Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 11 December 2009

This page was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1

Inherent flaws

This has been bugging me (and others I have talked with), but this has to be settled since in the last few months people have started saying "Keep/Delete per OUTCOMES" as their only argument in AFD debates. This essay has NO sources to back up the claims that any of the consensuses the page are actually the consensuses (particularly the one about schools supposedly being notable). Both of these are problems (people using this page of opinions as their only argument, and not having any sources). TJ Spyke 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a notability guideline as such, but is an indicator of consensus at AfDs. I've just put in a few more links to guidelines and notability essays which go into more detail on subject areas, and reworded some sentences which assumed that a series of AfDs which result in a topic not being deleted therefore confers notability on that topic, rather than acceptance by the Wiki community. Notability depends on Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and that is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies which cannot be overlooked. A series of AfD discussions which result in a common outcome that a topic is unlikely to be deleted means that the topic itself is acceptable to the Wiki community, though notability still has to be established by verifying the topic through reliable sources. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is troublesome. It presents statements of outcome with no references and essentially operates on the honor system. How do we judge when something changes? Only someone going through all the AFDs for a particular topic could reasonably make a claim, and I don't see any of those claims here cited. Pages should be deleted based on their merits according to policies and guidelines; at most, there should be a page for consensus on each topic (for example, a place to discuss the inherent notability of roads). I understand that this sometimes happens, but this page is too general and unsourced to be of use in an AFD discussion, though I HAVE seen it cited by people. Epthorn (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just encountered a person in an AFD a few minutes ago whos only reply was "Keep per WP:OUTCOMES". So it's still a problem as sometimes others will join in and cause an article (usually school articles) to be kept when it fails actual policies and guidelines simply because enough people cited this essay/opinion piece as reason to keep them. TJ Spyke 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen OUTCOMES cited much, but I have the same problem with it: it's not reliable, because it's not sourced at all. It looks to be the impressions of a handful of editors regarding how things turn out, which leaves a lot of questions. How active the editors were in AfD, how long a period of time on AfD the allegedly common outcomes have been true for, etc. You can't really discuss precedents without having the precedents in hand. The archive Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Precedents/Archive has the same problem. It would be nice to have good evidence regarding common outcomes, but at the moment it seems to me that it would be difficult to collect. I'd suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#put_categories_in_AfD_discussions.3F that searching for AfDs would be enhanced by adding the categories of the articles they were discussing to the AfD itself. If the search function could also be improved, then it would be easier to go through all the AfDs for various specific topics to note common outcomes and then be able to link them (which would also permit people to easily verify for themselves that the summation of how they went is correct). Though there's still any number of problems with following precedent when it comes to Misplaced Pages, unlike most other systems where it makes sense that precedent holds sway. Шизомби (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

About Spelling Bee

Although it says the Spelling Bee winners are notable, what about national winners of MathCounts? They're notable too, don't you think?--Heero Kirashami 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say neither are notable, but they are significant - they rate a mention on the competition's page, not a whole article. Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Local government

The people section of the article contains the following:

"city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"

And was raised as an argument for keeping some articles I was proposing for deletion from London. Have looked further I think this article is confusing and also confused about the nature of local government in different cities. For a start is contradicts WP:BIO which states:

"just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"

and I think precedent has been for the deletion of London councillors with no other notability. Just looking at the examples cited Toronto has 44 city councillors, Chicago has 50 city aldermen and San Francisco 11 board members. London, on the other hand, has 32 councils plus the City of London, each election between around 40-60 councillors, giving it around 1,500 councillors (I'm not listing all 32, but you can find them all at London borough. The London Assembly on the other hand only has 25 members, who I think do attain notability. Could I suggest that the text in the article be re-worded to:

elected local officials are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping the members of city-wide bodies of major, internationally famous, metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London.

This avoids confusion from the different titles and gives an unambiguous statement about the level of office required for notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, this kind of thing is an example of why we shouldn't blindly follow precedent, but need to thoughtfully consider cases on their own merits and consider applicable policies and guidelines. If we could apply simple rules to the deletion process, there would be no need for us humans. Jakew (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• My only concern would be that membership of the City of London Corporation, for historical reasons, should be considered notable in a way that being a borough councilor should not be. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• When looking at London you have to take into account that the London Assembly has very limited powers. I would consider that the leader of one of the borough councils, such as Paul Lorber who is up for AfD, is more notable than a member of the London Assembly, as most decisions which affect the lives of Londoners at the local level are taken by the borough councils. The London Assembly is little more than a talking shop. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also the argument that a councillor has more real power than a backbench MP, because the councillor has more direct access to the people responsible for the services most people care about, like housing, education or social care. However, the test for Misplaced Pages is not power, but notability. On that criteria most council leaders are not even notable in their own borough, this article suggests name recognition is between 16-28%, frankly I'd be amazed it is that high. It would certainly drop significantly towards 0% outside of their own borough. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be amazed if name recognition for GLA members is anywhere near 16-28%. Do you know of any survey that has that information? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Generally, my instinct here would be to defer to the judgement of the people most familiar with the topic as to how to define notability vs. non-notability — precedent statements are just guideline summaries of how AFD discussions have tended to go in the past, not binding statements of invariable policy. They can always evolve and change as AFD treatment of the topic evolves. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, an apparent system of rules is likely to be treated as binding, even though that isn't the intent, whereas a more general description of the result of past discussions tends to encourage people to use their judgement. For this reason, I think we need to be careful about refining too much. Jakew (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I think the problem here is that the article is suggesting a precedent where none exists, that London councillors are notable with nothing else. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not suggesting a precedent that doesn't exist — it's just suggesting a precedent that some people legitimately feel should be reviewed and/or revised. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of the following seems more accurate?

• "Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping all councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"
• "Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping some councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"

Jakew (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be awkward and say neither! I think the problem is with the word 'councillor', since few places actually use the term (in SF they are Supervisors, in Chigago they are Aldermen) and the one place they are used the precedent seems to be that they need something else to gain notability. The first is definitely inaccurate (a London councillor was deleted yesterday), the second implies that being a councillor can be notable, but doesn't explain the extra hurdles. I still prefer using a more neutral phrasing like "members of city-wide bodies" - not elegant, but it avoids confusion caused by different political systems. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried a wording change which, I hope, reflects the general consensus of this discussion:

Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors.

Please feel free to edit mercilessly if the wording isn't quite right, but it's an effort. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm way way way too new at this to dare edit directly - boldly, mercilessly or otherwise. I would suggest, however, that the second sentence is unnecessary since the reference to 'citywide government' excludes London Borough councillors. Also thank-you for raising this issue on one of my AfD discussions, I've learnt a lot through the process - about Misplaced Pages and local government elsewhere. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learned about Misplaced Pages policy and guideline statements, it's that sometimes we need to specifically spell out certain things even if we consider them blindingly obvious — trust me, without that qualification, somebody will eventually cite the precedent in favour of a borough councillor somewhere in the world. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A good point, and given that, ignore my previous suggestion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Astronomical Bodies

I was arguing if HD179949 should be proposed for deletion per WP:N but couldn't find a policy for that. When is a star/planet notable? Don't say every star is notable because there are many. Like 10. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at what is considered by consensus to be notable. A minor pass Willow Creek Pass (Montana) was overwhelmingly considered to be notable, though the written policies and guidelines didn't clearly indicate that situation. I have now updated the Outcomes to show that, so at least there is something in writing.

It is quite likely that there has been similar previous discussions regarding stars but nobody has put the findings on Outcomes. It would be worth putting it up on AfD to see the reaction if nobody here gives a better answer. SilkTork * 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a more comprehensive article at HD 179949. --Iamunknown 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to Student Union deletion outcomes

Current Language: "University or college student unions tend to survive AfD, although not always."

Proposed Language: "UK and Canadian University or college student unions tend to survive AfD, but American student governments tend not to survive AFD without significant secondary coverage"

Why? American student governments tend to fail AFD. UK and Canadian student unions do very different things, so they tend to pass. Out of 16 AFDs on US Student Governments that I have been able find, only 2 have passed AFD without a Delete, No Consensus, or Merge. Looking back at the record (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities/Deletion)

12 Deleted in AFDs: 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7, 8,9,10,11,12

2 Merged from AFD: 1,2
2 No consensus: 1,2
3 Keep: 1,2, 3

Thoughts?--Flunkerton (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the proposed change is correct. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• I believe your data is correct since you're pretty much relisting/reformulating AfD outcomes from WP:UNI/D, but to get a better picture, someone needs to dig deeper and find AfD results from before we started logging them on WP:UNI/D (which was maybe a month or so ago max). I have voted in AfDs of NN student unions and other orgs before, but you are essentially correct. I was the vice president of my university's student government and American SUs do operate differently, but notability is the key. We really shouldn't begin generalizing these AfDs. I still believe the case-by-case basis evaluation of notability is the best way to determine whether the AfD should result in keep/merge/delete/nc. - Jameson L. Tai 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • I agree, and I think that the language shows that notability must be established. I think the current language might lend itself to some specious arguments that I have seen in some AFDS: like this or this or this or this or this or this and in trying to establish blanket student government notabily. So, I think the new language gives a more accurate picture of the reality of AFDs on US student governments.

• • • As far as digging deeper to find more old AFDs, I tried. A few weeks ago I did search through a bunch of old AFDs trying to find more student governments. I searched for things in the wikipediaspace with "Associated Students" "Student Association" "Student Government" and "Student Union," and I add the ones I found to the WP:UNI/D archive. So, there are more out there, but I couldn't find them.User:SevernSevern aka --Flunkerton (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, personally, I don't think there's a problem with the current language. Here's the reason why. I agree with what you're saying (and if you look at those AfDs, you'd find my respective comments on each one of those AfDs) What you're proposing is basically to counter one person's (previously) somewhat relentless push to make SUs all inherently notable. I think the current process has carried its course properly and that WikiProject proposal is most likely not going to go through. The current language on individual notability establishment is, in my honest opinion, the fairest and most transparent way for any article, student organization, student government, student union, etc to have their own article. But hey, I'm always open to suggestions. Why don't you draft what you think should be the proper wording? (because or else we'd be talking theoretic future wording that no one knows what it's going to entail...lolz) - Jameson L. Tai 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New language for this section?
"The notability of student unions may vary between different counties and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor in each AfD"

• Support User:SevernSevern aka --Flunkerton (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support for the new description. - Jameson L. Tai 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support as well.—Noetic Sage 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Television series

I've just added a statement about nationally broadcast TV series being notable, because I've seen it claimed in AfDs often enough that I've started using it myself. As far as I've seen, as an argument it's always carried the day, and yet it wasn't documented anywhere. I notice above that it's been brought up more than once -- so silence consent, being bold, et cet. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

This page seems to come across like instructions that often mirror notability guidelines in large parts rather than a set of precedents. What's the difference between this and notability guidelines? --neon white talk 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is meant to serve as sort of a thumbnail guide to how notability tends to be interpreted in cases where a notability guideline doesn't already clearly cover the subject. In some ways it serves as kind of a first step toward improvement and expansion of our notability guidelines by helping to identify new issues and conflicts where further work is needed. That said, I agree that in some cases old on-the-fly precedents have been left on here even after being fully integrated into and/or obsoleted by a higher-level guideline, and some newer precedents that should be added here haven't been. Some updating and revision is definitely needed — this should be one step in the evolutionary and improvement process for Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, but too often it ends up being reified as an end unto itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion about concert tour articles was incorrect

The page says "Shows and tours of bands should be listed in the band article, not in a separate article", and this has been used as justification for deleting concert tour articles in AfD. This text makes it seem like no concert tour articles exist or are justified, which is just plain incorrect. Many hundreds of concert tour articles currently exist, and are populated under Category:Concert tours. It is true that tour articles are sometimes brought to AfD, but many, perhaps most, have survived. Recent survival examples of sets of tour articles include Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Syndicate Tour, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stones American Tour 1981, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alive II Tour. Even one recent one that was successful, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rush Tour, deleted most, but not all, of the Rush tour articles. Same story with Metallica tours, most but not all deleted (sorry, I can't find the link right now). Want older examples? Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Music Box Tour is a survival from a couple of years ago that turned into a speedy keep.

The common denominator has been, that tour articles that just list tour dates and set lists are liable to get deleted. Tour articles that don't have any references to real, third-party reliable sources and media attention are liable to get deleted. Tour articles that are well sourced and that discuss different and notable aspects of the tour do not get deleted. I am modifying the page to reflect this. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Transportation

The deletion debate at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tunney's Pasture Station (OC Transpo) seems to have highlighted somewhat of a contradiction between two statements in the transportation section of this guideline. Specifically, one part of it says that subway and railway lines are acceptable, but individual stations are questionable, while another says that bus stops are not notable, with the exception of certain hubs in major cities — and both statements are being simultaneously cited by opposite sides of the Tunney's Pasture discussion.

Thus, I'd like to request some input on how to revise the section for increased clarity about what is and is not acceptable. My understanding of the precedent as it stands is that an article about a station on a subway, commuter rail or bus rapid transit line is generally acceptable, as long as it's properly sourced, but articles on run-of-the-mill "shelter and pole" bus or trolley stops along regular road routes generally are not — however, I'd like to know how other people perceive the precedent before making any unilateral change.

Please note that this is not a debate about where the notability cutoff should be for transit stations — if somebody would like to raise such a discussion, this isn't really the place for that. But until such time as there's a formal proposal, we do need to be a bit clearer about where the precedent currently stands whether we agree with it or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable Programming Languages

I'd like to point out that non-notable programming language pages should not be simply deleted, but the contents, or at least a summary, should be moved to an appropriate list. I know this is probably done anyway, but it might be appropriate to mention it somewhere in this list. MagiMaster (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Television one-offs ?

It seems that the notability of individual series and their constituent episodes seems to be something that no consensus has been reached on - the opinion seems to be that if someone creates enough articles and screams loudly enough if/when they're deleted, that the community isn't particularly bothered either way (so we get periodic pruning/recreation giving a kind of 'status quo'). However, what happens with one-off television shows ? Is it down to the number and quality of references provided, or is there some set of base criteria to meet (bearing in mind that such references are often harder to locate for smaller countries) ? CultureDrone (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is TBN a "major network"

WP:OUTCOMES#Media states:

Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable.

Is Trinity Broadcasting Network a "major network" in this context? (See List of United States over-the-air television networks for size comparisons.) Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Layout

The boxes at the top of the page are lying over each other. Can somebody please fix the layout, Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted: addition of an outcome in apparent contravention of policy

The removed text was

• People initially notable for one event are generally kept in their own article (independent of the event's article) if mainstream national media begin covering aspects of the person's background (schooling, occupation, childhood, family life) unrelated to the notable event for which they made news, within 48 hours of that notable event.

The timing here is irrelevant - many such articles could arguably be removed by application of WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E can still be reasonably argued in the case where additional coverage of an individual's biography is made relatively soon after an event, since the coverage will be related to the event so notability is afforded only by the single event, which is what WP:ONEEVENT is all about. This also doesn't take into account the possibility of applying WP:SBST, which is the aspect of the general notability guideline relating to exactly the kind of short-burst of news stories that this addition refers to.

The most pertinent point in this case is that this kind of article has discussions that have consensus both for keep and for delete, or have no consensus at all. There is no clear consensus that arises over and over again as there might be with inhabited places. Since this page documents common outcomes, intended to be pointed out to a nominators to allow us to prevent a pointless AfD discussion, the fact that there is no common outcome to all of these suggests that this should not be included here.

To be clear, I do not have a particularly strong opinion on the sentiment of the included piece (although I am unhappy with the fact that this does not acknowledge even our most basic policies) but rather with its inclusion in this list specifically. Perhaps take it to WP:BLP or WP:BIO for inclusion as part of the guidelines? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To see the discussion that spawned this, see Wikipedia_talk:BLP#Premature_BLP1E_AfD.27s. This started at WT:BLP based on my concerns that AfD's of people currently in the news (e.g., Susan Boyle) make us look silly, and the change was made here because there was a consensus that RS coverage beyond the event eliminates ONEEVENT concerns, but no consensus on what happens in the mean time--speedy merge or allow a grace period for the person to fall out of the news. Per WP:CCC, NOT#NEWS and ONEEVENT seem to be applied in practice (that is, articles being actually deleted on these bases) more and more sparingly.

I'd love to hear from others on...

• Some recent examples where the rule of thumb does NOT represent an actual AfD outcome. I'm not aware of any in the last, say, six months, but my knowledge is far from complete.
• An alternate wording, perhaps more narrowly constructed, which captures the sentiment that even if a person's done nothing particularly enduring, if RS's cover facets of their lives outside the context of the event for which they were propelled into the news, then N is satisfied and ONEEVENT is moot. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'l have a crack at this later (I'm about to head off), but this sounds more like it would benefit as an implementation note at WP:AFD so that it is properly codified. This is just an essay, after all. I'll have a look through my AfDs for ones I've closed where ONEEVENT was applied. But there doesn't seem to be much consensus for this addition at the talk page you cite above: I just see you suggest it, someone say maybe, and you say you've put it here. I think the discussion is worth having - I think putting it here is premature and a little pointless, since it will have little effect. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to schools

The present wording is "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, while fewer than 15% have actually been deleted. Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools in most cases being kept. Schools which do get deleted are frequently, although not always, redirected to the school district which operates them." The 2005 data is now well out of date and the wording no longer reflects the common outcomes. I have participated in every school AfD in the last couple of years and reviewing them I think that the following wording better reflects the outcomes:

"Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools which do get merged are generally redirected to the school district which operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere)."

I should welcome comments, please. TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I believe you should make the change. If anybody objects, we can talk about it. Maybe you should put in the date of your observation. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Make the change. I saw one high school deleted, because there was no verified source. Anyone creating a new high school article should make sure to have proper sources, especially if the school is brand new, rather than established for several years and producing graduates. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable."

This statement, in the 'Media' section offers no definition of "major network" or "major studio", nor any context for determining notability on a case-by-case basis. What size of "major network" or "major studio" was this precedent based upon?

Further, the statement appears to contradict WP:NME#Programming, which places primacy on RSes rather than audience size in determining notability. ("In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.") Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "major" may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by AfD participants, but seems explicitly intended to exclude local public access cable channels. If any show, whatever venue, meets the GNG, then the guideline wouldn't limit its inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If the definition of the precedent "may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis" then it lacks any value as a precedent (whose value is due to its certainty). The purported precedent may have been 'created' on the basis of very large "major" networks or studios (e.g. networks that have near-ubiquitous coverage in the US, or studios covered in Major film studio), but be applied "on a case-by-case basis" to far smaller networks/studios than provided the basis for its creation. This would be the equivalent of stating "big companies are notable" on the basis of The Walt Disney Company and General Motors, and then attempting to apply this precedent "on a case-by-case basis" to the 'biggest company in our small town'. Hence my original follow-up question: What size of "major network" or "major studio" was this precedent based upon? To which I'd like to add second a follow-up question: is there any indication that it was the size of the network/studio that was the determining factor, or was it (as WP:NME#Programming suggests it should be) the level of RS? To put it another way, is this precedent merely the legitimisation of an irrelevant WP:BIG argument? Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:OUTCOMES--it's intent is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It is a collection describing how past decisions have tended to be concluded in AfD. I'm not sure an abstract question is appropriately answerable here. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, I don't think that I do "misunderstand" it in the least. Your use of it here (expanded here) looks pretty darn "prescriptive".
2. I would further point out that a 'description' that fails to 'describe' the most pertinent detail (hardly an 'abstraction') -- i.e. how "major" the network/studio has to be in order for their programming to be "notable" is descriptively worthless.
3. I would therefore conclude that, your claim notwithstanding, this statement has little "descriptive" value, but that its main value is "prescriptive", to be used to push an agenda at AfDs, regardless of whether the the AfDs underlying this precedent actually support such a view.

Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of this statement

Given:

1. the failure to define "major network" or "major studio" so as to provide meaningful guidance;
2. the failure to establish any strong relationship between network/studio size & notability of individual programs (rendering this a spurious WP:BIGNUMBER claim); and
3. the potential and actual (including by Jclemens themselves, see difs above) "case by case" misuse of this statement as a "prescriptive" argument against deletion.

I am recommending that this statement be removed from this pseudo-guideline. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 10:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Hrafn cites not one single case of an AfD improperly closed and overturned at DRV which cited this particular clause. Until and unless such happens, this remains an accurate description of community consensus, despite the wishes of a self-described precisionist that it be made more black and white. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: what a completely spurious counter-argument. Is any purported "common outcome", no matter how vague, irrelevant, coincidental (or even frivolous) to be kept, unless and until a DRV has reversed an AfD on that exact point? Then I would therefore like to propose a 'common outcome' of my own: that articles whose title is related to the colour red are generally notable (commentors in AfDs may of course decide "on a case-by-case basis" what constitutes a relationship to the colour red, and what level of relationship is needed). As I'm sure no DRV has reversed on this point, it should be an obvious pick under Jclemens' criteria. I would also point out that Jclemens clearly "misunderstand" himself -- as his criteria for rejecting a 'common outcome' is blatantly based on its "prescriptive" use, not a "descriptive" use. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to interefe with your line of argumentation, but you were the one who brought up "prescriptive" argument as a cause of action in your point #3. Furthermore, your proposed new criteria lacks one critical element: a consensus that addition is appropriate based on a trend in previous AfD outcomes that supports its documentation as an expected outcome. If you want to add or change WP:OUTCOMES, feel free to first collect a series of AfD outcomes that document where the existing wording is deficient. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. You brought "prescriptive" up first: "it's intent is to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive" -- I was merely rebutting your claim which is contradicted by (i) your own actions & (ii) by your argument above. It is therefore entirely reasonable that I bring up its prescriptive misuse as a supporting reason for removing it.
2. Your demand for documentation stands policy on its head: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I am not suggesting the addition/restoration of material, I am challenging whether existing material is (i) substantiated & (ii) sufficiently well-defined as provide any legitimate guidance. The burden of evidence lies upon those defending its retention. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a policy page, not an article. If you want it changed, the burden is on you to find a consensus. Absent such a consensus, the policy doesn't change. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not "a policy page" (hence the lack of a {{policy}} on it. Nor is it a formal guideline (it's, currently undefined, formal status would most probably be closest to an essay). It is a page that purports to document existing WP:CONSENSUS. As such, the burden is upon those claiming that such consenses exist to substantiate their existence (and demonstrate that they have not been misrepresented or extrapolated/expanded from). Hrafn_Stalk(P) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying it twice doesn't make it true. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Well, nobody else seems to want to take this request on Misplaced Pages:Third opinion, so I'll give it a shot.

• This isn't a policy document. It isn't even a guideline. It's a record of typical outcomes to AfD discussions.
• Given that, I see nothing wrong with such a record describing an outcome to keep or delete an article based on the size of a media outlet.
• There is no need to define what constitutes a "major" media outlet. That's splitting hairs, and irrelevant to whether the sentence should be deleted. The definition would reasonably adapt to the context of an article. For example, college football players are described in media having nationwide scope, but that doesn't mean that every college football player is notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages; the player needs to have more than the standard coverage for his vocation to meet criteria for inclusion. However, that same college-football-player-level of coverage when applied to, say, an elementary-school tiddlywinks champion, would be something significant to warrant keeping an article.
• Nevertheless, Hrafn is correct. The burden of proof does not lie with the person claiming a negative. Hrafn makes a negative claim that AfD outcomes aren't based on how "major" a media outlet is. Jclemens makes a positive claim that the contentious sentence in this article is supported by consensus reached through multiple AfD discussions. One cannot prove a negative, so it's up to Jclemens to find supporting sources to keep this sentence. If there is no record of AfD outcomes that depend on perception of how major a media outlet is, then the sentence should go.

That's my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if WP:BURDEN doesn't apply, then WP:BRD does, does it not? Furthermore, this opinion presupposes that I added the clause, which I did not. It's been around, uncontested, for 13 months, and reflects prior guidance elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I presupposed nothing, and I apologize if it came off seeming so. I did not check the edit history to determine if there was edit warring going on. The discussion above was sufficient for me to form an opinion.

I also did not say WP:BURDEN doesn't apply. The sentence makes an assertion that is supposedly supported by multiple AfD discussions. If there is disagreement on that point, then it is up to the person who restores (or wants to keep) that sentence to provide evidence that such discussions took place. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Coaching Institutes

I think various coaching institutes getting students prepare for entrance examinations(specially in India) serve no purpose here.Being hardly notifiable they deserve for quick deletion. For example this one:FIITJEE.--Shashankgupta (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to post this. Once a lot of them have been deleted in AfD's, adding that information to the page may be beneficial, but trends are catalogued here, not started. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Google is not the sole determining factor in AfD outcomes

I would like for the watchers of this page to please comment on a related discussion at the village pump: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Google_is_not_the_be-all_and_end-all_of_notability_for_an_article. -- œ 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple changes by User:Sancho Mandoval without discussion

I saw the changes here reverted by User:Jclemens here, calling in edit summary for the user to discuss his position. When User:Sancho Mandoval reinserted the changes here, I incorrectly reverted the changes as vandalism here. While I stand by my choice to revert the user's latest change, I apologize for the incorrect use of my automated tools. I also immediately applied a sincere apology to the user's talk page.

All that said, user seems to want to discuss this, but on my talk page, making this personal with me, so I've created this thread for discussion appropriate to the changes mentioned. BusterD (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, BusterD edited the page to indicate that "Google is an indicator of reliable sources - see Misplaced Pages:Search engine test" (oddly enough, Misplaced Pages:Search engine test says the opposite). But since he put the claim back in there, I'll let him defend this odd take on the inherent value of Google search results. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The analysis you've decided to highlight on your user page badly misinterprets the position taken by User:Jclemens or by myself in reverting your edits. In the context given on the page, under the section which relates to Internet, the bullet point "Programming languages are acceptable if widely used; Google is an indicator of reliable sources - see Misplaced Pages:Search engine test" is hardly controversial, and doesn't remotely translate as "If a term gets a lot of google hits, that means there are reliable sources" as you have written. BusterD (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So what do you think "Google is an indicator of reliable sources" means? It really isn't even a coherent phrase in the first place... Google... the company? The search engine? The number? is an indicator of reliable sources? It means there are reliable sources? It's confusing wording, I'd really like to know why you insist on including it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BusterD is now asking JClemens to help deal with this, I guess Buster never imagined he'd be alone here... is it that hard to admit you added back in indefensible nonsense just because we can't have "new users" making corrections? Apparently so. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I wasn't aware of why Google would be an indicator of reliable sources for programming languages. Google can help show something is popular, but it can't really given any evidence of notability. While Google can certainly help find sources, I'm not sure why ghits should matter any more for programming languages than any other subject. While I agree that popular languages are likely to be notable, I'm not sure we can say popular = notable, which is what this page currently appears to say. (Which would appear to go against WP:GNG). Perhaps this should be re-written for clarity? -- Bfigura 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That a term gets a lot of Google results doesn't automatically mean there are reliable sources, but indeed this page currently seems to imply the opposite. A programming language would likely only be kept at AFD nowadays if it met WP:GNG.. this page gives people the wrong idea. It needs to be changed, but BusterD has put a stop to that. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you were originally reverted for not discussing first. I'm not sure why you would need to (since this isn't policy, WP:BRD should apply) but in any case, we're discussing it now. I've removed the parts that seemed contradictory to me, but I'm happy to go with whatever version makes the most sense to people. Best, -- Bfigura 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

Problem Statement

WP:OUTCOMES is not an official guideline, but it is erroneously treated like one by many editors, who cite it in AfD debates: "Keep as per WP:OUTCOMES." This page is supposed to describe the outcomes of the most common types of articles nominated for deletion. However, because of all the advice given on the page, as well as use of the term "precedent," the page has a more proscriptive than descriptive tone, which adds to the confusion. Simply put, WP:OUTCOMES tells us what to do and what not to do, when it is supposed to be summarizing what has been done and what has not been done. This has resulted in "guidelines" which are in conflict with official guidelines, and the citation of false consensus in AfD debates in contravention with established policy. To quote Shereth here: