http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_16#A... Yet another deletion discussion where reliable sources are debated. I totally agree that creators of fictional material are not a reliable source for their own notability in 99.9% of the cases, but I also believe that for uncontroversial information like character information creators are a source far more superior than fansites (who speculate) and newspaper articles and interviews (who can misunderstand and misinterpret).
The same applies to blogs. They're generally not reliable, but when it's the blog of a director, it's an excellent source for information about the movie he's shooting.
I think people should spend more time on judging sources depending on what they are supposed to back up rather than blindly apply a single non-discriminant rule.
Mgm
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:17:58 +0100, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I totally agree that creators of fictional material are not a reliable source for their own notability in 99.9% of the cases, but I also believe that for uncontroversial information like character information creators are a source far more superior than fansites (who speculate) and newspaper articles and interviews (who can misunderstand and misinterpret).
I agree completely with this. As long as some credible independent sources exist for the major premise of the article, sourcing details from the originators is no different from sourcing minor details on a company from the company's website. Why would anyone have a problem with that, at least in general?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote:
I totally agree that creators of fictional material are not a reliable source for their own notability in 99.9% of the cases, but I also believe that for uncontroversial information like character information creators are a source far more superior than fansites (who speculate) and newspaper articles and interviews (who can misunderstand and misinterpret).
I agree completely with this. As long as some credible independent sources exist for the major premise of the article, sourcing details from the originators is no different from sourcing minor details on a company from the company's website. Why would anyone have a problem with that, at least in general?
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some where is a list of what would be "standard" information in a biographical article. Essentially we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found in a "Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths stuff could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that happens.
Ec
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:48:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some where is a list of what would be "standard" information in a biographical article. Essentially we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found in a "Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths stuff could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that happens.
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
Although this would make most porn bios impossible, of course, since for the vast majority of those we have no reliable information other than their skin colour and their appearance in a number of (usually ultra low budget) films.
Guy (JzG)
On 16/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_16#A...
The real problem here is that AFD adopted a deliberately anti-expert stance. This is really really not good.
- d.
On 1/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_16#A...
The real problem here is that AFD adopted a deliberately anti-expert stance. This is really really not good.
No it adopted an expert apathetic stance. It is lot less interested in your status as an "expert" than it is interested in the evidence you provide.
On 16/01/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_16#A...
The real problem here is that AFD adopted a deliberately anti-expert stance. This is really really not good.
No it adopted an expert apathetic stance. It is lot less interested in your status as an "expert" than it is interested in the evidence you provide.
Not when they're voting that way because they don't like Phil Sandifer. Aaron Brenneman closing the AFD after having been through arbitration on the webcomics issue is also deeply unsatisfactory.
- d.
On 1/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Not when they're voting that way because they don't like Phil Sandifer.
Then he has made an impressive number of enemies but their requests do not seem unreasonable
If I wrote an article about say cyanobiphenyls I would not view it as an unreasonable request to be asked to produce sources showing that they notable.
Aaron Brenneman closing the AFD after having been through arbitration on the webcomics issue is also deeply unsatisfactory.
It would have been difficult to close it in any other direction.
On Jan 16, 2007, at 8:52 AM, geni wrote:
It would have been difficult to close it in any other direction.
I disagree. This was an AfD where no new arguments were made from the previous AfD. Yes, consensus can change. But consensus is also not a random phenomenon based on who shows up on a given day. In the absence of any new claims about the article, it would have been wholly reasonable to take into account the previous overwhelming decision to keep the article, to note the egregiously poor reasoning of some of the votes ("not every game by Nintendo is notable," as one person argued - a position that is so far removed from our existing practice as to be unusable.
-Phil
On 1/16/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. This was an AfD where no new arguments were made from the previous AfD. Yes, consensus can change. But consensus is also not a random phenomenon based on who shows up on a given day. In the absence of any new claims about the article, it would have been wholly reasonable to take into account the previous overwhelming decision to keep the article,
Seeing as that was in 2005 and we have somewhat tightened up on sourceing requirements since them it is hardly unepected that things will change.
to note the egregiously poor reasoning of some of the votes ("not every game by Nintendo is notable," as one person argued - a position that is so far removed from our existing practice as to be unusable.
The comparison is flawed since Nintendo are a multi billion dollar company (there probably are games without article in any case due to the various times large numbers of low quality games were put on one cartridge)
A better one might be "every painting by Picasso" "every compound featured in "Journal of Organic Chemistry"
If Dayfree Press is of some signifcance surely any referenced info on "Able and Baker" could be merged into it since the article is hardly overloaded with information or citations.
All this is fascinating, but the reason I cited the DRV was really because it was the catalyst that made me post this to the list. I'd like hearing reactions to my original email.
Mgm
On 1/16/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/16/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. This was an AfD where no new arguments were made from the previous AfD. Yes, consensus can change. But consensus is also not a random phenomenon based on who shows up on a given day. In the absence of any new claims about the article, it would have been wholly reasonable to take into account the previous overwhelming decision to keep the article,
Seeing as that was in 2005 and we have somewhat tightened up on sourceing requirements since them it is hardly unepected that things will change.
to note the egregiously poor reasoning of some of the votes ("not every game by Nintendo is notable," as one person argued - a position that is so far removed from our existing practice as to be unusable.
The comparison is flawed since Nintendo are a multi billion dollar company (there probably are games without article in any case due to the various times large numbers of low quality games were put on one cartridge)
A better one might be "every painting by Picasso" "every compound featured in "Journal of Organic Chemistry"
If Dayfree Press is of some signifcance surely any referenced info on "Able and Baker" could be merged into it since the article is hardly overloaded with information or citations.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
geni wrote:
Aaron Brenneman closing the AFD after having been through arbitration on the webcomics issue is also deeply unsatisfactory.
It would have been difficult to close it in any other direction.
Hardly. The argument by the delete voters was that it was non-notable. Our own "notability" criteria regarding web content says otherwise. Either a guideline is widely accepted, or it is not, and the only worthwhile close here would have been to keep it.
-Jeff
On Jan 16, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Jeff Raymond wrote:
Hardly. The argument by the delete voters was that it was non- notable. Our own "notability" criteria regarding web content says otherwise. Either a guideline is widely accepted, or it is not, and the only worthwhile close here would have been to keep it.
And it should be noted, the closing admin is a long-standing opponent of that notability guideline who explicitly used his closure as an occasion to declare it dead. This is NOT acceptable practice.
-Phil
geni wrote:
If I wrote an article about say cyanobiphenyls I would not view it as an unreasonable request to be asked to produce sources showing that they notable.
I don't think I've ever heard of an article about a chemical compound being deleted as non-notable, and I don't expect I ever will. Yes, there are bazillions of organic compounds, but they really are all encyclopedic, if only someone takes the time to write something about them.
I suppose the exception to that would be compounds that no-one has ever written anything at all about, however briefly or speculatively, in any academic source. But for such articles, a better reason for deletion would be that they must then, necessarily, be original research.