Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 20

20 February 2016

Federal Way Public Academy

Federal Way Public Academy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin wrote, "The article's subject is found to lack the required notability to have a stand-alone article." I do not see such a consensus in the AfD.

Secondary schools generally are considered notable. Federal Way Public Academy educates students in grades 6–10. Editors disputed whether educating to grade 10 rather than grade 12 was notable enough. "Merge" editors said the school was not notable because it is is not a diploma-granting high school, while "keep" editors noted that this American school "educates to the school-leaving age in many countries so does count as a secondary school".

I provided reliable sources about the school from the Federal Way Mirror, The News Tribune, and The Seattle Times that demonstrate the school passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. "Merge" editors asserted that coverage by papers in the Seattle metropolitan area was insufficient to establish notability because they are local sources.

An American high school that teaches up to grade 12 is considered notable because there is a presumption that there are local sources about it. It is not necessary to find non-local sources for diploma-granting high schools to establish notability. The same standard should apply for an American high school that teaches up to grade 10. There was no consensus in the AfD that the local sources were insufficient to establish notability. Just Chilling and I believed local sources were sufficient, while DGG, John from Idegon, and Onel5969 did not. As I noted in the AfD, The Seattle Times is the largest daily newspaper in the state of Washington. Coverage in a regional or statewide source like The Seattle Times strongly establishes that the school is notable.

I have not contacted the closing admin prior to taking this here because the closing admin wrote at User talk:Coffee/Editnotice, "If you want to ask me about a deletion I made, take a look at our deletion policy. If you aren't satisfied with my actions or want them changed, feel free to take it to deletion review, and leave a note here saying that you opened a discussion there."

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus per Cunard without prejudice towards opening a merger discussion. No one, not even the nominator supported deletion, so this should not have been brought to AFD. !Votes on keep v. merge were closely or equally divided. There were reasonable policy/guideline supported arguments on both sides (although the underlying notability seems to be solidly demonstrated). A well-framed merger discussion is the best way to approach the matter, rather than one using deletion criteria as the starting point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse I do think that the discussion there was leaning towards a merge/redirect rather than a keep. The main arguments for keeping were that it's a secondary school or high school and those are presumed to be notable. I don't actually see any evidence for the claim that secondary schools are presumed to be notable and WP:OUTCOMES contradicts this by saying that middle schools usually aren't notable. High schools are presumed to be notable but as pointed out although the age range of this school overlaps with high schools it isn't itself a high school. Cunard offered some sources, but the other editors who analysed them concluded that they were all local and/or press releases. I can see where both sides are coming from on the question of whether the Seattle Times coverage elevates this beyond local coverage and so I don't think we can treat that as a knockdown argument. I don't see how the fact that this educates beyond the school leaving age in some countries is at all relevant here. Hut 8.5 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• High schools are presumed to be notable but as pointed out although the age range of this school overlaps with high schools it isn't itself a high school. – there was no consensus in the AfD that "although the age range of this school overlaps with high schools it isn't itself a high school". Some editors in the AfD agreed with your stance that a school with overlapping grades with grades 9–12 high schools are not high schools. But a roughly equal number of editors said that a school with grades that overlap with grades 9–12 high schools should be considered a high school. From High school:

  A high school (also secondary school, senior school, secondary college) is a school that provides adolescents with part or all of their secondary education.

  Because of this disagreement, and because Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability are met through the sources I provided, there is no consensus for a merge.

  Cunard (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Actually no. Only one person argued that the subject is a high school after John from Idegon pointed out that the grades corresponded more closely to middle school. While I'm not too familiar with the American education system that comment does look pretty clearly wrong and wasn't backed up with evidence when challenged. I don't see how your definition is relevant here: it is true that high schools provide people with secondary education, but it certainly doesn't follow that all secondary education institutions are high schools. In the case of organisations we have to interpret the GNG through the conditions at WP:NORG, and verifiability isn't relevant here at all. Hut 8.5 00:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• The "keep" AfD participants were aware that some of the grades corresponded with middle school while some of the grades corresponded with high schools. John from Idegon's pointing out that some of the grades corresponded to middle school does not invalidate the "keep" AfD participants' views. To discount their reasonable views oversteps the bounds of administrator discretion.

  From Wikipedia:Notability:

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

  As noted by the guideline, WP:NORG, a subject-specific notability guideline, cannot be used to delete articles that pass the general notability guideline.

  And regarding the WP:NORG argument, two editors (Just Chilling and I) thought local sources could be used to establish notability while three editors (DGG, John from Idegon, and Onel5969) did not. There is no policy-based reason to choose one side over the other.

  Cunard (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can make that inference. Until this edit the article contained an assertion that the subject taught until grade 12, which would make it unambiguously a high school. With the exception of that one reply by Just Chilling every other comment which asserted that notability was gained through it being a high school was made prior to that edit and didn't indicate that they were aware the school did not in fact teach until grade 12. After that edit Keep proponents switched to discussion of sources.
  The primary criteria of NORG outline how the GNG should be applied to organisations - namely what exactly constitutes significant and independent coverage in that topic area. If an article on an organisation tries to demonstrate notability through source coverage then these criteria need to be met. I don't in fact see anyone other than you arguing in that AfD that your sources constituted more than local coverage, but I can see three people arguing that they did not. Hut 8.5 10:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Wrong forum  The use of admin tools was not proposed and none were used.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not the wrong forum. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 20#Zach Collier, "In December 2009, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge generally was in favor of allowing DRV to review 'merge' or 'redirect' decisions. I agree with the position that DRV should review 'merge' and 'redirect' decisions because an AfD close as "merge" or "redirect" should not be immune to community review at DRV if an editor believes the consensus was assessed incorrectly." Cunard (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Cunard is completely right in this--as I understand our current practice, it can be done either way. Taking it here can sometimes have the advantage of settling the issue rather than possibly leading to an edit war. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

He may be right about the forum but he is totally mistaken in his interpretation of WP:ORG. Its entire purpose is to provide a higher hurdle than GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations explains that it provides alternative criteria to WP:GNG for demonstrating notability. The purpose is not to provide a "higher hurdle" and the criteria do not supersede GNG. The section WP:NSCHOOL also states this very clearly. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overturn to Keep, noting strong arguments supporting a merge. There was no consensus to delete, for sure. I respect the closer's call of a rough consensus for a merge, but AfD should not be mandating the complex task of merging non-trivial articles. Until merged, I see no suggestion that it should be pseudo-deleted. Discussions on the details of the merge may reverse the decision, especially with more sourced material being introduced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse, but. Yes, there was a rough consensus for merge (to what is now Federal Way Public Schools) and it seems at least the first three "merge" !voters thought to retain some or all of the content. However, the AFD nominator in their nomination[1], later comment[2] and subsequent action in creating a redirect[3], has not been distinguishing between merging and redirecting. The creation of the redirect was, indeed, disrespectful of the AFD discussion and its close.[4] The problem I see is that placing any substantial amount of this content in the target article will make the target unbalanced to the point of looking silly. I don't know what's best here but I think the outcome owes more to point-scoring over the article that any wish to help the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)