Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 9 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:N WT:NN WT:NOTE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 10 days

To discuss the notability imparted by specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard. See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives)

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Subject Specific Guidelines

Please create a Wiki "Subject specific guidelines" article for video game articles. Add it to the "Notabilityguide" template. Thanks. ProResearcher (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already one here, it's just that it hasn't been officially promoted away from the the Wikiproject space. Silverseren 07:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That really isn't a "notability guideline". There is one at WP:Notability (video games), but it has yet to achieve consensus. There are some reasons of which I feel people don't understand fully, but that's how it stands right now.陣内_Jinnai 18:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There might be enough reasons to carve out some exceptions and clarifications for video games. But for now, the general Notability guideline reigns supreme, until there is consensus otherwise. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubs about minor planets named after people

Now, shouldn't we delete all articles at Category:Asteroids named for people since they will never ever grow past stubs and are completely unlikely search terms? Anything relevant is on List of minor planets named after people. --damiens.rf 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Exemple article: "25966 Akhilmathew (provisional designation: 2001 FP28) is a main-belt minor planet. It was discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research project in Socorro, New Mexico, on March 19, 2001. It is named after Akhil Mathew, an American high school student and finalist in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search."". END OF ARTICLE. --damiens.rf 17:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to the appropriate section of each list, yes, but delete, no. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree... a merger with redirect seems more in order than an outright delete. The information belongs on Misplaced Pages, even if it does not merit its own stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A case of WP:ONEEVENT?

We have a substantial article on Anders Behring Breivik, the whacko who perpetrated the recent 2011 Norway attacks. From my reading of the relevant guidelines, I think we should merge these two articles (at the article on the attacks) per WP:ONEEVENT. But, given the guy's current notoriety (as opposed to his WP:Notability) I thought I would check here first to see if I was even in the right ball park. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think past history of ONEEVENT BLP articles shows that yes, unless there was more about this person before the event in notability, he should be talked about in the event article, not a separate one (but leaving a redirect is fine). --MASEM (t) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that's likely, but other events related to him personally for example his trial, may well justify a second article. After all James Brady has an article. i kan reed (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Brady became notable post-event for his stance on gun control. Ergo, ONEEVENT doesn't apply. On the other hand, the accused shooter, his trial and the like are all part off the larger attacks, and still ONEEVENT. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what might be technically permitted, I believe that one larger, unified article is what will serve our readers bests: full context and one-stop shopping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at WP:BLP1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate" seems to apply. The examples supplied also match. Also note that the ABB article is quite long and has ~130 sources. The length alone would make it implausible to merge into the event article. So I'd leave the articles separate for now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of the sources are used in both articles. We would not end up with 270 sources as a result of a merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't keep or delete articles strictly on guidelines such as WP:ONEEVENT but rather the Misplaced Pages community consensus. In the past articles for one-eventish people such as Jared Lee Loughner, Sara Jane Moore, and Timothy McVeigh have been created and so far have survived their ONEEVENT cause for attention. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not that simple because WP:BLP1E is a policy and not a guideline, unlike WP:ONEVENT. We should be respecting that policy every time and not just when we decide to.Griswaldo (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Policies are descriptive, not proscriptive. If significant number of articles are being kept about people mostly notable for one event then we should consider altering the policy on them.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely, BLP1E in my opinion is the most over cited and contentious of all the policies that we have. As written it would be the basis for the deletion of many actors, actresses, athletes, criminals, heroes, etc who are notable because of single roles or incidents. While I have no problem with it as a guideline, as practiced it has become problematic.---Balloonman 04:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK... your comments have convinced me that I am not completely off base... and that the question of a merger should go to a larger (wikipedia wide) forum (like AfD) for broader input and consensus ... not sure if AfD is the correct forum (I know that deletion noms sometimes end up with merge determination, but in this case I would be starting off with a merger nom. Does AfD do that?) Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the article was merged and protected by User:ErrantX, which caused quite a scene. I was supportive of the merge then and would be again, but you will meet serious opposition to this is all I'm saying. There appear to be people here who are more interested in competing with the 24 hour news cycle than building a reference source. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that there are three open threads on Breveik at the WP:BLPN right now. You might give them a look over too.Griswaldo (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami

Some additional eyes would be appreciated on this article as well. Appears to be completely non-notable but for a false claim they made to have been responsible for the attacks early on when the press had not yet reported on who the perp was. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

learning wikipedia

here is the group for ISS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanjuan2708 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Primary source templates discussions

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by the hair-splitting that resulted in a strange change to {{primary sources}}, which no longer asks for independent/third-party sources. I have asked that this recent change be reverted. Also, the original recommendation of that template has now been duplicated to the {{third-party}} template, another bewildering achievement of WP:BURO. I've asked that this one be deleted. Whatever tweaks in wording are needed on the original template can surely be done without this fork. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. There are 2 issues with the original text. It was being used to get people to not use primary sources and instead use third-party sources. Problem is, it also was used for secondary sources close to the subject and for people to use sources that are independent of the subject and reliable. Thus its trying to do a lot because sources close to the subject are not primary and sources removed from the subject are not always reliable for that subject. That requires complex wording or 2 templates.陣内_Jinnai 23:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The main discussion is at the template. Suggest we not scatter it. North8000 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree: let's have those conversations elsewhere. Ideally, most of the participants will even know a bit about the subject matter, like the fact that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability regarding article creation or regarding article content

Notability is misused frequently to delete content from articles. My understanding is that Notability is used to decide if a topic gets an WP-article or not. If a topic gets an article because it is notable, then the use of Notability policy ends with that. Notability policy cannot be applied to article content and thus article content should not be deleted with the reason that it violates Notability. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Of course the wp:notability criteria do not apply to content. I think that there are two common cases where it is brought up for content, the first of them legit:

1. To say that something is too trivial to even be in even as content. Referring to RW notability rather than wp:notability. For example, in the article on the USA, for me to put in that my Uncle George is a citizen of the USA.
2. The usual use of wiki-lawyering (including mis-paraphrasing policies) that is used to knock out the other person't content when there is a battle. I've seen people bluff people all of the time, pretending that wp:notability applies to content. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there be a change made to WP:N or are you just making a statement? The WP:NNC section of WP:N mentions this so if there's something you want to change, this would be the place to discuss it. Otherwise, it's unclear what you're trying to accomplish. If you're having an issue regarding this issue at an article, inviting others to the conversation might be useful. OlYeller 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely missed that, sorry. My edits have been targeted by wiki-lawyering quite a lot recently and I just started reading up on the policies. Thanks for highlighting. --POVbrigand (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)