User talk:Monicasdude/Sandbox


 * If I were granted full arbitration authority? I'd make explicit, and enforceable, that WP:AGF and WP:Verifiability apply to claims made in deletion debates, particularly to claims like "non-notable" and "vanity." Too many participants in the process are grossly irresponsible, making not the slightest effort to check that what they claim is true.  And articles related to academics/professors, and to education-related subjects are magnets for this sort of misbehavior (though other fields are also targeted). In the last few hours, for example, someone nominated the president of a state university system as non-notable .  Yesterday, a prominent economist who's regularly written up in major American publications and who's been prominent in public health debates .  Sunday, an award-winning television series on English-language teachers in East Asia .  Friday, a well-known documentary filmmaker . Thursday, a Grammy-nominated musician . Wednesday, a prominent geologist with 14 books to his credit .  Tuesday, an internationally recognized expert on violence, especially violence against children . And so on, day after day after day. And if there's any common thread in the unending sequence, it's the insistence that form is more important than substance, especially with regard to articles from new editors. And that's so plainly inappropriate it shouldn't be argued; if you look at the piles of advice that are passed along to new users, there's nothing in them about how to phrase an "assertion of notability," or even a signal about why the assertion is so significant (as opposed to notability itself). And this dispute over Theatre Intime is a perfect example of vigilantism run amok. It's not at all clear that the article doesn't assert notability; for lots of folks, just describing it as a theater group at an Ivy League school would be a claim of notability.  (We're not talking no-budget community theater groups here; many of them stage plays at least as expertly as many OB/OOB productions.) There's no policy or guideline that applies very specifically here, and certainly nothing that sends any signal to the (new) author that his claim isn't good enough.