Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfield High School (Massachusetts)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I do see the request for a relist, but I don't think that's needed here. Since an outcome of delete is not going to result from this discussion, I'd suggest continuing the school age/source depth discussion on the Talk as it does not need to be limited to ~ 7 days at AfD. If those involved in the discussion don't feel a consensus is possible, it can be renominated. Star Mississippi 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Greenfield High School (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG, run of the mill high school, a search for sources turned up a mix of primary sources, database entries or mentions. Since the deprecation of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schools are not automatically notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Massachusetts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment reviewing the article history the original prod was back in 2007 and the page was deleted. As the prod was back in 2007, I don't think it should count against a soft deletion outcome. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nearly everything I have found is WP:ROUTINE, but this source [1] mentions a Greenfield High School for young ladies. See page 256. Is this the same establishment? If so it appears to have a considerable history that bears further searching. If this school is much more modern, though, I doubt it is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Greenfield, Massachusetts#Education. It is usual to redirect non notable schools to their school district, which is Greenfield school district in this case, but the district has no page either. But, Greenfield is the only city in Franklin County, and is co-extensive with the school district. Not only is that a suitable location, it is also the best place for a reader to find contextualised information about this school. It is already mentioned in the education section and this page has nothing notable beyond that. I did carry out searches. There is a PhD thesis that did some research here (a primary source) and the usual slew of news reporting, mostly about former students who have passed away, but also a teacher who took the school to court for not giving him Good Friday off and other such. But these are all WP:ROUTINE and WP:PRIMARY. I was unable to locate any history or in depth information about the school beyond what the school rankings sites carry. Nothing from which the page could be expanded. Does not pass WP:NORG nor WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
SourcesAll universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
- The Republican articles
- Kinney, Jim (2014-03-02). "First phase of new $53 million Greenfield High School is under construction". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "The first phase of a four-phase, $53-million reconstruction of Greenfield High School is scheduled to be completed in August. The project, being done by Boston-based Shawmut Design and Construction, will result in nearly all of the high school being torn down and replaced in stages from now until December 2015, said Michael Kearns a project manager with Shawmut."
- Contrada, Fred (2012-05-02). "Greenfield votes overwhelmingly to fund new high school". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "At a little less than 160,000 square feet, the new building will be about 6,000 square feet smaller than the present high school. It is designed to accommodate 585 students. There are 477 students at the Lennox Avenue school at present."
- Serreze, Mary C. (2015-09-02). "Brand-new Greenfield High School opens its doors (Photos)". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "The building features new science labs, 20 new classrooms, a modern cafeteria, and 1000-seat auditorium. Indoor athletic facilities are completed, while some outdoor sports facilities are still under construction. The 160,000 square foot building is designed to accommodate 585 students."
- Contrada, Fred (2014-08-20). "New Greenfield High School to open Sept. 2". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "The doors to the first completed phase of the Greenfield High School reconstruction will open Sept. 2, when students return to the new facility for the 2014-2015 school year. The new building on Lenox Avenue features mostly classroom space. It is part of a $66 million project to replace the 50-year-old high school, which was located on the same site. The next phase will involve the demolition of the older part of the complex to make way for a new auditorium, gymnasium and science labs."
- Kinney, Jim (2014-03-02). "First phase of new $53 million Greenfield High School is under construction". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
- The Recorder articles
- Curtis, Chris (2015-09-01). "First day of (new) school: Shiny new Greenfield High School opens its doors". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2015-10-06. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "After two years of construction and millions of dollars, the new Greenfield High School opens in its entirety today for the first day of school in a building that looks nothing like the old. ... The four new science labs include hooded chemical stations, windows, counters and a lab with a sealed floor and drains, where glass tanks were already filling up with reptiles, a hedgehog, two bearded dragons, and other empty tanks stood ready for poison dart frogs and aquatic life including crabs and a 100-year-old box turtle."
- Johnston, Thomas (2024-09-20). "Ceremony held to rename athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to "Donna Woodcock Field"". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "The athletic fields behind Greenfield High School officially have a new name. The Greenfield City Council voted on August 21 to rename the athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to “Donna Woodcock Field” and on Friday, the dedication ceremony took place. ... Woodcock coached the Greenfield High School field hockey program from 1982-2005 and the softball team from 1989-2004. She later spent time as the Green Wave athletic director and was also the school’s principal."
- Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-13). "Four Corners principal to take helm at Greenfield High School". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "Effective July 1, Discovery School at Four Corners Principal Michael Browning will take the helm at Greenfield High School following Principal Derek Morrison’s June 1 departure. ... Morrison has served as principal since January 2022. Although Morrison declined to comment on the reasoning behind his exit from Greenfield High School, he said he is proud of the school’s growth over the course of two years."
- Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-08). "Greenfield High School revives Drama Club with production of 'Myth Adventures'". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "After a four-year hiatus, the Greenfield High School Drama Club will return to the stage for its production of “Myth Adventures: Five Greek Classics.” ... Faced with a limited budget, the club found creative ways to ensure the show went on as planned, recruiting the help of the school’s life skills program workers to sew curtains from the Salvation Army into robes and togas."
- Poli, Domenic (2024-01-25). "Greenfield High School students appeal to policymakers for help on local issues". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "Roughly 40 Greenfield High School students convened in the building’s library Thursday to talk with policymakers about the issues important to them.The YELO (Youth Engage with Legislators and Officials) forum fostered roundtable discussions on substance abuse, homelessness, school supports and Greenfield’s economic development. Teachers coordinated with the DIAL/SELF AmeriCorps program to facilitate the event, complete with pizza, drinks and snacks."
- Curtis, Chris (2015-09-01). "First day of (new) school: Shiny new Greenfield High School opens its doors". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2015-10-06. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
- Kincade, Katrina (2020-05-06). "Greenfield High School to hold graduation at Franklin County Fairgrounds, followed by parade". WWLP. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2024-10-01.
The article notes: "Greenfield High School has found a way to have their senior graduation while adhering to social distancing protocols. The new ceremony for the 69 graduating seniors will take place at the Franklin County Fairgrounds on May 30th. ... The principal of the school, Karin Patenaude, has been with the class since 6th grade."
- The Republican articles
- Cunard, how are any of these more than WP:ROUTINE? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. The lead of Wikipedia:Notability (events) says:
Greenfield High School is not an event so Wikipedia:Notability (events) is not the applicable notability guideline.This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed.
The applicable notability guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which this school passes through having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- The school is not an event, but what you have are non notable events that constitute routine coverage and do not provide WP:SIGCOV, which in this case is a school, subject to WP:NORG per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I am all for treating public schools a little less stringently than WP:ORGCRITE, as they are not commercial companies trying to game the rules, but WP:ORGDEPTH is still clear that
So SIGCOV is not achieved by ROUTINE events that are neither notable in themselves, nor give anything from which an article may be written. So to put my question another way, which of these sources provide us with suitable ORGDEPTH coverage? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
- The school is not an event, but what you have are non notable events that constitute routine coverage and do not provide WP:SIGCOV, which in this case is a school, subject to WP:NORG per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I am all for treating public schools a little less stringently than WP:ORGCRITE, as they are not commercial companies trying to game the rules, but WP:ORGDEPTH is still clear that
- WP:ROUTINE redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage. The lead of Wikipedia:Notability (events) says:
- Keep: the coverage provided above is beyond sufficient for establishing notability. As evidenced by the quotes, the sources include detailed significant coverage on a wide range of encyclopedic topics to be expected in a high school article:
- Campus design and construction
- Student population
- Science program
- Athletic history and facilities
- Principals
- Drama club
- Library activities
- Graduation ceremonies
Left guide (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, just to clear the air, WP:NSCHOOL stipulates that public schools are only required to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG but not necessarily both. Only private for-profit schools are required to pass both GNG and NORG. So if anyone wants to argue against notability, GNG is the yardstick; we're not raising the bar higher than the guidelines demand. I'll quote NSCHOOL below:
On another note, as Cunard says, WP:ROUTINE is wholly irrelevant to this discussion because it's on a guideline page that refers to notability for event articles, and this article is not about an event. Left guide (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.
- And WP:ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. It never is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And WP:ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG.
Wrong, ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting NORG; it's directly in the NORG page. And WP:SIGCOV describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG; it's directly in the GNG section:
The source quotes furnished by Cunard above meet that standard, and hence the GNG is satisfied. Left guide (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- This is rules lawyering. To meet GNG you need SIGCOV. You cannot ignore what NORG says about SIGCOV for an organisation and rely on a lack of clarity in GNG to pass something on a string of trivial mentions. The question is always what encyclopaedic article can be written from the sources. Cunard gives us 3 sources. Yes, it looks like more, but Cunard knows, and carefully numbered them 1-3, that multiple articles from a single source count as one source when considering notability against GNG. Now if we look at the three sources we see that:
- The Republican is a Springfield local newspaper. All the coverage is on the school building programme. We do get the acreage of the site and knowledge that this school opened in 2015. Newspaper coverage of the opening and things like residents voting to borrow money to pay for it etc. are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, local interest and provide no depth about the school. It fills a set of facts but I do not see any of those meeting GNG.
- The Recorder covers Greenfield and the whole of the county, but is again a local paper. The coverage looks routine to me, but there is a little more here. This is in depth about a principal [2] but says almost nothing about the school. This one is about the drama club [3] which is relevant to school life, and I would be interested in a discussion as to how that could meet SIGCOV. To me, it looks routine that a local paper talks abaout a school drama, but there is, at least, something to discuss there. This covereage of an appeal to policy makers [4] doesn't look due to me and contains no SIGCOV of the school. So again, I do not see how any of this meets GNG.
- WWLP is a local TV news channel. A short piece saying they will hold a graduation with social distancing. [5] That is routine/trivial coverage. Also, again, note that this is very much a primary source, so does not count towards GNG. A report about how a local school will be conducting graduation is unequivocally a primary source.
- Now to meet GNG, you need multiple sources with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is not that. GNG is not met based on these three local news sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and wait and see what others have to say. Left guide (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Left guide's analysis about how WP:SIGCOV—not WP:ORGDEPTH—is the applicable guideline for a non-profit educational institution like Greenfield High School. These sources provide significant coverage about the subject. This is demonstrated through both the quotes I've shared and Left guide's excellent summary of the different aspects of the school covered by the sources. These are secondary sources as they contain a "synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (WP:SECONDARY). Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require the sources to be non-local. It does not require the sources to be non-routine. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- We all agree that SIGCOV is applicable. And SIGCOV is, by definition, not trivial coverage. And no, WWLP telling its viewers that the local school will be holding a social distanced graduation is a primary source for the school. There is no synthesis, it is reporting. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and, indeed WP:PRIMARY especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the size and volume of the quotes provided by Cunard, it's far above and beyond trivial coverage. Trivial coverage would be if the main story is about something fundamentally different and the school is mentioned incidentally. For example, if there was coverage of a bank robbery that said
Officer Smith sped past Greenfield High School on the way to the bank.
That's trivial coverage. The sources provided here are clearly focused on the school in a direct, in-depth manner, and thus SIGCOV is satisfied. (Hint: the name "Greenfield High School" is in virtually all of the titles, usually a strong indicator of SIGCOV) Left guide (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)- I did look at the sources, and I discussed them above. But apparently we want to talk about meta issues and not the sources. I specifically indicated one I would be happy to discuss as to how it meets SIGCOV. I cannot see that any of them meet GNG though, let alone multiple. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the size and volume of the quotes provided by Cunard, it's far above and beyond trivial coverage. Trivial coverage would be if the main story is about something fundamentally different and the school is mentioned incidentally. For example, if there was coverage of a bank robbery that said
- We all agree that SIGCOV is applicable. And SIGCOV is, by definition, not trivial coverage. And no, WWLP telling its viewers that the local school will be holding a social distanced graduation is a primary source for the school. There is no synthesis, it is reporting. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and, indeed WP:PRIMARY especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Left guide's analysis about how WP:SIGCOV—not WP:ORGDEPTH—is the applicable guideline for a non-profit educational institution like Greenfield High School. These sources provide significant coverage about the subject. This is demonstrated through both the quotes I've shared and Left guide's excellent summary of the different aspects of the school covered by the sources. These are secondary sources as they contain a "synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (WP:SECONDARY). Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not require the sources to be non-local. It does not require the sources to be non-routine. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and wait and see what others have to say. Left guide (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is rules lawyering. To meet GNG you need SIGCOV. You cannot ignore what NORG says about SIGCOV for an organisation and rely on a lack of clarity in GNG to pass something on a string of trivial mentions. The question is always what encyclopaedic article can be written from the sources. Cunard gives us 3 sources. Yes, it looks like more, but Cunard knows, and carefully numbered them 1-3, that multiple articles from a single source count as one source when considering notability against GNG. Now if we look at the three sources we see that:
- And WP:ORGDEPTH describes what constitutes significant coverage when meeting GNG. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. It never is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Source assessment:
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Kinney, Jim (2014-03-02). "First phase of new $53 million Greenfield High School is under construction". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Contrada, Fred (2012-05-02). "Greenfield votes overwhelmingly to fund new high school". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Serreze, Mary C. (2015-09-02). "Brand-new Greenfield High School opens its doors (Photos)". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Contrada, Fred (2014-08-20). "New Greenfield High School to open Sept. 2". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Curtis, Chris (2015-09-01). "First day of (new) school: Shiny new Greenfield High School opens its doors". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2015-10-06. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Johnston, Thomas (2024-09-20). "Ceremony held to rename athletic fields behind Greenfield High School to "Donna Woodcock Field"". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-13). "Four Corners principal to take helm at Greenfield High School". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Cammalleri, Anthony (2024-03-08). "Greenfield High School revives Drama Club with production of 'Myth Adventures'". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
Poli, Domenic (2024-01-25). "Greenfield High School students appeal to policymakers for help on local issues". The Recorder. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01. | ~ This source doesn't discuss the school as much as the others, seems borderline or ambiguous as far as SIGCOV
|
~ Partial | ||
Kincade, Katrina (2020-05-06). "Greenfield High School to hold graduation at Franklin County Fairgrounds, followed by parade". WWLP. Archived from the original on 2020-05-15. Retrieved 2024-10-01. |
|
✔ Yes | ||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
Left guide (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Most of those sources are routine coverage in the local newspaper. If that coverage counted towards NORG or GNG every local business would meet NORG or GNG.Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- That source assessment is clearly problematic as I had already reminded you that, per WP:SIGCOV
There are three sources there, not 10. The three sources are the Recorder, The Republican and WWLP news. All of these are local news. Also, sources should be secondary sources, and you have not considered that point at all. Why didn't you consider these points? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- As Cunard says, there's no requirement in GNG for sources to be non-routine or non-local, so not sure why that argument continues to re-appear. Also, most local businesses have to meet both NORG and GNG, which is a significantly higher threshold, but WP:NSCHOOL allows public schools to be exempt from NORG if they pass GNG, and this is a public school. I split up the table into ten sections for ease of table construction and readability. The "significant coverage" section in particular would be incomprehensible if source text from multiple publications was lumped together. Primary sources in terms of news mainly refers to breaking news, as in events that happened live or just yesterday or the past few days per WP:PRIMARY:
I don't have the time right now do a sentence-by-sentence analysis of all of the sources, but if I did, it would show there is very little primary news reporting. For some of the sources, it's only in the first one or two sentences, and for others it's none. Left guide (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
- As Cunard says, there's no requirement in GNG for sources to be non-routine or non-local, so not sure why that argument continues to re-appear. Also, most local businesses have to meet both NORG and GNG, which is a significantly higher threshold, but WP:NSCHOOL allows public schools to be exempt from NORG if they pass GNG, and this is a public school. I split up the table into ten sections for ease of table construction and readability. The "significant coverage" section in particular would be incomprehensible if source text from multiple publications was lumped together. Primary sources in terms of news mainly refers to breaking news, as in events that happened live or just yesterday or the past few days per WP:PRIMARY:
- Keep. The sources and analysis provided above by Cunard and Left guide show that this subject meets WP:GNG.Jacona (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage that meets WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This is my source analysis. As I note, there are three sources here. To meet GNG, we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. We are not there yet, which is presumably why we cannot WP:HEY the article yet. We don't have anything to build an article from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Source analysis by Sirfurboy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Why are we artificially raising the notability bar by using the NORG source table rather than the GNG table? It has already been established in WP:NSCHOOL that public schools only have to meet GNG. Note how the two keep !votes from folks largely uninvolved have affirmed notability via the topic's compliance with GNG. Left guide (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is an NORG table, because a school is an organisation and those are the relevant subject notability guidelines. It does not matter though, because NORG says
these criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline
. The only difference in the table is there is a specific column for primary/secondary sources, rather than including that consideration in SIGCOV. But GNG is quite clear on that point, saying:"Sources" should be secondary sources
. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is an NORG table, because a school is an organisation and those are the relevant subject notability guidelines. It does not matter though, because NORG says
- Another source: Greenfield Gazette (page 41, published in 1892), quoted as follows:
THE GREENFIELD HIGH SCHOOL.
In March, 1852, an article was inserted in the warrant for the annual town meeting to see if the town would raise a sum of money for the support of a High school, as required by the revised statutes, and to build or purchase a school house. The matter was referred to a committee, Geo. Grinnell, W. T. Davis, Daniel W. Alvord, H.C. Newton and John J. Graves, who reported the following year. The law required that every town containing 500 families should maintain a school in which, in addition to the branches of learning usually taught in the common district schools, "instruction should be given in the history of the United States, book-keeping, surveying, geometry and algebra," and that such school should be kept for the benefit of all the inhabitants of the town, ten months at least, exclusive of vacations, at such convenient places in the town as the inhabitants shall at their convenience determine. The committee reported that no time should be lost in acting upon the matter, and recommended that an arrangement, if practicable, be made by the town with the village school district, for a lease of one or more rooms in the schoolhouse to be used for the High school for the larger part of the year, and that a like arrangement be made with the proprietors of the house for a select school near the North Brick meetinghouse, for the other portion of the year-this arrangement to continue for such time as the town should decide.
This plan, however, was not carried out until 1855, when a High school was organized. A small room was obtained, capapable of containing, said the school committee in their report, but not accommodating forty scholars. The schoolroom was fitted up in what was known as Davis' hall, in as cheap a manner as possible, as a temporary arrangement. Mr. Lather B. Lincoln of Deerfield was employed as the first teacher, at a salary of $50 a month. The school in this location was successful. In the autumn months it was removed to the hall in the schoolhouse at Nash's mill, "from a desire," said the committee, "of accommodating a larger number of our fellow citizens." "Here," continue the committee, "the terms of admission were modified, and a class of youth gained admittance whose objects and aims were in many respects foreign to the business of a schoolroom, and as a consequence much precious time was wasted, and the hopes of many were disappointed."
At the close of that term, the school was resumed at its old location in District No. 1. But the principal having been chosen to a seat in the Legislature, resigned, and Charles F. Vent was selected to succeed him. The expenses of the school for the first year were $696.14. In the school year of '56-7, the school was moved from Davis' ball to a room in the house of the Misses Stone. It opened with fifty scholars, all that could be accommodated, and a number were refused admission, for want of room. The town appropriated 8000 for the High school, and at the end of thirty-two weeks it was closed for want of less than $200, which was required to complete the term of forty weeks prescribed by law.
March 2, 1857, action was taken by the town relative to the selection of a location and the building of a house for a High school. Henry W. Clapp, H. C. Newton and Albert Smead were the committee previously appointed and they reported in favor of a location on Chapman street, and submitted a plan for a schoolhouse, 36 by 40 feet, built of wood, two stories high, which should have room for 140 scholars-70 in each of the two rooms– with "large entries for each sex." The cost was not to exceed $4000. A vote was passed in accordance with the recommendation. Rufus Howland was the chairman of the committee who had the construction in charge, and the entire cost of building and furnishing was $5240.
The Chapman street building was used for the High school until the new building was erected on Pleasant street, in 1872. The building committee having in charge the erection of the latter were C. C. Conant, A. C. Deane and D. H. Newton. The cost was $21,327.16.
Left guide (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is interesting, because every source provided to date has suggested the school opened in 2015. If the school has been there for 150 years it is much more likely to be notable. You will note my comment of 27 September regarding a Greenfield High School for young ladies that was mentioned. But what we have not established yet is that these are the same establishment. Has the same school existed for all this time and been rebuilt in 2015? Or was there an earlier high school that existed and ceased to exist? The above source itself is primary, but I would expect there would be much more on the school if it did have such a long history. Note to closer - Request a relist so that we can pursue this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well actually no, the school didn't open brand new in 2015, and the previous sources don't seem to explicitly suggest that either. At least a few mention an "existing" or "present" school. If you read this source initially furnished by Cunard above, it says
The project calls for the existing high school to be razed except for the auditorium. The new building will be constructed around that.
It also goes on to sayAt a little less than 160,000 square feet, the new building will be about 6,000 square feet smaller than the present high school.
So there is evidence that this big construction project about a decade ago involved the near-total demolition of the original school while preserving its auditorium, and the new one was built on the same site. For our purposes, it's the same school. Left guide (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)- That does not say that the replacement school is the same entity. But again, all that is required is to discover sources that show otherwise. I would be particularly interested to see if there were a centenary celebration. Such events usually attract histories, and the history would be both secondary and extremely useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
That does not say that the replacement school is the same entity.
This is bordering on pedantry. The sources say that the same exact project involved the demolition of the old version and the construction of the new version which was built on the same exact site, with the same auditorium being part of both versions. At some point, we have to exercise some common sense and editorial discretion. We can't expect sources to satisfy us 100% over the most mundane qualms someone can create, or they would be unreadably long; this seems like "sky is blue" territory. Left guide (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)- Welcome to the joy of working with primary sources. Your proposed synthesis is probably right, although there are examples where it could be wrong. I started typing one such example out but I don't see the point of deflecting discussion on a meta argument about what constitutes the entity. The point remains that the sources we have are not up to scratch, but if the school is the same school that has been in existence since 1852 (and we still do not know this) then I believe we will find sources with some more digging. We could keep arguing, or we could search for the sources with some hope now that this will be fruitful. Which would you like me to do? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- That does not say that the replacement school is the same entity. But again, all that is required is to discover sources that show otherwise. I would be particularly interested to see if there were a centenary celebration. Such events usually attract histories, and the history would be both secondary and extremely useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also disagree with the claim that it's a primary source. That source was published in 1892, and chronicles history between 1852 and 1872, so between 20 and 40 years prior. That would be like if something published today chronicled the history of a school between 1984 and 2004, certainly far enough removed to be a secondary source. On another note, newspapers.com shows 97,401 results for "Greenfield High School" in the state of Massachusetts (out of 175,662 total results for the term worldwide), but I don't have a subscription, might be helpful if someone who does can examine the coverage available there. Left guide (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I checked newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library in my WP:BEFORE, most of the results were the local newspaper with wedding announcements of former alumni. Lavalizard101 (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can access newspapers.com through the Wikipedia library. However there is a service issue affecting access. I have discovered that some browsers can work despite the service issue. For instance, I just accessed it using Brave, having explicitly chosen "shields down" for the site (www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org). I could not get it to work in Safari and I have limited success with Chrome. See if you can access this. You should be redirected to Wikipedia library login: [6] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well actually no, the school didn't open brand new in 2015, and the previous sources don't seem to explicitly suggest that either. At least a few mention an "existing" or "present" school. If you read this source initially furnished by Cunard above, it says
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.