Template talk:Prod-nn

Untitled
Refer to Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles. Addhoc 17:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Current wording is misleading
The template's current wording is misleading. The template states: "'This article is about a subject that lacks sufficient notability for inclusion.'" Since notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources about a subject, a claim that a topic is not notable is logically unfounded unless one examines every reliable source in existence. "Is not notable" is an extremely strong claim to make and should be backed up by more than a boilerplate template. The previous wording of "may not be notable" was weak and vague, but the current one is much too strong and essentially impossible to prove. Please change it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith Addition
I was surprised by the recent |change to the text of prod-nn. I have been using a custom similar version  A good faith effort to validate the claims of this article was not successful, fails WP:N and WP:V . I am guessing that might be some others who are similarly surprised by the change as some of us (me included) have occasionally used prod-nn based only on the article content with out doing a search for references before posting the prod tag. Considering the general current consensus about WP:PROVEIT with more of a burden being put on the challenger I would agree that this is an appropriate change. I would request that if someone has a concern about this recent change they address it here, rather then reverting. Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggested change
 * Add -Wikipedia to the google query to remove mirrors
 * Change first sentence to read; A good faith effort to find sources has failed to find significant or sufficient reliable sources to meet notability and/or verifiability
 * Jeepday (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Addhoc 22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * personally, I think it's too complicated, and also fails WP policy. I understand the good intent, and I think I understand the significance of the exact wording, but I doubt a newbie will be able to figure out easily why it says sufficient & significant, both of which are terms of art in WP, as are N and V. Not am I happy with the implication that it is always necessary or appropriate or sufficient to use GN and GS and GB. I do not think this template meets policy. There is no deletion for failure to find sources in Google. DGG (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have better wording by all means suggest it. Clicking on the name of the article (example at Dhoper chop) takes you to Google web; Google news, books and scholar just add to the potential for finding references.  While there may be an article on Wikipedia that it is under-referenced, appears to be un-notable, does not bring in hits at google books or google web and is truly is notable it would be an exception, that only the most astute editor could catch.  What policy do you think it fails, and what could be done to improve it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * for historic subjects that is by no means the case, as we have to remind people of AfD every day. DGG (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Example Jian Yong a minor Chinese figure from around 200 AD gets 60 hits on Google books and 5 when combined with Liu Bei. I am sure there are also examples of significant historical figures who do not hit on Google books.  WP:PROVEIT Does not require the challenging editor prove beyond doubt that the subject is not notable (as that would be impossible) but does suggest that the challenging editor make a good faith effort to find references.  The placing of the Google query on the prod-nn indicates that the challenging editor has made a good faith attempt to validate the claims of the article and it makes verification of that claim easily available, a level of verification above the requirements of WP:V and WP:N, but a good practice per current consensus. 12:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

another problem
I just noticed on prod patrol another difficulty with the template--it does not specify what the subject of the article is about. Normally with the prod template, some one says, e.g. "prod|non notable fictional character " or "non-notable minor actor with no evidence of notability" or "local australian politician" or something of the sort--I place several prods each day usually, & I always give some indication, so that people scanning can see if it is in their field of interest. I try to look at new prods once every day or two, to see quickly if there is something altogether wrong--for example, something which should have been speedied as an attack page,which happens a few times a week, or screening the ones that have expired to see if the deletion is justified, I only want to look at the ones I can be expected to have some ability to understand. I don't check popular musicians of manga or sportspeople usually, for example. Unless someone gives some indication of the field of a subject, I have to check them all. This could be modified by adding a field " specifically=" or "article on=" but this would make it even more complicated.

I am interested in encouraging the greater use of prod, and this template--though very well intentioned--does not do it. I do not see immediately any way to improve it enough. It fails he WP:N and WP:RS policy in suggesting that google is enough, and it interferes with prod patrol. I recognize it was intended to encourage use of sources before placing a prod, but it may have the opposite effect.

DGG (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is 4 consecutive examples: 3 of them I consider mis-use.:
 * Bavojigudam: this is a village, and notable regardless of sources at Google--all villages whose existence can be shown are N.by repeated decision at Afd. . I'm leaving the prod on for the moment as an illustration.
 * Here is another: your own example, Dhoper chop the article has a RS from a major Indian newspaper. Perhaps it is not sufficient, but there is a source.
 * Flaming Carlo -- here's one where yes, google will support if anything will--& it doesnt. Made up in the bar one day. But I'd have assumed it from the title to be a band, not a drink.
 * Children's traffic park at Shivaji Garden is an Indian theme park. I do not expect sources on Google. I expect them in minor Indian newspapers. (anyway, the search string has a technical error).
 * Chief Raven Fox Google finds his tribe's web site. (2004) There may be sources from hints there.--they probably have a print newspaper--it would take expert work, or at least work with the right resources.


 * The template does allow the user to indicate article subject - the format is optional subject area. Addhoc 10:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * DGG between the two us we often find a line to disagree about on deletion. It is always friendly and when tested at AfD I think we probably come out about even on which way the community will decide to go (but I don't keep count, so may be wrong).  Posting a prod is Proposal for deletion that should be uncontroversial, we all make that make judgments on what that is.  There is no requirement that the challenging editor validate that every possible resource has been checked before submitting a proposal.  A Google search does represent a good faith attempt to check for references and currently I am not aware of a better single source.  As for the 5 above, Bavojigudam could be referenced and the prod removed; Chief Raven Fox might have a chance of surviving an AFD I would be happy to take it there if you would like.  The other three are not likely to surviving AFD.  We all do our best to improve Wikipedia, often spending hours searching for references for a multitude of ignored articles. As I mentioned above the additions to this template raise the standard of challenging above the requirements of WP:PROVEIT and increase the likelihood an editor will actually check for references before prodding an article.  Life is calling so ...  Jeepday (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's understood we are trying to accomplish the same thing in this case, encourage the use of prod, and encourage people to check sources. But this template will inevitably be used wrong--a template is a guide for others, who will not all be as careful as you.  In particular, it will encourage the use of G as sufficient for nonWestern and historical sources as a criterion, and thats the basis of my objection with respect to policy. I fully understand your desire and mine to have people do at least G, for not all of them do; Perhaps you are saying that at present this is so important that the problem about other sources is secondary, and you may be right.  Let me think about possible wording. DGG (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Jeepday (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not linking to Google Scholar?
I have recently noticed that clicking on the 'scholar' link created by this template does not return results. Rather, it takes me to the Google Scholar main page, with the full URL reading: scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=200000000000

Have others noticed this problem, or is it perhaps a problem with either my browser configuration or user error by editors adding the template? If this is in fact a problem with the template, can it be rectified? Cnilep (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Google news link wasn't working
The Google news search link wasn't working, since Google changed how they structured their news search not all that long ago, so I've taken the liberty of updating the URL used to the new form. It doesn't default to searching the archives, but it does actually go straight into a search. Feel free to tweak it, but I figured a working link was better than a dead one. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No minus wikipedia
The template does not appear to be adding "-wikipedia" to the searches to eliminate mirrors. There seems to be consensus above to do that. Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)