User talk:RoySmith/Three best sources

Comment by Amr247rn

Ya know, this was very helpful. Rather than accusing me of writing my article about myself, which it is not, I would have totally appreciated your delete with reference to your Three best sources. As a newbie, I thought I needed as many references as possible to have my article approved. I do respect the process. Amr247rn (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV

@RoySmith: Regarding your revert, if you want to keep the bulleted list short, there is some repetition and some non-policy advice that can be removed. WP:SIGCOV is one of the criterias for WP:GNG and needs to be mentioned here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the input, but it's my essay. I wrote it to summarize what I had been writing over and over at various AfDs, and thus reflects my personal point of view. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I respect and quite strongly support that, Roy.

In some parts, you use the first person "I". Perhaps you should sign the essay. For what it's worth, I'd like to co-sign. Or sign WP:Supporters of User:RoySmith/Three best sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Next steps?

@RoySmith: Once the editor has identified the best three sources, what do they do with them? I presume you want them listed on the article's talk page? If so, you could say that in the essay. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: thanks for your note. I've had people reply right on the AfD, or as a comment on a draft, or on my user talk page. I don't think it matters much where, as long as the person asking can find them. I'm trying to keep things simple by not over-specifying every detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I'm intending to start referring editors to your essay when I decline drafts that are of questionable notability despite an excess of sources. If the essay could clarify what the editor is expected to do then that would make it more self-contained and therefore more useful, in my opinion. You could offer those as acceptable places to respond? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm gratified that you find my essay useful and wish to cite it, but I'm trying hard to keep it terse, and don't want to see it get bloated. Things seem to be working fine as is; I'm not aware of any problems with people being unable to find a good place to leave their response. The problem with adding more to the instructions is that this gets cited from all sorts of places. AfD (and other XfD's), DRV, Drafts, user's talk pages, etc. It's hard to provide comprehensive instructions which cover all those possibilities. Let me think on this a bit. If I can find a concise way to do this, I'll consider it, but no promises. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For AFC review, I've found it useful to either put the three directly in the draft comments or on the draft's talk page for review. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

I like the way you put it: three good sources to prove notability! I will keep that in mind when creating articles, in the initial stage. I have been through some discussions about my articles and then mostly about the notability, although I have tried to be well above the threshold. So I feel the loos of energy due to such discussions. I will still create new articles, now having in mind your piece of advice. --Per W (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the essay useful. Keep in mind, however, that this is just my personal viewpoint. Although it has gained some acceptance, it's not policy, so I can't promise that having three good references will get you past every review. I do think, however, that it's universally accepted that a few really good sources is better than a large number of crappy ones. I might also point out that I start a lot of articles that I never finish. I get an idea, do a little searching, do a little scribbling, and often can't find enough to justify calling it an article, so it just sits. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is an essay written by someone that has discussed and judged notability several times. With three good references you can show the notability and provide some basic facts (in most cases I would add). I created an article and someone wondered about the notability of the company. As I found one independant source stating that it was one of the three major companies within this sector in Sweden, he was satisfied. Sometimes you might need more references. Per W (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

why is three better than two?

Did you just pick a number at random or is there something about the number three that is important? The Notability guidelines have always said "multiple" which is defined in any dictionary is more than one. Certain editors keep reference this essay in AFDs claiming that two sources aren't enough, that we should delete the article if there are only two and not three. I suppose if we had three someone would create an essay claiming you needed four. I was once in an AFD where someone said there should be at least a dozen references. Dream Focus 04:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Two sources are enough if they are very good. We used to say "2 or 3", the point being not WP:Reference bombed. If the two are not very good, we can take the time to look at the third best, but it is not realistic to ask for a careful source analysis of lots. 3 is a better match to "multiple"; 2 is technically multiple. Needs half a dozen sources? That's plain wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see someone else ask that. I raised an RfC about that a couple of years ago when I was new to AfC and wanted a clearer definition. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything magic about three, but it seemed like a good number. My suggestion if people insist on three and not two, is to remind them that this is just an essay and people shouldn't be slaves to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

lol Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not 2, Excepting that thou then proceed to 3. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Three is enough?

I rather disagree with Three good sources is enough to convince anybody. Particularly when sources are only moderately good, or there are several separate aspects of a topic, i oftne want to see 4 or 5, and am quite willing to review five, but not 20. Partaicualrly when it is an artist or author qualifying under the "body of work" section of WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NARTIST. 3 is often just not enough, although it is a good start. That is my view, anyway. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If there are three clearly adequate sources, I don't think a delete rationale of just "not notable" is appropriate. Of course, there have been plenty of AfDs on topics that pass GNG for which WP:TNT, WP:POVFORK, etc. applies, but the actual problem with the article contents or the maintainability headaches of having such a so-named article needs to be explained. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC relevance of this essay

I think authors of drafts who have the AfC process in mind should be aware of this essay, since the AfC threshold in practice isn't far from "would this article survive an AfD?" I think it would be constructive for the AfC process if draft nominations were recommended to name the three best sources.

Thoughts? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Also, I've found this a very useful page and I think maybe it's grown to become more than one person's personal view :) Haukur (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it reflects a long pre-existing consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to broaden the essay to be AfC inclusive but RoySmith reverted. We may need to WP:FORK to make any improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, I have on occasion (not too often) accepted changes people have suggested. But, more to the point, did you think changing "I don't enjoy deleting articles" to "I don't enjoy deleting articles or declining submissions" on somebody else's personal essay was an appropriate edit? If you disagree with what I've written, forking it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Changing my personal statement of what I don't enjoy doing is not. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought it better than removing all first-person statements from your essay. ~Kvng (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Kvng, You might want to read WP:USERESSAY. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd give a WP:BOLD edit a try. I have no problem with you controlling this copy of your essay. There are no ill feelings in my suggestion to WP:FORK - you should take it as a compliment. ~Kvng (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the value of forking this article, besides saying that referencing the essay from the AfC process does not require it. Naturally any recommendation at AfC must stand on its own, not be dependent on a user essay. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Many of the most consulted and authoritive guides began life as user essays, Charles; that's the organic nature of this project. (please nod to the 48C if ever you happen to be driving past). I think the essay is excellent, and I'm curious why Roy doesn't neutralise the personal aspect and move it to Wikipedia space where not only can it be BRD edited, but it can then be linked more often to places where it really matters as a guide. I was drawn to it at WT:NPR where if it hadn't been mentioned today, I for one, would never known of its existence. I would add it to the reading list at at WP:NPP for starters and I do think it matters at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would add it to the beginning of the list of information for new page and draft writers. Many hard-to-review new pages are hard to review because they are WP:Reference bombed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Kudpung Thanks for the ping. I see in the NPP thread, this was referred to as a "guideline", which I feel compelled to point out that it's not. If I were to move this to project space, mistakes like that would be even more common. If the community wants having three high-quality sources be a requirement, they can do that. Sart an RFC to modify the first sentence of WP:GNG to say, "... received significant coverage in at least three reliable sources ..." and see if that gains consensus. I personally would support it, but I don't want to back-door that requirement into existence. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  The GNG says, by minimal implication, two. Three is tolerance for the article proponent to find two in a set of three. I would not support tightening the GNG to a hard three, and I think that would result in a lot of deletions. WP:THREE is about the practical reality of the workload on reviewers. Beyond that, it contains a good reminder that only two good sources are required for a pass, and that WP:Reference bombings doesn’t work. Well, WP:Reference bombing shouldn’t work, and I detest reference bombing, and regret that AfC encourages newcomers to reference bomb. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I like the status quo at AfD: it's not policy, it doesn't require the list of conjunctions of tricky properties found in the GNG and WP:BASIC, and it applies informally if an AfD participant asks for it. At WP:DRV, all the regulars know this essay. It's only at AfC that I think the current process would benefit from an explicit mention either of this user essay or a made-for-AfC fork of it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Three sources or three references?

Moved to Draft talk:In the (D3FB) Huddle

More visible indication that this is NOT official Wikipedia policy

Can you please add a larger disclaimer of some sort to indicate that this is NOT official Wikipedia policy? This essay, and a similar one, are being thrown around at AfD as if they were a hard rule that must be met. It is even being used in a fashiom that directly contradicts multiple GNG guidelines, given that the real standard is demonstrating that significant coverage exists or is likely to exist. I had an editor just today claim that this was a "rule" and that my Keep vote was "invalid" because I only included one source. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperion35, It exists in my user space. It's got a disclaimer right up top. I'm not sure how much more clear it can be that it's not official policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is there's a new phase for citing this at AfD with no indication of the "this is what one guy thinks" matter. Overciting essays is an AfD problem in general, and one we can all confess to, but at least they're usually projectspace. If third parties are using a user essay, as Hyperion says, in direct contravention of guidelines...I'm not saying it's anything you're doing wrong, and it's actually quite a nice essay when you click through, but sometimes people just gotta slow down, you know? Vaticidalprophet 09:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, Sigh. I can't be responsible for people refusing to think. Sometimes I feel like Brian trying to convince the crowd to think for themselves. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't blame you. I quite like your notes section; I wonder if it could do with being a bit more prominent. A hatnote saying If you were directed here saying you needed three sources to be notable, read [[notes|this]], maybe? Wording in progress. Vaticidalprophet 13:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Hyperion35, Vaticidalprophet, and RoySmith:, Users will have to get used to it, it's one of the things that happens with user essays - especially good ones. - they all carry the caveat template at the top of the page. Many of the most consulted and authoritative guides began life as user essays, that's the organic nature of this project. I echo your concerns, Roy, about convincing the crowd to think for themselves, it's like leading horses to water or herding cats. You can spoon feed them and they still won't swallow; it's one of the most frustration things about trying to help other users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

@RoySmith: Hi, interesting essay (just came across it). Just wanted to ask; you're not suggesting people limit their article to only three sources, or even remove sources to keep the article to the best three, right? You're just asking that they note them at AfD, presumably as part of their 'keep' !vote, for you (or whichever reviewing admin) to evaluate, yes? Just looking to clarify that point. Thanks! - wolf 19:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, That's correct, this was just my way of asking people to walk me through the best sources to look at during an AfD discussion. You might want to also read the accompanying notes. There's absolutely no reason people should be removing sources to get down to three in the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Consider moving to Wikipedia space?

Hi User:RoySmith, I wonder if you've considered moving this essay into project space? I've seen your comment at User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes, so you're well aware this is a popular essay. (3000+ links at this point!) Is there a reason you prefer to keep it in user space, which is very unusual for well-cited essays? Suriname0 (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Suriname0, thanks for your note. As described in the notes, even in my userspace, people keep messing with it in ways I don't agree with. In project space, I'd have even less control. So I prefer to keep it as a user essay. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:THREE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:THREE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 2 § Wikipedia:THREE until a consensus is reached. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)