User:North8000/Save

Links
Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

Common Practice re Academics SNG
(copied from AFD)


 * Keep - very comfortably passes WP:PROF based on her high h-index and citation count. Check her Google Scholar profile. TJMSmith (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reference to I see to H-index in the SNG is a caution to avoid relying on it, and the context was reviewing for passage under criteria #1. I'm not arguing for deletion.   Possibly you know of some common / accepted practice that is different than the letter of the SNG.   (?)   North8000 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The common practice is to have some idea of citation practices by field and adjust for that, but to a rough approximation academics with maybe three publications that each have 100 or more citations are notable enough; more would be needed in high-citation fields, less might be enough in low-citation fields. A more accurate guide (but one we rarely follow) would be to look at the most significant publications in the subject's specific research area and try to weigh how highly cited the subject's papers are among them and how prominent the area is. Or, to a more rough approximation the typical level one would expect from a full professor at a good university is probably enough. The short answer is to not rely on the h-index without having some idea what it means, but that's very far from not using it at all. In Mourato's case, we have three publications with over 1000 citations each (more than 10x what a borderline-passing case might look like), or 25 with more than 100 (again, maybe 10x). We have evidence in my answer below for how that ranks in economics as a whole. Or you could search Google Scholar for "environmental valuation", notice that her paper doesn't show up because of a typo in the title, compare it anyway and see that it's #1. Do the same with "economic valuation" and get the same result. Conclude that she seems to be one of the top experts in the world on a significant topic in economics. It's a problem that these guidelines are tough for new-page patrollers to follow, but that doesn't mean that we should throw them out and replace them with nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Response
Sorry, I didn't receive/see your ping until today. By "post" I assume that you mean the article. The short version of my answer is what I put at the AFD:


 * "Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. No indication of wp:notability.  Of the two references given, one is to their own web site and the other is to an article that has one paragraph on it.  Another concern is that editor is obviously wiki-experienced but created the full article upon their 6th lifetime edit under that user name."

Now, to provide more explanation for each item:

"Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process." I'm a volunteer who reviews new articles. At the core of that is either confirming that an article should exist under per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (see below) or if it should not, raising the question and letting the Wikipedia community decide, in this case at articles for deletion Articles for deletion/Ghat Ghat Ka Paani Until a new article receives such a review, it is tagged as needing the review and is removed from access by search engines. So basically, this involves me doing my volunteer job to the best of my ability.

"No indication of wp:notability. Of the two references given, one is to their own web site and the other is to an article that has one paragraph on it."   I don't want to repeat the two relevant guidlines and so I'll list them here and ask you to give them a quick read before reading further here:

WP:notability

Notability (films)

Now that you've given them a quick read.... The main guideline WP:notability requires in-depth coverage of the topic in multiple independent sources. My post at AFD says that the article has nowhere near that, and describes what is there. The secondary guideline Notability (films) in essence says that if the film fulfills the listed attributes the primary guideline can be temporarily bypassed, but there is no indication that it fulfills any of those.

"Another concern is that editor is obviously wiki-experienced but created the full article upon their 6th lifetime edit under that user name" As a minimum this raises concerns that you are editing under multiple undeclared user names which is basically not allowed. The particulars described combined with a situation that the film would significantly be elevated and receive commercial advantage by having a Wikipedia article raises concerns about undisclosed paid editing, which is not allowed and which Wikipedia considers to be a serious problem. This is not to accuse or address that, in this context it's just indication that there may be considerations other than the usual ones for the creation of the article.

If there any more questions or if I can be of assistance, please ping me or write me on my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

More accepted exceptions to wp:notability?
Again, I'm an experienced editor but newer at NPP. Thanks for the guidance above that WP:AFDCO is a good guide to where common practice overrides the notability guidlines.

Recently I AFD'd Arpine which is a given name / first name (Articles for deletion/Arpine). It pretty clearly didn't pass WP:GNG, and there is no applicable SNG. There is also no mention of first/given names at WP:AFDCO. (Also, it seems borderline on wp:not a dictionary). The result at AFD was that it's considered common practice for articles on first names/given names to bypass wp:notability requirements. I was wondering if there is a second list beyond WP:AFDCO where it's common practice to bypass wp:notability requirements? I know Wikipedia well enough that fuzzy situations are the norm; I'm more concerned that I'm doing the job properly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , in my head I've always been inclined to treat given-name SIAs as a type of disambiguation page and thus haven't rigorously applied notability guidelines to them. Off the top of my head, the only other types of articles that come to mind as not really being subject to notability are discographies and other similar articles that could be considered to be direct supplements of an article about a notable topic. signed,Rosguill talk 21:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Name lists are a type of set index article. Although some name lists include information about the name's origin or usage, basic lists are still valuable as a navigational aid, and they don't need to be evaluated against the general notability guideline. See WP:Name pages for more information. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)