Talk:Judgepedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Guidestar

[The following was C&P'd from my talk page (Srich32977)]

I find it fascinating that you removed links to GuideStar from lightly-edited articles in which discussion is highly unlikely to take place. I assume you looked at GuideStar's Wikipedia article and are aware of what it is and does, yet you found it problematic. Would you please explain why? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to? – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judgepedia&diff=548887982&oldid=548867249 As you can see, the Talk page is empty, and the article is tagged as not necessarily being about a notable organization. As you assumably know, GuideStar provides extensive historical and current information, including the required tax filings, about non-profits. Why shouldn't this be linked to? Why don't you want readers to see this? What sort of 'discussion' needs to take place? The gold standard website in the U.S., supported by every non-profit I've ever run into, needs to be re-validated for every link? Every piece written about avoiding 'charity scams' says to check them out on GuideStar. So do the reputable non-profits themselves. Unless I missed something, Judgepedia is reputable. I explained this, in summary, in my edit summary. So what's your explanation for finding this link so egregious you reverted it? Are you trying to get the Judgepedia article deleted? If so, why? 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above was cut & pasted from my talkpage. In fact, I do not want Judgepedia deleted. If I did, I would have nominated it or tagged in in some fashion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your only comment is a non sequitor? Who am I supposed to discuss the actual link with? Bots have been the only contributors for the past year, SaraKey seems to have left, and you refuse to participate? Brillant. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Viewing the sources currently referenced, Judgepedia doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations. The only reliable secondary sources only mention Judgepedia in passing. This is what is referred to in WP:ORG as "trivial or incidental coverage." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's because you deleted a newspaper article that was about Judgepedia because you didn't feel the newspaper was a reliable source. [1]. Schematica (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I brought the Metropolitan News Enterprise to the reliable sources noticeboard, where a consensus was reached that it is a reliable source [2]. Schematica (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that consensus was reached (give it some time), but thank you for doing that. Next time please notify me so that I can participate in the discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schematica, please stop reverting on the MetNews issue. Give it time until the discussion settles down. There's no rush. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MNE report is certainly more than trivial or incidental coverage. There may be a question of whether that is enough or not... but in any case, I would ask that it be retained in the article while people look into the issue. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think it's safe to say there's consensus at RSN that the MetNews source is sufficiently reliable for inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement?

The article is currently tagged as being an advertisement. It's not clear to me what the offending content is. Could someone explain the content that is at issue, or else change/remove the problematic content?

I've also found another source which seems to be more than "trivial coverage." An article in the Atlantic [3] that includes Judgepedia's coverage of three court cases involving Sonia Sotomayor. Schematica (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As currently listed, the article appears to be a list of every place on the Internet where the subject is mentioned by a reliable source. That's not encyclopedic, it's a repository of links. It's inherently promotional. There must be some discrimination regarding what is notable and what is not. See my earlier suggestion to you here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't list every place on the Internet where the subject is mentioned by a reliable source. And the links are in the article as citations to verify the facts in the article. If I took any of the links out I'm guessing you'd slap a "citation needed" tag at the end of every sentence. What specifically in the article as it stands do you think is not noteworthy? Is it just specific links, or is it particular content in the article? Why don't you find it and take it out so we can improve the encyclopedia by ensuring it's not promotional. Seems like a good goal. Schematica (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, here's a list of places on the Internet where the subject is mentioned in reliable sources that are not currently anywhere in the article:

I think we should only use sources that have something noteworthy to say about the subject. What counts as noteworthy is somewhat subjective, but it's a determination that's constantly being made by the community across the entire encyclopdia. One glaring example of something that falls way below the noteworthiness threshold (to me, at least) is the first OC Register source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, being specific is very helpful. Since you regard this particular part of the article as a glaring example of advertising, it's unclear to me why you didn't just remove the offending material rather yourself rather than placing an advertising tag here. If the material is so blatantly problematic in your view, why leave it there when you could remove it and ensure other readers don't see the eyesore. Schematica (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more than just the use of that particular source. I've been seeing a pattern of promotional activity from you across all of the articles you've been working on. I do wish you would take this advice to heart. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page to discuss the content of Judgepedia. If you've been seeing "a pattern of promotional activity" from me, I'd strongly suggest you report that at the appropriate noticeboard. For the purposes of this article, we need to discuss specific content and not your feelings about me. Schematica (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about my feelings about you. I'm talking about my feelings about your contributions to this article. Not just your use of that particular source. That was merely illustrative of the broader issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improve this article, and you keep being very vague about what exactly you think is wrong with this article. You've declined to make substantive edits yourself, and each time I make an edit, you find fault with it. Not enough sources? I add sources. Too many sources! Promotional! Not notable? I add notable sources. Promotional! Yet it's not specific fault, it's just a general "I really don't like any of your edits" fault. Please, make or suggest specific edits. A vague broad charge of "this is promotional" is entirely unhelpful in actually making this article better. Schematica (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To each his or her own. I know there are lots of people who don't like tags, but between you and me we've already made vast improvements to these articles. They wouldn't have happened without both of us participating. You're certainly experiencing a steep learning curve. That's what you get for wading into the deep end of the pool. (And by that I mean choosing to edit controversial subjects.) :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]