Misplaced Pages

:Notability/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Notability Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:18, 28 December 2011 editPurplebackpack89 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers37,718 edits →Content from User talk:Nihonjoe: more← Previous edit Revision as of 18:29, 28 December 2011 edit undoMelanieN (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users91,573 edits →Content from User talk:NihonjoeNext edit →
Line 260: Line 260:
:::'''Comment''' "Make 'em inline or toss 'em" is your invention; it is not Misplaced Pages policy. Please see ] which allows for both inline citations and general references. If you are deleting references simply because they are not cited inline, Misplaced Pages policy does not support you. --] (]) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) :::'''Comment''' "Make 'em inline or toss 'em" is your invention; it is not Misplaced Pages policy. Please see ] which allows for both inline citations and general references. If you are deleting references simply because they are not cited inline, Misplaced Pages policy does not support you. --] (]) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Mel, I think your analysis needs to look a little closer at what the references actually entail rather than assume a blanket policy (about only part of reason a source can or can't be used) applies perfectly here. The problem is that the references in question not the general type of references you'd use for non-inline references. These references refer to very specific events (events that may not hold significance to the article, in fact). Generally, non-inline references are supposed to be general references; If you wanted the type of general information you'd expect from a non-inline citation, these references are not the place to get it. And I never said that non-inline citations were ''against policy'', merely that inline ones were ''preferable''. My argument is about style rather than policy; policy might turn a blind eye to this while style makes sense. Also see Sionk's comment about these references...at least two of the three barely deal with Penn at all ''''']]]<font color="#FF9900">≈≈≈≈</font>''''' 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC) ::::Mel, I think your analysis needs to look a little closer at what the references actually entail rather than assume a blanket policy (about only part of reason a source can or can't be used) applies perfectly here. The problem is that the references in question not the general type of references you'd use for non-inline references. These references refer to very specific events (events that may not hold significance to the article, in fact). Generally, non-inline references are supposed to be general references; If you wanted the type of general information you'd expect from a non-inline citation, these references are not the place to get it. And I never said that non-inline citations were ''against policy'', merely that inline ones were ''preferable''. My argument is about style rather than policy; policy might turn a blind eye to this while style makes sense. Also see Sionk's comment about these references...at least two of the three barely deal with Penn at all ''''']]]<font color="#FF9900">≈≈≈≈</font>''''' 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
:::::I have said this before, as have others: PLEASE KEEP YOUR ARGUMENTS THE HELL OFF MY TALK PAGE! This page here is the place to discuss these issue, or to reply to what people say. Don't repeat your arguments on people's talk pages. You have been scolded enough for this practice that you should have realized by now it is offensive. And BTW my name is not Mel. Now that I've got that off my chest, my point here was not to quibble about the individual references. My point was simply to get you to retract your non-policy-based assertion "Bottom line: make 'em inline or toss 'em." --] (]) 18:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' They should be kept, they put things into context and highlight her career.] (]) 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) *:'''Comment''' They should be kept, they put things into context and highlight her career.] (]) 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
:::Um, if they're "putting things into context", why aren't they inline? ''''']]]<font color="#FF9900">≈≈≈≈</font>''''' 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC) :::Um, if they're "putting things into context", why aren't they inline? ''''']]]<font color="#FF9900">≈≈≈≈</font>''''' 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:29, 28 December 2011

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the notability noticeboard
    This page is for users seeking advice on notability and whether or not a topic meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for its own article.
    • Sources showing notability, and whether they meet Misplaced Pages's general inclusion criteria, will be examined here. Some topics have specific topic guidelines, which are listed below under "Subject-specific guidelines".
    • To show notability, you should list the key evidence of reputable journals, independently published books, reputable news and media sources, widely reputed measures of recognition, and other reliable independent published sources, which show significant attention being paid by those independent sources to the subject of the proposed article. These are crucial and must be available to support an article, as it is a measure of how much the wider unconnected world has shown significant and likely enduring attention.
    		 Sections older than 31 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcut
    Quick introduction to common criteria
    General inclusion criteria
    • Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and is selective. Material that isn't "encyclopedic" (not suitable for an encyclopedia) or is "indiscriminate" (non-selective/arbitrary material), may have a problem.
    • Misplaced Pages considers enduring notability. Material that is routine may have a problem. Being "big in the news" or having many references doesn't change this (many things get attention for a brief period but are "just ordinary news"). Events and news material need to be quite significant to be covered.
    • Articles on living people have especially strict rules because it's easy to do harm. Sources must be very high quality, people noted for one event usually get covered in an article on the event not an article on the person, and borderline cases are much more likely to be deleted (especially for minors or where the person is notable for negative reasons). However if they are genuinely agreed notable then the biography will be included and neutral regardless of whether positive or negative.
    Notability criteria and evidence
    • The acid test is that people who genuinely are uninfluenced by and independent of the subject have decided that it is significant enough to write substantially about, and credible reliable publications feel it is of wide enough interest to write about it too. This could also mean that the subject was chosen over many alternatives or has gained unusually clear recognition such as a major award or position. That interest is what notability is actually trying to assess, not just the fact of coverage itself.
    • Self promotion and routine coverage do not create notability. The test is coverage of a kind that shows actual wider interest by credible published sources, not paid placements, nor the kind of occasional, routine or local coverage that any business or person might get now and then, nor minor and little-recognized awards, nor mere search engine "hits", nor "hearsay" or anecdotal evidence.
    • Notability can set quite a high bar. For example local politicians, most professors, most bands and websites, many schools, most crimes (including violent and widely reported crimes) and most matters in the news (even widely reported and circulated) are "just routine"—most politicians are not especially notable, nor are most schools or companies, most crimes or events. Likewise, minutiae and topics only relevant within a narrow-focus group or community with little or no wider notice or relevance are often not considered notable.
    • Notability is not inherited. For example having famous relatives or clients or being the creator of a well-known item or an item that was created by a well-known entity does not confer notability. The subject of an article must be shown to be notable in its own right, not just due to "reflected light" from others.
    • Subjects noted only for merely filling a role, where the role and not the subject was what really got 'noticed' (i.e. any person or entity that filled that role would have had the same coverage). In many cases the subject fills the role by pure chance or incidentally (bystander witnesses, selected spokesperson, interviewed participant, etc) and gets coverage in that role. Happening to be the occupier of that role won't of itself evidence the subject's notability. Note - some kinds of role may well show notice being taken of the person (CEO, cabinet secretary/minister, etc).
    Common "reasons" that don't count
    • Articles exist because evidence shows the world at large deems the subject worthy of notice (as described), not just because it is interesting, useful, liked/disliked, some people may want to know about it, etc.
    • The person who created it or their motive is not a deciding factor.
    • Being badly written isn't a factor, we can fix poor writing if actual sources exist. (But actual lack of adequate sources would be a problem.)
    Other common inquiries related to article viability
    • For advice on whether the sources for an article are reliable, visit the Reliable sources noticeboard.
    • For concerns regarding the stricter rules applying to articles about living people, visit the Biographies noticeboard.
    • If you want to edit about yourself, or organizations, products, people, or matters having a close personal connection to you, or if you wish to engage in paid editing, you must read the Conflict of interest guideline, and you are urged to ask on this page whether the article is viable before creating it.
    Additional notes:
    • For possible non-notability, you should review and summarize the available sources, showing why you feel the criteria are not met.
    • Detailed contents of articles and their quality of writing is not discussed here, and opinions expressed here do not guarantee an article will be kept on Misplaced Pages (ie, editor feedback and not a formal decision).
    Click here to start a new discussion
    Search this noticeboard & archives

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15
    Notability
    General notability guideline
    Subject-specific guidelines
    See also

    Recipe's

    Are there any specific guidelines or precedents for creating articles about food or drink recipe's? I came across a request for a review of Minced pork rice, which had apparently been written because someone had eaten it and liked it. There are many similar recipe articles that are completely unreferenced but have survived for years! Mind you, 'Minced Pork Rice' is allegedly included in the Michelin Green Guide, which presumably could be an indication of notoriety? Maybe specific 'Food & Drink' notability guidelines would be useful. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

    Mass of notablity violations in progress

    Two days ago, (202084) 2004 SE56, an unnamed speck among untold thousands way out in space, was a redirect to a chart of thousands and thousands of such rocks. Today, along with thousands more, it has been made into an article. This mocks notablity guidelines and if allowed to stand will may be forever pointed to as proof that Misplaced Pages has no effective notablity standards. Every minute that goes by, the creator of this astroidette article creates more and more, yet no one has yet acted to stop him. He has no consensus to do this even from the astrology community, let alone the community at large. Please act now. Chrisrus (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

    To keep discussion together, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_of_notablity_violations_in_progress, which Chrisrus also opened. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    There are already 200,000 List of minor planets, of which nearly the first 7,000 have their own article page, many of which go back at least 5 year. There is already a discussion on the Notability (astronomical objects), and I will repeat my opinion that I have there: I believe that all subjects on Misplaced Pages should be subject to the same notability criteria. Different people find different articles notable. There is no doubt that many of the 200,000+ minor planets are not notable, are not even well sourced, let alone have multiple independent sources. But personally I find them interesting and factual, so I can see no reason for their exclusion. Someone could make the argument for another subject, and while I might not find them notable, nor interesting, I don't see why my lack of interest should be imposed on someone else. --Iantresman (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

    What I see in the linked article is one sentence, with one external link (presumable a source). There really is not much point in writing a one sentence article - certainly if you don't expect to expand it soon. But the notability guidelines are written a bit differently: it needs "significant coverage in reliable sources." Note the "s" ==> "more than one." Please come back when you have more than one source and (to get my support) more than one sentence. Smallbones (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    I concur that these articles should not be getting created, unless this particular item can shown to be notable. Further, I believe the wikiproject astronomy notability guidelies (newly formed, or possibly still pending) address items such as this. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    They've just finalized the guidelines. Now we're waiting to see what they plan to do about (202084) 2004 SE56 and the thousands more. Chrisrus (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Oren Ginzburg

    He's listed as a writer, but his work is self-published (non-fiction about aid and development). The Misplaced Pages article and talk page don't make any claims for his notability and the article doesn't have any references. He works in the aid industry, so may be notable for that even if he doesn't seem to fulfil the notability criteria for a writer. One of his self-published books, The Hungry Man, survived an AfD - albeit by "no consensus". If one of his books survived an AfD does that mean he's notable, or maybe his page should be a redirect to the book? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

    He doesn't fulfil the notability criteria for a writer and, as you say, the AfD for his book was inconclusive. Why not prod the biography for deletion, the book would surely then follow swiftly also? Exok (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

    Digimon Digi-Battle Card Game and Digimon card games

    The current article for Digimon card games mixes the two card games that were produced, the Digi-Battle card game, and the Digimon Collectable Card Game, the first using more of the described "Rock, Paper, Scissors system", while the second is a general copy of the Yu-gi-oh or Magic the Gathering Attack stat vs Defense stat method. Both games are properly listed on the page List of collectible card games, as well as the Digimon D-Tector game.

    Is it reasonable within Misplaced Pages's general inclusion criteria to separate Digimon card games into a page for the Digimon Collectable Card Game and the Digimon Digi-Battle Card Game?

    PD2525 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

    I don't know. Do good-quality reliable sources treat them as completely separate games, or as variations on the same theme? We generally follow the sources.
    To some extent, this question requires you to use your editorial judgment. Two separate pages that largely repeat the same material isn't desirable. One page that cleanly differentiates between two versions might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Monteiro da Costa

    I am not sure how to ask, but I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/Monteiro_da_Costa might not meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. The page is currently a stub and no further information was given than the player's position and birthplace.

    The sports notability guidelines say that if he did not play in a notable international competition or play for a fully professional Association Football league then he is most likely not notable. I would appreciate if somebody investigated the matter and deleted the page if he does not meet this requirment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.132.90 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

    I would like to amend my former statement, his team history is listed and external links are provided but he is not officially cited. I am a Wiki Neophyte, so I'm not really sure what to do about it. I recognize that this page is probably not the best place to question random pages' citations, therefore I apologize and abscond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.132.90 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

    Notability doesn't require any citations. It definitely doesn't require properly formatted citations, e.g., listing WP:General references under a proper section heading rather than under ==External links==. The requirement is only that somewhere in the world, somebody has published reliable sources on the subject. So figuring out whether this person qualifies for a separate article requires searching for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Srivatsa Ramaswami

    Please check/comment if this article on Srivatsa Ramaswami is suitable to have its own article on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithS77 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

    No, he isn't. First of all, the article is completely unsourced. Second, a yoga teacher with couple of books on yoga is not notable unless he has had a significant impact, and nothing in the article suggests he has. Third, teaching training courses adds nothing to notability. Unlikely that sufficient sourcing will be found to establish notability. The article is purely promotional, and can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

    Circball

    The article Circball was deleted due its supposed non-notable reasons. A copy of the article can be read at this talk page. User:GalingPinas/Circball. A series of analysis has been written in the AfD discussion page to provide support of its notability per WP guidelines of WP:Notability of article creation. It states that " If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." In this case a significant coverage in independent sources were found. Do these sources passed the Notability creation of an article or not? Remember notability as it relates to article creation is entirely different from notability as it relates to article Content. Please judge by this very specific criteria. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

    • The copy of the deleted article does not demonstrate notability to me either. The cites references are mainly to videos, including several self-published on Facebook and YouTube. Where were the significant independent sources? Sionk (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • There are three sources. See AfD discussion page for detail analysis of these three sources. I've copied part of the discussions below:
    Comment "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..."WP:GNG. Let's discuss in detail these sources and how they meet these 5 criterias for notability purposes.
    Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":
    1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.
    2. "Reliable" - Saksi news coverage is reliable because it came from a major news media company recognized and noted even by Misplaced Pages itself, GMA.
    3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.
    4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
    5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.
    Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":
    1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.
    2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Misplaced Pages itself, Q-TV and GMA.
    3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.
    4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.
    5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.
    Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:
    1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.
    2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Misplaced Pages itself, UNTV.
    3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.
    4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
    5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.
    These sources and others establish the notability of Circball per WP:GNG and must be included in WP either as a standalone article or merge with similar articles that discusses basketball related topics, in particular, variations of basketball.GalingPinas (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    GalingPinas (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It would have been simpler to give a link (which you have done now) to the AfD discussion. I was only offering my opinion. I've no intention of reopening the discussion about notability, which has already taken place and reached a consensus. Best of luck with your future contributions to WP. Sionk (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Consensus was flawed if not questionable. Here's my analysis of the vote:
    Analysis of votes:
    1. Delete by Hobbes Goodyear - No substantial arguments here as this user only stated that sources couldn't be found. It was indeed found. This vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus.
    2. Delete by Jimfbleak - No substantial arguments either. Statements of personal opinions should not be counted as part of consensus.
    3. Delete by JamesBWatson - User charged that article is being promoted. This is outside the discussions of notability. User thinks it's not "prominent" yet. Again, notability doesn't mean it's popular or famous. This vote should not be counted as part of consensus.
    4. Delete by η-θ - A comment of ":p duh.". Does that count??
    5. Delete by Tarc - a charge of advertising again or that it was "made up" sport that the user didn't like. This shouldn't be counted as consensus.
    6. Keep by Circball. Notability was argued here by providing three reliable sources.
    7. Comment by GalingPinas - Analysis of these three reliable sources was provided. Additional reliable sources was also provided that confirm Circball's appearance in a children TV show by Abante-Tonite. If number of votes is the only criteria considered on Afd, then the decision to delete may be correct. However, that's not policy. Policy says that we need to look at these votes and determined if they are substantive enough to merit consensus. Also, disregarding reliable sources is not within policy just because this sport is not popular, prominent, or famous yet.
    Article is now restored and userfied. Thanks for your opinions.GalingPinas (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    If you think the decision was flawed, then the place to appeal is at WP:DRV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    If it's DRV'ed, would the notability analysis given above stand to scrutiny?GalingPinas (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Reindent:

    Source #1 and Source #2 came from the same source: GMA News and Public Affairs, hence any source from those would count as from one "source."
    • Apparently, the game made a round of two programs produced by GMA News, once. After that they were forgotten. It's like your typical fad featured on Inside Edition.
    Source #3 is borderline reliable, if at all. I even didn't know UNTV 37 had a sports unit! I'd personally pass it as a reliable source, but I'd look for another source (either ABS-CBN, GMA, TV5 or the Philippine Information Agency) and won't use that. It's letter of intent of Chris' sakes.
    Now on Abante Tonite. Abante Tonite is a tabloid. Think of it as the Philippine version of the now defunct News of the World. Unlike UNTV 37 which can barely pass off as a reliable source, this one won't. And apparently, whatever Abante Tonite said about the game is immaterial since it didn't even say anything about the game per se; it said that Tropang Potchi featured the game.
    Apparently, we have a notability guideline for games and sports: WP:SPORTSEVENT. The relevant bullet point is:
    • A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match) (Emphasis mine)
    The question is if a feature on Saksi (the equivalent of late night news in the U.S.), the Tropang Potchi children's show and a letter of intent from UNTV 37 would be enough to create an article. Is it? –HTD 19:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes we do have a notability guideline for games and sports but that guideline only applies to persons/organizations/league but not to an actual sport itself: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Misplaced Pages" We are talking about an actual sports here that was "Noticed" by a major news media in the Philippines that is notable. and per WP:NNC, when a sport has a source outside of WP, it is notable. GalingPinas (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

    Ardagh Castle cheese

    Can someone offer an opinion on this article in terms of whether the article and the references meet GNG notability guidelines. Disclosure: I've written the article - part of a series on Irish cheese. It's a small article, but it has 5 references. The cheese has had significant coverage - it has been written about (more than one full page) in a recently published book on cheese, and has been mentioned in the largest regional newspaper in Ireland, as well as having won an award in this year's British Cheese Awards. I appreciate any suggestions, thanks. --HighKing (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

    I've added my comment on the article's discussion page. Sionk (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    It seems strange to me that anyone would keep fussing about notability after the article survived a trip through AFD. It may be a borderline case, but surely we have much better uses for our time than to keep picking at a single page. Perhaps it's time for the nom to learn WP:How to lose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    Comision Moscamed

    This is a non profit organization that currently works in Central America helping erradicate a specific type of fly that damages crops. I am just wondering if this would be accepted as an entry. It is in now way trying to promote a company but rather let people know how they work and what their whole process is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.160.230 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    James Campbell (journalist)

    This entry has just been created by Brandonfarris, and from looking at his other edits - including creating an article on Campbell's story attacking the competitor newspaper - it seems very likely that he is the subject of the article. He keeps adding new biographical material which is unlikely that anyone but the subject would've known, and adding highly POV claims about the subject. He also keeps restoring without reference to the talk page any material removed for being POV and unsourced.

    In any case, Misplaced Pages does not have an article for every journalist at the Herald Sun. Campbell's two recent attack pieces - the one on Nicola Gobbo and the one accusing his employer's rival of "hacking" - do not make him "notable". Garth M (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

    Better by Design

    The article on the New Zealand government programme Better by design has been marked for speedy deletion. I've addressed the speedy deletion concerns on the articles talk page (as is usual). But I'd appreciate a third party perspective on the fundamental notability (as opposed to importance) of the programme for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. I have a potential conflict of interest so I'd rather ask the community for an independent perspective instead of making a case entirely myself. As a starting point I've put newspaper, magazine, academic and government sources into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjthomson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

    Seems 'notable' to me, with good references. Sionk (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    Developed countries' progress

    Would it be appropriate to have an entry on the comparisons among the world's most developed countries and what their governments are doing to make them that way? Statistical databases such as http://www.oecd.org, http://www.internationalcomparison.org, and http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/. While studying Political Science at university, i found that Google's search results for terms that students like myself showed a propensity to use (e.g. "international comparisons" or "international statistics") yielded poor, irrelevant results. An encyclopedia appropriate entry on Misplaced Pages could potentially prove a valuable and accessible tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.106.96 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    UverseWiki

    This is an article about a computer PHP framework used to format wiki texts. I am positive it has its notability but I'm having troubles finding ways to establish it because the project is not well-known yet and its main advantages (abstract syntax tree, document object model, extensibility/modularity, language neutrality, etc.) are hard to prove without referring to the source code and not something concurrent projects will talk about so it can be referred to.

    Perhaps you might give me a bit more info on this problem? Thanks in advance. Proger_XP (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is that most of the "references" are to the project itself. While this allows you to clarify the issues, it doesn't demonstrate notability from independent reliable sources. What external references you do have are only mentioning features that the software supports. As you yourself said the project is not well-known yet it has not yet hit the WP notability threshold. This was probably rejected on the grounds of WP:Notability. Take a look at the 2 policy pages and see if it really makes sense for us to have an article on this. If you want, I'd be happy to apply my "new page patrol" rubric to the proposed article so you can see what kind of opposition you'll have. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, Hasteur; so the project cannot be notable in terms of features, implementation, etc. but only in terms of 3rd party "usage" and "interest"? (I'm sorry if I'm using funny words because I'm no expert on this field.) Proger_XP (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    The framework needs to have significant (More than just a passing mention) coverage from multiple reliable sources. An article in a reputable publication that enforces editorial standards (not writing about every PR story that comes across) that covers the high points of the framework and why it's superior to other software helps lend the notability of the topic. Usage and Interest are somewhat analogies but not quite. Did you want me to apply the NPP rubric to the proposed article? Hasteur (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    I understand now. Two final questions then: do only English sources count (didn't find any info in WP:Notability on this one) and can I leave the draft where it is for now (in my userspace)?
    The NPP rubric - yes, please do. Proger_XP (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    I've moved the article to UverseWiki so that we can work on the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you very much. Proger_XP (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    Model United Nations (MUN) Resolution

    85.103.28.131 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Model United Nations is no longer a mere "extra-curricular" activity that involves only a few high school students. MUN is an academic simulation for both high school students and college students. Not to mention its universality! There are thousand of students seeking help while writing their "resolutions." Resolution are what entire MUN conferences are based upon, without resolutions there would be nothing to debate on, and thus MUN would fail to meet its goals. I am certain MUN Resolution is worth "noting" and I think it's an important improvement to Misplaced Pages because of the following reasons: 1) There are no reliable and specific sources that explain (step by step) how a resolution has to be written, this article would provide such information. 2) Misplaced Pages should also address young students who benefit from Misplaced Pages every day, this article will be one more reason thousands of students will rely on Misplaced Pages. 3) Writing an MUN resolution is truly challenging, as there are very strict rules and procedures, this article refers to all the details one has to know in order to write a format and information wise correct resolution. 4) MUN is (besides debating) the most beneficial extra-curricular academic activity, this article supports the Model United Nations by aiding its participants and encourage participation (which by the way is not an advertisement).

    There are almost no need for sources, as I have wrote the resolution solely from my own knowledge. I wrote, read, edited MUN resolution for over 5 years. I've been a delegate myself, I've been an MUN coordinator, an MUN Chair and MUN Club President. From the extensive knowledge I have about MUN, I did not require various resources and yet, I used Stanford's and some other reliable sources to provide better understanding.

    One again I strongly believe Misplaced Pages needs this article, and I'm open to any criticisms. Please help make my article a reviewed, notability wise correct, reliable article!

    I also had a lot of fun doing MUN growing up, but unfortunately wikipedia is not a how-to web site. A better place to do this would probably be Wiki books. I yield the remainder of my time to chair. a13ean (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

    End of American Soap Opera Era

    Does this topic meet "general notability guidelines"? If so, should this article stand on its own to be notable? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    Randi Morgan

    Does this character meet WP:GNG? This article does not mention the real-world context of this character? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    List of The Price Is Right pricing games

    There are no sources independent of this topic; no news articles about games other than Plinko and a few other games were found; even no books about them other than Plinko were found. This was nominated for deletion several times; does it currently meet WP:GNG? --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

    Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn

    As per the edit comments in these next three diffs, sources were removed because they were "trivial", "do not 'address the subject directly in detail' ", and were "mentions...in passing".

    • Two references removed:
    Revision as of 2011-12-19T05:41:54 Purplebackpack89
    (Additional references: rm trivial references that have no relevance to the article's content)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mindell_Penn&diff=466643439&oldid=466627839
    • One reference removed:
    Revision as of 2011-12-16T15:35:42 Sionk
    (Bibliography: per WP:GNG source does not "address the subject directly in detail")
    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mindell_Penn&diff=466172043&oldid=465942698
    • One reference removed:
    Revision as of 2011-12-12T17:41:11 Purplebackpack89
    (References: rm reference that only mentions Penn's name in passing, and is irrelevant to rest of article)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mindell_Penn&diff=465488479&oldid=465423177

    Other pages involved in this dispute:

    Here are the three sources to be reviewed.

    IMO, these sources are nowhere near to being phone book entries; or the example given in the guideline, that of the high school band "The Three Blind Mice".  In the first source, a photographer for the San Francisco Chronicle photographed Mindell Penn while she waited to vote, and then in the headline of the article, while not using Penn's name, Penn is one of the three featured incumbents.  The second source features Penn in the headline of the article, and the entire article appears to be about her project.  The third source quotes Penn about a council decision.  As per WP:GNG, anything that is not trivial is relevant to notability.  But even more basic, wp:notability is not a function of the content of articles (WP:N#NNC), wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Misplaced Pages or the content of any such article.  So functionally, it is never correct to remove content based on a notability argument.

    As you can see from the edit comments, both editors assert otherwise, so the first question for the noticeboard is (1) can notability guidelines be used as grounds for the removal of content.  It would also be helpful to resolve two other points, (2) are these sources trivial or more-than-trivial under WP:GNG, and (3) are these sources WP:RS reliable.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Also relevant is that they were non-inline citations. That's generally bad practice under any circumstances. More on how trivial the references actually are below Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Question (4), why didn't the edit filter label the edit comments, "Tag: references removed"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Because they weren't inline citations, probably...again, we seem to be skirting the issue that while non-inline citations don't exactly violate policy per se, they are very much frowned upon Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Fascinating. I've come across people who don't know how to 'lose', but this is a case of people not knowing how to 'win'. Despite the article being examined objectively, deemed notable and kept, the ardent supporters of the article want to beat the ardent opposers with a stick, in public! The place for deciding whether or not a source is non-trivial or appropriate for the article would be on the article's Discussion page, wouldn't it? It seems the article will remain, even without the disputed trivial sources, so what is the problem?
    As for me, I had no axe to grind with the councillors of Richmond, in fact I argued strongly for keeping one of them. However, I'm continually perplexed with the idea (which some here believe) that notability is based on the number of 'hits' on Google. This plainly isn't the case. WP:GNG (which we should all be able to recite backwards after all this) requires the subject receives significant coverage, meaning that "sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In the example of the source that I removed, Penn was mentioned as part of a list of a handful of councillors defending their seats, and was also one of 5 councillors in a photo. In my mind, this was not addressing the subject "directly in detail". Maybe if the editor thought the photo was so important, they should have added it to WP and claimed 'fair usage'? Adding the article as part of a list of random Google coverage at the bottom of the article only served to cloud the issue during the deletion debate and, personally, I believed the list was being put there to cynically convince a casual observer that the subject was indeed very notable. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    My sentiments exactly (as they're expressed below). This seems either an attempt to bamboozle undecided editors, or to get a consensus to continue a questionable editing practice. There doesn't seem any point in this thread, at least not one that would be more effectively decided on the article's talk page. Oh, and for the policy wonks, the relevant one here is WP:NOTREPOSITORY..."excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    Content from User talk:Nihonjoe

    My talk page is not part of this dispute, and I will remove any further comments there regarding this dispute. I simply closed the deletion discussion, and I clearly spelled out my reasoning there. In order to allow people to read the comments there (which are quite small), I am reposting them here for your convenience. The diffs for these edits can be seen here: .

    I see it was kept (even though the majority of people voted delete). Since it's still going to be here, could you help me get rid of the references that you yourself acknowledge add nothing to the article? As of right now, there are a bunch of references that aren't inline and are primarily trivial (by both our admissions), and I think they should be removed. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    Well, AfD isn't a vote, and my reasons for keeping were clearly laid out. If you wish to remove the refs, feel free to do so, though there is nothing wrong with keeping them there. Not every ref used in an article needs to (or should) establish notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    It's not just that I had an issue with...I thought non-inline refs that don't establish notability should go Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    Nope, you can certainly fix the links to be inline, but once notability has been established it doesn't matter if any of the other references help in that respect. Passing mentions and non-substantial mentions can certainly be used to establish various facts throughout the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

    Again, please keep this dispute off my talk page. I am not interested in participating any further than I already have. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    • Comment: The references were not being used inline, so they aren't "establishing any facets". Unscintillating simply dumped them in en masse, which was very poor form and most likely would've been reverted had it been done on a higher-profile article. It's abundantly clear to me that the one that only includes Penn's name in a photo caption is just a passing mention and therefore trivial. Same with the BizNews one...she is quoted; that means what she is quoted on is significant; she isn't. As for the third one, I can't tell if it's significant or not; it's conveniently behind a paywall. I will continue to maintain that it violates a bunch of guidelines to mass dump bad references; especially since now that this is an article, inline citations are always preferable. Bottom line: make 'em inline or toss 'em. Also, why is this here? It could have been decided on the article's talk page Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Comment "Make 'em inline or toss 'em" is your invention; it is not Misplaced Pages policy. Please see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources which allows for both inline citations and general references. If you are deleting references simply because they are not cited inline, Misplaced Pages policy does not support you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Mel, I think your analysis needs to look a little closer at what the references actually entail rather than assume a blanket policy (about only part of reason a source can or can't be used) applies perfectly here. The problem is that the references in question not the general type of references you'd use for non-inline references. These references refer to very specific events (events that may not hold significance to the article, in fact). Generally, non-inline references are supposed to be general references; If you wanted the type of general information you'd expect from a non-inline citation, these references are not the place to get it. And I never said that non-inline citations were against policy, merely that inline ones were preferable. My argument is about style rather than policy; policy might turn a blind eye to this while style makes sense. Also see Sionk's comment about these references...at least two of the three barely deal with Penn at all Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    I have said this before, as have others: PLEASE KEEP YOUR ARGUMENTS THE HELL OFF MY TALK PAGE! This page here is the place to discuss these issue, or to reply to what people say. Don't repeat your arguments on people's talk pages. You have been scolded enough for this practice that you should have realized by now it is offensive. And BTW my name is not Mel. Now that I've got that off my chest, my point here was not to quibble about the individual references. My point was simply to get you to retract your non-policy-based assertion "Bottom line: make 'em inline or toss 'em." --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Um, if they're "putting things into context", why aren't they inline? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    I agree (and apparently, Sionk does too)...there's absolutely no reason for this thread to be here. Anything said here would be better said on the article's talk page, or not at all Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    Category: