User talk:IGyiys

Faculty of Humanities, Charles University in Prague
The reason that I agreed with the contributor that turned the page into a redirect is as put it in their edit summary. There is no claim of notability, and the page has been tagged as relying on primary sources since the template was added back in 2011. The fact that the page relies on primary sources, as opposed to third-party reliable sources also indicates a lack of notability. There are seventeen other faculties in Charles University, so it would make more sense to just redirect any articles back to the main page for Charles University. Perhaps to a subsection pertaining to the different faculties. BlueNoise ( Désorienté? It's just purple ) 21:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I can add more sources but I do not agree your suggestion to just redirect all faculties back to the main page. For example, the faculty of arts, Charles University is the most famous faculty, which absolutely deserves to be an independent article. It is a common practice to have independent articles for university faculties, cf., University of Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh School of History, Classics and Archaeology, etc., there are more than 17 schools. IGyiys (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you added in the various social media accounts for this faculty, all of which unfortunately fails WP:RS. I agree that redirecting them all would be too bold of editing, seeing as the other faculty-related articles have more of an established notability. It's the one faculty in question, the Faculty of Humanities, that unfortunately fails to meet the criteria for notability. BlueNoise  ( Désorienté? It's just purple ) 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your removal of the social media accounts for the faculty, but you have provided no argument for why this faculty "fails to meet the criteria for notability". Who decides? You? Neither University of Edinburgh School of History, Classics and Archaeology or Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague has any third-party source. This seems double standard. IGyiys (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Some more cases: University of Edinburgh School of Literatures, Languages and Cultures, University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, I believe if I continue to search, I will find them countless IGyiys (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct in your assessment of the articles mentioned also being questionable in terms of notability. That being said, it's not constructive to add yet another article to the encyclopedia that is poorly sourced and has questionable notability because "hey there is already a bunch of them". That drives down the quality of Wikipedia. I'll give you time to see if you can come up with any reliable sources that support notability of the Faculty of Humanities. BlueNoise  ( Désorienté? It's just purple ) 21:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have not bothered me, I have had done that. That was what I intended to do initially, but you reverted my first move sooner than the sound. IGyiys (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It caught my attention due to the lack of a edit summary. Once I reviewed your edit, and the edit immediately proceeding it I came to the conclusion that it was correct to turn the page into a redirect. I've noticed that you've added both social media accounts, and this link as "references". You should really read the guidelines on verifiability, and the the guidelines on reliable sources before continuing. BlueNoise  ( Désorienté? It's just purple ) 21:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "We" do not decide whether something is notable, . "We" are just enforcing Wikipedia's policies, which are there for a good reason. Primary sources are not good enough to establish notability. Get some better, independent sources and then we'll talk about it. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 12:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, IGyiys. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. JBW (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)