Misplaced Pages

Please stop removing importance tags without doing anything useful

I'm talking about edits like this. The compound may be notable, but the article doesn't say a single interesting thing about it. If you really did do some research to decide whether it's worthy of an article, you should be able to add at least one sentence describing why it deserves an article. If not, don't just remove the {{importance}} tag, because it's useful for people looking for articles to work on. I'll try to find something interesting to add to these articles, but for any I can't get to right now I'm afraid I'll have to revert you. —Keenan Pepper 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these chemicals, I don't have any information that I could add to these articles. However, I do know about AfD, and scientific topics with thousands of Google hits would not get deleted, and so these articles do not belong in a category created for "topics of unclear importance." If you want to look for articles to work on, use Category:Articles to be expanded, not a category for questioning the notability of articles. Saying I'm not doing anything useful when I'm working to clear a massive backlog at CAT:NN is quite insulting. --Rory096 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence at Category:Articles to be expanded says "This category is for articles that are beyond a stub...". Antimony tribromide (before I just added something) was even less than a stub, because it didn't give any ideas how to expand it. If the importance isn't clear, it's unclear, and it belongs in the "unclear importance" category. Sorry if I offended, but I can't see why a Misplaced Pages reader would prefer a useless article to the same useless article with a message saying "sorry this is useless". It just doesn't seem to make much difference. —Keenan Pepper 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles to be expanded only says that it's for things beyond a stub because stub tags themselves are supposed to be tags to signify that an article needs to be expanded, but we both know that that's not true, so the articles to be expanded cat is used anyway. The importance was clear, which was why I removed it, it just wasnt clear from the article (because I wasn't about to add the amount of Google hits to the article), which is different, and isn't something that requires it be in a category along with things tagged with {{notability}} and its relatives. Yes, it barely makes a difference if there's an importance tag or not, but that's exactly the point. People will probably be just as likely to expand it without the tag than with it than without (of course, that chance is very low anyway), the tag tells readers of the article very little, and so there's no point to having these articles cluttering up CAT:NN when I'm trying to find the articles that really aren't important and should be deleted. --Rory096 07:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am putting all the importance tags back: the tag says "This article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter." and that is exactly why the tag is there. I will fight AfD's on these compounds as well, the article should be there, but it does not tell, yet, why it should be there. If you want to remove a large number of articles from CAT:NN, add data to the articles. Deletion does not make the database smaller, so maybe going through CAT:NN is NOT the way to find articles to delete. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to get the CAT:NN smaller, I'd consider you split the category into smaller chunks, which are handleable by people who do know something about the subject (e.g a {{scientific-importance}} for articles with a scientific input, but no notability on them, yet). I think that would be a better solution than deleting importance tags on subjects you don't know anything about, or only based on a Google hit count. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra 10:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)