Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes/Archive 6

Update WP:BCASTOUTCOMES
I attempted to update WP:BCASTOUTCOMES because, since June 12 there have been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 broadcast AFDs unanimously closed as deletes due to lack of significant Reliable Source coverage. In that time span only 1 2 closed as keep, explicitly on the basis that they DID have significant coverage in Reliable Sources. This is related to an RFC that was run proposing to promote Notability (media) to guideline. It was opposed approximately 2-to-1, with a core reason being broad insistence that Broadcast stations are not exempt from GNG requirements for significant coverage in Reliable Sources.

My attempt to update WP:BCASTOUTCOMES was opposed. Given the outcome of the RFC, and the outcomes of recent AFDs, which of the following is most accurate: I say #1 is simply wrong. #3 appears most accurate, at least in terms of recent AFD outcomes. Alsee (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Current text: Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios.
 * 2) Ambiguous text: Licensed radio and TV stations have had conflicting outcomes if they lack significant coverage in Reliable Sources.
 * 3) Deletion text: ''Licensed radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in Reliable Sources.
 * 4) Other text: ??????

I agree it's time to update this.

The following box is the text as it stands now:

This is how I would write the top half, leaving the bottom in place (again, I didn't touch it in the rewrite, and it should be its own section if NTV is spun out).

Hints of the wording come from NMEDIA and the rewrite, but they also reflect what has happened in deletion discussions while emphasizing the GNG first and foremost. (I've been aware of several GNG-meeting exceptions to the rules, like Sunrise Radio (Ireland) and my GA CBUVT.)

Let me know if this sounds reasonable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging original contributor and one other person who mentioned this as a potential source of improvements to the outcomes page:  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 07:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping Sammi Brie. I tried to work from your version. The most significant difference is clearly the first bullet point - my original post linked all of the recent AFD outcomes and I believe this bullet best summarizes those results. I linkified "2021 RFC". I merged two lines addressing non-operation/unbuilt stations, I shorted that lack-of-programming clause, and added "usually lack significant coverage" to the collection. I dropped the comment on difficulty of sourcing in some countries - it is true but was it helpful? I want to draw attention to a subtle change I made on the Satellite radio channels line. I changed coverage about the station to coverage about the channel. I'm not sure whether that changed-your-intent or merely clarified-your-intent. I think that covers my alterations. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. I just tweaked final line for ease of reading, no material change. Alsee (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've made some minor grammatical fixes. I'd reword point one to add a missing word: Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources. This will add a much-needed missing piece of context. I can't deny that the delete outcomes in radio have surpassed the keeps—though I note that two-thirds of them are in the Philippines (which get deleted or converted to a redirect by a 12–4 margin so far this year, and more Philippines stations got deleted than all the stations that got kept). Of the four United States stations that have gone to AfD, three have been kept, and the fourth (KBQS-LP), deleted, is a very ungeneralizable case. (We also kept one station in Argentina and deleted three community stations in the UK and Ireland plus one each in New Zealand, Japan and Nigeria, and one Canada page was sent to draft space.) In television, we've had three non-notable low-power TV translators get the axe this year plus some cases of failing #3 with no SIGCOV (Articles for deletion/IkonoTV). Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sammi Brie as you suggested I inserted "broadcast" into the version just above. No one else has jumped in. If there are no objections, I invite you or anyone to copy it from Talk to WP:BCASTOUTCOMES? Alsee (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

✅ Alsee (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Common outcomes for academics
I notice the common outcomes section for academics is one of the only empty ones. Should we take a stab at filling this in? @DGG, @David Eppstein, @Onel5969. Could add things like a certain # of citations or a certain h-index usually passes, deans and regents usually pass, being a fellow of certain scholarly societies passes, named chairs pass, etc. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true that dean is considered enough to pass; if that's the most significant feature of an academic, they're more likely to fail. Setting threshold numbers for citations or h-indexes without considering the field is also a serious mistake. As for fellows and named chairs, they're explicitly in the notability criterion; we might as well have a common outcomes section for GNG saying that someone with in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources usually passes. Is that a useful thing for OUTCOMES to state? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * David Eppstein is one of my go-to people on academics, and I once again don't disagree with them.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just threw out some heuristics to get the discussion started. I of course defer to the experts on this (which is the reason I pinged), and if interested, encourage you guys to write more accurate common outcomes than I did. I feel the absence of any common outcomes for this area is not ideal, and accurate common outcomes would be helpful. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As a very rough rule of thumb, full professors at research universities usually pass; assistant professors usually fail; faculty at community colleges usually fail regardless of rank. That leaves out a lot of cases of non-teaching researchers, faculty in the middle ranks, people at universities focused more on teaching and less on research, or people in countries that use different ranks than the US, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * David E's summary in my opinion gives exactly the common outcomes. Applying  the criteria at WP:PROF almost always yields just that result. (the one exception I'd make is that the level of faculty at US community colleges is increasing, and there sometimes are notable academics there--but it certain cannot be assumed.)  There is one additional consideration--that sometimesd in the humanities or social sciences an academic who doesn ot meet WP:PROf might still meet WP:AUTHOR, especially if they also write books for a more general audience.  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I went ahead and edited the page to summarize what you said here. Feel free to adjust it, or remove it if you object. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the Davids. I would want to make sure the word “research” in “research university” is read.  Professors in non-research institutions are not the same. “Professor” can be used synonymously with “teacher” in other languages.  Where it still breaks down is in countries where “professor” is used loosely and generously.  Particular examples I have in mind include Iran, India, and Malaysia.
 * I want to persist again with H-index, to the extent that an H-index below 20 is a hard fail of NPROF. Everytime I find such a claim of a low H-index Prof, regardless of field, they are not a “real” professor, contrary to information on their staff page.  It is useful an quickly tossing fake professors.  Agree it is not useful on the other side, at predicting NPROF passes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On professors in the humanities including economics, the indicator that they are not scientists is that their publications are single-authored. Agree with using NAUTHOR for them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Theoretical work in all fields is often-single authored.  Much of economics is an experimental or observational science, with an extensive mathematical basis,  and if we disagree about the status of economics this is not the place to discuss it. (And how much of it is good, reproducible science capable of making accurate predictions,  is another question entirely).  NAUTHOR in any case is only applicable to  people whos publish books--it does not apply to journal articles.
 * h under 30 is usually non-notable, but consider someone who has published 3 spectacular papers and 17 moderately routine ones, citations= 400, 350, 300, 20, 20, ,.... That's not a hard fail in any field whatsoever. It does need checking, to see if the work is independedent and the high citations not just due to junior listing on someone else's spectacular papers,  but there's a difference between "hard fail" and "needs checking" It also doesn't apply in many narrow fields of the humanities or elsewhere; where there are only a few people publishing, the citations for all of them will be low. I don't think common outcomes is the place for details. It would be enough to say there are many special cases, + and -.
 * Anyway, A real professor is someone who holds the title, regardless of what how much work they do. We use it as a shorthand for professors, research, professional scholar... [etc].  DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sachems
Should a sachem have presumed notability? It seems to me that as the paramount chief of their people, they should be at the same level as a colonial governor. The problem, however, is that as native peoples did not leave behind extensive written records there are not going to be as many sources about them as there are about their European counterparts. Presumed notability would solve this problem. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * as you indicate, part of the problem will be figuring out out from the source whether the word is being used in that exact sense of paramount chief (used in the strict sense) of a Algonquin people, or in a more general and sometimes very inexact sense. I don't think that in most sources it will be the least self evident.  DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Student leaders
Is there any way we can add an addendum to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, in the "Political figures not elected to public office" section, that states that student leaders in political parties are not inherently notable? I seem to come across a lot of bios for junior politicians, student leaders in political parties, that assert notability based on that leadership position. I don't think it's an issue in every country but I see lots of these bios (or it could be the same few ones over and over again) coming from young adults in India. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that point already exists. "Engaging in educational activities such as student councils, youth parliaments, Model United Nations, etc. does not by itself confer any notability." Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Universities and degree-awarding institutions
Why are universities and degree-awarding institutions automatically supposed to be notable? They should at least satisfy WP:GNG. Preferably by given, independent, reliable, in-depth sources. The Banner talk 11:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NPLACE" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:NPLACE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)