I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion? (especially if the article is otherwise well written)
I ask this because recently I came across a fairly well written article about a computer term that had a prod tag on it for being an unsourced neologism. It probably was since all the google hits for it pointed to mirrors of its WP article but I still decided to replace the prod with a sources tag to give the original author a chance to add a source. However, I started to wonder why the person who first prodded it suspected it was a neologism as it couldn't have been the first term he ran across on wikipedia that he never heard about. Does he prod them all?
The same could be asked about notability. Just what makes one suspect that a particular person/band/school/company/webcomic etc. is not notable? Please note that I am not saying that such articles should be kept but there has to be something in an otherwise well written article to cause someone to investigate the article's eligibility to be in wikipedia besides "I've never heard if him/it"
On 28/12/06, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion? (especially if the article is otherwise well written)
A general way for a new article to come to the attention of those working "in the field" is that a new article tends to mean various links need set up, so the related articles get edited and it becomes obvious that way. Or they may notice a redlink has turned blue; same idea.
(Interestingly, many of the articles we want *least* - very intentionally promotional ones - are the easiest to find this way, as people sometimes go a step too far and try to work in references to it from thousands of pages...)
On 28/12/06, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion? (especially if the article is otherwise well written)
Personally, in this order: Stumble across them as I read pages. IRC chat. Random button. Category browsing.
-David
On 12/28/06, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion? (especially if the article is otherwise well written)
I ask this because recently I came across a fairly well written article about a computer term that had a prod tag on it for being an unsourced neologism. It probably was since all the google hits for it pointed to mirrors of its WP article but I still decided to replace the prod with a sources tag to give the original author a chance to add a source. However, I started to wonder why the person who first prodded it suspected it was a neologism as it couldn't have been the first term he ran across on wikipedia that he never heard about. Does he prod them all?
If all the Google hits point to mirrors the article in question isn't verifiable. Even if they haven't heard about the term, they appear to have made an effort to find evidence it exists. A computer term that lacks Google hits probably lacks notability too.
The same could be asked about notability. Just what makes one suspect
that a particular person/band/school/company/webcomic etc. is not notable? Please note that I am not saying that such articles should be kept but there has to be something in an otherwise well written article to cause someone to investigate the article's eligibility to be in wikipedia besides "I've never heard if him/it"
Lack of establishing notability according to the different notability criteria at [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:MUSIC]], etc would be a reason to investigate it further. A lot of people don't even mention what makes an article subject worth being written about.
Mgm
On 12/28/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of establishing notability according to the different notability criteria at [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:MUSIC]], etc would be a reason to investigate it further. A lot of people don't even mention what makes an article subject worth being written about.
I would think that this one would be easy as not even going through the motions of establishing notability is grounds for speedy. Come to think of it I wonder if this has ever happened...
Someone writes an article about "Joe Shmoe".
Same someone fails to assert notability.
Article gets speedy deleted.
It turns out that "Joe Shmoe" actually is notable, just unknown to those who speedied it.
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 12/28/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Lack of establishing notability according to the different notability criteria at [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:MUSIC]], etc would be a reason to investigate it further. A lot of people don't even mention what makes an article subject worth being written about.
I would think that this one would be easy as not even going through the motions of establishing notability is grounds for speedy. Come to think of it I wonder if this has ever happened...
Someone writes an article about "Joe Shmoe".
Same someone fails to assert notability.
Article gets speedy deleted.
It turns out that "Joe Shmoe" actually is notable, just unknown to those who speedied it.
Reminds me of the article that Jimbo wrote which was speedied because the content was "He won the Nobel prize!"...
Ron Ritzman wrote:
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion?
I don't know if I qualify for "regularly", or for "deletionist", but I did recently nominate [[Forss Fagerström]], which had been around since April. How did I find it? Well, someone copied it over to the Finnish Wikipedia, someone else there noticed it and nominated it for deletion, and a user (one of the few) opposing its deletion there commented that it shouldn't be deleted since the topic already exists on the English Wikipedia.
Yes, nominating the English article for deletion at that point is definitely a Nasty Deletionist Trick(TM). Then again, the article is utterly unencyclopedic, even if it _is_ actually fairly well written.
On 12/28/06, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I understand that new articles get close scrutiny but just how do deletable articles that have been around for a while come to the attention to those who regularly nominate articles for deletion? (especially if the article is otherwise well written)
Browsing and looking for clusters. For example images with dogey copyright stuff often appear on poor articles.