User talk:Just Chilling/Notability of schools

Draft

  1. Verifiable public (ie municipal) high schools
  2. or are accredited private high schools with at least 50 students
  3. or are elementary or middle schools that meet any of:

           * occupy a listed building.
           * are at least 100 years old.
           * have achieved the highest award/rating available in their country at least twice.

Discussion

Hmmm, this is a creative way of saying that every school is notable. No American school can fail... Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Substantially tightened criteria. TerriersFan (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You should even tighten it more, by removing the first and second of thecriteria. According to WP:GNG it is the notability that should be backed up by sources and references, not the mere existence. The number of pupils is a very arbitrary criterion. In certain context (big cities!) even a school of 500 pupils can be totally non-notable, while in the country-side a school can be notable while being smaller. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are my two bits:

1) I am not sure what you mean by (for elementary/middle school) "occupy a listed building" ... does that mean a "notable building" (OK), "historic building" (seems ambiguous), or "a structure" (can't support this as criteria).

2) One of the bigger issues that I encountered in assessing school articles doesn't seem to be addressed here (or it is, but I am not sure that I agree with it). What about schools which have closed in the past (especially schools that closed prior to 1960 or so; arbitrary date)? In many cases, there are scraps of news about these schools. A few show up as "national or state historic places", which I guess is OK, but in other cases these are stub articles with very little chance of legit expansion. These schools meet one or more of your criteria, but otherwise probably are unencyclopedic. Certainly, if there really is enough reliable sources to construct an article, so be it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

I am looking at this from a UK perspective, as neutral terms one side of the pond are inflammatory on the other. In UK speak- public means a private school for the very wealthy- publically-funded is neutral.We call them state schools. A high school is not quite as explosive- but is used in parts of the UK to refer to a secondary school attended by th 78% of youngsters that fail a selection test at 11, in other parts of the UK it is the general term for a publically funded school, that does not have special status. None of the remaining Grammar Schools are high schools. Recent highly controversial government decree has forced secondary schools to give up their high school status and become academies. Middle schools were abolished in the UK 20 years ago- they catered for secondary age pupils, and primary aged pupils and were technically secondary schools. (Exceptions to this in a few counties also). In the UK a secondary age child is one over 11 though no top age is defined- compulsory school leaving age is currently 16.

-* that are at least 100 years old is totally unacceptable- all schools controlled or aided by churches are over 100 years old- no school that is secular is 100 years old so this is a good as saying only Church School may be included. *occupy a listed building again favours the schools for the rich, and not the state school that must apply rigid building specs and mainly have new builds. *have achieved the highest award- favours schools with the best qualified parents as awards correlate to intake.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Do I translate it correct that your prefer a term as "schools at secondary level" instead of "secondary school"? And so on with "schools on primary level" and "third level education" (= in my opinion universities and the like) Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, TerriersFan is doing an excellent job in putting together a proposal, I am just pointing out that from a UK perspective the words that are being used have a different meaning- secondary school is a correct UK term, it has nothing to do with levels it is the correct term for all the schools we are discussing. "schools at secondary level" is an incorrect term- in UK English a Secondary school provides schooling for "pupils at a secondary level". There exists in the UK the wording primary education that can be divided into infant education and junior education, secondary education which can be divided into compulsory secondary education and post-16 education, and then tertiary education. Hope that helps.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I went wrong by mixing up secondary level with highschool. Secondary level is correct, but if I am correct highschool could better be avoided (if possible). Also because a highschool in the Dutch context is a type of third level education, more or less comparable with a technical or specialized university. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I would agree entirely that an arbitrary 100 year limit isn't really going to be helpful - partly for the reasons Clem gives and partly because stuff isn't notable just because it's a year (or seventy) older than something else imo. I can see why it's convenient to have something like this, but I'm not certain that it's really going to help (and is also going to open up an awful lot of Primary school stubs all of which need someone to watch them in case a helpful parent sticks a lot of promo or copyvio material on them (or the head of the school down the road sticks a lot of counter-propaganda on...)

I'll also throw in that it's not unknown for middle schools to be treated as secondary schools in this part of the world (indeed, all of them are in Suffolk anyway). Which causes issues again with the terminology. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The rules proposed seem completely arbitrary and subjective which is contrary to core policy. The general notability guideline is quite adequate so adding superfluous rules would be contrary to WP:CREEP. Warden (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)