Talk:Cathy Bursey-Sabourin

Untitled

 * Moving some of this discussion here, since it references this article specifically. Deadchildstar (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cathy Bursey-Sabourin‎

 * I understand you're really new. I am not. So when I say that stubs don't need tags requesting citations, please do listen; stubs inherently require citations and no tag requesting it is necessary. In addition, please familiarise yourself with Ms Bursey-Sabourin's employer, which addresses your notability concerns. I'll be removing the tags again as they are unnecessary. → ROUX   ₪  03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Roux, Thanks for your help - however, will you also be adding those required citations? I have seen many stubs tagged by senior users, so I'm unsure what difference it makes. Your expertise is appreciated. Thanks Deadchildstar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the fullness of time, yes, I shall be adding refs. I have other articles to work on beforehand. In the future, please keep your replies where the conversation started (as it notes here; I hate fragmented conversations. → ROUX   ₪  03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

 * Hi Ty, I'm contacting you because you were helpful in the deletion discussion on Visual Arts, pointing me to WP:REFB. I've having trouble getting help in general, and hoping that you'd be kind enough. I'm relatively new and still wading in. I've been systematically going through a few lists of articles, to tag them for what needs to be done, and then my eventual plan is to fix articles that can be salvaged with sources, write new articles, and if necessary, push others to deletion if there is no material available. I've run into another editor who has told me the following: Regarding Cathy_Bursey-Sabourin -- I added tags for sources. He rolled those back, saying "stubs don't need tags for improving refs; is generally notable as long-serving high-level official in gov't agency." I wasn't sure what the protocol was, but I'd never really undid anything before, and was pretty sure that everything needs a source, so I undid his edit, and said, "stubs don't need tags for improving refs; is generally notable as long-serving high-level official in gov't agency." (The discussion unfolded as above).


 * Per request on my talk page to comment. WP:Verifiability is a core policy:
 * Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

There is no exception for stubs, which should be referenced like any other material. Placing a tag unreferenced on a stub is perfectly legitimate, and it should not be removed until the problem is addressed. Likewise notable is also valid if notability is not beyond doubt. It is up to the editor who wishes to retain material to establish that it meets wikipedia criteria.

There is no bar on creating stubs. They are the seeds of future articles. However, a stub should clearly show what makes the subject notable, and the material in it should be substantiated by sound references. Otherwise it is likely to become a candidate for WP:SPEEDY.

 Ty  01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is actually incorrect. I don't have time to find the relevant page, but stubs inherently need references, and thus tagging them as unreferenced is redundant. → ROUX   ₪  01:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All material on wikipedia inherently needs references. Above, I've quoted WP:Verifiability, which is a core, non-negotiable policy. If material isn't referenced, and an editor thinks it needs to be, they are perfectly entitled to tag it as such. If you want to improve your stub-writing, check out Stub: "Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub; see citing sources for information on how to do so in Wikipedia. Once you create and save the article, other editors will also be able to enhance it." (my emphasis). References are even more important with BLP. Otherwise anyone can write anything, and say that it's only a stub, so it doesn't need to be substantiated.


 * Re. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin: is the individual holding the office of Fraser Herald notable by definition? It seems a fairly minor post in the scheme of things. That needs to be established, not assumed, or it will move towards deletion, or more likely merging.


 *  Ty  06:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She is responsible for the vast majority of the coats of arms issued in Canada since the inception of the Canadian Heraldic Authority, not to mention the artist responsible for the current version of the Coat of arms of Canada, particularly the addition of the Order of Canada ribbon. So yes, she's notable. And no, you're still wrong re: stubs; policy as it is actually practiced deprecates the usage of tagging such as cn, expand etc on stubs as the simple fact of being a stub means those things are required; users have been blocked for repeatedly doing so. → ROUX   ₪  01:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)