User talk:Danorton/Archive 2008 November

"Inherent Notability" ??
You seem to be supporting inclusion of articles that lack any notability and, in fact make no claim of notability, much less provide references to support such claims. As defense, you claim "inherent notability." Can you help me understand what "inherent notability" means and how it meets notability requirements? Are there accepted guidelines and policies that support this concept? Is there an objective measure? Is there any form of valuation at all? I'm not interested in personal opinions or essays not accepted by consensus. The guidelines and policies I'm aware of seem to contradict your claim, and I'm hoping you can point me to guidelines and policies I might have overlooked. Thank you. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, which describes the precedent in substantial numbers of previous AfDs that such places are notable. Consensus is rather clear on the matter of places, but I guess another AfD on the matter can only add some more to the body of evidence in support of this consensus. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Among other things, notability involves having multiple reliable sources, and there were eleven such sources between the three articles that you PRODded, with at least three on each. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those places clearly aren't notable by any guideline or policy that has been accepted by broad concensus, but I won't challenge them (for now). Thanks for the pointers. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Broad consensus is that well-defined places, such as municipalities and other recognized locations, are notable by definition, as long as sources support their existence, a standard that is clearly met in all three articles you recently PRODed. There is an occasional challenge to this consensus, which can only help confirm current sentiment on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We obviously disagree on whether or not there is broad consensus. I am happy to leave it at that for now, thank you. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixup on my Talk page
I have to apologize: I read your section on my Talk page about Talk:Inyo National Forest, and completely missed your much more substantive comment on Steve Fossett. :-(

I used "Minaret Range" because if I had used "The Minarets" (the official name), I feared that people would think the crash site was near a mosque in Mammoth Lakes.

In any event, I'm happy with the current state of the Steve Fossett article. Sorry again for the mixup. hike395 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Armadillo World Headquarters
Loved your edit summary when you put in the straightened image. lol! -Nv8200p talk 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting
I recently added a late followup to the discussion of sorting and Smackbot on User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough. Studerby (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Austin
As a current or past contributor to related articles, I thought I'd let you know about WP:WikiProject Austin, a collaborative effort to improve Austin related articles. EagleAg04 (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

removing information is not good
As far as removing the name change section, usually removing comments from the talk page is not a good idea. In this case, it's ok. However, even silly comments have a potential value even if to make a record that an editor is silly. Fossett&amp;Elvis (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)