On 6/11/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There is. CSD A1, A3, and A7 all address that. If you don't put anything but a title, you include so little that it's impossible to tell what the article is even really about, or you don't make any assertion whatsoever as to why the subject might be notable, it's speedyable.
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sourcesthat are independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sourcesof the subject."
So to not be speediable, you have to assert that the subject might have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?
Such a humorous CSD criterion.
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So to not be speediable, you have to assert that the subject might have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?
Such a humorous CSD criterion.
Well now I know you're not a wikilawyer Anthony, since a wikilawyer would have realised that the existence of independent reliable sources merely raises a presumption of notability, it does not establish it, and this state of affairs is compatible with the word "might".
On 6/11/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So to not be speediable, you have to assert that the subject might have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent
of
the subject?
Such a humorous CSD criterion.
Well now I know you're not a wikilawyer Anthony, since a wikilawyer would have realised that the existence of independent reliable sources merely raises a presumption of notability, it does not establish it, and this state of affairs is compatible with the word "might".
Huh?
First of all, I will admit that I thought until this point that the existence of multiple independent reliable sources established notability. I find it strange and confusing that you say it merely raises a presumption of notability. But that's yet another topic, except as it applies to CSD A7.
As it applies to CSD A7, well, I don't know. I'm going back to my first answer: Huh?
Anthony wrote:
On 6/11/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So to not be speediable, you have to assert that the subject might have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent
of
the subject?
Such a humorous CSD criterion.
Well now I know you're not a wikilawyer Anthony, since a wikilawyer would have realised that the existence of independent reliable sources merely raises a presumption of notability, it does not establish it, and this state of affairs is compatible with the word "might".
Huh?
First of all, I will admit that I thought until this point that the existence of multiple independent reliable sources established notability. I find it strange and confusing that you say it merely raises a presumption of notability. But that's yet another topic, except as it applies to CSD A7.
As it applies to CSD A7, well, I don't know. I'm going back to my first answer: Huh? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Generally, it would be an assertion that indicates sourcing is likely available. For example: "The Flailing Hairnets had six number one hits in Great Britain during the 1960s." Or "John Doe was the CEO of Mega Corporation from 1991 through 2003." Even if unsourced, these give a clear indication of what the article's about, and where one might look for verification and additional material-in the first case one would look in music magazines and British hit databases from the 60s, in the second, one might look at Fortune, Forbes, or Business Week from that time period. They also provide a clear indication that it's likely someone would indeed have written about the subject. On the other hand, "The Flailing Hairnets are planning to release their demo really really soon" or "John Doe is a 10th-grade student at Somewhere High School" gives no indication of where one would look for sources, and indicates that they probably don't even exist.
(Of course, even with the first two examples, if sources can't -actually- be found to confirm it, the articles should still be prodded or sent to AfD since they're unverifiable.)
On 6/11/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, it would be an assertion that indicates sourcing is likely available. For example: "The Flailing Hairnets had six number one hits in Great Britain during the 1960s." Or "John Doe was the CEO of Mega Corporation from 1991 through 2003."
On the other hand, "The Flailing Hairnets are planning to release their demo really really soon" or "John Doe is a 10th-grade student at Somewhere High School" gives no indication of where one would look for sources, and indicates that they probably don't even exist.
I think that's a fair explanation, although it does leave a lot of room for interpretation. "Upekha Ashantha Fernando is a Sri Lankan cricketer who plays for Sinhalese Sports Club."? "Bill Gill Elementary School is an elementary school in Tampa, Florida"? "Westwood Football Club, formed in 2004 by a group of Bangladeshi football fans on the streets of Oldham have been recognised for their work with youths, preventing and combating anti-social behaviour"? "Suzanne Westwood was a soldier who was killed in Iraq"?
On Mon, June 11, 2007 7:39 am, Anthony wrote:
I think that's a fair explanation, although it does leave a lot of room for interpretation. "Upekha Ashantha Fernando is a Sri Lankan cricketer who plays for Sinhalese Sports Club."? "Bill Gill Elementary School is an elementary school in Tampa, Florida"? "Westwood Football Club, formed in 2004 by a group of Bangladeshi football fans on the streets of Oldham have been recognised for their work with youths, preventing and combating anti-social behaviour"? "Suzanne Westwood was a soldier who was killed in Iraq"?
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first place?
-Jeff
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Mon, June 11, 2007 7:39 am, Anthony wrote:
I think that's a fair explanation, although it does leave a lot of room for interpretation. "Upekha Ashantha Fernando is a Sri Lankan cricketer who plays for Sinhalese Sports Club."?
Is the team a national one or just a local amateur club? If it's the first, it should be an article and in that case you don't need interpretation to figure out if there are sources to prove whether someone in that should be included.
"Bill Gill
Elementary School is an elementary school in Tampa, Florida"?
Schools are contentious issues. If that sentence is all there is in the article, you can speedy it under lack of content before even thinking about notability. In other cases, you can run it past the Schools WikiProject to see if they can dig up something that makes the school worth writing about. (I find [[WP:BEEFSTEW]] useful in this regard).
"Westwood Football Club, formed in 2004 by a group of Bangladeshi
football fans on the streets of Oldham have been recognised for their work with youths, preventing and combating anti-social behaviour"?
Are they covered in the national media? Are they covered by international media. Have they been on local tv. How have they been recognized (any awards). If this is to be deleted, it's an AFD issue, not speedy.
"Suzanne Westwood was a soldier who was killed in Iraq"?
CSD lack of content/context unless anything else can be said. A lot soldiers die (too many) but an article on a soldier killed in Iraq stands or falls with teh amount of meat it has.
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first
place?
-Jeff
On 6/11/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Mon, June 11, 2007 7:39 am, Anthony wrote:
"Bill Gill
Elementary School is an elementary school in Tampa, Florida"?
Schools are contentious issues. If that sentence is all there is in the article, you can speedy it under lack of content before even thinking about notability.
Except that "lack of content" isn't a CSD criterion. "no meaningful content" is, but this has meaningful content. "Very short articles providing little or no context" is, but that criterion is very explicit that "context" is not the same thing as "content".
In other cases, you can run it past the Schools WikiProject to see if they can dig up something that makes the school worth writing about. (I find [[WP:BEEFSTEW]] useful in this regard).
"Westwood Football Club, formed in 2004 by a group of Bangladeshi
football fans on the streets of Oldham have been recognised for their work with youths, preventing and combating anti-social behaviour"?
Are they covered in the national media? Are they covered by international media. Have they been on local tv. How have they been recognized (any awards). If this is to be deleted, it's an AFD issue, not speedy.
This was deleted. Speedily. As an A7.
"Suzanne Westwood was a soldier who was killed in Iraq"?
CSD lack of content/context unless anything else can be said. A lot soldiers die (too many) but an article on a soldier killed in Iraq stands or falls with teh amount of meat it has.
Again I disagree that there is a lack of context. A full name and the fact that they were killed in Iraq is enough to make it clear exactly who is being talked about. The question of whether or not it falls under A7 is completely dependent on whether or not you think a soldier who died in Iraq is important enough for an encyclopedia. IOW, CSD A7 means whatever the deleting admin wants it to mean.
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
On Mon, June 11, 2007 7:39 am, Anthony wrote:
I think that's a fair explanation, although it does leave a lot of room for interpretation. "Upekha Ashantha Fernando is a Sri Lankan cricketer who plays for Sinhalese Sports Club."? "Bill Gill Elementary School is an elementary school in Tampa, Florida"? "Westwood Football Club, formed in 2004 by a group of Bangladeshi football fans on the streets of Oldham have been recognised for their work with youths, preventing and combating anti-social behaviour"? "Suzanne Westwood was a soldier who was killed in Iraq"?
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first place?
-Jeff
If you can read this, I'm not at home.
Very good point. ~~~~
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first place?
Exactly; speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be cut and dried. If there is an assertion of notability, it can't be speedied.
Anthony, where did you get the text above? I certainly was not from [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]], which states:
7. Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.
It's quite common, although not actually supported by the criteria, to speedy delete articles where the claim to importance/significance is not credible. I think that's a bit questionable at times, since we're introducing subjectiveness to the procedure. I'm pretty sure some people are speedying articles because they don't think references in the national press are enough.
-Matt
On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first place?
Exactly; speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be cut and dried. If there is an assertion of notability, it can't be speedied.
Anthony, where did you get the text above?
Which text? "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."? That's from [[Wikipedia:Notability]].
I certainly was not from [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion]], which states:
- Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article
about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.
That's even worse, as "importance or significance" is even less well defined than "notability".
It's quite common, although not actually supported by the criteria, to speedy delete articles where the claim to importance/significance is not credible. I think that's a bit questionable at times, since we're introducing subjectiveness to the procedure.
Isn't "importance or significance" subjective enough? Or would "Joe Bob is an important person" qualify as asserting its importance?
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, where did you get the text above?
Which text? "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."? That's from [[Wikipedia:Notability]].
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
[re CSD:A7 text]
That's even worse, as "importance or significance" is even less well defined than "notability".
I suspect this is the result of someone disliking the word 'notability' and substituting 'importance or significance', and not actually a substantive difference.
Isn't "importance or significance" subjective enough? Or would "Joe Bob is an important person" qualify as asserting its importance?
I think we'd generally speedy that, but send to AFD 'Joe Bob is an important person because of x, y and z'.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to go around.
I suspect this is the result of someone disliking the word 'notability' and substituting 'importance or significance', and not actually a substantive difference.
Well, a substantive difference, not really. But a working difference, sure - replace the word with "notability," and you know where they're heading.
-Jeff
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to go around.
Is an "assertion of notability" supposed to be harder or easier to obtain compared to outright "notability". Because it seems to me that in order for an article to assert the notability of its subject, if has to either: 1) be about a notable subject, or 2) contain falsehoods.
G'day Anthony,
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to go around.
Is an "assertion of notability" supposed to be harder or easier to obtain compared to outright "notability". Because it seems to me that in order for an article to assert the notability of its subject, if has to either: 1) be about a notable subject, or 2) contain falsehoods.
Notability is a tricky subject. I'll give you an example: bands.
Suppose I was the lead yodeler in The Flailing Hairnets, one of the premier bands performing music in the genre of Mexican Nasal Yodeling. However, we had not released two albums on a major label or done enough of the other things required by [[WP:MUSIC]].
AfD may well decide that we are significant enough in our genre to be worth an article, despite the fact that we fail [[WP:MUSIC]]. Then again, they may not. Are we notable? Regardless of what AfD decides, that's not something that can be dealt with by a single admin and a single clueless RC patroller spending 30 seconds apiece skimming the article and reaching for a button on VandalNukerPlus or whatever the latest semi-auto toy is called.
From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au Reply-To: m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au,English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7, hilarity ensues Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:40:20 +1000
G'day Anthony,
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com
wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to go around.
Is an "assertion of notability" supposed to be harder or easier to obtain compared to outright "notability". Because it seems to me that in order for an article to assert the notability of its subject, if has to either: 1) be about a notable subject, or 2) contain falsehoods.
Notability is a tricky subject. I'll give you an example: bands.
Suppose I was the lead yodeler in The Flailing Hairnets, one of the premier bands performing music in the genre of Mexican Nasal Yodeling. However, we had not released two albums on a major label or done enough of the other things required by [[WP:MUSIC]].
AfD may well decide that we are significant enough in our genre to be worth an article, despite the fact that we fail [[WP:MUSIC]]. Then again, they may not. Are we notable? Regardless of what AfD decides, that's not something that can be dealt with by a single admin and a single clueless RC patroller spending 30 seconds apiece skimming the article and reaching for a button on VandalNukerPlus or whatever the latest semi-auto toy is called.
Agreed. With borderline A7s AfD should really be used instead, and the article given more time to develop. Even with routine A7s I usually run a quick Google search to see if there's something there other than the usual Myspace crap. I hope admins don't delete routinely based purely on the article actually being tagged (besides, didn't we have a vandal a while back who was tagging perfectly good, if obscure articles for CSD? I seem to remember something like that). The obvious exception are the A7s consisting of "Andrew Bloggins is in 6th grade in Ohio who likes homework". But for borderline ones, I should hope admins don't routinely trust the tagger. Bad idea.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Play your part in making history - Email Britain! http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/
On 6/12/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Agreed. With borderline A7s AfD should really be used instead, and the article given more time to develop. Even with routine A7s I usually run a quick Google search to see if there's something there other than the usual Myspace crap. I hope admins don't delete routinely based purely on the article actually being tagged (besides, didn't we have a vandal a while back who was tagging perfectly good, if obscure articles for CSD? I seem to remember something like that). The obvious exception are the A7s consisting of "Andrew Bloggins is in 6th grade in Ohio who likes homework". But for borderline ones, I should hope admins don't routinely trust the tagger. Bad idea.
I hope I'm not the only admin who does his due diligence before speedying anything. Sometimes I even look at the page history to be sure. I find that there are a lot of overenthusiastic taggers out there - I'd estimate that I take the tag off 1/4 to 1/3 of the articles with speedy tags I encounter. Sometimes they don't even fully read the article - I once came across one tagged for no assertion of notability when the article said that the subject hosts a radio show heard by 3 million people a week. (And most oddly, the article - despite apparently having been written by its subject - appears to understate the subject's importance, since a biography of him I found on Google asserts the show has an audience of 5 million.)
Johnleemk
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
From: Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au Reply-To: m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au,English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] CSD A7, hilarity ensues Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:40:20 +1000
G'day Anthony,
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com
wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to go around.
Is an "assertion of notability" supposed to be harder or easier to obtain compared to outright "notability". Because it seems to me that in order for an article to assert the notability of its subject, if has to either: 1) be about a notable subject, or 2) contain falsehoods.
Notability is a tricky subject. I'll give you an example: bands.
Suppose I was the lead yodeler in The Flailing Hairnets, one of the premier bands performing music in the genre of Mexican Nasal Yodeling. However, we had not released two albums on a major label or done enough of the other things required by [[WP:MUSIC]].
AfD may well decide that we are significant enough in our genre to be worth an article, despite the fact that we fail [[WP:MUSIC]]. Then again, they may not. Are we notable? Regardless of what AfD decides, that's not something that can be dealt with by a single admin and a single clueless RC patroller spending 30 seconds apiece skimming the article and reaching for a button on VandalNukerPlus or whatever the latest semi-auto toy is called.
Agreed. With borderline A7s AfD should really be used instead, and the article given more time to develop. Even with routine A7s I usually run a quick Google search to see if there's something there other than the usual Myspace crap. I hope admins don't delete routinely based purely on the article actually being tagged (besides, didn't we have a vandal a while back who was tagging perfectly good, if obscure articles for CSD? I seem to remember something like that). The obvious exception are the A7s consisting of "Andrew Bloggins is in 6th grade in Ohio who likes homework". But for borderline ones, I should hope admins don't routinely trust the tagger. Bad idea.
Moreschi
Play your part in making history - Email Britain! http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If anyone is blindly trusting the tagger, they are, to put it bluntly, an idiot. I've seen a -lot- of bad CSD taggings.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Anthony,
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Yes. Sadly, too many admins just look at the tag. Plenty of fault to go around.
Is an "assertion of notability" supposed to be harder or easier to obtain compared to outright "notability". Because it seems to me that in order for an article to assert the notability of its subject, if has to either: 1) be about a notable subject, or 2) contain falsehoods.
Notability is a tricky subject. I'll give you an example: bands.
Suppose I was the lead yodeler in The Flailing Hairnets, one of the premier bands performing music in the genre of Mexican Nasal Yodeling. However, we had not released two albums on a major label or done enough of the other things required by [[WP:MUSIC]].
AfD may well decide that we are significant enough in our genre to be worth an article, despite the fact that we fail [[WP:MUSIC]]. Then again, they may not. Are we notable? Regardless of what AfD decides, that's not something that can be dealt with by a single admin and a single clueless RC patroller spending 30 seconds apiece skimming the article and reaching for a button on VandalNukerPlus or whatever the latest semi-auto toy is called.
There's one very easy way to show you're notable: source. If there's a ton of source material out there about you and your yodeling, we should have an article on you. If there's not, we shouldn't-even if you -have- released two major-label albums, had a number-one hit, whatever the case may be.
On Tue, June 12, 2007 6:22 am, Todd Allen wrote:
There's one very easy way to show you're notable: source. If there's a ton of source material out there about you and your yodeling, we should have an article on you. If there's not, we shouldn't-even if you -have- released two major-label albums, had a number-one hit, whatever the case may be.
I don't disagree. Expecting everyone who comes on board to know that immediately isn't realistic, however, and it still doesn't solve the laziness factor. In your scenario, for instance, the Billboard site gives you that answer in three clicks if it's US-based notability.
-Jeff
On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/11/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, where did you get the text above?
Which text? "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."? That's from [[Wikipedia:Notability]].
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Well, obviously we don't want an article to literally say "Joe Bo is notable." So presumably whether or not an article asserts notability is dependent on what it means to be notable.
For example, if you think all people killed in Iraq are notable, then an article which says the person was killed in Iraq asserts notability. But if you don't think all people killed in Iraq are notable, then you'd have no problem speedying such an article. Does this make sense?
[re CSD:A7 text]
That's even worse, as "importance or significance" is even less well defined than "notability".
I suspect this is the result of someone disliking the word 'notability' and substituting 'importance or significance', and not actually a substantive difference.
Could be.
Isn't "importance or significance" subjective enough? Or would "Joe Bob is an important person" qualify as asserting its importance?
I think we'd generally speedy that, but send to AFD 'Joe Bob is an important person because of x, y and z'.
"Joe Bob is an important person because he's the uncle of Jimmy Wales, because he plays the saxophone really well, and because his IQ is 120"?
Anthony wrote:
On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Well, obviously we don't want an article to literally say "Joe Bo is notable." So presumably whether or not an article asserts notability is dependent on what it means to be notable.
For example, if you think all people killed in Iraq are notable, then an article which says the person was killed in Iraq asserts notability.
That presumably applies to the Iraqis themselves. Failing that would show a systemic bias.
Ec
On 6/12/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 6/11/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. however, the standard at CSD is not proof of notability but an assertion of it. Admins are not supposed to evaluate the article against [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and unilaterally decide if it meets it.
Well, obviously we don't want an article to literally say "Joe Bo is notable." So presumably whether or not an article asserts notability is dependent on what it means to be notable.
For example, if you think all people killed in Iraq are notable, then an article which says the person was killed in Iraq asserts notability.
That presumably applies to the Iraqis themselves. Failing that would show a systemic bias.
Wikipedia inevitably will always show a systemic bias as long as the requirement to have reliable third party sources exist. In fact, it seems the only way to avoid systemic bias would be to have an article on every single person in the world.
Personally I was thinking of soldiers killed in Iraq, as they are likely to have had sufficient material written about them. Certainly not every single person who dies in the country of Iraq has even had anything written about them.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first place?
Exactly; speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be cut and dried. If there is an assertion of notability, it can't be speedied.
Maybe. I've speedied many articles that contain phrases like "John Doe is the strongest/greatest/amazingest person in the world" -- clearly written by a self-glorifying student who's bored during a lecture. It passes CSD A7, but I mean, come on.
G1 and A1 could be said to apply, but it'd still be debatable.
But really, there is no way in hell it would pass an AfD. So I guess what I'm saying is that where CSD falls short of obvious BS, we can at least invoke WP:SNOW and save everyone the hassle of AfD.
I agree with your statement in general, but there are plenty of situations where I disagree.
G'day Matthew,
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
If you have to do any interpreting, why are you speedying it in the first place?
Exactly; speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be cut and dried. If there is an assertion of notability, it can't be speedied.
<snip A7 definition/>
It's quite common, although not actually supported by the criteria, to speedy delete articles where the claim to importance/significance is not credible. I think that's a bit questionable at times, since we're introducing subjectiveness to the procedure. I'm pretty sure some people are speedying articles because they don't think references in the national press are enough.
I support discounting incredible claims. e.g. if an article says so-and-so won the Nobel prize for nude mountaineering, when there is no such prize (yet), then there is an assertion of notability, but we're well within the bounds of Common Sense, if not A7[0], to speedy it.
I agree with you that in many cases the persons judging that grey area are doing a poor job. Well, let's split that. The persons saying, "that grey area is close enough to black" and tagging it are showing poor judgment. The admins saying, "It's tagged, I must delete it," are being lazy.
The number of dodgy speedies I see ...
[0] Please, don't say "but that would come under pure vandalism".
Mark Gallagher wrote:
On 6/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote: It's quite common, although not actually supported by the criteria, to speedy delete articles where the claim to importance/significance is not credible. I think that's a bit questionable at times, since we're introducing subjectiveness to the procedure. I'm pretty sure some people are speedying articles because they don't think references in the national press are enough.
I support discounting incredible claims. e.g. if an article says so-and-so won the Nobel prize for nude mountaineering, when there is no such prize (yet), then there is an assertion of notability, but we're well within the bounds of Common Sense, if not A7[0], to speedy it.
Indeed. I tend to call it the cottage-on-Mars test (was it Colbert who came up with that one?): if the claim is less credible than owning a cottage on Mars, it doesn't count. (This also applies to unsubstantiated claims that, while technically possible, would be a priori extremely improbable, such as being "the smartest guy on Earth".)
Evaluating the credibility of claims isn't, in my experience, the hard part in applying A7, though. What takes effort is judging whether a given absolute claim actually implies notability. Sure, we all know that being a high school student isn't an assertion of notability, while being an Olympic medalist is. But, for example, take a high school athlete whose personal long jump record was so-and-so many meters. Would that put him among the top 5 in his age group in the world, or 37th out of 40 in his school?
Frankly, I'd have no idea, having never been even remotely interested in the subject. So, even assuming there in fact was no other evidence or suggestion of notability, I'd still have to send it to AfD -- unless I wanted to start looking for sources for typical high school long jump scores to compare the claim against.
Of course, when going through CAT:CSD, I can just leave the high school athletes for others to deal with. It's trickier at the other end of the line (i.e. newpages), since articles that no-one wants to deal with will just slip through. Of course, one can slap a {{notability}} notice on the page, in the hope that it might invite someone to take a second look at it, but the "backlog", if it can even be called that, on those is so ridiculously long that I don't think anyone is even thinking about clearing it within the next few years.
(PROD would of course be an option, but in my admittedly limited experience, PRODding a recently created vanity page will, more often than not, just lead to the creator coming back a few minutes later and removing the tag. Which accomplishes absolutely nothing.)