• The lighthearted acronym is intended to suggest that this should not be taken too seriously.
• The scoring system is related to my own personal agenda, as follows:
  • Stubs have no value unless they grow into articles. The contributor of a stub is issuing an open invitation to others to jump in and work on the article before the contributor gets around to working on it. But the contributor of a stub has a responsibility to work on the stub and expand it if nobody else does.
  • High schools have such limited interest that stubs are not likely to grow.
  • Stubby high school articles are useless because a simple Google search on the web almost always provides better and more up-to-date information.
• Stubby high school articles do not provide a headstart on future articles. Someone who wants to write a decent article about a high school is just as well off starting from zero as starting from a stubby article.
• I am personally willing to tolerate good articles about non-notable high schools.
• This scoring system tries to define what I think is "good enough."
• The bar is set deliberately low.
• I'm trying for a quick, easy discrimination between bad articles and acceptable articles, not a way of distinguishing fair, good and superb articles.

I don't believe elementary schools, middle schools, junior high schools, etc. belong in Wikipedia unless they are truly, genuinely, notable on a level of national importance. I would not expect more than a handful of schools to be this notable. Froebel's own kindergarten would meet this standard; so would the first Montessori school in the United States; things like that. If I were going to formalize BEEFSTEW I suppose I would deduct three points for a junior high or middle school, six points for an elementary school, or something like that...

• I copied several comments about BEEFSTEW, in hopes of making it better.--AAAAA 03:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like those criteria, and I think I'll use them. I'm changing my vote to keep. Cool Hand Luke 17:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, BEEFSTEW is a good system for this. – Quadell (talk) (help) 22:45, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a good start as a system, but if it gives this article a 7 while Montgomery Bell Academy gets an 8, then it seems apparent that this tool is inadequate. There seems to me to be an obvious gap in both quality and notability between the two articles that's far bigger than the numbers indicate. Gamaliel 23:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Gamaliel is probably right, but how could you improve BEEFSTEW? Improving scoring systems might serve to improve articles about high schools--AAAAA 23:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • On BEEFSTEW:
    • The criteria 'A'-'E' are poor indicators of whether an article (on high schools or otherwise) should be kept or deleted.
    • 'F' promotes "notability by association", which I believe is a poor guideline (and is generally rejected on VfD).
    • 'G' -- the "notability by national media mention" principle is sometimes used to bolster an article's case on VfD, but usually only if the media attention is due to notability, and not the other way around.
    • 'H' is an excellent measure.
    • 'I' is a little nebulous, and probably points mostly back to 'A'-'E'.
    • 'J' is good, I think, but will be more significant if and when Wikipedia is large and mature enough for a teacher to think it a good resource for finding well-maintained, unbiased, non-trivial information about high schools.
  • Notice that a stub about a very notable school might only score 1/10, whereas a mass of trivial information about an entirely unnotable school might score a 7/10 or 8/10 -- WOT 18:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (For what it's worth, I am trying to evaluate the quality of the article, not the notability of the school, because my own opinion is that good articles about non-notable schools are tolerable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comments on improving. Why is the score only limited to 0-9? Do all of the selected items really have the same importance or value? How about adding national awards? Say ratings in national surveys or if a US school 2 National Merit scholarship awards in a year or 3 students in a 5 year period. Does the fact that a school did well 30 years ago mean it should be included today if it is not doing as well? Are all magnet schools automatically listed? Does a district that has a lot of magnet schools make it harder for other schools in the district to get listed? Does the fact that a notable resident created and helps fund the school affect the BEEFSTEW score? Should it? Should notable teachers affect the score? The presence of a completed info box should add to the score. Vegaswikian 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment on US/western centric comments. While many of the comments may reflect this, I think it's because schools of interest to others would actually be placed in the WP for their language. I would not expect that everyone speaks English so it would be easier for them to add schools to other WP projects. Vegaswikian 18:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• The featured Caulfield Grammar School article meets all the requirements of the BEEFSTEW, if you want to cite an example of a first-class school article. Harro5 01:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• This is an excellent tool, and well thought out process, for determining school notability. I love the "bar is set deliberately low" part. A little effort goes a long way. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will school articles be kept up to date?

• We shall ask another question:
  • If anything changes, will the article be updated in time?
• This is a vital question. What if the school changes its principal? Something as bad as false information is outdated information. I don't think many high school articles, despite of frequent edits, will be updated in time. Most of us will not check the name of principal once it's in Wikipedia. This is not a good idea. If that article contains some other information known by insiders only (such as a science project, or a scandal ...), how do we update it if anything changes? Except for some magnet schools, I against nearly all high school articles. -- Toytoy 04:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: If concerned about contributing information which may become dated in years time, simply date the statement in preface. For example, "As of 2005, Mr. Daniel Smith is the senior principal of BEEFSTEW County High School." --GRider\^talk 20:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I don't think that's adequate or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be relatively timeless. The content should still be relevant in 100 years. Ephemeral information should be edited out. Slapping a date on the content and then failing to update the article does more harm than good to the credibility and usefulness of the encyclopedia as a whole. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • • A lot of information on WP is both in flux and unlikely to be updated, but that is a common feature of all encyclopedias — I recently came across a WP article on a city that said something like "As of 1870, the population is 5000". "As of 1870"!! I think that the article's source was EB1911, and that encyclopedia had been unable to find more recent information... VivaEmilyDavies 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry you disagree. While Toytoy's concerns are valid, "as of" dates are frequently used on Wikipedia to mark content which may be subject to change in the future. A cursory scan of articles about recent U.S. presidents validates this. If these marks are good enough for the President of the United States, why not a high school principal? --GRider\^talk 22:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The average number of editors and completely-up-to-date sources available for a US President is several thousand. The average number of editors and up-to-date sources available for Woop-Woop Lutheran Primary School is bound to be somewhat smaller. And for good reason. Slac speak up! 22:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • So, if I understand you correctly, the number of editors dedicated to a certain subject validates or invalidates this as a resolution? As Wikipedia grows, so will the number of editors available for each "Woop Woop" school, as you put it. --GRider\^talk 23:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Firstly, the number of available editors and sources is an excellent indication of the utility of a given article. If it's exceedingly low, the article will be information-poor and (as discussed above) out-of-date/unverifiable, rendering it useless. Secondly, the number of editors on Wikipedia is not and never will be infinite. Wikipedia will always have scarce resources - so it's best to allocate these to the topics that are most worthwhile (and not in a way that reinforces systemic bias). My point is that number of editors/sources *in this case* reinforces (not determines) the subject's lack of noteworthiness. Wouldn't it be better if all the effort devoted to the Schoolwatch were devoted towards, say, the Culture of Azerbaijan article, an area where there is a genuine and pressing dearth that affects Wikipedia's repute as a source? It's a matter of what readers expect to find in an encyclopedia. They don't need to reference it to check up on class timetables.
            • On a side note, it's interesting to see that you respond to me when I post in another user's namespace, but not in your own. Slac speak up! 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Suggesting an alternate documentary subject, such as Culture of Azerbaijan, seems more appropriate to discuss with authors of fictional subjects rather than non. --GRider\^talk 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • I dunno. I think the idea of the Wikipedia is to be consensus-driven. While editors may choose to contribute to articles where Wikipedia is lacking, when there are other articles they may prefer, they're under no obligation to do so. If people want to make articles on schools, let them (but try and keep the quality up).
                • On the side note: It is very interesting to see GRider engaging in discussion. I hope it's something we'll see more of :) --Kieran 06:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, I do believe that the number of editors ought to be a factor in the decision. There is a certain critical mass necessary to be reasonably sure that the article is on enough watchlists to be protected in the long-term from subtle vandalism and/or from the inclusion of unverified or biased content. Very small or obscure topics are very difficult to protect. Rossami (talk) 14:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • I beleive that someone made a request for a feature that shows the number of users watching a particular article somewhere (but I can't remember where). Does anyone know any more about it? Thryduulf 15:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                • I vaguely recall that it was shouted down largely on the basis that it would be a powerful tool for vandals - they'd be able to confine vandalism to articles that they know no one's watching, and thus go undetected longer. —Korath (Talk) 11:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Returning to the question: If anything changes, will the article be updated in time?

Actually, I think the answer is: Yes! Why are stubby high school articles a problem in the first place? Because when anyone under the age or 20 (or over, for that matter) starts editing Wikipedia and wants to contribute by adding or editing an article which (a) they have special knowledge on but (b) might not be there yet ("Frist post!"), their high school is a natural choice. But if they find that their school already has an article, but that (say) the listed principal is wrong, they can and hopefully will discover that purty blue [edit] link and fix it. Remember, schools have a constant stream of students flowing through. I'm inclined to suspect that school articles will tend to receive just enough attention from precisely the vested interestes that are in a position to maintain them. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The examples listed are sooo egocentred on schools in the United States or western schools. Won't you represent schools (on this page) from the East out of accurate reflection? -- Natalinasmpf 22:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this approach actually collapses 2 issues into one. Very short stubs aren't always helful, but they are hardly confined to schools. In general (not just with schools) then we have to assume that if a subject is inherently notable then the stub will probably grow. I can see these guidelines being the subject of endless arguments. Although I am not always a drastic inclusionist, I propose to treat all secondary schools as inherently notable, as this encourages young people to get involved in Wikipedia. PatGallacher 10:46, 2005 May 20 (UTC)