Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Notability/Archive 2

New Userbox proposal
Hi, for those userbox maniacs i would like to propose a new userbox for the project, same colors plus an image from wikimedia commons. |-   |    |}

--Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries and removing the notability tag.
First off, just wanted to say that the job y'all do is certainly appreciated. Two very minor notes, however:
 * 1) Not sure if this is an issue or not, but you might want to emphasize for #7 that this tag does not obviate the "Proposed for deletion: Reason" or "AfD: Link" part of an edit summary as well.  It does say "add" currently, but apparently at least one editor was only saying that the article had been "sorted" while proposing it for deletion, which could mean that the edit could well be ignored on someone's watchlist.  Also, while I'm all in favor of allowing humor on Wikipedia...  I'm not sure that the exclamation mark will be appreciated by those who see their article being proposed for deletion.
 * 2) #6 indicates that the notability tag should be removed after the editor is done.  While this is obviously true for subjects that turn out to be notable...  I'm not certain this is a good idea for AfD's and prods.  The notability tag offers links to resources on what exactly is notable and how to show it; furthermore, if someone removes the prod (or the AfD closes keep/ no consensus), the problem has likely not been solved, so the notability tag is still useful. SnowFire 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about this, but then the article continues to appear on our to-do list, which is kind of annoying when I'm trying to find an article to work on and keep coming across articles in that pending state with both notablity and prod/afd tags on it. It's disruptive to my workflow.  Is there any way we can have both?  Steve CarlsonTalk 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could maybe re-tag the notability date with the current month? That way it won't show up in backlogs... SnowFire 04:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would certainly work. How do others feel about this?  Can we agree on this and update the text of #6 so it reflects this procedure? Steve CarlsonTalk 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The notability tag (including its date) is valuable information in the PROD and AfD process. Also I don't find that leaving the tag on the article disrupts my workflow. Rather, I can be sure that if I don't find the time to come back to an article that needs attention, or I just forgot to add it to my watchlist, then it's still on the backlog, and someone else from the project will handle it (after a while). That applies not only to AfDs, but also to merger proposals, expert reviews, etc. which tend to be open for a week or two, and need attention afterwards. If you find an article that is currently involved in some process, just skip to the next article; if all fails, even to the next month. (Lack of articles to work on is not one of our current problems, I'd say...) --B. Wolterding 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the notability date is intended to show how long the article's notability has been in question. Subverting that use to manipulate how articles show up in the backlog of a particular project is not a good idea (in particular, with the current backlog, it would mean that a de-prodded article might stay in the system for another year!).


 * I definitely think notability tags should stay unaltered when an AfD or PROD is added. Firstly, it eliminates the error-prone procedure of re-adding tags should a PROD be removed or an AfD declined (if the original nominator is not around for a few days, there's a good chance it won't be readded); secondly, it means that PROD articles still get plenty of "eyeballs" checking out whether the PROD is valid. Otherwise, it may be that only the PROD nominator and the closing admin get to decide. "Sorting" also includes contesting PRODs if you think notability can be established, so such articles still belong in the backlog.


 * If that disrupts your workflow, just dip into one of the other months &mdash; if time is an issue, the oldest month isn't such a good place to be anyway, since it tends to be full of borderline cases rather than clear-cut decisions. Thomjakobsen 15:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So, um, just to be clear, I agree with B. Wolterding and Thomjakobsen that ideally the tags shouldn't be removed. However, I'd also be fine with kicking the date back to the reviewed month as Steve Carlson now supports. Yet... the project page still says that the tags should be deleted entirely, despite no one seemingly supporting that. I'd change it myself, except I'm not a member... SnowFire 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you're getting at now. This sentence:
 * After you have finished with all improving/merging/deletion procedures regarding the article's notability, remove notability or importance tag on the article.
 * I read "deletion procedures" as meaning "the article has went through the AfD procedure" (and survived, otherwise there would be no tags to remove), whereas presumably you take the "deletion procedure" as "the procedure of adding a prod or AfD to the article"?


 * I blame point #6 for the misunderstanding, since it comes before the "use this as your edit summary" and could imply you remove the tags at the same time you add a prod or list at AfD. Under my reading, the edit summary point refers to whichever edit finally removes the tags, which could be at the end of an AfD.


 * If we agree that the notability tags shouldn't be removed at the same time as listing for deletion, then we should remove point #6 (it's redundant, because it already tells you to remove the tags should you establish notability by improving/merging) and a final point saying perhaps, "If the article is found to meet notability requirements as a result of surviving an AfD discussion, remember to remove the notability tag." Any objections? Thomjakobsen 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me, but I just want to stress that this isn't a hypothetical issue - this actually came up, and the other user referred to the project page as the reason behind removing the notability tag after adding a prod tag. SnowFire 04:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * quite apart from this project--I always leave the notability tag on when adding a prod. In case someone removes the prod without completely fixing the article, the problem will still be indicated. (of course the user could remove both, but hey rarely do). The time to remove the tag for a problem is when the problem is fixed. Not before that. DGG (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Have changed the instructions. Thomjakobsen 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tools
In the process of sorting quite a number of articles from our backlog, I have developed some small project-specific tools that help me getting all those edit summaries and template parameters right. They allow me to spend more time on evaluating articles rather than on typing Wiki markup. Since the tools have stabilized a bit in the meantime, I thought I would share them with you, maybe they can be of help.

First, there are two small JavaScript programs for adding certain tags:


 * Proposing deletion: When editing an article, a button "Propose deletion (WPNN)" will appear in the Wikipedia toolbox (left-hand side of the screen). Pressing this, you will be prompted for a rationale - edit the default message as needed. A PROD tag will then be added to the article, with the edit summary automatically filled, and the article will be added to your watchlist. (User:B. Wolterding/prod-wpnn.js)


 * Closing discussions: When editing a section on a talk page (supposed to contain a discussion thread), a button "Close discussion" will appear in the toolbox. Clicking this, you can enter a result for the discussion. Then, the discussion will be enclosed in Discussion top and Discussion bottom tags, with the result plus your signature added. The article will be removed from your watchlist. Useful for merger discussions and expert reviews. (User:B. Wolterding/close-discussion.js)

Note that both tools display an edit preview, but they do not save any edits automatically. Be sure to click the "Save" button (or hit Alt-S) once you have finished editing.

To "install" these helper applications, include them in your user-specific monobook.js file; see User:B. Wolterding/monobook.js for an example.

I have also built some slightly more advanced tools that help me with workflows spanning multiple pages; namely: proposing and performing mergers; asking other wikiprojects for expert review; and listing articles on AfD. These tools do not perform edits automatically, but they provide clickable links to the relevant pages, automatic edit summaries, and template tags with pre-filled parameters for copy&paste to the articles. They should be self-explanatory if you are familiar with the processes. (It is however assumed that you are familiar with the processes; use the programs at your own risk.)

This second set of tools is based on local HTML files that you need to copy to your computer and open in your browser. Since there is apparently no way of uploading such files on Wikipedia, I have put them here for download. Expand the ZIP file and open "index.html". It can be useful to bookmark that page or its subpages in your browser. Note that these tools require that Popups is installed.

I find these tools quite useful, hopefully you will too. Feedback is welcome. --B. Wolterding 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles assigned to wikiprojects
Hello,

a considerable number of the articles on our backlog is assigned to one more more wikiprojects; and I was thinking how we could involve these projects more in the process, also because some topics require foreign language speakers or subject matter experts.

Here are those projects with 20 articles or more (data as of Oct 18):

Not unexpectedly, WikiProject Biography has by far the largest share. Their articles can be broken down a bit further:

(Some articles are assigned to multiple workgroups.)

On the other hand, 7335 articles, or about 60% of the backlog, are not assigned to any wikiproject at all.

Still, it might be helpful to inform the individual wikiprojects about their articles. Maybe this can help to reduce the backlog, but it would also help to prevent that wikiprojects "suddenly" find articles in the deletion process which they always wanted to expand.

I can generate a list of articles assigned to the individual projects, if needed. Would it be helpful to post these on the corresponding project talk pages? (Or, perhaps, build a central list and point the wikiprojects to there?) What do you think? --B. Wolterding 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you generate that list for WikiProject Business? I suggest posting it to their talk page where it will get the necessary attention. Many thanks. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A note regarding updates: The lists are generated based on Wikipedia data dumps, which become available only at irregular intervals (between 2 weeks and 2 months, approximately). So, you will have to wait a while for the next update. On the other hand, the data doesn't change very fast, so longer update intervals should be fine. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inter Project communication etc

 * I have just come across an article that you have merged as part of your projects work The Hard Way (novel). Whilst I have no problem with the basic work of the project I think we need to beef up the communication between project on what is being looked at. Just tagging for merging for a couple of week and then merging doe not give enough time for editors with specialist interests to respond. Can we have some agreement about how to do this. It is often the case the work is undone where notability can be established, there is just such a mountain of such material to get though it is hard to focus. If we had a means of indicating which items of mutual interest you have picked up on we could emprove, sort out or agree with the merge etc.


 * Also when a merge etc is done please take note of action required on Project notices on talk pages. These may have become redundant. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With The Hard Way (novel), I just followed the usual procedure - feedback to the merger was positive, so I merged. Also, it would be quite a bit of extra work to notify Wikiprojects on every merge proposal or other proposed action, since there are quite a few of these. However, as mentioned above, I can generate a list of all articles in our backlog which are assigned to (say) the Novels Wikiproject. Since we usually work on the "end" of the backlog (currently February/March 07), you would have plenty of time to sort the articles which are of interest to your project. You can temporarily view the Novels Wikiproject list here. (I'll post it to a more appropriate place once a new database snapshot is available.) Would that be OK for you? --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Self-published books
Self-published books are usually (but not always) non-notable. See Vanity press; it may be productive to check out the "what links here" links for non-notable books and authors:
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/American Biographical Institute
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Author Identity
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/AuthorHouse
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Ivy House
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/iUniverse
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Marquis Who's Who
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Minerva Press (UK)
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Picture.com
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Poetry.com
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/PublishAmerica
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/SterlingHouse Publisher
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Tate Publishing
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Vantage Press
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Watermark Press
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Xlibris

A search for the press's name in article text might pick up further instances:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=American+Biographical+Institute&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Author+Identity&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=AuthorHouse&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Ivy+House&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=iUniverse&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Marquis+Who's+Who&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Minerva+Press+(UK)&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Picture.com&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Poetry.com&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=PublishAmerica&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=SterlingHouse+Publisher&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Tate+Publishing&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Vantage+Press&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Watermark+Press&fulltext=Search
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Xlibris&fulltext=Search

Some of the publishers themselves may be marginally notable; I would not be agressive in deleting these since it's useful to have a record somewhere on Wikipedia for deletion discussions of who these publishers are. Alternately, consider creating a page in Wikipedia space (as opposed to article space) listing all vanity presses, notable or not. -- perhaps a subpage of this WikiProject.

It goes without saying that any self-published books and authors still need to be evaluated for notability each on its own merits since there are some that have been notable -- see Self-publishing.-- A. B. (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is still reading the old messages here: there are two companies named Tate Publishing. Tate Publishing & Enterprises is the vanity press; Tate Publishing Ltd is a respectable British art publisher. I've been going through articles mentioning one or the other and trying to link them, so a link search from our article on the vanity press Tate should find many of them, but no doubt I've missed some. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, and All Ye blessed Folk in between, gather round and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:
 * 1) Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export.  For the second, go here .  (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.)  Do whatever Ye want for the third.
 * 2) Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad.  Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.”  For “Save as type,” select “All Files.”  For “File name,” input “ ” and save It.  Leave the Window open.
 * 3) Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
 * 4) Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear.  Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It.  Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window.  Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
 * 5) Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File.  At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend!  However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet.  Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked.  Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window.  Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There.  Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex.  Paste   at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done!  Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friends — the Annex Hath Spoken 05:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with non-notable fictional topics
I have raised the issue regarding the policing and enforcement of the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction). Your comments would be most welcome. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles assigned to wikiprojects (cont'd)
With data from a recent snapshot (March 12), I have now uploaded new listings of the CAT:NN category, ordered by WikiProject assigned to the article. You can view these at WikiProject Notability/Listing by project.

To get people from other WikiProjects involved, I would like to announce these listings to the broader community, e.g. at the village pump. That should be done while the data is more or less "fresh", i.e. within the next days. Any opinions on that are welcome. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now posted at Village pump (miscellaneous). --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All WikiProjects with at least 10 articles in the backlog have been notified on their talk pages. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability proposal needing comment.
A proposal to tackle the notability issues surrounding biographies of the victims of crime can be found at WP:N/CA. I hope to get some feedback and form a consensus Fritzpoll (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cricket articles of dubious notability
Thank you very much for drawing your concerns to the attention of the WP:CRIC. There are nine people on your list and eight of them have played first-class cricket at the highest domestic level in their country, which generally equates to WP:ATHLETE and which has been accepted as the baseline for notability in cricket biographies. The ninth is Elaine Wulcko and she has played cricket at international level, which is more than sufficient for WP:ATHLETE. Now that you have drawn these articles to our attention, we will make an early effort to make the notability of their subjects more obvious. The other 11 articles are, IMO, less defensible, but colleagues on the Cricket Project may wish to respond. Johnlp (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pornproject: Articles of unclear notability
In response to concerns posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography:


 * Well, offhand, I'll note that Angelica Bella was winner of a 1993 Hot D'Or award, which means she meets the notability criteria established by this project. Megan Leigh got quite a bit of mainstream media attention as the result of her suicide (albeit, less coverage than Savannah or Shauna Grant, who suffered similarly tragic fates). And Jana Miartušová and Zsanett Égerházi (better known as Nella and Sandy, respectively) are very significant performers in the girl/girl porn genre. The articles need to be fleshed out better to establish the notability of these individuals, though, I agree. I'm not sure if A Vindication of the Rights of Whores falls under the scope of this project, but I will note that it was a milestone in the literature of sex worker rights and I think should be considered notable on that basis. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Friends of Fiddler's Green
To reduce the number of articles with questionable notability on the Canada Wikiproject, the original editors were contacted, and a reply was received from Pustelnik comments, as well as on the article talk page. I am not involved with WikiProject Notability, and would these points be enough to warrant that Friends of Fiddler's Green article is notable and the tag removed? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk  21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article has a number of references now, there's secondary coverage - seems fine for me. Quite generally, there's no need to be involved in this project for adding or removing notability tags - if, by your judgement, the article passes the WP:N/WP:MUSIC criteria, you can remove the tag (unless someone objects). --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles ahead
With the April backlog almost cleared, we're heading towards the articles from May and June. Now as it seems, the June backlog contains dozens if not hundreds of TV-related articles, mostly episode articles (M*A*S*H, The Office and the like). They hardly ever consist of more than plot summary.

Usually, I would redirect those to the "episode list" articles which typically exist, citing WP:NOT and "no improvement in 10 months". However with this approach, since we need to apply it to a large number of articles, we might well get in conflict with the recent ArbCom decision. ArbCom wants us to discuss with the article creators (volunteers wanted). Having seen some of these discussions, I don't think this would be effective. At the same time, WP:EPISODE is still under discussion.

So what do we do? The only "compromise" solution I can imagine at the moment is to move these articles to a separate category, temporarily, until discussions around WP:EPISODE have been settled.

In any case, we as a project should try to find a common approach. What's your opinion on that? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing is to try to have the discussions, but perhaps hold them on the article talk page, invite the major contributors to comment on a policy-based argument that is presented. It may be that we can cajole some of the article creators into citing sources and adding useful information.  But having the discussion itself, and allowing sufficient time for a solution to become apparent should satisfy the ArbCom.  In cases where the article deletion is clearly contested but no policy/guideline is cited, take the articles straight to AfD, otherwise PROD them.  What do you think? Fritzpoll (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that given the sensitivity of this issue at the moment, it would be better to hold back on making any rash decisions to prod or AFD this type of article until a much broader consensus has been achieved than is possible within the scope of this WikiProject. DWaterson (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - I wasn't suggesting hasty actions at all. This should not be a case of review and PROD/AfD.  Engaging in a discussion will take time, but is clearly necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (re Fritzpoll) I'm not so sure about the discussions. People tried and failed. (See Television episodes/Review for the last systematic attempt, a quite sad story.) Consensus with "TV fans" will be hard if not impossible to find, and those discussions are not very enjoyable. So without a crystal-clear policy consensus on episodes, which might override article "owners", I wouldn't want to go that way. AfD also does not seem the best idea: Nominating all individual articles would clog the process; and mass nominations tend to end up in a big mess. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that link - I can see the problem now. I'd say we try to empty out the rest of the category and leave a note to return to it at some point.  That said, it's perfectly possible that we can improve the articles, so we shouldn't avoid having a quick look over them Fritzpoll (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (dedent) I agree with what seems to be the general consensus here -- we should proceed extremely cautiously until WP:EPISODE and/or WP:SERIAL reaches fuller consensus. Unilateral mass action is quite likely to inflame a situation that is still recovering from the last round of acute controversy.
 * As far as discussion goes, I would first seek out series-specific venues where they exist, before attempting to find consensus or help from wider venues such as WikiProject Television. For example, WikiProject The Office (US) (unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for M*A*S*H). Let the series-specific project know what's going on with our project, that as we make progress through the backlog we're coming up on their episode articles. Make it clear that we don't plan on unilateral action, but that we would like them to focus their own cleanup and improvement efforts on these articles first and foremost. Some of these projects may have been pinged already as part of B. Wolterding's project-notification; let's give them a second reminder. Perhaps it will be easier to achieve positive results in the smaller venue. Jfire (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So there seems to be consensus not to clean up these articles on the short term. Involving the other wikiprojects is also a good idea. (By the way, in this case, it's the BBC project since we're dealing with the UK version of The Office.) I will also notify WikiProject TV, even if their project tag is not on the articles.
 * Anyway, I think that even with involvement of the other projects, the TV articles will inhibit our workflow since we will be unable to fix them in the usual "sequence", in view of the controversial nature of the problem. I therefore propose the following interim solution. For those TV related articles which cannot be sorted at this time, we would add an extra parameter "cat=TV" to the notability tag. So we would change
 * to
 * which would remove the article from the "dated" categories, and move them to an extra category Category:TV articles of unclear notability. This requires a small change to Template:Notability, which I would request once we have consensus. We could move the articles back at any time. Would you support that idea? --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you consider the alternative of changing Template:Notability so that would automatically go to an extra category? Jfire (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are some caveats. First, the problem is not only with episodes but also with characters from TV shows. Second, some prefer for episodes in the meantime, since WP:EPISODE is disputed. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you consider the alternative of changing Template:Notability so that would automatically go to an extra category? Jfire (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are some caveats. First, the problem is not only with episodes but also with characters from TV shows. Second, some prefer for episodes in the meantime, since WP:EPISODE is disputed. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to determine consensus when hardly anyone answers... Is this silent consensus or silent disagreement? Do you support moving the episodes to a different category? If so, would you prefer the cat= parameter, or JFire's suggestion of using ? --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of this project (yet), but I have edited/merged/redirected a lot of nonnotable episode articles. I have used (without the -s) for the ep articles I watch, and I can relate to some of the difficulties mentioned above. You have my silent agreement for whatever you think works best. All that matters for me is to see the "dated" notice in the used template in the article. – sgeureka t•c 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No consensus to start episode clean up? I disagree with that. Clean up is underway and has been since the ArbCom was lifted, starting with those that had consensus for clean up before the injunction. :P For newer stuff, what seems to work with relatively little hassle (except the occasional rabid fanboy/fangirl) is to tag the episodes for notability and give a reasonable amount of time to fix. If it remains unaddressed or a week goes by with no reaction at all, start a merge discussion in the series article. If there is no clear consensus, put in a request for input from the parent project. If still no consensus and its relatively even on both sides with no budging, take it to the fiction notice board. If all else fails, then AfD. Its working nicely for quite a few articles I'm a part of, both for episodes and characters. If I understand your suggestion, it would make it easier to see which episodes have been tagged, by date? If so, I can't see any problem with it, though I'd agree that doing the same for characters (if possible) would be good. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will go ahead with the implementation then. It will be available for both episodes and characters. These will be sorted into a category Category:TV articles of unclear notability. Sorting by date might be added later, but I don't think it will make a difference; all articles that we will move there have been tagged for at least 6 months. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The template has been changed now, the category created, and I have put the usage instructions on the project page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All articles in the June backlog have now been retagged. Jfire (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Topical WikiProject notifications
Hi,

A quick question, please: Were the base lists for the inter-project notifications (see here) generated on the basis of the presence of project banners on article talk pages?

Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The list contains all articles which have, on their talk page, a template that is listed in Category:WikiProject banners. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - that's what I had assumed. My reason for asking is that I suspect that, for some topics, there are a substantial number of articles tagged with notability that do not have a project banner on the talk page. I will post a bot request later today to identify such articles based on articles' presence in certain categories. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, the week that the inter-project notices were sent out saw a noticeable decline in the number of articles tagged with notability (see diff) ... it seems to have been the only (relatively) major decline in a long time. :) Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well! As for the bot, I think that similar bots already exist. See for example User:SkiersBot. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I was thinking of adding to and then using Category:Category-Class Africa articles, but project tagging of stub articles (which are the most likely to have notability issues) could work as well. I'll do some work on this and post a proposal at the Africa project's talk page; if there are no objections in a few days (the talk page doesn't get much traffic...), I'll contact one or more bot operators. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, when will the next update take place? Black Falcon (Talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure yet. The listings are generated using database dumps; the next dump for enwiki will be available around end of May, it seems. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My reason for asking was to find out how much time there will be for bot and manual assessment tasks (bot requests seem to take at least 1-2 weeks) before the list is updated. One month is more than enough time... Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Somewhat unexpectedly, a new database dump has become available on April 25. I have updated the listings. I don't know when the next update from now will be, unfortunately. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability tagging
Hi, is it appropriate to tag articles that apparently don't have notability. I was under the impression any article without notability is best to have added. I was browsing some random articles and hit quite a few that didn't have WP:RS to show WP:N so I added but later most of them got reverted (one or two correctly as I missed some book references), but most still don't have any WP:RS to show notability. One editor even admonished me that WP:N is only a guideline and not a policy which it turns out is factually correct. Still does that mean articles are not to be tagged for notability? SunCreator (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I generally don't do notability tagging, I tend to remove notability tags when an article proves that its topic is notable by citing coverage in reliable sources or when it is readily apparent that such coverage exists. For instance, an unsourced article about the history of a country or a head of government shouldn't be tagged with notability, since both topics are obviously notable—it's a certainty that there is substantial coverage of them in reliable sources. Similarly, articles about topics for which ample coverage can be easily found through a standard Google search generally shouldn't be tagged either. However, I don't think that WP:N's status as a guideline is relevant to article tagging; the fact that it's a guideline doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed. Black Falcon (Talk) 05:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the reply. It seems notability tags are normally welcome it just seems on the occasion I started to add a few I hit upon two separate editors who thought otherwise. SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what Black Falcon wrote. You added notability tags to notable articles, and Black Falcon just explained why you shouldn't do that.  Furthermore, your were not only admonished by two editors but by two admins on the AN/I board.  In other words, don't add notablity tags to notable articles even if they are missing sources.  Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * but do add an appropriate tag, which in this case will probably be -- and any other serious problems you identify.DGG (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

importance, notability, and notability content

 * As the person labeled a "miscreant", I would invite anyone truly interested in the dispute in question to read for themselves and to determine who, if anyone, should be described in that manner.
 * With that said, my far larger concern here is the construction of this policy. Indeed, that was at the core of the original dispute. I think the above editor misreads WP:NNC to be far more sweeping a declaration than it actually is. I think the relevant section of WP:N to the notability template is clearly the "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" section. I think the above editor misreads WP:NNC to suggest that notability is never a concern that should be raised if the editor has the slightest hunch that the subject may be notable. I disagree. I think deletion is absolutely supposed to be a last resort, but I think it is absolutely fair game to suggest a stub that does not cite reliable sources that establish notability should probably carry the notability template. As to the difference between notability and importance, I dismissed it when importance was first raised. I think I'm still in that mindset now. If you ask me, it's a guessing game. I don't oppose those who want to take that guess, but I personally don't feel the need to spend much effort at all at it. I don't think notability challenges notability at all -- it is simply a notice that notability is not clear. It's a valuable notice to both reader and editor.
 * I also think this talk of specialized encyclopedias is a bit overblown. To an extent, it is very true. Wikipedia should be a place for articles that would be found in print legal, medical, or other specialty encyclopedias. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. That's what notability is all about. Notability is what says that we don't have an article about each of the billions of people on the planet even though a good fraction of them are absolutely verifiable people who have been covered to some extent in a source that would be reliable (like a country's official birth records). It's what says we shouldn't have an article for every song recorded or every commercial ever recorded. Featuring an article that would belong in an encyclopedia of television in the 1990s is okay, but featuring an article that obsesses over the color of the shirt a reality contestant wore one episode would go too far. It's certainly okay for editors to be bold and push the envelope, but they shouldn't take it as a personal affront when a skeptic questions some of their work. Erechtheus (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * even I accept this about specialised encyclopedias. There is a great range of meaning in the term "encyclopedia". I am trying to figure out how to word this part more precisely--for academic things, i would certainly say that encyclopedias beyond a certain degree of specialisation are not necessarily proof of notability-- at the extreme, it can turn into a concordance of every word mentioned anywhere in anything dealing with the subject. But I think at least a minimum ins encyclopedias directed at the general reader or undergraduate. And again, even here, it depends on the degree of coverage and the organisation of the encyclopedia. for example, everyone listed in ODNB as the subject of a main article is certainly notable for our purposes, & I would extend that to everyone with a sub article heading there--but most certainly not to everyone who is merely mentioned in an article. But some other biographical dictionaries would list everyone about who, even the minimum of directory information can be found equally, and there we might not accept it uncritically. I'd like to say it depends on judgment and common sense, but I know just how far that would get us. DGG (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * I just don't think that notability needs to be a "guessing game"  at all . I think the policies that the community has built are very clear, the nature of Wikipedia as a work that includes articles on topics so focussed and arcane as a particular episode of the fourth season of a cartoon that aired in 1997 or an obscure programming language used in a subset of computer-automated products in a particular manufacturing industry produced in the 60's and 70's is well established, so anyone asserting that their personal opinions about notability really, really need to be brought to bear in preference over the actual text of WP:N is using extremely questionable judgment.  (Note by the way that I am not asserting those two articles I linked to are necessarily notable - just that Wikipedia does include articles on that sort of topic when it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".)
 * I just don't think that notability needs to be a "guessing game"  at all . I think the policies that the community has built are very clear, the nature of Wikipedia as a work that includes articles on topics so focussed and arcane as a particular episode of the fourth season of a cartoon that aired in 1997 or an obscure programming language used in a subset of computer-automated products in a particular manufacturing industry produced in the 60's and 70's is well established, so anyone asserting that their personal opinions about notability really, really need to be brought to bear in preference over the actual text of WP:N is using extremely questionable judgment.  (Note by the way that I am not asserting those two articles I linked to are necessarily notable - just that Wikipedia does include articles on that sort of topic when it "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".)

If Erechtheus' example of "the color of the shirt a reality contestant wore one episode" has received significant coverage - if it's a distinct and discrete topic - in reliable, independent secondary sources it just doesn't matter what his personal opinion of the topic is - it qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia by the impartial and objective criteria of notability that this community has decided upon. This simply isn't about personal opinions of what one person, or even a group of like-minded people, considers silly or insignificant (or wishes to assert may be insignificant, for whatever reason).

On WP:NNC - that section of the policy is not a declaration of the principle. As I've pointed out to Erechtheus several times it's simply an extrapolation of and direct policy link for this sentence which appears at the top of the policy above even the TOC: These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.But he insists that this is just an "exception" and that consequently his personal judgment takes precedence over it.

There certainly can be topics that hover near a fine line distinguishing the includable-by-guidelines from the non-includable. But what that means is to ascertain the topics' notability it's time to pay close attention to what the guidelines say and to make reasoned, supported arguments over whether the sources indicated for the topic are reliable and independent and whether the coverage in them is significant, et cetera. It does NOT mean it's time to start playing a "guessing game" and tossing around personal anecdotes and emphatic personal opinions about how articles should be written. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * If we had workable guidelines you might be right. But we do in only a very few areas, such as athletes, and the ones we do have are frequently challenged. The general guidelines depend on the chance of sourcing; since this gives absurd results, we qualify it by NOT and BLP and a very elaborate reading of what makes a RS to get some degree of discrimination between what two newspapers or books happen to cover and any real meaningfulness for an encyclopedia. I wonder what we would get by a match in Google News  or Books or Scholar to find everyone mentioned twice (they wont let the database be used that way, so it isn't practical). I wouldn't call the this a guessing game, I would call it a game of being able to make  an   argument and get enough support for it--which is a combination of logic and skill and community feelings  and  power and chance and  the mood of the day. DGG (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * but S.B. is right that this does not affect article content--which just has to be relevant and verifiable--and I think it is clearthat Erechtheus ( agrees about this.DGG (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I think the issue is in what sense content is meant. I read content to have the meaning, "something that is contained" while I believe that S.B. is reading it to mean, "something that is to be expressed through some medium". I think his reading guts the notability guideline and that the explanation under the heading "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" makes the meaning of content quite clear. It's just saying that you can't challenge the "Towards revolution" subsection of the Thomas Jefferson article on the basis that it's not a notable topic. It isn't saying that articles can express whatever they like and are above the grasp of notability. Erechtheus (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * As to the meaning of the word "content", that's pretty straightforward - web content, article content, et cetera - the entirely common usage of the term that distinguishes the actual text, hyperlinks, and images within the article from the subject of the article, that subject being an entity external to the article itself. Totally consistent with the etymology "something that is contained" by the article.  Thank you for concurring with me that WP:N does not affect article content, DGG.
 * As to the meaning of the word "content", that's pretty straightforward - web content, article content, et cetera - the entirely common usage of the term that distinguishes the actual text, hyperlinks, and images within the article from the subject of the article, that subject being an entity external to the article itself. Totally consistent with the etymology "something that is contained" by the article.  Thank you for concurring with me that WP:N does not affect article content, DGG.

DGG, I hear what you're saying that in many circumstances the presence-within-sources criteria may be problematic. But I do not agree with you that it necessarily gives absurd results in all cases; to give a pertinent example if the content of an article makes the cited statement "the subject of this article is an incorporated business entity in the State of New York, here is the date of incorporation" that pretty unambiguously indicates that there is or was significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in the form of State of NY incorporation documents and incorporation records. That's evidently the sort of thing Erechtheus is talking about when he implies that I think an article author "can express whatever they like and are above the grasp of notability" and is one example of the context in which he appears to believe it's necessary to start talking about his personal experiences and opinions on writing style, rather than discussing the reliability or article-indicated significance of coverage in sources.

To repeat - Erechtheus is talking about an article composed entirely of cited facts, all of which indicate the existence of secondary sources, when he's talking about how notability is a "guessing game" and how he just absolutely had to insist on using the notability template and no other, applying it via repeated edits to the article that reverted both its [ removal] by a third-party User:I am not a dog and my subsequent removal of it. (Despite the fact that he claims below that this sort of thing is one he "[doesn't] see much of a point obsessing over.")

So yeah, there's definitely potential notability problems if an author appears to be simply making up whatever facts he or she feels like about the subject of an article - but that's not the sort of situation we're talking about here, we're talking about articles with cited content indicating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. (In the case of the article that is the origin of the dispute between Erechtheus and I the citation includes both a direct link to the particular page of a Google Books entry and an OCLC number to the WorldCat entry for the cited book - so it was even a directly and immediately verifiable citation.)

And again, I'm not saying that the notability of the subject of an article of that sort cannot be debated at all, I'm saying that such a discussion pretty obviously should include actual quotations of policy text and arguments about the significance of coverage and reliability and independence of sources - not personal anecdotes and opinions about notability or opinions about writing style. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * Not every business entity documented is notable. Not every business entity that began in 18xx is notable, either (particularly when it is very unclear whether that entity still exists). What types of business entities are notable is a subject covered quite well by WP:CORP. This supposed indication of the existence of secondary sources is another issue that keeps coming up but my response never changes: I don't think you get to claim that since you have proven there are 200 members of a club, that club is notable just because some document of that person's life will indicate they were a member. S.B. likes to call that a biography, but I don't buy into the idea that every person is guaranteed to have a biography, so I call that a resume. The article that is in question contained one reference to a directory of organizations. Notability was in no way established. As to this allegation that I acted improperly because one person removed a maintenance template without addressing the concern or explaining his rationale, I submit that is no basis to suggest any wrongdoing. Would it surprise S.B. to learn that the editor in question started an article that indicated, "X is a professor," I questioned the notability of just one day prior? I don't think the editor whose change was linked to had any sort of conflict of interest, but I have to say I don't really believe that the editor in question has a particularly strong grasp of notability guidelines. Erechtheus (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As to this claim that discussion should include talk about policy/guidelines and not personal anecdotes, I'll point out that my first appeals to S.B. were to link him to relevent policies. It was only when he chafed at them that I attempted to explain myself in alternative ways. Erechtheus (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * Man, you just keep demonstrating over and over again that you're relying entirely on personal definitions of notability and have very little interest in what that word means on Wikipedia. Whether or not a 19th-century organization still exists has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's WP-notable; notability is not temporary as it says right there in the main notability policy.  As I've said repeatedly, you really should not be going around telling other people they need to go read WP:N - and you should particularly not be doing that in lieu of actually discussing notability policy and notability criteria with them.
 * Man, you just keep demonstrating over and over again that you're relying entirely on personal definitions of notability and have very little interest in what that word means on Wikipedia. Whether or not a 19th-century organization still exists has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's WP-notable; notability is not temporary as it says right there in the main notability policy.  As I've said repeatedly, you really should not be going around telling other people they need to go read WP:N - and you should particularly not be doing that in lieu of actually discussing notability policy and notability criteria with them.

In addition to needing to develop the habit of accurately quoting Wikipedia policy, you also need to try harder to accurately quote the people you're talking with. I didn't "allege wrongdoing" when I pointed out that you repeatedly reverted edits by two different users removing notability from the article in question - I pointed out that you were being baldfacedly mendacious below when you tried to strike the pose that choosing which maintenance templates to apply is something you just "don't see much of a point obsessing over" when in fact you absolutely insisted on applying one particular template no matter what other ones I suggested. As you point out above, one source is a problem for example - but that's a great reason to apply the onesource template and does not explain why you would insist on putting notability into an article - insist on it without making any WP-notability related arguments in its favor, and in fact including arguments about writing style as a reason the article supposedly didn't establish notability.

And no, I had not noticed that you were messing around with I am not a dog's contributions too. I went and looked through the history and you didn't "question the notability" of his article, by the way, you nominated it for speedy deletion 16 minutes after it was created as though it had an obviously non-notable subject, without any preceding attempt to contact the author or discuss notability - the article talk page is completely empty. You even threatened him with blocking, that was evidently important enough to put something on a talk page over.

But yes, knowing this circumstance, I am not a dog clearly isn't an impartial third party here, he shouldn't have reverted your change to the NYPS article. Doesn't change the fact that your "I don't see much of a point in obsessing" comment is a crock, though, and this incident with him you've brought up is another demonstration that you aren't interested in discussing Wikipedia notability with content contributors.

And another thing - pretending that you aren't being totally pejorative with this late-in-the-game insistence on calling any secondary biographical source a "resume" is just silly. I'm genuinely surprised that you seem to think anyone will buy the story that you simply have an innocent terminology preference. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * The reason that it matters whether NYPS exists now or when it ceased to exist is that WP:CORP suggests that length of existence is a consideration with nonprofit organization. This has never been about my personal opinion of notability -- it has been about whether Wikipedia's consensus notability guideline has been satisfied. You know, that's why I applied notability in the first place.
 * As to you alleging wrongdoing, you began that with your very first comment to me when you accused me of trying to manipulate you into creating content. You may also want to try accurately quoting people in terms of context and not pulling a quote about a specific consideration (importance template versus notability template) and then trying to make it a broader statement than it was.
 * It seems clear you are not familiar with the A7 speedy deletion rationale or the policy surrounding speedy deletion. When notability isn't even asserted, speedy deletion is appropriate. When the article creator removes the speedy deletion template, a warning to him is appropriate. When he does so a series of times, blocking becomes a real possibility. "X is a professor" does not assert notability any more than "X is a lawyer" or "X is a pathologist" would. As to 15 minutes, we have underconstruction as well as hangon. The reason new article patrolling is appropriate is that when an article is created, there is no way to know whether somebody is in the midst of a series of small edits to expand the article or if they're leaving behind something that isn't appropriate to languish in the database until somebody stumbles over it. Erechtheus (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * No, I wasn't familiar with the A7 criterion for speedy deletion. Now that I am I think it's quite interesting that this criterion states "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable".  I would of course be inclined to believe that it's saying this to concur with WP:NNC that an article's content is never required to contain an argument, explicit claim, or step-by-step proof of its subject's notability.
 * No, I wasn't familiar with the A7 criterion for speedy deletion. Now that I am I think it's quite interesting that this criterion states "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable".  I would of course be inclined to believe that it's saying this to concur with WP:NNC that an article's content is never required to contain an argument, explicit claim, or step-by-step proof of its subject's notability.

I would actually be inclined to say that the fact someone is a professor in the theory of a branch of science indicates they've probably either authored some notable books or otherwise contributed to the theory of that branch of science, and hence maybe someone genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia would at least choose the normal deletion process rather than trying to yank the carpet out from under the author, but my response to you bringing up your involvement with I am not a dog wasn't specifically intended to disagree with the speedy deletion nomination. I am pointing out that you certainly aren't at all intent on articulating to content authors the purportedly WP:N-based reasons for your actions.

This and many of your other actions look distinctly like wikilawyering to me - I have a very hard time believing that after thoughtful consideration (within the 16 minutes) you decided that an article about a professor of theoretical ecology couldn't possibly be notable and Wikipedia would be so much better off without it that it ought to be speedily deleted without even mentioning it to the author first (I checked, you didn't). No, it seems much more likely to me that your degree of consideration for the Wikipedia project in that situation went as far a "the rules say I can" and that the actual motivation to try speedy deleting such an article was something other than making Wikipedia better. (See WP:WL #2 for why this fits the description of wikilawyering, and again I am describing your behavior, not reacting to what you've told me is your RL profession.)

As to the context of your statement about obsessing - are you saying that you meant that something like the choice between onesource and notability is a really great subject to obsess over, but obsessing about the choice between importance and notability is completely pointless by comparison? If that's really what you meant, I apologize; but I hope you can concede that next to your own behavior of strenuously distinguishing between notability and the large array of other templates available for use, to announce that it's "pointless" for me or anyone else to distinguish between importance and notability looks quite a bit like the rhetorical tactic meiosis. Given the fact that you have engaged in various sorts of legerdemain like begging the question or this insistence on referring to all biographical sources as "resumes" you've made it clear that you're willing to employ rhetorical tricks like that.

And yes, I confirm that although I was not stating above that reverting the removal of notability by two separate users is evidence in and of itself of wrongdoing - just obsessiveness, which I am certainly prey to myself as is anyone who spends their time editing encyclopedias - I have definitely made several well-documented allegations of wrongdoing supported by thoroughly explained reasoning concerning your behavior. And I stand by all that I have said about you, I welcome examination and questioning of it by any third party. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * An article may never be required to establish notability, but there are potential consequences if it does not. One such consequence is application of a maintenance template that points out what the article is lacking. Another consequence (as the notability template advises) is that somebody may eventually decide to use some process to delete the article. What A7 is saying is that the standard is lower than notability. I think a good way to describe what is needed is an assertion of notability. Is saying somebody is a professor that sort of assertion? Frankly, I have seen that go both ways. Professor is a somewhat imprecise word as asserting notability goes. If I were an admin with the power to delete such an article, I'd personally want to know more about the professor. That's not the position I was in, though.
 * I don't think I come close to wikilawyering. I try my best to treat articles as though they belong to nobody and to consider absolutely nothing about who started them in my actions. That's actually why I felt I had to nominate Shrady as a copyvio. I think a completely legitimate purpose of our various policies is to help worthy articles bloom while discarding articles that have been deemed by the community to be insufficient. That's why I don't have a consistent track record of voting delete or keep in AfDs I participate in. I know that this doesn't sit well with some inclusionists, but I would hope those inclusionists recognize that their view is not the consensus view. I don't think my actions would always sit well with deletionists, either. I'll note that to the extent I am actually an attorney, I bend over backward not to use that when disputes arise. I think we both well recall who brought that up first in our discussions.
 * I tag a lot of articles with maintenance templates. I think it is appropriate to consider with some care whether to use something like unref rather than notability, but I will say that even then, I leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. I hold no illusion that I'm perfect. That's one reason why it took me something like a day to reapply notability to the NYPS article at one point and why I felt the need to resort to the article talk to explain myself. I value working through things with people. That's why I'm still here talking.
 * I once again invite you to show me these biographies. I think you're assuming they exist. I'm skeptical. I think that issue is as simple as that. 76.104.78.147 (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Erechtheus (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * It appears that you still have not fully digested WP:NNC. As I said in the NYPS talk page at the very beginning of the discussion there, whether or not you feel like doing a couple minutes of Google searching to verify the existence of the secondary sources indicated by the content of an article has no bearing on whether or not it establishes notability.
 * It appears that you still have not fully digested WP:NNC. As I said in the NYPS talk page at the very beginning of the discussion there, whether or not you feel like doing a couple minutes of Google searching to verify the existence of the secondary sources indicated by the content of an article has no bearing on whether or not it establishes notability.

You have seen with your own eyes, through the links I handed you on a silver platter, that the NYPS published a medical journal and that its journal is included in the collections of medical libraries, just as anyone approaching the original article in good faith would expect of a 200 year old medical society. You have personally viewed the 1894 Google Books copy of the Proceedings through a link I went and got to satisfy you. On I am not a dog's Eric Charnov article you have seen the content and citations added after you twisted his arm with your speedy deletion nomination (you're seriously going to maintain you were justified in bypassing the normal deletion process?) that prove that, surprise, surprise, a person identified as a science theorist by the faculty and administration of a state university has made notable contributions to scientific theory. (Wanna attempt to come up with some argument that a person being granted the title of "Professor of Ecological Theory" by a state university community doesn't indicate he's probably a notable science theorist? Go ahead.  Try me.)  You also know that, again ever-so-surprisingly, the Shrady content constituting the biography of someone who died in 1908 was in the public domain and that a few minutes of thought or due-diligence research would at least have turned up enough evidence to indicate that the normal deletion process was appropriate.

So you personally know that the notability-establishing facts in the first two articles were completely valid at the points when you attempted speedy deletion of the Eric Charnov article and while you were insisting on adding notability to the NYPS article, and you personally know that trying to get the Shrady article speedy deleted was a complete and utter fumble on your part, not to mention the dazzling array of fairness and impartiality issues that exist in that last case even without getting involved in Wikipedia policy or procedure.

So for anyone impartially examining this situation and making it to the current point in our conversation there is no question whatsoever that you fighting with me about these things now, making specious notability arguments and demanding biography links from me, in some sort of effort to retroactively justify actions that I hope even you can admit were mistakes, is a clear act of bad faith. Regardless of whether someone believes the original actions were taken in bad faith, riding on me about this, pulling things like the "all secondary biographical sources are resumes" crap, trying to portray notability appraisal of an all-content-cited article as a "guessing game", or stating or implying that you're doing any of this stuff purely for the good of Wikipedia is an unmitigated crock of shit you're throwing out in a vain and cavilous attempt to retroactively justify your actions.

This is not a matter of inclusionism or deletionism. This is a matter of you not bothering to read policies, not bothering to read articles or do due diligence before you edit them, and working your ego on others via Wikipedia policies and processes. (That's what it is at the least, if I'm totally and completely wrong in my arguments and evidence of most of the bad faith motives.)

If you're going to go around tagging every one-sentence or two-sentence article with notability, guess what - a bot could do your "job". That's what your "patrolling" contributions to the project amount to, at least for the NYPS and Charnov articles, equivalent to a bot that also harasses editors, makes specious policy arguments, and tries to get articles speedy deleted. Until you have dealt with some of these personal issues I really think you need to at least limit yourself to only trying to use the normal deletion process, even if it means avoiding working on articles that deserve speedy deletion. (And, like I've said a million times, stop going around telling people to read policies you aren't reading yourself.)

And for the record I will again point out that I at no point said anything about you being an attorney and I did not know you were an attorney until you told me. My condemnation of you as especially at fault for intentionally employing rhetorical legerdemain, for sloppily trying to utilize a biased and elided reading of Wikipedia policy, and for ignoring playground-level principles of fairness and impartiality were based upon the advertised fact that your education includes a doctorate-level study of law. It was not motivated by any moral judgments based upon guesses about what your occupation might be; I would have said the exact same things if I'd been certain I was talking to the Catholic Pope, whom I believe was an author on ecclesiastical legal policy at the Vatican and received a similar education. You aren't compelled to accept this statement of motivations, of course, but again I did not literally say anything about your occupation, only your education, and any such meaning would have needed to be implied rather than explicit.

Let me also say, now that you've pointed me to it, I do think that I am not a dog's reaction to your speedy deletion nomination not only looks uncivil, but was inarticulate and appeared to include baseless allegations, which definitely makes any appearence of incivility unjustified. But I think it's clear that he was reacting to the behaviors that I have now thoroughly documented.

And I'll make one more statement in the hopes that I have persuaded you that at least my criticism of you derives from good faith, so far a concession as I'm willing to make: yes, the things I've said to you and about you have been harsh, perhaps even harsh to the point of incivility. But they have been supported, rational, honest, carefully-made statements, and I believe I have acquitted myself with honor and not done anything that would qualify as slander or libel. Your actions and rhetorical games demand a harsh response, not a response dressed up in the mere appearance of civility that you yourself employ. (And, frankly, I think I would have been justified in being a hell of a lot harsher on the whole than telling you that you shouldn't spuriously cite policy to people and that you should act like an adult. Though being harsher would have undermined my purpose of creating neutral-as-possible documentation of this behavior.)--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * As to this allegation that my personal judgment comes into play, let me clarify exactly what I believe to be the case there: I don't think my judgment comes into play at all when it is clear that notability has been established. The question is closed at that point. When notability isn't established, it becomes a judgment call. I think most would agree that if the topic is something as notorious as George Washington, notability shouldn't be questioned even if it isn't established. When notability isn't established and it isn't clear, it's a judgment call in my book whether to go with importance or notability. It's a judgment call I don't see much of a point obsessing over. I'm not going to go behind changing one of those templates into the other. I think the importance template is a weak template and isn't nearly as effective a notice as the notability one, but I don't think it's worth fighting over or honestly giving it more than a second worth of consideration. The point is that notability isn't established, and everyone should be on notice. That's what a maintenance template is supposed to do. Erechtheus (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

back to the issues

 * 1) I do not agree that "if the content of an article makes the cited statement "the subject of this article is an incorporated business entity in the State of New York, here is the date of incorporation" that pretty unambiguously indicates that there is or was significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in the form of State of NY incorporation documents and incorporation records. " These are exactly examples of primary sources in every sense--the standard academic sense, the WP sense, & I think the legal sense. Such information can only prove existence and not notability, no matter how much of it there is or how reliable it is.
 * 2) But I also do not agree that showing PW:N is clearcut and depends only on the sources. to take the example of a company. A company can be notable in many ways. For example, if a company is sufficiently large, it is notable. How large this must be is a question for us to decide on the basis of common sense as expressed in consensus. Once we know this, we need a RS to show it--and a primary source such as a financial report can do it, just as can a statement in a reliable magazine. We might also decide--and I think we should--that any company with a NYSE listing is notable. (that is in fact one way of dealing with "size" because they have their own objective  standard for that.) Showing that is then enough to0 jhustify an article, no matter how little can be said beyond the bare financials & date of incorporation. Of course, even the smallest company that gets significant national news or magazine coverage for something is notable also--sufficient public interest on is another form of notability. But just another form; it is not the only way. Counting references is only good enough if it's something for which there is no other rational basis. As I see it, it's a reaction to the use of  ILIKEEIT, and agreed, it's an improvement over that. But actual importance/popularity/prominence/significance/public interest is what is meant by notability. any of these, by standards which we set by consensus--the limitation is then WP:V. and possibly those parts of WP:NPOT for which there is actual consensus, not just unexamined habit. DGG (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about primary versus secondary sources that I glossed right over. I will also respond to say that I agree this isn't just a matter of source counting. To get past speedy deletion, there needs to be some claim of notability (even if it isn't backed up). To get an article beyond the point of the more skeptical editors questioning notability, there needs to be a claim and some level of proof. Depending on exactly the claim, primary sources may be enough. If the claim is an ordinary one, I'd submit primary sources should be enough. If it's an extraordinary one (first private company to land a rocket on the moon), secondary sources should be required. Erechtheus (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * {| style="background:transparent; padding:2px 2px 2px 2px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"


 * Ah, well I may actually have a misunderstanding of the concept of a "secondary source" in the context of notability, then; I was interpreting it as meaning a source that does not originate from the subject of the article itself, but is from a different entity or person which mentions the subject of the article. This is why I was considering documentation of the NYPS's existence created and held by the state government of New York to be a secondary source.
 * Ah, well I may actually have a misunderstanding of the concept of a "secondary source" in the context of notability, then; I was interpreting it as meaning a source that does not originate from the subject of the article itself, but is from a different entity or person which mentions the subject of the article. This is why I was considering documentation of the NYPS's existence created and held by the state government of New York to be a secondary source.

I was actually considering the Transactions medical journal mentioned above to be a non-secondary source because it was authored by the NYPS itself. The secondary sources which would have bearing on the notability of the NYPS would actually be the other medical journals and papers that cite the NYPS Transactions but that intricacy did not seem worth mentioning before now. (Since at the time Erechtheus's view was that the existence of things like the NYPS Transactions journal could not be validly considered without the presence of article content explicitly referencing it.)

But I think, if I'm parsing it right DGG, you would regard the incorporation documents as independent primary sources for the NYPS?

There is one nitpicking point I feel I must contradict you on, when you say "Of course, even the smallest company that gets significant national news or magazine coverage for something is notable also..." This appears to be in contravention of the passage from WP:N which says ...it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. which to me appears to be an explicit exception to the significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources criterion in regards to a specific kind of news coverage. (So if it weren't for this explicit exception, I think your statement would be correct.)

I concur with you that rules of thumb like "any company with an NYSE listing is notable" would be appropriate but I don't think it's necessary to regard that as doing away with or bypassing the core sources criterion - it's simply saying that obviously a company listed on the NYSE is going to have received significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources.

Also, I think it's worth distinguishing between the English word "notability", which definitely means exactly what you say above, and what I've been calling WP-notability, the practical criteria for objectively establishing notability for the purpose of article inclusion. I don't think that distinction really changes anything, I just use it as shorthand for "yeah, that could be an actual aspect of notability, but it's one that couldn't be objectively demonstrated in any practical way." --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC) 
 * }