User talk:HighKing/Archives/2019/October

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Nations Bank of Canada

HighKing,

You seem to be one of those editors that gets both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, so I was wondering if you might like to "chime in" on the above deletion discussion? Luke and I both agree it's a delete, possibly a strong delete, because all of the Google web and news sources fail WP:SIGCOV and there just is a complete lack of press coverage to write an article of sufficient corporate depth. I've had a number of Canadian standalone bank, credit union, and foreign bank subsidiary articles deleted, merged, or redirected because they fail these guidelines.

I appreciate the time Cunard takes in composing his or her comments, but the sources quoted only either provide (a) brief mentions, (b) passing mentions, or (c) do not qualify because they relate to trivial coverage (product or service announcements, branch openings and closures, executive announcements, business partnerships, capital raises, etc.). --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dmehus, strictly speaking, asking other editors to participate and take a side is considered "canvassing" (see WP:CAN) and is frowned upon. While I would probably have looked at that AfD at some stage (I generally look at everything that appears [here]) because of the canvassing, I will not post a !vote. That said, having looked at the sources briefly, it would appear that from Cunard's references, No.2 and No.4 are good, and I've also found other books such as First Nations: Race, Class and Gender Relations so for me (without doing further research) I'm leaning towards a "Keep". HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

NPR

Hi. Thank you for reviewing new pages. You were accorded open-ended access to the Curation system November 3, 2018 by TonyBallioni, please ensure that you have read and fully understood the instructions at WP:NPP. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at WT:NPR or leave a message on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung I can only assume you put this here because I nominated Noble College of Pharmacy for deletion. You then !voted on that AfD that it is "policy" to blank and redirect to Karnataka. You're going to have to explain that one to me - which policy states that it must be blanked and deleted? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have NPR rights? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Still ends up at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments at AFD

Greetings, you made comments at the deletion discussion of Luma Health that I was not able to respond to as I had to leave for work. Also I was in a hurry and actually not feeling well so I didn't explain things as I would have liked to.

You commented "Having been involved in hundreds of AfD I have never seen 3 suggested anywhere.". I think I have been involved in more than a couple of hundred AFD's but in over nine years I would imagine that is not really that many out of many multiple thousands. Since we likely haven't seen all of them I can imagine some things can be missed.

To elaborate a little more: The essay is WP:THREE is more referred to at drafts, AFC, and talk pages which is what I was originally meaning to state. However, it was mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Panesar (2nd nomination) (so at least one of the "hundreds" you might have missed) by the keep !vote of User:Bmbaker88. You were involved in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion and the section above that, mentions Wikipedia:THREE. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mooji (three best sources) by User:Alpha3031.

The explanatory supplement to the Notability page Wikipedia:Multiple sources discusses that three good in-depth references will rebuff notability challenges, although two can be "possible to establish notability". Providing at least three sources (advancing notability) has been supported by many editors including User:Worldbruce, User:SmokeyJoe, User:Scope creep, User:Levivich. Many of these have far more editing counts than I do, and there are more, but newer editors are joining like User:Dmehus.

In the area of the world I live the word for two could be "a couple" but "multiple" is noted as being more than that. In the above mentioned AFD I expected a no consensus and that may either give a false security that no more references are needed or sets an article up for a possible future AFD. I have seen in the past where arguments would lean towards one non-primary source denoting notability, with one or two other references, but that has largely changed. There are exceptions as some things are not as controversial as others and WP:BLP's understandably have higher standards.

More established editors generally don't have an issue providing sources that advance notability but at AFC and AFD there is generally less experience involved. Setting "two" as a minimum seems to add controversy to notability because at least one of them often do not really make the advancement, not significant coverage, or other reasons like just supporting content. It just does not seem to make sense to support the barest minimum and then more than likely go to AFD because of (or both) is not actually credible or reliability is questioned, or it is just passing mention. I would just as soon be able to do away with needing AFD but certainly lower the number of cases. If something is notable then "multiple" (more than a couple) establishes that beyond question. Otr500 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: I wasn't aware of the WP:THREE essay recommending three, independent, and reliable sources, so in my AfD replies, I've often suggested using at least 3-5 sources to establish notability. It's odd that WP:THREE doesn't mention AfD specifically, but since it's just an essay, do we need to establish consensus to edit that essay and add in AfD? I think that would be a good, bold move.--Doug Mehus (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

{{tq| Providing at least three sources (advancing notability)}? No. No at least. No more than three. 2 minimum. 3 max. If your best 3 are not good enough, then no. Not hundred extra worse sources will help. The problem in practice is WP:Reference bombing. This rule of WP:THREE applies particularly where the topic has previously been deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I SO agree with SmokeyJoe. While I stated "...three good in-depth references will rebuff notability challenges...", I did state "Providing AT LEAST Three" which makes it appear I think three or more. I went further with explaining that two can be acceptable but should have left out the added "at least" leaving "three best sources". Wikipedia:Multiple sources goes a little deeper concerning "presumed notability". Refbombing is an issue, especially when stack-cited at one place, and I am glad usually discounted at AFD. Otr500 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)