User:DGG/deltalk

Useful links: User:DGG/userhelp, WP:AFD, WP:PRODSUM, WP:CSD, WP:DELREV WP:DP
 * The comments below are only models, not fixed boilerplate, of what I have said at various times in AfD and similar processes. They are here for convenience--but I always modify them to fit the circumstances, as votes in XfD debates should be accompanied by individual reasons. There, if you wish to make use of any, please take care not to use it in the same discussion that I do, and modify them according to your own opinions on the topic, which will be at least as good as mine.

Advice to young contributors:

Please excuse the formality of our standard form notices. We've had to delete the article--when you become famous, someone will write an article about you. In the meanwhile, see WP:CTW for some things to do around here. And let me remind you never post your full name and age and school anywhere public on the Internet, at least till you're over 18. If you're not clear why, ask one of your parents or teachers.DGG (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP NOT

 * there is no section of WP:NOT called NOT#linkfarm, NOT#LINK does not refer to this sort of IPC material, NOT#INFO gives 5 types of material to which it applies, none of which are remotely this one. NOT#LIST mentions only "loosely-associated"  but nowhere gives an example relevant to this sort of material or defines loosely-associated. So where is the policy you keep referring to repeatedly?DGG (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Current WP standards

 * From WP:DP
 * Speedy: Pages that are suitable for immediate deletion and which can obviously be deleted on sight (see criteria for speedy deletion; examples include patent nonsense, pure vandalism and certain housekeeping situations).
 * Prod: Articles whose deletion should be uncontroversial but which don't meet the "utter rubbish" criteria for speedy deletion. This is often used for articles which appear to have genuine content but which the deleter feels are not suitable content for Wikipedia, such as advertising, vanity articles, and the like.
 * From CSD
 * CSD:Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is likely to be controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.
 * CSD:(NOT)Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.
 * Very short articles: As explained above, some very short articles can be speedily deleted, but if they have content and offer sufficient context to qualify as stubs, they cannot be.
 * NOR "The case against the article seems to be that WP:V allegedly requires secondary sources. In favt, WP:V says no such thing. The relevant policy is WP:NOR, which says "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." (Brownlee)

general standards

 * the victims who are written about individually in newspaper articles or the like become notable, no matter how many. It is not we who make them notable, but the press coverage. Articles are written about things and people that the public in general finds notable. If the newspaper reading public finds every death in a war notable, then so they are. We just record N, not establish it.. (re Pin Khotchathin)


 * . I think we must still stick to the principle that any person with 2 RSs is notable. I find it highly counterintuitive-I think it leads to peculiar results-I think the community ignores it when it applies to news figures and crime victims and the like. But the more I see of AfD the more I think that firmly maintaining this as sufficient in absolutely all cases and sticking to it would eliminate about half the unnecessary wikidrama--it would have completely eliminated all of the very time consuming repeated afds of the last few weeks.

use of tags
Hope that helps! — iridescenti
 * Despite the fact that a lot of people over-use it, there are not that many occasions when a prod (or an AfD) is suitable on "first sight" of an article. If you come across an article such as this where you're not certain of its acceptability, consider tagging it cleanup for poor writing, expert, for pages needing expert attention, notenglish for articles written in a foreign language, npov for bias, stub for a short article or verify for lack of verifiability. Only if the article fails to improve for a month or so after tagging should you consider proposing it for deletion in most cases; those articles which genuinely should be deleted straight away can generally be dealt with by speedy deletion. The main exception to this is hoax articles, which should be brought to AfD for consensus.
 * but there are plenty of articles you have prodded/AfD'd yourself (True History of the Kelly Gang, Jaye Griffiths etc) that are so obviously notable by Wikipedia standards that proposing them for deletion looks like vandalism.— iridescenti

advice on preventing overuse of tags

 * 1. continue re-examiningthe criteria for speedy to see if they can be worded more precisely. It may not sound like this would help those who ignore them anyway, but it will, for it will provide a clearer ground for convincing them of their error.
 * 2. Monitoring CSD., Anyone can remove a speedy--it does not have to be an admin. (anyone but the author of the article). Once it has been removed, it cannot be replaced.
 * 3. questioning all deletions that appear clearly invalid. The first step is to ask the deleting admin for a copy of the article. If he will not supply one, all admins will who list themselves in   Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. If you think it really unjustified, ask the deleting admin to restore, and if not, take it to deletion review. Every single time where you think there really is a good case--don't bring ones that are technically invalid speedies but hopeless otherwise.
 * 4. Those of us who are admins can of course directly monitor deleted articles. I gave my desire to do so as one of the reasons fro wanting adminship, and it was almost unanimously accepted. Of course, I also had to demonstrate that i did know what ought to be deleted and was willing to delete them--and I do--I delete about one dozen articles a day personally.
 * 5. A speedy-deleted article can be recreated if in good faith even without deletion review. Just make clear in the edit summary and the talk page that it is an improved article and meets the objections raised. And make sure it really does meet them.
 * 6. Use the tag . It gives a week if used in good faith.
 * 7. when patrolling articles, use WP:PROD whenever possible, and notify the author. This gives a decent chance of improvement. If it can not be improved in the 5 days, it leads to rapid deletion, as is generally appropriate.
 * 8. show you know the difference between good and bad by helping spot the great amount of absolutely impossible articles that still exist in wikipedia.
 * 9. (and most important) -- when you come across an article you can help, help it. -- posted at VP (miscellaneous), 8 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Asserting notability:
'' in any policy or guideline.
 * I also take issue with the concept that the article has to assert notability. it has to demonstrate notability. I've seen articles listed for deletion because the editor didn't think of using the exact words. I do not see the words ''the article has to assert notability


 * WP:N
 * Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc. (emphasis added)
 * Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy. (emphasis added)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc (emphasis added)


 * Notability and sources. . In looking at some recent bios, still being put in by the ed., and the rate of one every two minutes, the principal source seems to be the eds. unpublished master's thesis:  Billy Hathorn, "The Republican Party in Louisiana, 1920-1980," Master's thesis (1980), Northwestern State University at Natchitoches, which probably  does not count as a published RS,  . It also raises the question of whether the articles in WP are being put in wholesale by downloading them indiscriminately.  In any case I want to remind the ed. that the fact that someone has an obit. or a listing in a book is not proof of notability per se; if they have done notab\ble things, then the source documents it, but if they have not done notable things, no amount of sources saying so make for notability. DGG 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * from WP:Notability/Arguments (essay)

There are no objective criteria for notability besides the Search Engine Test (note: many editors do not consider those tests to be objective or reliable), meaning that individual assessments of notability can display systemic bias. "Non-notable" is generally a non-NPOV designation. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included.
 * Notability cannot be measured for some historical and international topics

Because there is no simple measure of notability, many subjects that are historically notable, or notable in regions with little internet presence, are deleted based on the modern test of "I can't find information about them online". In addition, subjects from regions that do not use the Latin alphabet may have content online in their native language, but little or no content if searched for with the Latin version of their name. Most historical persons of note, in their time, do not have information online, because Google is not the repository of all knowledge. An online search, for historical persons of note, is biased toward modern persons, therefore should not be the criteria for determination of notability. (emphasis added)

There are two levels. One is the notability required by WP:N as explained by WP:PROF, to have an article in Wikipedia, which requires a substantial reputation recognized by third parties and normally shown by multiple heavily-cited articles in peer reviewed journals in science, or by a number of books published by established scholarly presses in the humanities. The other, applying to all articles, is an assertion or indication of some sort of notability, which is all that is required to pass speedy. Almost anything is acceptable here, even though it will clearly not pass WP:N. Saying someone has published a book, saying someone is a professor, saying someone has an award, any of these all by itself is an assertion of notability. It doesn't have to be proven--it just has to be something that a reasonable person would think might possibly qualify for an article. The idea is to exclude bios saying, for example, John is the coolest guy in my school, or those saying Peter Smith worked as an accountant for 20 years and then retired. We get dozens of each of these types a day, and of course we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible. But anything that might possibly  be developed into an article is not speedy. If it asserts something that seems clearly inadequate, the best course is PROD; if the prod is challenged, which usually does not happen if a good explanation is written for the author, then AfD. If the article is undeveloped, then an tag for "expand", or "notability" or "unreferenced" together with an explanation to the author--possibly followed up in a month or two--is the best way.
 * Speedy vs WP:N
 * Clearly, you very well understand the first part about actual notability. As for the second, if you have any doubts about what i am saying, by all means recheck WP:CSD or ask at its talk page. The article initially met only the minimal pass for speedy. Later, as you say, it showed actual notability.

Controversy

 * A "Global warming controversy" page should include as much "Controversy" as can be put into it, or should be deleted. --Childhood's End

Lists

 * Use correct process If it is desired to change WP policy to eliminate articles on lists, the correct place is the Village Pump. If it is desired to change the criteria to eliminate lists about the subject of songs, propose that at the appropriate workgroup; But if it is proposed to eliminate this particular list for some particular reason, please give the reason. If the reason is that you think it's stupid, please explain, as I don't think that's one of the usual criteria; if you mean it's useless please explain where that criterion is to be found and how you have come to this conclusion.  Indiscriminate deletion is as bad as indiscriminate addition.

over deletion

 * A good test is an edit summary "does not seem N to me" or the like. Now, to me can be intended as an expression of modesty, but very often seems to be an expression of ignorance.
 * I do not try to delete things I've never heard of. And "Vanity" is not fatal, because articles can be edited to minimize POV and COI. It an be just as easy to remove the puffery as to propose for deletion.

100 year test

 * The 100 year test is not a generally accepted criterion--I think if it were formally proposed now it would be soundly rejected. WP is not intended for the 22nd century, but is an encyclopedia intended for current use now, and whatever part is still relevant in 100 years will be of historical interest only.We are likely to have far more sophisticated reference sources by then.  re Richard Wright, politician. DG

Other stuff exists
To say use the argument properly, it is necessary to show either that this is worse than the other stuff, or that the other stuff cited is not representative of the general practice, and should probably be deleted also. When there is a considerable number of other comparable articles of similar quality, then there are two possibilities: One, it is in fact the usual practice of WP to keep such articles -- which is of course a good reason to keep; or Two is is the practice to keep them, but the policy should be changed to not keep them--which is a suitable reason to keep this particular case and try to change the policy. DGG (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC) at Articles for deletion/List of CEP vendors

acad world
this establishes notability much more strictly and reliably than we could here. The profession establishes notability; WP just records the fact.
 * Notability for academics is typically established by their publications. People become full professors by writing notable research papers. That the papers are notable is established by their being published in peer-reviewed journals. The review by two or more specialists in such peer review establishes those papers as evidence of N. For appointment, for promotion to associate professor, for tenure, for promotion to full professor, they pass stringent reviews by peers, including particularly peers from other institutions.
 * In general, nobody writes magazine articles on professors, and they dont get a biography until they retire or die. Therefore, since notability in each field is judged by the standard of the field, and notability in this field is established by publications and positions, their publications and positions are always considered suffficient, as is explained more fully in WP:PROF., and consistently maintained at AfD.
 * The standard there is more notable than the average. Ninety published papers is far more than the average. DGG' 05:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An appointment as senior scientist at a lab like NIST is essentially equivalent to full professor at a research university.

You certainly may not agree, either in general or for this person. -- and AfDs usually have a minority saying NN in such cases.--you can and should take it there and join in the arguments. But speedy is meant for incontestable cases--"Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under deletion policy is recommended." & " If the assertion is likely to be controversial .. the article should be nominated for AfD instead."--though most of them recently seem to go to prod first. Speedies involving university faculty are almost always contested and controversial.
 * In general, Associate professors are often considered N on WP--depends on how many papers, etc. (Asst. Profs.only sometimes, Full professors almost always) The speedy you just placed has been removed, and an explanation of what to do put on the talk p.


 * Some professors do fail NP V (especially physicians, at least lately). But much more common are those where the article is simply not written to WP standards, though the subject is clearly acceptable. There are articles stating a persons title, saying X books, and no more. It is clear from the position and title that there will be more, but whoever put the article in didn't bother, often from ignorance. (and this happens with artists etc also.) I often know that for about 1/2 hr each I could put enough in, but I did not come here to do just this and nothing else. I do it when there is an outrageous gap, like John Tyler Bonner--the person who wrote it didn't even put in that he was a member of the National Academy of Science. Otherwise if there is a recent author I give him a somewhat more detailed list of what to do than the template message--I have yet to standardize it.
 * Problems arise from people who are reckless with prod and especially speedy, from those who overrate or underrate the academic world, from those who do not understand there is scholarship in the humanities, from those who use GScholar on everything. It usually over-deletes, but it can work the other way.  I've just said delete about an article for someone with 3 papers, all cited, but no professional work since the PhD. 5 years ago--although there was support for him, based entirely on a misreading of Google Scholar results.


 * In science, at least in the US & the UK, anyone with a PhD who has any hopes at all of an academic career will have at least one as a minimum, and, by the times he's finished the post-doc 2 or 3 years later -- which more or less corresponds to the Habiliation--and is ready for a beginning Assistant Professor job (in the UK, Reader), will have at least 2 or 3. (I had only 5, and only 3 of them were first-class journals, and consequently got a job at a third-rate university). In humanities, where there is no formal step between the PHD and Assistant Professor/Reader, one is expected to have a scholarly book manuscript accepted. My wife did not have that, and got a job at a junior college.  To get tenure in science at a research university,  (Associate Professor in the US, Senior Reader in UK),  one needs at least five first-rate publications; in humanities, the fixed standard is two books. Nowadays, 3 journal articles can substitute for one of the books, except at the highest level. For full professor, people don't count your publication--they count the publications of your doctoral students. (College that are not universities want much less, but even they want something published)
 * At AfD, it is now accepted that Full Professors at good research universities will be N, and Associate Professors sometimes, but Assistant Professors almost never. For people still a post doc, it is not impossible--I think we passed one post-doc in that period, who had clearly established a new field.
 * If I had my choice, I would set the bar one step lower, at Associate professor--at a research university. I don't think an Assistant professor is actually committed to an academic career--if one doesn't get tenure, one looks for a job at something else, or at a lower-grade school. At that point, I became a librarian.
 * Setting it at only one publication is way below what people will accept,and way below what I think makes sense myself.

The subsidiary factor of PhD students made the difference, as I saw it. To be blunt, for countries where we don't know the quality of national journals or publishers, I look for internationally known ones.
 * So the problem with Lewandowski is A/ what is the level of his university, B/ what is the academic level of his books, and C/ where were the papers published. A Technical University (Technische Hochschule) can be as good as the universities, but not all are. B/ --they looked like textbooks or symposia, none from an International publisher, C/ No international journals.


 * Holding a postdoctoral fellowship, even a distinguished one, is not necessarily or even usually notable. A postdoctoral fellow can be notable, but they have to have done something significant. Any presumption of notability that one applies to full professors at major universities does not apply at lower ranks, and there are several lower ranks than that until one gets to him. Being the president of a major national or international professional association is notable, being just a member of the executive committee is not. We must judge by the record for WP PROF and by the outside substantial references to the work for WP BIO. As for PROF, he has not authored a single book. he has written no more that 4 or 5 journal articles or book chapters. He has translated a number of standard English books into Greek. A person can be notable primarily as a translator, but except for translators of major creative literature, where the role of the translator is itself creative, it would take really strong evidence & I see none. As for being an authority in a speciality, I see at the most that he is a specialist in firewalking in some European cultures--not even in firewalking as a world-wide phenomenon, let alone anthropology of religion generally. As for the sort of substantial third party references that would satisfy WP:BIO, I see none of them. What I do so is that his friends think well of him, but we do not base the encyclopedia upon personal testimonials. As for academic testimonials, I wouldn't think much of one which said merely "take my word for it". When he has authored several well reviewed books and has a major academic tenured position, then he might be notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Xygalatas)

editorship
Keep. Being a journal editor-in-chief does meet "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". Why otherwise would she be selected. The criteria for promotion to Professor at UK universities pretty well makes anyone so selected to be notable and this academic is. --Bduke

academic journals
I hope you will add many such articles, but please examine the existing articles first to see what content is necessary. I'd be glad to help you as needed, and so would many of the editors of the physics articles.
 * Comment: How does one establish the "notability" of an academic journal in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements? People would usually cite individual articles, rather than write about the journal as such (and if somebody would, it would probably be the editor in an anniversary volume). But it would seem to me that reputable institutions and personalities of academia should be regarded as noteworthy in and of themselves, as that is where the knowledge is produced that an encyclopaedia is supposed to distill and describe. Knowledge does not just occur naturally, like apples that can be picked off a tree; it is produced in a certain institutional, social and historical context, and that is how it has to be understood. Pharamond 07:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (on the attempt to delete Applied Physics B)--
 * comment to author: I have dealt with the issue by rewriting the article (& combining A & B). You are perfectly correct that scientific journal articles should never be deleted, and there are a number of editors who will support this view very strongly--and so far, very successfully. But this requires the articles to be of a uniformly consistent standard in the first place to avoid  attracting attention from those who do not understand. I've made a temporary fix, and I or others will upgrade further.
 * comment on deletor's talk page.
 * The people who work on science articles here are indeed adding articles for every peer-reviewed journal, giving priority to those that have been mentioned in WP articles. There are about 1,000 such articles now, and there will be about 10,000 in science, (and another 5 or 6,000 academic journals in the social sciences and humanities.) Every single one of them is Notable, within their sphere: they are used as the basis by which WP establishes notability, they are listed and described in standard works off references and indexed by standard well-known indexes, and this meets the formal requirements. The details come from publishers' web sites, as is appropriate per WP:Web and the practice for books, movies etc.
 * This is a very small percentage of the content of WP--less than 1%. In general, I think it's fair to say that WP under-represents academic subjects and over-represents popular culture. Speaking for myself, I am very glad that WP provides an extensive high-quality source for pop culture, --both the aspects that I care about and the ones I do not care about.  But the same is true with other subjects--classical music, the traditional fine arts, non-contemporary literature, as well as the academic world. I'm often at AfD, and I never argue about rock music or video games, because I quite frankly do not understand the criteria, and almost none of them are notable to me. But I am glad the articles are there if I do want to find out about something.
 * There is a WP project for this, with the working page at Wikipedia:List of missing journals. But if you do not agree with the general principle, the best place to discuss it is at WP:Notability (science), and I and those more experienced than I will be glad to listen and respond.
 * But please don't go about speedying them as individual titles, for every single one of them will be contested; none of these deletions are uncontroversial, and they therefore none of them  fall in a CSD category. The overuse of speedy will possibly result in the ending or drastic limitation of the procedure--for this is being serious advocated, though not by me-- and I care about this because I think it a very useful procedure in many instances.   If you should come across one that  you don't think should be included, certainly you should say so, but probably the appropriate thing to do would be to  PROD it so the action will be visible and others can see it.  That's what I do if I think something NN.


 * Short response--
 * In general, almost all peer-reviewed journals from major publishers are usually held notable at AfD (only two scholarly journals deleted there this year so far: one from a very minor publisher not in WP but noted for its low quality--and this was near the bottom, even for it; and another published from an institute where not even the institute's own library keeps it.) The usual secondary reference is journal citation reports and  Ulrich's--Ulrich's alone doesn't do it for they list everything, but the information they list is reliable about circulation, who indexes it, how long it has been published, etc. all of which are factors relevant to notability.

earlier centuries
Dr. W. is not being written about on the basis of having a PhD, but of getting the degree, becoming a professor himself at another university, and training doctoral level students. Just getting the degree would not have been enough, and nobody is suggesting that all recipients of the doctorate would be included, any more than they would be today. (For one thing, most of them went on to law or medicine or the church.)
 * In dealing with contemporary academics, we currently generally include all full professors at research universities, either on the basis that they have been repeatedly been peer-reviewed for quality by qualified and knowledgeable senior faculty from several universities (at least 3 times in succession), or on the basis that they invariably have written a considerable number of well received works of scholarship. In the 17th century there were many fewer universities, and very few full professors in each, and so they can be assumed to have been at least as notable.
 * His coverage in the Mathematical Genealogy project is accidental, because of the difficulty of setting subject boundaries within the then very broad stretch of "philosophy" but I think this is a plus--the methods used in that project are applicable to what are now the other academic fields. The article should be edited to call him a philologist, not a philosopher, or a mathematician, on the authority of the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie--a truly wonderful resource-- and I have just done so. (He presumable presented a conventional thesis, and then went his own way.)  I have also checked for further books he may have written. Now that I realize he was a philologist I recognize the name, because he was also the University librarian.

tenure

 * All tenured faculty at major universities meet {{WP:PROF]], having passed several external reviews by experts for their notability in the profession. We don't establish notability in WP, we see if the profession has established notability. -- This doesn't apply to every college, but it does to major research universities.

HS teachers

 * delete Notability as a high school teacher could conceivably come from research or writing, though it's very rare in the US (but see Frank McCourt). It could more likely come from prominence in professional affairs at a public level; I think we probably do not have many examples here, and we really ought to. But here's no real show of it here--at least not yet.

artists

 * You have anticipated what I was hinting at--the standards for visual artists of all types seem unsatisfactory, and WP needs a better way of discriminating. I'm equally concerned about not having the important ones as inserting the unimportant--if there is anything which is hard to predict by anyone it's the future standing of people in creative fields. But I know the academic world, not the creative arts, and feel a little lost--I suggested a week ago or so that if w could get some consensus about which exhibitions are notable it might help. If they're on university faculty I am more confident because the faculty have judged them & it's possible to tell which are the good departments (my usual research university as standard doesnt always work here) --but this seems to be frequent only in the US. I also noticed a certain similarity in the format of many of the entries.

Prizes

 * Keep for now, we need more information about the notability of the Maharashtra Prize before being able to make a informed decision. As far as I can gather it is an award from the Bombay Art Society and presented by the governor of Maharashtra annually. The point is that I have absolutely no idea what the entry and awarding criteria are. Alf photoman

Classical musicians

 * Jascha_Silberstein. The article on the Metropolitan Opera, like that for most musical organizations, lists the conductors and some of the principal singers. We don't seem to have standards for orchestral musicians, but i think any of the regular members of any of the major professional orchestras is about comparable to a regular long term member of a professional football team. The leader of a section is the senior player of the group, and generally also a well known soloist on his instrument, as is Silberstein. The opera orchestra  gives concerts of its own & tours on its own account apart from the opera company.   It's hard to give numbers, but I think it would be safe to say that the leader of a section in a major orchestra must be among the 20 best players of the instrument. Do the 20 best bass players in popular musics have articles?  Sure they do. But not a single one is  known to me, by name or by music. Notability in the field is notability, or else we will all be deleting each other's genres.  Pharamond sees it right.
 * As another comparison, think of it as members of the section being like full professors, and the principals being chairmen. Orchestral musicians are appointed in similar ways, by judgement of their peers--in classical music, usually by the even more demanding judgment by blind audition.


 * Sea Slumber Song (Elgar) If every popular song with perhaps poetically undistinguished lyrics by any one of the artists for whom this is done deserves an article, so does every song by Elgar. We shouldn't discriminate one way or the other. The top composers in one genre as as notable as those in the other. I avoid nominating or even commenting on articles dealing with music in genres where I wouldn't recognize the names of the most celebrated artists.   (not yet posted) DGG 02:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Politicians

 * Keep It has been generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N. this has sometime been problematic in the case of nations with multi-party systems, but in the US it is clear that there are two generally accepted ones. That makes only about 500 defeated candidates every two years (actually fewer, many people run more than once) ; it also means that the people who do get that far are among the 1000 most prominent politicians in the country.  (Whether candidates from other parties are N might depend on the votes).  I think that is clear and undoubtable notability. Quibbling about the details of a career or how many votes someone got is irrelevant/That's for the election campaign, not for use. WP is indeed one of the places people go to for general information, and this includes politics--certainly it includes national politics.


 * from WP:BIO: Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures - that's pretty specific. Garrie

Local heros
Nonetheless the facts are as follows: That he was at least notable in Alexandria, LA, (population about 50,000, or population the metropolitan area, about 150,000) has already been granted. He was unquestionably a successful business leader, philanthropist and community leader in that area. For whoever feels that's good enough, and doubtless there are some that do, nothing else needs be said. They can advocate keep right there. But for those who would like to see a little more than that, I fail to see how any of the above adds much to his case.
 * Where is KALB-TV? Alexandria, LA. Who co-authored that book? The wife of the lumber company's CEO. How significant is that book? Zero Ghits. Being profiled by LPB might sound interesting . . . because you left out the fact that he was one of their biggest donors. Where in WP:BIO does it say that appointment to some state board makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. Where in WP:BIO does it say being mentioned in some honorary proclamation from the Governor (seriously, do you have any idea how many of those types of things governors and mayors spew out) makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. Where in WP:BIO does it say that being honored by a board on which you serve makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. I don't claim to know Louisiana history. But so what? If you have to be emotionally invested in Louisiana history before reading his bio in order to come away from that bio appreciating how he's WP:N . . . then he just might not actually be WP:N . Mwelch 08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (re Roy O. Martin, Jr.)

Kings & other history-- Relatives

 * The argument seems to be used for not just royalty, but presidents and other heads of state and a very few people of similar importance.
 * Two reasons: just the general interest that readers have in such figures--and it can be very great, hence the popularity of historical fiction that speculates on their inner lives. Recently, this has been emphasizing the women more & and good deal of current popular history deals with them, which both for that and WP is tricky because there is a greater amount of difficulty in finding sources.
 * Other reason is their important role in human affairs & that the influences on them are worth following up. Again, the women are getting more emphasis these days.  For the case of W European royal houses, the historical interconnections in different directions are important. The easiest way of following these connections is one step at a time. It is relatively difficult to put them only as sections in articles about others, because there are usually multiple connections sideways as well.
 * How to deal with this in WP is another matter, because almost all the articles now in WP are stubs from various semi-reliable PD reference books, except where someone has gone and written a real article. There's a great reluctance to do away with the stubs, because articles will eventually be written. There's a new online ed. of Dictionary of National Biography that some of us have access to, and it should encourage this work.
 * I'm emphasizing what I know about here: and it is just as a hobby)
 * I do not think anyone here wants to do the work for a real genealogy database, which is an immense project--they would be at a different wiki.. DGG 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

religions
keep I continue to vote against deleting articles about things that I sincerely dislike, and if there's anything I sincerely dislike it's the views of evangelical Christians on abortion (& on one or two other subjects). Therefore I am aware of my possible bias, and I think we do much better to keep this rather than give the impression of expressing our own non neutral stance.

Whether this material should be a separate article or a section or a note in some of the other articles depends on the material. I would in any case certainly defend the material against deletion, as I do for all religious groups, but it will be impossible to defend as a separate article unless it has sufficient N, V,and RS in the conventional WP sense. '''[[User:DGG|DGG ' 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ministers of conventional religions have well known and stable structures and offices and distinctions, which can be used for assessing N. They also acquire their knowledge through established divinity schools of some sort, and they sometimes publish in peer-reviewed journals. This makes establishing N much easier and much more objective.


 * I consider all religions to be notable provided there is some V way of finding out about them--I think this is the only possible standard, as WP is not a judge of theological truth. Individuals are another matter--any group with more than one religious leader has some who are more notable than others in that group. It's that which can be judged objectively if there are objectively visible criteria. If not, they can still be established as N through 3rd party mention. If this fails as well, it is beyond human ability to judge.

schools

 * There is no such policy. WP:Schools says "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." Therefore schools must be judged individually according to the standards of WP:N. Even the WikiProject:Schools page says "Wikipedia:Schools - a failed, now historical discussion of school articles on Wikipedia"
 * In this case there is nothing to show notability.
 * Just like companies, a school can be notable for being a widely publicized failure. In the one case it may no longer be listed on a stock exchange, in the other, there may be no notable alumni.
 * Of the NYC public elementary schools, 2 have articles in WP. They are both excellent schools. One of them wrote a few lines about where it is located & which school board it's in. The other has a real article.
 * Let's see how this would apply: My own high school is in WP, notable for a particular recurring annual activity, and a few really famous alumni. The article also treats briefly about how the sociological nature of the neighborhood and some special aspects of its location have affected (positively) the very high college success rate, and subsequent changes. It would be possible to write a much more detailed article about that.


 * HS teachers: I often support academic-related pages, but not this  one--we have not yet extended the N criteria to high school teachers automatically--if he does win awards, come bak.DGG 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ponderosa elementary Mar 20, 07:
 * Delete This is a good example of what is not sufficient' for notability. The entire information is trivial list type data: locate, date of building, the number of playing fields, the scores on standardized tests, the 100% standardized "vision statement" the racial breakdown, the class schedule--that one keeps showing up & it still startles me--what can possibly be notable about the time that any school says the pledge of allegiance? At least it won't need as much upkeep as some, for it doesn't include the names of each teacher & the class presidents.
 * What would be the equivalent for a business organization? the size of the building and the parking lot, the names of the manager, the working hours, that they intend to make money, & when they were founded? - hopeful businesses keep writing such articles, and they all get speedied.
 * What would be sufficient for a school? Really distinctive program or building or founders--famous alumni--test site for important eduational research--major news story for one reason or another. (If we were to accept the first school in each state as N, we might get a total of 100 US elementary schools.) Just the same criteria as for every organization.  So why do we have these schools without anything to say? do we need a rule that WP is notaclassroomexercise?


 * and, there are no independent non-trivial sources. Their website and the one for the district. The profile on Greatschools.net, which is about as distinctive as myspace, and references to where they found the test scores, the demographics, and the vision statement. Every one of these are trivial, non-indpenendent, or both. Even for those who think most or all elementary schools notable, there's still this problem about RS. The distinction for N is not which level school, but the individual school. This and below are the ones that fail. DG

RSs for schools

 * Comment on the Great Schools website. As Noronton says, it lists essentially every school. The information it lists is posted by the school, and the word "great" in the title is an obvious misnomer. It is therefor an uncritical list, and inherently trivial, and cannot be used as a RS for any purpose. Ditto with DOE Websites: they list every school. Noronton argues that this makes all schools notable. I'd say that this is just about as notable as ther mere listing on amazon makes a book notable. The listings on these sites are trivial in the WP sense. Now, if somethin in such a listing is truly notworthy, and confirmed by independent sources, that is another matter. DGG
 * Comment on the Great Schools website. As Noronton says, it lists essentially every school. The information it lists is posted by the school, and the word "great" in the title is an obvious misnomer. It is therefor an uncritical list, and inherently trivial, and cannot be used as a RS for any purpose. Ditto with DOE Websites: they list every school. Noronton argues that this makes all schools notable. I'd say that this is just about as notable as ther mere listing on amazon makes a book notable. The listings on these sites are trivial in the WP sense. Now, if somethin in such a listing is truly notworthy, and confirmed by independent sources, that is another matter. DGG

Libraries

 * re Brandon_Regional_Library: Delete as absolutely nothing notable is even hinted at. In the extremely unlikely event that this particular library  becomes notable, the name can be resurrected. There's no point holding article names for the indefinite future.
 * With respect to a suggestion above, I think an article on the country library cooperative would have exactly the same problem. I certainly would support an effort to examine very critically articles on regional library systems below the state or large metropolitan area level, though there are a few that are indeed notable. (The only two I can think of offhand are Hennepin County Library, which needs an article--but in the meantime see Sanford Berman, and the Brooklyn Public Library, which is originally a city library.

places

 * "Keep, all real places are notable in WP. Therefore, any village will be considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. "
 * Actually, The relevant page, precedents WP:AFDP says,
 * "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size
 * Larger neighborhoods are notable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage
 * Smaller Suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of separate municipalities or communes (i.e. having their own Mayor).

Notability should not depend on the size or success or the nature of the community. It's a question of there being something worth writing about. There is no point in merely repeating directory information findable on the web, & if more cannot be said, there should be no article.

diploma mills

 * Keep We have consistently treated as notable any institution of higher education, accredited or unaccredited, as long as it has a real existence. Awarding degrees is real existence. One of the reasons for this is the importance of providing information about this class of institution. We serve as a filter on the web, as Jimbo said in slightly different words back at the start, and abstracting the information here for relative obscure but important topics is one of the things we do best. If if one wants individual demonstration of notability, while most of those "references" are indeed no proof of notability, but just document statements in the article, the newspaper articles are sufficient. In context, so is a governor's proclamation about the school. Such a proclamation for such an institution is notability. DGG

on web sites and blogs

 * Blogs do count just read the guideline from Notability (Web) "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web host" (emphasis added)

The blog on the Science web site, as with similar blogs at other professional sites, is sponsored by the society and moderated. Established email lists of that sort are accepted and so are blogs (especially because they tend to be the exact equivalents). We adjust to new media--if anyone should, it's us.

I mention that Notability (Web) is a guideline, not a policy. Even as a guideline, I note the wording "if the content itself is notable" it does not say: "if the site is notable"

"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"
 * from WP(WEB)

"Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents will also be either cleaned up to adhere to the neutral point of view or deleted." "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: oThis criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: oMedia re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores."
 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

more on blogs
Blogs do count just read the guideline from Notability (Web) "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts" DGG 08:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked again. As you say, it does not mention them. It says:

"This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:" and the following includes several types of obvious illegitimate stuff, but does not mention blogs. One can't interpret "published" to exclude the web, since one of the exclusions does apply to the web. As far as that page is concerned, they remain OK. So is there some other place? DGG 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

blogs and web programs and so on.

 * I do think that to judge the notability of programs and sites like this, or many blogs, etc.  by the criteria we are using is not in my opinion always appropriate. By the nature of the things, they get widely seen and widely used long before there are reliable sources in the WP sense. The Web documents itself. The place where people look to find the earliest information is WP itself, because of our presumed special interest in web related matters. We can't help it, if we have become the opinion leader. The basic N provisions are 3 or  4 years old now. The part of the world we live in is changed a good deal. I'm not suggesting rewriting, for i wouldn't know what to rewrite them to, and using Alexa rank for special interest material is like using Amazon rank for special interest books or ghits for material in Hindi -- possibly relative use among similar products is a criterion. This of course gives us the responsibility to do a little OR in establishing N, but most of the lengthier N discussions are in effect OR. We've grown up. Until we come to terms with adulthood, the best way to go is to make reasonable exceptions.
 * What would help in this case is some evidence that 2 or more universities have linked to it from their library or research help site--the same sort of criterion we use for textbooks."

prizes
The prize is notable enough for inclusion at WP, thus I see the winners become as notable as well. As the article on the prize would be unwieldy with minor bios on all the winners, it follows that an article on eash is legitimate if the info can be verifiable etc. It seems a bit trivial, but we aren't that restrictive--Kevin Murray 22:15, 12 April 2007 (re Beck's Futures arts prize ("Britain's richest art prize").

self authorship
". Siegel is a noted author with an compelling life story and an established body of work, who has been widely recognized by his peers. It seems to me the wikipedians are getting a little heavy-handed with their wanton purges based on an overencompassing vanity criteria. Self-submitted entries should be scrutinized certainly, but this should not be solely used as a convenient and to my mind, somewhat lazy excuse, to delete. Surely if his work is considered important enough for MOMA, that alone should render the request to delete moot. -- Libby Spence"

notability in field vs wider world
The above comment admits his work is recognized in his field, per GS, and says "not in the wider world." That is not the standard. Notability in the field is the standard. Read WP:N, there is no reference to the wider world, or to people in general, and for good reason: Almost every single game article in WP is not notable to he wider world. almost every single school article is not notable to the wider world. almost every single highway article, almost every railroad station, etc etc .Almost every article about specific plant or animal or chemical or mathematical theory or historical figure or book. Most music articles are notable only to those who listen to that particular kind of music--and this applies to rock as well as classical. Almost all towns and villages in the US and elsewhere are notable only regionally, and the wider world knows of their existence only thru WP and directories. Very few counties in the US are notable to the wider world, and very few radio stations, and rivers, and mountains, and even automobiles. N is judged by notability amongthose of its kind.

Companies
" Multiple instances of independent non-trivial sources (In general a publically-traded company is extremely likely to have such sources, in the form of analyst coverage). " cab, re "Galileo Shopping America Trust "

sex

 * keep the very nature of such topics makes them difficult to document by conventional sources, and if WP is to have articles about anything on this general type of subject, then documentation such as this article has is sufficient. (& considering recent talk on the N guidelines, there seems to be some acceptance of flexibility here).


 * Personally, I wonder if some of the opposition to articles on fetishes etc. is perhaps based on unconscious discomfort with the topics. Topics people are uncomfortable with, just as in political or religious topics some people are uncomfortable with--should be included whenever any evidence of them is found, lest we indirectly censor.
 * I certainly do not mean this is the motivation of anyone taking any particular position on this article--just a general comment/caution. Unless I watch myself, I find myself reacting similarly to certain types of articles.


 * Keep The nominator of this article has nominated a number of articles about non-orthodox sexual practices, and succeeding in deleting some of them. As anyone who uses an uncensored version of the internet knows, they are almost all of them in use, they almost all of them are discussed, and there are abundant illustrations, fictional and real. I do not want to speculate on others' motives. I think I know my own: they are most of them not  things I find personally appealing, except in an anthropological sense. In that sense I find all human behavior interesting, & wish to know about it -- from a safe distance--and I think that people in general do or at least should also find that nothing human is alien to them. An encyclopedia is a relatively safe place. It is better that young people first discover these thing here than on the open web, and I wish such resources had been available to me.
 * Obviously, the sources will be a little different from the usual ones. But many of the cultural phenomena today have sources that are not quite the conventional published sources, and it is time WP acknowledged it. We are finding ourselves in the ironic role of having been one of the makers of this change, but not recognizing it. (breast expansion fetish)

on authors of articles

 * Keep I continue to feel that those who want to delete it should simply add the reviews instead. It should not be necessary to defend such a work as this. The argument that a NYT review alone is not enough is wrong in any case, because it shows an inability to judge the weight of sources. all newspapers and the reviewers are not equal. When its a question of having one review from a very non-notable paper, we'd be justified in asking for another (at least).

places

 * "Keep, all real places are notable in WP. Therefore, any village will be considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. "
 * Actually, The relevant page, precedents WP:AFDP says,
 * "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size
 * Larger neighborhoods are notable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage
 * Smaller Suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of separate municipalities or communes (i.e. having their own Mayor).

Notability should not depend on the size or success or the nature of the community. It's a question of there being something worth writing about. There is no point in merely repeating directory information findable on the web, & if more cannot be said, there should be no article.

meaningless comments
I do not try to delete things I've never heard of.
 * An edit summary "does not seem N to me" or the like: to me can be intended as an expression of modesty, but very often seems to be an expression of ignorance.

long discussions

 * If there is this much discussion, she's notable

pushing

 * Delete --even if the subject hadn't tried to push his way in. When the subject is notable enough to get in, it won't be necessary.

revotes

 * Keep I didn't !vote on the earlier AfD. Of the eds. voicing at that AfD, only 2 are present here. I consider this a good example of the variability of our decision based upon the random presence of individual editors. This  tends to make me favor numerical criteria, and I think the top 5 %  is distinction enough for notability, since it has been sourced. Apr 9. Parras Middle School.

Timing of repeats

 * Too soon. As we still have no rule for this, we need to judge of general conceptions of fairness. this is a typical case,  where there is nothing additional to say. I think the general feeling here is that a month is too short, and it would be good to establish that as a prece3dent. I think the consensus might be longer, but a month is certainly too short. --DG, re Jimmy (King Kong)
 * Keep The number of noms is not evidence for deletion, it is evidence for the persistent efforts of a few eds. against general opposition to keep trying for deletion. Sometimes this is legitimate, for opinion can change. But when carried to this extent I do not think it is legitimate, I think it is knowing that the balance of people here will vary and that sooner of later chance will favor it. It is the very essence of failed procedure. Systems need closure.


 * I know that in the past it has been considered that any number of repeats are allowable, and I think it is time to change. The relatively newer people here may not feel the same as editors in the past. They may be less tolerant of procedure that degenerates into farce. There are two directions to accomplish the change--one is through changes in the policy pages, and the other is through changes in the actual decisions here, based not or IAR, but on Common Sense is the Best Rule. Both are valid methods; both should be pursued. It may take awhile until this repeated nomination is recognized for what it is, abuse of process. GNAA is a precedent to be rejected, not followed.  DGG  7 April 2007 (UTC) Cleveland steamer


 * Keep it was nominated (unsuccessfully) for deletion 5 times under the old name. The name change was made one week ago on April 22 as a result of discussion on the talk page in the hope of being less liable to deletion attempts-... I continue to dislike the practice of repeated AfDs. There is a considerable variation in the people participated in these discussions, and a considerable variety in the results. Many pages will be chance be eventually deleted without new evidence being raised on new concerns voiced, essentially by the luck of the draw. This is not a rational way to establish standards. Consensus can change about the application of  particular criterion over a number of months, but it does not change week to week.  DGG Apr 29 Films notable for negative reception


 * Keep A re-nomination after keep is in my opinion an abuse of process unless there is new information. I see it as exactly parallel to a reinsertion of unchanged material after a delete decision. I know this is not the policy yet, but it should be. what argument is there against it? If it is asserted that consensus can change, OK, perhaps renominate after a year, but then the burden is on the nom. to show that consensus has changed. An error was made,? there should be an equivalent of Deletion Review for that--it should first be necessary to show there was a  clear error.  There can be no other rational base for a renomination except the hope to get a different result by chance of who is here. Let me ask the nom, did you notify every one who comment in all of the previous discussions? It is reasonable to suppose many of them would still be interested. It is the intention, isn't it, to see the people here represent all of those interested? The previous Afds aren't even listed here. (5th nom for List of Battlefield 1942 mods.)

precedent

 * it is just a precedent, I quote, bold face as in the original, This page is not policy and This page summarizes how various types of articles have often been dealt with on AfD.  All it says is that this is what has usually been decided in the past. We shouldnt change it for an individual article, but its time we started thinking about it  once again.

otherstuffexists

 * Here's my reasoning behind this. WP:OUTCOMES states that based on precedent, licensed TV and radio stations are generally considered notable based on the limited scope and so forth. While there is no legal limit to the number of papers that can be allowed within a geographic region, the money involved in undertaking and continuing to print a daily newspaper limits the total number of daily newspapers. As of 2000, there were 1,480 daily newspapers operating in the United States, yet 12,717 licensed radio stations. If every city's radio and television stations are considered notable, why would the print media not be notable? I realize this is kind of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I think it's a valid one. By the precedents, the TV station and radio station would be notable, but the daily paper which preceded both of them would not be? (User:Smashville)

stubs
stubs too should try to establish the notability of the topic via, I would say, at least one source. -- Black Falcon

Lists
Most (but not all) of the lists at Wikipedia are also useless - they should be replaced by Categories (unless they have red links that will encourage people to create articles). Unmaintainable lists like List of Indians and List of Hindus are the worst. /User:Utcursch/about

long discussions

 * If there is this much discussion, she's notable

pushing

 * Delete --even if the subject hadn't tried to push his way in. When the subject is notable enough to get in, it won't be necessary.

use of Prod

 * (for schools) question -- might PROD be a better way of handling these articles, which will give 5 days or creation of material as  matter of course? The fewer we have to discuss here in this repetitive way, the better.

Developing offline

 * delete Might be safer to develop it off-line to avoid problems here. The number of articles successfully created and kept will be higher, & we'll have more & better articles

Hoaxes

 * Keep with a STRONG WARNING that this is a hoax. Before you say that's nuts, think about it.  This one stayed up long enough that the false information has polluted the Internet worldwide.  It's scary to see how many websites have copied, word for word, the "beer disaster" article and cited it as history.  It's an internet version of Mencken's Bathtub hoax.  Rather than pretending that it never happened, Mencken went on to point out that it had been totally false; had he not done so, it would have continued to be repeated until Mencken was discredited as a liar.  Unfortunately, if you simply delete the article, or blank it, the websites crediting this to Wikipedia will remain-- and assumed to be true.  On the other hand, if someone looks for the "beer disaster" and finds that Wikipedia advises that the article was found to be untrue, the urban legend is quickly dispelled.  Will Wikipedia be discredited?  Not a bit.  Wiki remains the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it's an acknowledgment that such freedom will not get in the way of the truth.  I would argue that it's a responsibility, since Wikipedia was, because of it's philosophy of freedom, unintentionally responsible for the spread of an urban legend.  The New York Times and the Washington Post have been victims of haxes (In the Land of the Khmer Rouge and Jimmy's World, respectively) and were all the more respected when they discovered and corrected the error.   User:Mandsford|

authors vs books

 * is the choice between two articles and zero articles? It seems more reasonable that for a slight notable author of a slightly notable book, the two together might justify one article. I think it would be better practice in such cases to keep the article on the author, because  the author is likely to have done some other things than write the book (as he has), and in any case will potentially write more. The article on the book has no such growth potential.

patents

 * One could use the h factor principle for patents; however, I have not seen it used that way yet, and there would be technical difficulties. It is quite difficult to find all the patents for an individual person, include the ones that may have been entered under the name of a company,  and sort out the duplicates, and then see which other patents cited them..  The public access databases, such as Scirus or USPTO, list some, but even Chemical Abstracts and Web of Science do not have the necessary facilities for an adequate citation search.   This sort of searching is a profession of its own, and if we have anyone here with the knowledge and the access to the extremely expensive commercial databases,please let us know.  Even having done found them all, I cannot imagine a rational way of combining this with journal article citations, for the principles about what one cites are different. Therefore, in WP, we use whatever patents we get told about of happen to find in an ordinary search. DGG

in popular culture

 * comment I think from the recent AfDs on this and similar that there is no concensus in general about the handling of the "in popular culture" articles. I have seen perfectly good arguments both ways, and myself am torn between saying that they are generally  non encyclopedic and that they represent an essential safety valve to permit better editing of the main articles. In that situation there will inevitably be contested closings, inconsistent results, abd the opportunity to change back again from repeated AfDs. DG DRV

Use of JSTOR and Muse

 * a JStor hit usually means an article about the person or thing, while plain google hits are of course usually mentions. There appear to be about 12 articles all or partially about this individual. That is historical notability. It's not finding them on Google that matters, it's that they turn out to be publications in scholarly journals. JStor or Muse are just collections of online scholarly journals--the important part is the article in the journal. They are valuable resources here because the articles in them are listed in goggle and Google Scholar, and thus everyone can see the article exists and, usually, read the abstract. In the past, it was necessary to use a library's print on online paid resources to find out even if an article existed.

for DRV

 * once more, I would probably like to comment but I can not see how to do so, without seeing the article.


 * the reason I'm commenting is because from the description the sources seem sufficient and the deletion patently unjustified. Perhaps others are here for the same reason, not the listing on a WProject page--a completely correct listing on an appropriate wikiproject page. This is one of the purposes these pages exist--to keep DelRev and AfD accessible by those interested in a subject, not just the relatively few full-time adjudicators. CSD A7 is for no assertion of N--if it is reasonably asserted whether explicitly or by the material, it should not be SD in the first place, but go to AfD. If someone challenges it in good faith it should certainly go to AfD. Otherwise the deleting admin is setting himself above the community.

Nature of the enemy

 * Certainly professor is fairly high rank in a UK University, but I think it falls below what is required for notability in the wikipedia sense. A typical professor would be an editor of a journal and loads of publications, grants and PhD students. But that in itself is not notable, in a sense they are just doing their job. On the other hand any science professor with an FRS or engineering professor who is an FREng almost certainly would be notable. My interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), 1. The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. has to be backed up by evidence that is verifiable, I don't think the result of a promotion board can be considered as that. I must declare an interest, I am a professor at a UK university. Billlion

possible policies & studies

 * it would be interesting to compare standards. He is perhaps in the top 10% of his field--(among those who have acquired the minimum credentials, a PhD) but not the top 1%, (perhaps everyone could agree on that?).
 * Then do we include the top 10% or the top 1% in other areas of human work? Do we include the top 10% of rock musicians who have acquired the minimal credentials of producing one generally released recording?--or only the top 1 in a hundred? Do we include the top 10% of novelists, among those who have published at least one novel? or only the best 1 in 100?  Do we include the top 10% or the top 1% of professional football players, among those who have ever played a professional game?
 * Some of the guidelines say more notable than the average (whatever): That's the top 50%. All associate professors in any research university are within the top 50% of those with doctorates in the field. In fact, so are all assistant professors in a research university--at least half of new doctorates never get a tenure-track job in a research university. Included in the top 50% are all associate or full professors in any four-year college and up, and all full professors at 2-yr colleges.
 * If we think the standards are those whom we could write a meaningful article about, then anyone who has obtained these minimal distinctions count, for it could be done by analyzing their work in connection with their field, their advisor, where they publish, etc.
 * What I do not think is acceptable is to say those about whom a good article is written--we are judging the subject. If the article is inadequate, by all means we should stubbify it, and then protect it indefinitely against deletion. The point of having rules is equity--judging by a fixed standard, applicable to all. DGG 02:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

merge and redirect

 * You've been asking about the AfD, which was closed merge and redirect. As is unfortunately typical, it was just redirected--in practice merge and redirect or merge is almost always equivalent to delete, except for leaving the redirect behind. This is not the way it was meant to be used, and it should be seen as a variant of delete not as keep. The change in how this closing is used has been suggested a number of times, and failed. It's convenient for the operation of AfD, and many of the most experienced people there strongly support continuing. I'd love to change it, but I do not see how.
 * But there is a practical solution: simply edit the article on transwoman to incorporate the content that you think should be there. It may be challenged--respond by citing the result of the AfD. If necessary follow dispute Resolution.  I cannot think of any other way to proceed--many of the procedures here run in the favor of deletion; AGF, its the 2nd law of thermodynamics: left to themselves, things run downhill. It takes work to build them up. If you think it's worth the work, do it.

notification

 * Those interested in this subject may possibly be interested in the ongoing AfD discussion on xxx  DGG 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note As there is apparently no Wikiproject for yyy, I have listed this discussion at the yyy portal

- User:DGG, User_talk:DGG, User:DGG/controversy, /pages to revisit, /RS, /priorities. /std talk pp, User:DGG/userhelp,, User:DGG/deltalk, User:DGG/journals, /to insert, /User:DGG/speedies, /sandbox, /projects, /WP Projects, /other wikis, /tech notes  / User:DGG/sandboxuserified/ User:DGG/sandboxuserified2, User:DGG/DelsToWatch, User:DGG/sandboxConferences , User:DGG/sandbox/libraries, User:DGG/sandbox/LCC


 * nb link to princeton ej page after protected login: http://libweb5.princeton.edu/ejournals/by_title_zd.asp

Dealing with copyvio

 * Please excuse my writing all this out at length, but I'm glad of a chance to write down my approach in full. I agree with you that this is most likely copied from a brochure of some sort. (It is however possible that it was written specifically for WP by their PR consultant in the same style as their other PR--I've seen that a few times.) It is also possible that the page it was copied from is public domain or gives GFDL permission--though usually such pages turn out to give at most permission for non-commercial use, which does not satisfy WP:Copyright.

Unfortunately, you can't delete by speedy except for unquestionably copyright violation." Some people do anyway--there are some admins who consider the policies as just approximate guidelines, and will remove anything that ought to be removed. I consider that this can be too easily extended into removing what one thinks'' ought to be removed, though consensus might be otherwise--As for probably everyone else, there is quite a lot of material I think does not belong in WP, but other people disagree.

So you've got to find the copyvio. For the web this is easy, most of the time, so the first step is to try, realising that the first sentence or some other material might be changed. And there is a substantial amount of material on the web that can be freely accessed, but are invisible to Google. then you have to try to figure out where it is likely to be, and explore. For web material that you can't access, of course, this is impossible, but that's not likely to be the case here. For print, this is a real problem. You have to know enough to figure out where it came from, and then to find it. It was immensely easier to get away with plagiarism in the print era. But I think it's unlikely that this is print-only. If you can't, there are several ways to go. If the material is deletable in some other way, that's an alternative--but I don't like stretching the rules too far, and this isn't hopelessly spammy--the history of the house is probably appropriate enough. Sometimes I just write to the author, and tell them to rework it--generally saying I haven't found it yet--they almost always understand perfectly well and rewrite or withdraw it. You can also send it to Afd--but it is not at all certain that it will be deleted at AfD if nobody can find the original. To say someone violated copyright when it might turn out that they didn't, could be considered potentially libelous.

Sometimes I stubbify it, especially if it describes a major corporation that should have an article--remove all but the identification. Because it is a recognized historic house, it probably is important. (But some people disagree with me here & think it is more important to teach contributors not to use copyright violating material. ) Sometimes, it is even possible to simply rewrite the article oneself--I will sometimes do that if it really seems worth the trouble and the original editor is no longer around. So there are the choices. I will keep an eye on it. (Barnum house) DGG

how to delete

 * Here's how to do them-- PROD is easy-- see WP:PROD. Just put at the head of the article Reason where reason can be any good WP reason at all, there's no fixed list. keep it to a few words, & make sure it indicats what the article is about so those interested in the subject can spot it. . e.g. non-notable Alaska local politician, no references Then notify the author by copying the line specified from the expanded template that appears after you save.  Now put the page on your watchlist. If the author -- or anyone-- takes it off, see if its improved. If not, send to afd. If  it stays on for 5 days, it will be deleted after an admin reviews it. If the article will obviously be contested, though, there's no point doing this. But if it's just clearly inadequate, the author often lets it be deleted.
 * AFD is more complicated. See WP:AFD and read the instructions. Then practice on one. There are basically 4 steps: you put on the header copied from there. You list it on the current AfD page. You start the discussion. You notify significant editors. If you use Windows IE, there are programs to partially automate this--they are described on the AFD page. There may also be one for Firefox.  There is one great virtue of AfD for junk--once it is deleted by AfD, any attempt to re-insert it can be speedy deleted as G4.

to those placing speedies
I must decline to delete it, because neither "non-notable" or " " is actually a reason for speedy deletion. To be deleted under the speedy criterion for notablity, according to WP:CSD, the page must make no claim to notability, and asserting someone to be a famous poet & listing his books does seem like a claim to notability. So is asserting the leadership of what is claimed to be an important organization. COI by itself is not a reason for deletion--but it is a reason for very close scrutiny, to see if the claims hold up.
 * Dubey uma dutt anjan

The article is unreferenced, except for listings of the books. Notability would require a demonstration that the books are considered important as shown by sources. If you doubt they are, you should make at least a preliminary check in Google for English sources. Add them if you find them, & remove the unreferenced tag. If you don't find any, or think it insufficient, then send it to WP:AfD, where it will be discussed, and deleted if that is the consensus.

In any case, according to WP:CSD, speedy is for articles with no claim to notability, and any bona-fide claim is sufficient--saying one is a professor anywhere is such a claim--so is saying someone has written a book, etc. The reason is that more than 1 or 2 people should see these cases just in case somebody with only one book actually is notable, etc. If you think the claims to notability insufficient, and the article has been abandoned, then WP:Prod is the way to go. If you think it will be defended, then WP:AFD,
 * Please check recent discussions at AfD-- Full professors at major universities are almost always found notable there--they invariably have published much work recognized as notable by their peers. You may disagree, but such has been the consensus--I can not recall one deletion in the last 8 months.


 * I must decline to delete. According to WP:CSD, speedy is for articles with no claim to notability, and any bona-fide claim is sufficient-- is such a claim. The reason is that more than 1 or 2 people should see these cases just in case somebody with only one book actually is notable, etc. If you think the claims to notability insufficient, and the article has been abandoned, then WP:PROD is the way to go. If you think it will be defended, then WP:AFD.

to check on

 * p's
 * 
 * 
 * a's
 * 
 * 
 * comments
 * to p's
 * to p's