Talk:The Engines of Our Ingenuity

Notability
IP editor 108.7.3.183 asserts that the article has met the notability requirements and so has removed the template added by Seasider7 in March 2011. IP editor has not justified this action against the General notability guidelines.

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

- first line of WP:GNG

The general criteria definitions for notability and this editor's are:


 * 1) Significant coverage: In the article there are two sources—it's a short article so two sources are probably enough if they meet the constraints of the other criteria;
 * 2) Reliable sources: Problematic as both of the listed sources aren't really secondary sources;
 * 3) Independent of the subject: Again problematic because the WYNC source is clearly associated with The Engines of Our Ingenuity so it fails the independence test. Similarly, the University of Houston source is clearly associated with Dr. John Lienhard as his employer so this source, too, fails the independence test;
 * 4) Presumed: This editor presumes that the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if some diligent editor can address sourcing discrepancies noted above.

The  template alerts editors that the sources for this article don't meet the notability criteria. Only after the source issue has been resolved should the template be removed.

IP editor is invited to be that diligent editor who will address these sourcing discrepancies.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense
I know you Trappist. I've experienced you many times in my efforts as a former "logged on" editor and now in my occasional efforts as an IP. I've been you. Look, you are working yourself into a tizzy just so you can show how big you are and win in a fight with a poor "naive" IP. Look what you've done here: You've patrolled and controlled a three-sentence page for changes. You reverted multiple times with a blunt axe (reverting multiple changes while only justifying one). I even had to point out your own logical errors errors in one of them. While the unjustified notability tag was the only imperative issue at hand, you tried to distract and "graciously invite" me to add to the article. You've done this twice now. AND, you've imposed your will without discussion with anyone else, just the fact that you will be around longer than me. You're little more than a bully.

With the amount of effort you've put in to your stumbling and strained justifications (that aren't a defacto standard anywhere else in WP), you could have been that "diligent editor" and added content. What a waste. You win. I won't revert. I don't have any more time for your crap.

108.7.3.183 (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I say something about the "unjustified notability tag"?
Looks like this argument blew up and blew over before I noticed it happening, so I don't suppose anything I say now will affect 108.7.3.183's opinion. But there's something I feel the need to say anyway, even if it's only for the historical record:

108.7.3.183, why are you still railing against this "unjustified" Notability tag? Six months ago, when you first tried to remove the tag, I explained the justification in my edit reason when I put it back, and in more detail in a message on your talk page. Both Trappist and I have provided links to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I find myself wondering if you've actually listened to anything either of us have said. — Paul A (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved
The article has been substantially updated and resourced since the comments above appeared. References 1, 2, 3, and 4 are: a) reliable; b) clearly independent/secondary; and c) collectively representative of significant coverage. The article thus meets the notability criteria mentioned above. I've therefore removed the tags. Fiske (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)