic of this proposal, which should have A7 rapid deletion criteria apply to schools that do not claim improper claims. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:24, January 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is getting out of the way! My point for PCHS-NJROTC is that prod not always match, the same way quick deletion does not always match, for each article in a certain category. Things are not as simple as he suggests: that school articles can be encouraged if they do not attack the page or copyright infringement. But I feel I may repeat the unnecessary, so I will be silent about prod now. :) Somno (talk) 02:06, January 11, 2009 (UTC)

To make all these discussions relevant, I would like to point out that the quick deletion is definitely not appropriate if even PROD is too controversial. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Message) 02:21, January 16, 2009 (UTC)

I will not get that far - the same article writers who put {{hangon}} on A7 eligible pages are some of the same ones who will revoke their own articles. Now, if you say that a 3rd party is likely to pull it out, then you are right, it may be too controversial for A7. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Delisting

It does not look like it will be anywhere. I intend to remove it from WP: CENT in a week unless there are some developments. Stifle (talk) 20:45, January 17, 2009 (UTC)

I started this page. Continue and delete it, I will repeat it if the discussion restarts. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia