Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notability


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was speedy delete, per WP:CSD A3. Article consists entirely of a rephrasing of the title, and a link elsewhere. The editors below who want various different things to exist here (including, bizarrely, a "Soft redirect using w to wiktionary" - w is a navigation template for articles relating to a Japanese girl band who wear silly dresses) are, of course, free to do so as AfD does not make binding decisions on what content a page should contain.

Note, however, that an article consisting solely of a soft redirect to Wiktionary would also be speediable under the same criterion (link elsewhere). WP:DICK and other projectspace soft redirects, which the editors supporting that may have been thinking of, are not covered by that CSD, which is for articles only. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability
Okay, bit of an unusual AfD here. This article has been getting created, deleted, altered, moved and so on for about 2 months. Basically some people want it to be a cross-namespace redirect, others don't, some want it now to define notability in a non-Wikipedia-centric way... which seems like a dicdef to me. Anyway, no vote on my part yet, I'd just like to see a more definitive resolution reached through consensus. Thanks. --W.marsh 16:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've created this article to avoid more people creating it as a cross-name space redirect. Voortle 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it stands now, the article is two sentences: one is a dicdef and the other is POV.  This should be replaced with soft redirect  and protected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to ???. I am torn. Something just cries out to me about this term needing as page. I realize we need to avoid dictionary definitions (and I must also point out that using the term you are the defining in the definition is a major thing to avoid). I definitely see the point of avoiding cross-space redirects in this case. But there may be a same-space redirect that could be used. As in verifiability redirecting to formal verification. Irongargoyle 16:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect using w to wiktionary & semi-protect (note: the same has to happen to notable I suppose). --Francis Schonken 17:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Francis. This might deter people from making more XNR's to Notability. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that might not work. People will just replace the Soft redirect to Wiktionary with a cross-name space redirect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protologism&action=history where this exact thing has happened. It was a soft redirect, and then was changed by someone to a cross-name space redirect to Avoid neologisms. Voortle 17:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that a confession that you were Gaming the system on the Notability & Notable articles earlier today? I don't know what else to make of that... Note that I proposed semi-protection of the page too. Which holds off newbies, *draws the attention* of more experienced editors not to go too rash on the page, and kind of *draws the attention* of sysops too, to not to be too lenient towards long-time editors that suddenly turn vandal on that page. --Francis Schonken 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Celebrity. Yes, I know it's not a complete and total synonym, but it's as close as we're going to get.  Fame leads there too. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would work for me too (in that case I'd full protect the page). --Francis Schonken 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Make a disambig for Notability and get rid of the current "dicdef" / bush reference. I think that using celebrity as a redirect is too misleading as the majority of notable things/people have no "celebrity" at all. Bwithh 17:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and if it is recreated, then create a soft redirect. Soft redirects are quite "ugly", and as such should be avoideds unless there is a pressing need. At the moment, there is not that need. Batmanand | Talk 21:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Re. "if it is recreated": the article was re-created after each of the 10 deletions in the last year. 4 of these re-creations took place in the last week - that's why W.marsh initiated this vote I suppose. So the "if recreated" is definitely a yes, and mere "deletion" has proven to be ineffective. --Francis Schonken 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry - really should check the logs. *sigh* I hate to say it, but soft redirect. Batmanand | Talk 08:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate to Wiktionary and the project page. Gazpacho 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate to Wiktionary and the project page, per Gazpacho. Irongargoyle 23:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect per Francis Schonken. -- ADNghiem501 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Reinyday, 02:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Disambiguate" doesn't make any sense - It doesn't make sense to disambiguate between Wiktionary and the project page because none of them in their own right is a valid target. When there is a valid target it's okay to put a little self-ref hatnote at the top or a link to Wiktionary box, but when there are no valid encyclopedic targets the redirect/disambig page shouldn't exist at all.  "Disambiguating" between two non-encyclopedic targets, a sister project and project space on Wikipedia, is unacceptable.  Cyde Weys  07:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:IGNORE. Rules don't exist for their own sake. Disambiguating this would help people find what they're apparently looking for. Gazpacho 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. Irongargoyle 22:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should ignore all rules. I'm going to go delete it right now.  -- Cyde Weys  13:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you would have to find a valid reason why someone would search the encyclopedia for Notability expecting to find the original research essay or the dictionary definition, neither of which are enough for you to justify your "ignoring the rules". Ans e ll  23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect and protect per Francis Schonken. --Zoz (t) 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep link to Notability, link to Wiktionary, and delete George Bush statement--Edtalk c E  20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a self-reference about an essay on Wikipedia, it isn't even a policy, and as such does not attract outside information needed for the article to be verifiable or Neutral. Other than that it is only a dictionary definition and does not have the context to be extended. Ans e ll  23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep or Delete and Fully Protect, at least to prevent redirect creation. Work and try to find at least some material to make it a stub. What not to do is redirecting it to our guideline essay - it's exactly a kind of misleading and particularly harmful redirect. Notability != Wikipedia notability. And article space should never lead to essays, because it, practically, allows to create creates articles allowed to violate violating all policies. Completely unsourced, non-verifiable, not neutral, fully original research essay. And this redirect practically places this essay in the article namespace, misleading readers. Either keep even a dicdef or make a fully protected deleted page. --CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to notability page... that's what it is, right? Toastypk 05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment And a general reader, after typing a common word, will read some essay about what some people consider good to include in Wikipedia. XNR from mainspace are very restricted, and XNR mainspace->userspace are strictly forbidden. Essay, effectively, is the same as userspace. What would you say if I added a link to my userpage from CP/M article? And here we make it a redirect, so reader gets it straight. Namespaces are here for a good reason, and XNR require really both compelling reasons to exist, and no objections, specifically no or negligible chance that a reader seeks for that term in the real life, usually when it doesn't exist outside wiki (ex.:Wikiproject). Even "Recent Changes" or "No Personal Attacks" redirects have been deleted. This one is clearly misleading. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Send to Wiktionary, and protect. Not only is it a dicdef, it's a rather poor (and highly recursive) one, even without the reference to Shrub.  If that doesn't work, then delete and deleteprotect. --EngineerScotty 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as dictdef. By the by, it strikes me as ironic that there is a company called Notability that is far from notable. Karol 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Bring it to a little article. Include links to wiktionary and WP:Notability. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What content would the article have so that it wasn't original research based on the Wikipedia essay? Ans e ll  04:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * not all what one writes about meets original research. Notability concept is also discussed outside the essay. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dictdef. --Edcolins 10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.