User talk:Evadb/College of Dracology

Notability
A notability tag has been added to this article page, so I thought I'd explain myself a little bit. I was recently trying to create this article and noticed that it had been deleted not too long ago. I asked Black Falcon to userfy the page so that I could try to assert its notability. I went through my library and found another reference in an heraldic periodical. Unlike the one originally quoted, this is not written by Mr Brocklebank. I know that I've seen other references in heraldic journals, but have not done a thorough check of my library. How many solid references will this article need to satisfy everyone that it is notable? I'n not a member of this group, nor have I ever been. I simply believe that it is a notable group studying a unique field and it deserves to be presented on Wikipedia. Others are free to disagree and I look forward to the discussion.-- Eva  b  d  16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no magic number for sources, but what is most important is the quality of the sources. You can start by reading our reliable sources page. I note that the deletion discussion gave lots of good advice already. What you need are several nontrivial mentions in reputable third party sources. Several, as a guideline for other notability probjects, typically means at least three, though I'm sure that changes somewhat based upon how good the sources are. Nontrivial means more than a passing reference or listing. By mentions we mean sourced info about the organization confirming that someone somewhere says it is real and significant. Reputable means not just some minor website or source that itself wouldn't rate as notable or that has major problems of bias, etc. Third party'' means that the website of the organization itself, or its own publication, or other writings by its creator or others deeply involved with it, etc. simply do not count (everyone thinks of themselves as important, the point is that someone else thinks so too).
 * At this point, based upon the voting history, this article never should have been recreated. It was deleted before, which I had not known when I tagged it, as failing all these points. If you wanted to create a new article you should have gotten all these sources together beforehand and worked in userspace (off your talk page) until you got enough to make an article that met the criteria. It's very out of process to just bring a deleted article back and ignore all the people who explained why it should be deleted. As such, if you don't get some real sources quick I will file for this to be speedy deleted again, because by our policies it should not be here and was very recently fully discussed. If you can get sources together before than, fine. If not, you can always get them later and then create it again when it's read to go... assuming that there are any sources that show notability. I understand niche topics can be difficult to find such sources on, but then that's all a part of notability in general. DreamGuy 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saying that I do agree the notability concerns still aren't met (a single source in a specialized publication is not as convincing as one in a publication that is more broad-based in scope and appeal), and that the best thing to do would be to userfy this pending the location of better sources. If you want to protest the CSD you can, and this can just be kicked over to AFD instead, but I doubt the result would be significantly different.  You may feel this group is notable, but your personal feelings are hard for any of us the judge.  None of us know you.  And to be honest, we don't know the folks who write Time, Newsweek, or even the Quahog Gazette, but at least those existing sources give us some idea that the group isn't just talking about itself.  Now I don't know these heraldry publications you speak about, but it is possible that enough of them together might provide enough of a basis for notability to be satisfied.  Anyway, I don't think what you're doing is harmful to Wikipedia, so I'm not terribly worried about this page, I just think the best thing for now would be to work on it in userspace.  If you need help, there's a number of projects that might be able to assist you.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, this page should not have been recreated. It should have remained deleted and gone through Deletion Review.  The new sources don't convince me of this groups notability in any way shape or manner.Balloonman 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing how strongly people feel, I have no objections to sending this back to my userspace to give it another go. Maybe next time I'll be more successful.-- Eva  b  d  01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sort of neutral I've seen lesser things on WP but I am ^deleting^ Wikiproject endorsements on a user talk page - I don't think you can say a user talk page is endorsed by projects. Goldenrowley 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)