Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Notability. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Is a defunct blog notable?
Your ideas sought on The Critical Badger
70.134.227.168 (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Notability doesn't expire. If it met the threshold for notability once, it's presumed to meet them forever.--Crossmr (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Internet company ScanScout: adulterating the wikipedia universe?
Based on the sparse content and the dearth of independent source coverage, I don't think that the subject of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ScanScout satisfies notability guidelines. It seems to me that the company, or an affiliate, is simply trying to push a PR effort by utilizing wikipedia, but had little third-party information to work with. And anyway, isn't the cited website "crunchbase" the equivalent of a corporate profile wikipedia? In which case, how good a third-party source is it?
To be honest, the main reason I ask is because a company I work for, a competitor of ScanScout, has asked me to write something for our company, but even if done neutrally, I don't believe it is possible to write a solid wikipedia aritcle because I'd be pulling from the same types of sources. I don't think either of our companies has done anything that I would categorize as "notable" to a public outside of the advertising community. Please advise me, one way or the other, as I don't want to adulterate the wikipedia universe with another strained attempt at a notable page...Kmcq (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have looked into this and taken some action. As with all articles that action may be reversed in future if circumstances change, but at present there is no evidence that article criteria are being met. The decision about crunchbase is a bit more borderline as external links do include useful links - but not spam or poor quality ones. I've passed that to a few other editors who work more with spam, to advise.
- If your own business is non-notable then it is indeed better (as you say) to recognize the fact or ask, than try to spam it - deletion and discussion in a negative tone related to spam or unsuitability etc can be perceived internally as PR liabilities, not PR assets. I don't know if you know about Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences but it's worth a read - it's fairly accurate. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Great advice and I appreciate the referral to LUC, as public perception was certainly something I was taking into consideration--having a disputed wikipedia page is exactly what you say: a PR liability. As far as crunchbase goes, I see what you mean about the external links; I wouldn't be surprised if a few, if not the bulk of the cited articles were spoon-fed by PR pitches and releases, but that's not to say that they're necessarily filled with false information, unfounded claims, or insignificance. In any case, until something encyclopedically significant happens with my company, I'll direct any cataloging efforts to crunchbase. Thanks for your input.Kmcq (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hitchhiking with Larry David Notability
I attempted my first Wikipedia "Book," page for "Hitchhiking with Larry David," by Paul Samuel Dolman. This does satisfy Wikipedia: Notability /Book #1. Outside References. Does this satisfy wiki notability, or is the problem with the reference structure?LD'sHitchhiker (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Unthank Books
A publishing company opened in 2009 in Norwich by Robin Jones, Ashley Stokes, Dan Nyman and Ian Nettleton. They aim to publish fiction adn non-fiction that has no outlet in today's mainstream culture. Their first novel "Touching the Starfish" by Ashley Stokes was released on 01/02/10 (English date) They are releasing thier second book, "The Unthology No.1", hopefully a book that shall start a series of short pieces from authors around the world, on 02/12/10 (English date). As is apparent with the palindromic dates of the published books, Unthank Books pride themselves on fronting the aesthetics of writing instead of following "what the market want". They define themselves with the principle that they stray from the mainstream and are interested in innovative and important literary fiction.
Unthank Books called themselves so for four reasons:" 1) After a thirteenth century term of holding land without consent; 2)After a city in Alisdair Grey's book "Lanark"; 3) After a road in the Publishing company's home, Norwich; 4) Because they like it."
They are also running Unthank School Of Writers (U.S.O.W), a writing school with introductory and advanced classes in prose and poetry. Although under the same umbrella as Unthank Books, they are insistant that writing within these classes does not give publication by Unthank. The courses are run by Sarah Bower (Introductory Prose), Ashley Stokes (Advanced Prose) Helen Ivory (Introductory Poetry), Andrew McDonnell (Advanced Poetry), Ian Nettleton (Introductory Screenwriting) and Christabelle Dilks (Advanced Screenwriting).
--Subtlefaery (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Unthank School Of Writing
Unthank School Of Writers (U.S.O.W) is a sister company to Unthank Books. It aims to give lessons from professional tutors, with introductory and advanced classes in prose and poetry. Although under the same umbrella as Unthank Books, they are insistant that writing within these classes does not give publication by Unthank. The courses are run by Sarah Bower (Introductory Prose), Ashley Stokes (Advanced Prose) Helen Ivory (Introductory Poetry), Andrew McDonnell (Advanced Poetry), Ian Nettleton (Introductory Screenwriting) and Christabelle Dilks (Advanced Screenwriting).
--Subtlefaery (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Professional certification
I have a question about professional certification and its associated spin-outs (professional certification (Business), professional certification (Computer technology), List of Chiropractic Credentials, etc.). To me, these look like blatant WP:ARTSPAM, places to list one's own company's designations. (I was drawn into this because of this edit, which adds redlinks for certifications for a company deleted for failing notability.) This seems an abuse of lists, no? RJC TalkContribs 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: this talk page [1]one editor has removed Selby Bacqwa from the article/list because "Baqwa does not have a Wikipedia article to establish her notability" Other editors on the page assert that whether a person has a Wiki bio or not isn't a determining factor for inclusion on this list. Case in point is Selby Baqwa whose name has appeared in more than 100 news articles according to a search of Google News Archives. [2] So the question is: Is Selby Baqwa notable enough to be included in this article/list regardless of the fact that at the present time there is no Wiki bio about him? Thank you for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deleting red-linked names from lists of "notable people" is standard procedure. If the person is believed to be notable then the simple solution is to write an article about them. Since several non-notable people have been proposed for this particular list, this dispute does not seem to be only about Baqwa. Talk:List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners#James E. Ainsworth, author, Valerie JanLois, Harold H. Bloomfield, Samantha Jones, and Donald Sosin. Will Beback talk 02:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- As a editor who's not involved in this topic, it seems to me that Will Beback (despite all his great contributions to WP over the years) is essentially trying to make people follow rules that don't exist. A WP page is not the only way to establish notability. For example, the WP:SAL#Lists_of_people guideline clearly states "individuals in lists who do not have a Wikipedia article, need to have a citation or a Wikipedia link for their connection to the list and for their notability" (emphasis added). That said, there may be many cases when it is almost as easy to create a new WP page as to document notability with references on the list-page. But (based on that quote and other observations) let's call a spade a spade: A WP page is not the only way to establish notability. Health Researcher (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm relying on the text in SAL:
- Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.
- And on common practice. I don't recall any recent cases where folks have asserted that a red-linked name is actually notable. Will Beback talk 03:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be right per policy about the list entry you removed. Even though the article given as its source establishes him as a practitioner, he is almost certainly not notable for being a practitioner, but for other things [3] if he's notable at all. BE——Critical__Talk 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- We are arguing here about notability in terms of Wiki policy, not in TM practice. It is clear that, per Wiki policy, a Wiki article is not a prerequisite to be included in the list. --BwB (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere does Wikipedia state that the only way to establish notability is to have an article in it. It's more the other way around. Biographies of notable people may be written in Wikipedia, of course, but it makes no sense to say that these people do not become notable until they have an article. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Will BeBack's talk page comment was "Baqwa does not have a Wikipedia article to establish her notability" This is the key issue of this thread. Does the absence of a Wiki bio trump WP:NOTABITY? I say no. In my opinion WP:SAL, Manual of Style guideline, does not take priority over WP:NOTABILITY. Especially since WP:SAL says at the top of it's page "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". For me, common sense says that it best serves the Wiki Reader to include content about a person who meets WP:NOTABILITY requirements and/or is cited in more than 100 news articles and holds significant positions in South African government.[4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of course the absence of a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with it. Rather, the person is not notable for his TM practice. He might be notable for something else. But you're right, just because an article hasn't been written doesn't mean he shouldn't be included in an article or list. But if he's not notable enough for an article in the future, he's not notable enough for a list unless he's very notable for the subject. That last is kind of a nebulous exception. But I don't think this guy is notable for TM, do you really? I saw one article with his name and TM, out of what you say is more than 100 news articles. BE——Critical__Talk 17:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Will BeBack's talk page comment was "Baqwa does not have a Wikipedia article to establish her notability" This is the key issue of this thread. Does the absence of a Wiki bio trump WP:NOTABITY? I say no. In my opinion WP:SAL, Manual of Style guideline, does not take priority over WP:NOTABILITY. Especially since WP:SAL says at the top of it's page "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". For me, common sense says that it best serves the Wiki Reader to include content about a person who meets WP:NOTABILITY requirements and/or is cited in more than 100 news articles and holds significant positions in South African government.[4]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere does Wikipedia state that the only way to establish notability is to have an article in it. It's more the other way around. Biographies of notable people may be written in Wikipedia, of course, but it makes no sense to say that these people do not become notable until they have an article. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- We are arguing here about notability in terms of Wiki policy, not in TM practice. It is clear that, per Wiki policy, a Wiki article is not a prerequisite to be included in the list. --BwB (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be right per policy about the list entry you removed. Even though the article given as its source establishes him as a practitioner, he is almost certainly not notable for being a practitioner, but for other things [3] if he's notable at all. BE——Critical__Talk 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm relying on the text in SAL:
- Actually, the list is not about people who are notable for their TM practice. It is just about people who practice TM, and the general idea seems to be that we should include people who are notable, but their notability is unrelated to TM. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay so the argument is 1. He's independently notable, 2. He practices TM, and therefore can be included in the list... and I have it wrong that he needs to be notable for TM per se. Why don't you just start a stub on him? You only need one RS. BE——Critical__Talk 23:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I did it for you. BE——Critical__Talk 01:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks very much, and thanks for your input!--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Is this event notable?
I made an edit with minor wording:
Revision as of 14:43, 25 October 2010
It said: "...was lecturer at the Picmet, Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology" with this reference:
- Reisman Lecturer at Picmet 2003 Picmet.org, Sessions p.88 TB-10.2 [R] Transfer of Technologies: A Meta Taxonomy, Arnold Reisman; Sabanci University, Turkey. Retrieved 2010-10-25.
Later, wording was changed to this, by editor SlimVirgin with reference remaining:
"...and in 2003 he spoke at the Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology."
But today, almost a month later, another editor, User:Drmies, removed this text, along with the reference I inserted. Drmies' edit summary, (rationale,) was this:
→ "he spoke at a conference? wow. rm entirely trivial fact (it's from a sixty-page program) that belongs on a resume"
I would like to know, whether this event, in Portland, is notable enough to be mentioned in the article:
- "...and in 2003 he spoke, (my wording is lectured,) at the Portland International Conference On Management Of Engineering And Technology."
Ref.→Reisman Lecturer at Picmet 2003 Picmet.org, Sessions p.88 TB-10.2 [Right] Transfer of Technologies: A Meta Taxonomy, Arnold Reisman; Sabanci University, Turkey. Retrieved 2010-10-25.
Thanks. Fusion Is the Future 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think its fine to mention it briefly. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Animals
Please could someone on animals check WP:VPP#BLP query? Simply south (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Works of art
I don't understand what is considered notable for works of art. Why do actual artworks, such as paintings or sculptures, etc not have a specific notability guideline? A specific question that I have is 'are individual works of notable artists considered notable'? Swarm X 20:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I will venture to state that they can certainly be notable. For instance, is not the Guernica notable? Of course. Same goes for Michaelangelo's David or his Sistine Chapel ceiling.
- Having established that WBNA's can in at least these example cases be notable, that still begs the question of whether that is the case for any particular work. But certainly there is no work by Van Gogh or Rembrandt which one would not regard as notable in the context of all art. Are they notable in the context of that artists' overall ouvre? Not all of them are, in the general English language sense of notable. Thus, a little scribble by DaVinci might be worth thousands, but might not be called notable in a discussion of Renaissance art.
- However, that use of the word notable is not the same thing as the Wikipedia specific use of the term. For purposes of Wikipedia, the function of the word notable really relates to whether or not there is a role for the page entry on Wikipedia. THus, the standard or threshold for notability must be different and should be lower rather than higher than the standard of notability for paper encyclopedias and also as contrasted to general vernacular use of the term "notable".
- In other words, notability for purposes of inclusion in English Wikipedia is not the same as notability for purposes of, say, a general review of art or an artist. It is a different dictionary definition, just as a dictionary might read:
- cat 1. a feline mammal 2. SLANG a person, generally male; often used in counteras culture such beatnik, musician
- THUS
- notable 1. distinguished or salient in a field of endeavor 2. CYBERCULTURE/WIKICULTURE sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate article in wikipedia
- A final point: splitting sub articles off from a main page can be useful in conceptual organization and clarification of complex topics. I would go so far as to suggest also that wikipedia due to its vast capacity has its own logic and that notability should by no means be judged based upon whether a topic is considered notable in other media. Why should dead tree paper magazines and books determine notability to us? Wikimedia is really revolutionizing contemporary thought just as did the Encyclopedists in the Age of Enlightement and the GUtenberg Press. There is no reason not to allow the internal logic of the media promote the message.
- That's just IMHO. Personally, I would not mind an article on EVERY piece of art by each and every notable artist, if and only if the articles themselves were well written. Wikidgood (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This possibly autobiographical article has me wondering whether this is a fit subject. It certainly needs a rewrite (by someone not called "Windisch-Graetz").
Previous versions seem to assert that he is the Maltese ambassador to Slovakia, which is one thing, yet this source, indicates that he is the 'ambassador' of a Catholic organisation, not the Government of Malta. Any ideas? Or pointers to where I can find out more? pablo 11:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Libertarian Party UK
Please cancel this request as the article appears to have been previously deleted for the same reason. JRPG (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Daedalus Productions, Inc.
DAEDALUS PRODUCTIONS, INC., is a not-for-profit film and television production company established in 1980 by NINA ROSENBLUM and DANIEL V. ALLENTUCK to produce non-fiction television for network, public and cable markets as well as theatrical feature documentaries and dramatic films. Specializing in international co-production, Daedalus has won numerous awards and is a highly respected member of the worldwide non-fiction community. Co-producing partners include CPB, PBS, TBS, HBO, WDR/GERMANY, LA SEPT/FRANCE, CANAL + SPAIN, SBS/AUSTRALIA. NNA ROSENBLUM and DANIEL V. ALLENTUCK, in collaboration with their esteemed board of advisors, are involved with all aspects of production from script to completed film. Daedalus Productions works with the finest talents in the entertainment world to create non-fiction films and television that utilize the best of contemporary scholarship and professional expertise to push the boundaries of the medium, widen its audience, educate and inform. The focus of Daedalus Producgtions, Inc. is human rights, history and culture. LIBERATORS: FIGHTING ON TWO FRONTS IN WWII, produced by Miles Educational Films Inc. and directed by Nina Rosenblum and William Miles was nominated for an Academy Award for feature documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louverture (talk • contribs) 12:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did you have a question relevant to this noticeboard? Fæ (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Bass Musician Magazine
This article is written by the publisher of the Magazine, (we/our). I can find no secondary reference to the magazine. Is it actually worth editing or should it be deleted as not notable? Thanks MarkDask 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not notable. It's a free online magazine, one of thousands on the web. No refs, no assertion of notability, written like an advert. I see the publisher was also spamming dozens of musician's articles with links to the site. I'd prod it as non-notable, COI. -- Ϫ 10:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Discogs
This article has references - all of which promote itself. I have proposed it for deletion - but what of the series of articles that depend upon it for notability? I have proposed several for deletion - and risk being blocked for multiple deletion - (I was blocked once for multiple deletions)~. Am I right to propose Discogs for deletion??? in which case a number of articles fall. MarkDask 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Discogs? It survived AfD once before.. I don't think you should bother. -- Ϫ 10:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Torry Harris Business Solutions
I wanted to post a writeup about Torry Harris Business Solutions, a Bangalore based IT services company, but the article was deleted with one of reasons being quoted as 'Not Notable'. Kindly request your opinion on the notability factor given the following references: The company has been identified as a leader in SOA integration http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/wave™_emea_soa_systems_integrators,_q2_2009/q/id/46711/t/2
The company has been identified as a Cool Vendor in Application Integration by Gartner http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/offer/cool-vendors.jsp
The company has been listed amongst the top 20 US based Indian IT services companies by a survey by SiliconIndia http://www.siliconindia.com/SI100_2010/it.html
Kindly let me know your views.
Regards,
Bharat.mk (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion it doesn't stand up to the Primary criteria. The links you provide may identify the company as being successful, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable or 'encyclopedic', the depth of coverage doesn't seem to be there. -- Ϫ 11:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the linked article: Do announcements or reviews count as significant coverage? -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 15:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Independant reviews I would say yes, announcements not so much. -- Ϫ 10:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can determine this person is a soccer/football player on the national team from Thailand. I spent about 15 minutes trying to find references for him. At present there are no references. I could not find coverage of him in perhaps 10 Thai (English-language) newspapers and magazines, world magazines. I tried different spellings of his name. It's possible there are articles about him in Thai publications (in Thai) which may be found. My sense is there isn't much published information about him. I'm not sure what the rules regarding WP:Notability are for sports figures; if they plan on a national team, then is that notable in itself?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability (sports) may help. Have you checked if the article possibly exists on the Thai language Wikipedia? -- Ϫ 10:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks I'll check. And good idea about the Thai language WP.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I checked what I (thought) was the Thai wikipedia and there's no listing for this person.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Notability concerns. See Talk:Zahoor Ahmed Shah. No mention in these publications: indiacurrents.com, littleindia.com, indiatoday.in OR sitethokalath.com, ververonline.com, indiamagazine.com, asianage.com, aniin.com, thehindubusinessline.com, businessreviewindia.in, dnaindia.com, expressindia.com, hardnewsmedia.com, hinduonnet.com, hindustantimes.com, indiadaily.com, indianexpress.com, mumbaimirror.com, rediff.com. December 2010.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010 Copenhagen terrorist plot
I submitted an entry for a recent terrorist event in Denmark, which was rejected.
This event is notable because it has been described by Danish officials as the worst/greatest terror plan in the country. It is notable because it has 1600+ articles on google news.
Please reconsider adopting this page for a wikipedia entry. 81.227.230.210 (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
G-Money (G-Money Music)
<content removed>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by G-MoneyMusic (talk • contribs) 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry this is not the place to post an article. If you're asking if the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia I would say no, it fails WP:MUSICIAN, but in time that may change and someone may eventually write an article about this person. And note that we discourage subjects from writing about themselves. -- Ϫ 21:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Notability of The Maccabeats Article
The Maccabeats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I put a notability template on this article and raised the issue of whether the article is sufficiently notable on its Talk page. So far, I've captured the attention of only one other editor. I've pretty much expressed my views in that one discussion and have nothing much to add here. Essentially, I don't believe the group meets the criteria in WP:BAND. The group performed one video/song. It captured the attention of a lot of people on the Internet (YouTube) and the mainstream press. That's pretty much it. I thought about proposing the article for deletion but I wanted more discussion first. Unfortunately, although I appreciate the one other editor's responses, no one else has, which means the discussion has been pretty limited.
I will post a message on the article's Talk page and on the one editor's Talk page about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- If 3600 hits to this article were redirected to Google for their information, I don't think Wikipedia's motto would be fulfilled. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. The stats probably correlate to the popularity of the video on YouTube. If popularity is all that it takes to establish notability, perhaps the guidelines should be changed. Hey, I like the song, too. It's a lot of fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is it really just popularity, or is it meaningful notability? It's all the talk in the MO community that this video has tagged millions of hits, and I advance that it's a notable phenomenon, in contrast to, say, Kosher Delight just being a popular restaurant and everyone I know or ever met has heard of it. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. To me, DRosenbach's comments enter into the realm of WP:EVENT, as opposed to whether the group itself is sufficiently notable. But even if one analyzes the song as an event, it fails the guidelines. At this point it smacks of recentism, it doesn't have "enduring historical significance"; rather it is more in the area of a viral phenomenon.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Question. Well, DRosenbach and I have had a very pleasant, civil conversation about the article, but we could have remained on the article's Talk page for that. Isn't anyone else going to comment on the issues presented?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmm. Can you sense me rubbing my beard here? That is, if I had a beard. I think we live in a culture which celebrates hits, popularity, appearances, and there's little that any of us can do to change this. In our media world, popularity is notability. C'est la vie. Appearances can be important; a hit song can change people's attitudes. I think the best we can do is accurately reflect reality, as best we can; when something a pop-culture phenomenon, that's what we say it is; we shouldn't give it undue emphasis.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article refers to a defunct website about theater in Washington, DC. It seems not notable. PixiesAreNice (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It has a reference in the Washington Post and the article in terms of length and style doesn't seem to be promotional or offbase. People may want to know what it was, or maybe get access to older archived articles it has about theater. My sense is this is a borderline case probably not worth fussing about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is a copy/pasted bio of a dancer, whom I don't believe meets the notability requirements. PixiesAreNice (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I checked sources. I found a reference in the Washington Post with a fairly glowing report. While it could use more references, my hunch is the article is fairly solid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The external links are spam and don't lead (as far as I can determine) to any information on this person. There are no references of a person with this name in the following media:
Dutch newspapers amsterdam-idea.nl, dutchinamerica.com, dnd.nl, dutchinternationalsociety.org, dutchnews.nl, expatica.com/nl, nisnews.nl, rnw.nl/english, godutch.com/newspaper Sports sources athleticbusiness.com, athlonsports.com, camelotsportsmedia.com, espn.go.com, insidesport.com.au, iplayoutside.com, sportingnews.com, sportsillustrated.cnn.com, world-newspapers.com/car-racing.html Major US newspapers wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com Major newspapers worldwide guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english. Did a PROD.Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no mention of this person in January 2011 using any of these spellings:
"Maka'ala Yates" OR "Maka ala Yates" OR "Makaala Yates"
... in any of the following news sources:
Hawaiian publications: staradvertiser.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com, westhawaiitoday.com, mauinews.com, allhawaiinews.com, hawaiinewsdaily.com
US or world newspapers: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no mention of this person in January 2011 using any of these spellings:
"Mariana Fuentes"
... in any of the following news sources:
Venezuelan publications: english.eluniversal.com, latin-focus.com, latinpetroleum.com, vcrisis.com, veneconomia.com, venezuelanalysis.com
US or world newspapers: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english
Entertainment magazines: ew.com, divatvmagazine.com, realitytvmagazine.com, entertainmentavenue.com, hellomagazine.com, hollywoodreporter.com, instyle.com, themightyorgan.com, okmagazine.com, people.com, popmatters.com, radaronline.com, thecelebritycafe.com, urban75.com, usmagazine.com, variety.com)
TV newspapers: digitalspy.co.uk, cable360.net, atnzone.com, realitynewsonline.com, realscreen.com, smarttvandsound.com, telechimp.com, tvweek.com, tvguide.com, tvrundown.com, videoageinternational.com, videography.com--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Notability of villages/towns/places
- The following conversation is copied here from a TfD for a navbox on a Burmese township. Your input is appreciated. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
See Template:Homalin Township. I am building coverage of Burma on here and will be tackling the main towns/villages of each township first. To delete the templates would be counterproductive, especially when they would only be restarted again. Have patience and allow things to develop. At some stage mass dabbing will be done, hopefully be a bot and linkes will be fixed and articles started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Are all of those villages in that township really notable enough to have their own articles per WP:N? --Mepolypse (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Perhaps you should view these images of the people who inhabit these villages. It might be a real eye opener.. But my intention is not to start every single village (at least not in the near future)... I've created templates so I can cross cut from one township to the other and start the most notable towns/villages first like Kutkai, Onbet etc. Building will take time and patience. Most townships will have at least 10 villages which have some information in a British Burmese gazeteer to make it a worthy stub..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was looking for that notability guideline at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines but didn't find it, since it appears to only be an essay, not a guideline. I don't have any experience with notability of places, it just seems to me that these villages may not be that notable. Hopefully someone else can comment on this. --Mepolypse (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I have years of experience as a site developer... If Ambrosden is notable why is it so hard to believe that a similar sized settlement in any other country is notable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (What does site developer mean in this context? Are you talking about non-web sites, web sites in general, or this web site specifically)? I agree that places above a certain size threshold should generally be considered notable. I just have no way of knowing what size these places are, since for example Kyaukkwe (or the link from that article) don't claim that that place is any specific size, so from looking at the article I cannot tell if it is smaller or larger than Ambrosden. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of articles for what experience I have on here.. What I will do is survey each township on google maps. Identify the settlements which look sizeable visually and then use google nbooks to find some info about them. The best thing we can do in regards to Burma is start those which actually have sources available first and are the most notable settlements. Of course there is less likely to sources available on the Internet as "western" villages but you;ll just have to trust me on that one. See Allagappa that's the sort of village stub I'll be starting from township to township. That makes them much more worthwhile than a xxx is a village types stubs. In regards to verifiable populated settlements I believe the vast majority are notable. Bodinnick for instance is a small village as is Aberchalder. The vast majority of Burmese settlements are larger than Aberchalder but many won't have sources readily available on the web yet..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand what your point about being a site developer is. Why is your article count relevant? As for notability of these places, I'm not sure it's a good idea to base the decision of which places are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia on which dots look subjectively big on a map. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of articles for what experience I have on here.. What I will do is survey each township on google maps. Identify the settlements which look sizeable visually and then use google nbooks to find some info about them. The best thing we can do in regards to Burma is start those which actually have sources available first and are the most notable settlements. Of course there is less likely to sources available on the Internet as "western" villages but you;ll just have to trust me on that one. See Allagappa that's the sort of village stub I'll be starting from township to township. That makes them much more worthwhile than a xxx is a village types stubs. In regards to verifiable populated settlements I believe the vast majority are notable. Bodinnick for instance is a small village as is Aberchalder. The vast majority of Burmese settlements are larger than Aberchalder but many won't have sources readily available on the web yet..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (What does site developer mean in this context? Are you talking about non-web sites, web sites in general, or this web site specifically)? I agree that places above a certain size threshold should generally be considered notable. I just have no way of knowing what size these places are, since for example Kyaukkwe (or the link from that article) don't claim that that place is any specific size, so from looking at the article I cannot tell if it is smaller or larger than Ambrosden. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well I have years of experience as a site developer... If Ambrosden is notable why is it so hard to believe that a similar sized settlement in any other country is notable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I've started 68,000 articles which still exist. That should vouch for something in such a deletionist environment that I clearly have an idea of what is notable... You claim you have no experience in talking about settlement notability, I've had this conversation 10,000 times before.. Did you not read what I said? I said I will find settlements by google maps (by actual village size) and then find sources in google books to start them...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (Oh, it's a list of Wikipedians by number of articles started, I thought it was a list of Wikipedians by number of articles edited. The list doesn't make this especially clear, as "article count" is ambiguous. Either way, I fail to see what bearing this has on the arguments.) If you've had this discussion so many times previously I would expect you to have reasonable arguments. Just saying to trust you on the fact that villages are notable when no notability is claimed doesn't seem like a good argument. Yes, I read what you wrote. You said you "identify the settlements which look sizeable visually". You now also say you do so "by actual village size" (which you previously did not say). From this I assume you are judging notability based on the physical area of the populated area. This begs further questions: Are you looking at maps or satellite photos or both? How do you determine where the borders of the populated area are? Are you actually measuring the physical area and have an actual cut-off point (a fixed number of square meters/feet/whatever) or is it more of a shoot-from-the-hit decision whether you consider these places notable. You also say that you "then find sources in google books to start them". I fail to see the results of this last part on for example Kyaukkwe, for which no such sources are noted in the article. --Mepolypse (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there are lots of villages where there's content to create useful articles, but I suspect there are also villages where there may never be any such content. IMO there's no rush to create articles for places before we know whether there is. As a bare minimum I think there should be some sort of claim to notability in the article, such as it having a population over a certain threshold, or that something interesting has happened there, or something else that in any way adds notability to the place. The first nine places linked from {{Homalin Township}} which you mentioned earlier don't have any such claim. Why must we create these articles before we know if there's ever going to be anything else added to them. Wouldn't it be better to first check to see if there is any info about them (in Google Books or elsewhere) before creating them? If I were to draw a line of when to create a new article and when not to, it would be between the ninth link and the tenth. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see how you can possibly say that there is any village where there will not be such content. Our reach into other than the traditional ?Western countries is increasing; our ability to deal with other languages is increasing, at least to the extent that improvement in Google translate permit, the current reach of Google news is increasing, the amount of material in Google books and similar projects likewise--including many projects that are working with nonEnglish material that G Books does not yet extensively handle. I'd keep the present line: if it is a recognized settlement and not a mere neighborhood or group of buildings, it can be expanded. (and even these sorts of subjects often can be, but their definitions are so capable of indefinite expansion downwards that I wouldn't suggest including them automatically). The political or recognized geographic or official definition of a place is sufficient importance. This is a sort of subject where the GNG is irrelevant. (and once again, the concept of WP:N is not a policy, just a guideline--it is the basic rule that Wikipedia includes the elements of a gazetteer which is the supervening policy. And reasonable so, for gazetteers have always been part of encyclopedias.
- It would further be a very poor use of time to argue about each article of this sort, & I can predict on the basis of past experience endless quibbling at AfD. The more we get out of AfD the better, so we have time to discuss the serious issues that arise there.
- And finally, as important as actual content, is that it would be very counterproductive to discourage such articles. They are the very easiest things for beginners, either to create in the first place or to expand. We must continue to attract new people, and many of them will be up to doing this better at first than they could many other things. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with David (DGG). Well said. You are a wise man. It might be that a village or town isn't "notable" yet, but will be in time, or that people move there or want to learn about it, and as the population expands, and our reach expands in terms of knowledge (and language), that it will be useful to have such articles and avoid the quibbling. And a place (unlike a person or a biography) is arguably less contentious of an issue, like a philosophical position or religious edict (what tends to draw conflict and dissension).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Notability concerns. Probably a British soap opera actress. But no mention of her in British or American press, entertainment/TV sources, worldwide newspapers. the following: thesun.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, telegraph.co.uk, independent.co.uk, dailynewspaper.co.uk, dailymail.co.uk, thetimes.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, ew.com, divatvmagazine.com, realitytvmagazine.com, entertainmentavenue.com, hellomagazine.com, hollywoodreporter.com, instyle.com, themightyorgan.com, okmagazine.com, people.com, popmatters.com, radaronline.com, thecelebritycafe.com, urban75.com, usmagazine.com, variety.com, digitalspy.co.uk, cable360.net, atnzone.com, realitynewsonline.com, realscreen.com, smarttvandsound.com, telechimp.com, tvweek.com, tvguide.com, tvrundown.com, videoageinternational.com, videography.com, wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- You did a huge amount of research. I'll be interested to see the response from other editors here, as I often come across very non-notable articles on people and books, and the process for getting rid of them is, to say the least, extremely cumbersome, so that WP is cluttered. BE——Critical__Talk 02:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- How about this http://www.emmerdale.org/emmerdale/profiles/emmac.htm - it appears she did a single role, age 13, and then never appeared again. Gave up her child and moved to Germany in 1998 apparently. Perhaps she changed her name too. 81.227.230.210 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of months ago I listed a whole load of similar (but interconnected) British actors/actresses here that suffered the same problems (listing bit parts in Casualty and the Bill as notable but with no references) I got no response here about any of them but the process of dealing with them all seemed too cumbersome for me to get them deleted myself. For a single one like this I would simply mark it for WP:PROD. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- My way of contributing here is to reference things, write articles, do revamps; I like writing and exploring and learning new things; I'm not into deleting stuff which I see as a particular skill that others have but which I'm not that keen on learning although this may change.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- A couple of months ago I listed a whole load of similar (but interconnected) British actors/actresses here that suffered the same problems (listing bit parts in Casualty and the Bill as notable but with no references) I got no response here about any of them but the process of dealing with them all seemed too cumbersome for me to get them deleted myself. For a single one like this I would simply mark it for WP:PROD. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Deletion is an unfortunate but sometimes necessary decision to make. Sometimes you will find that you've spent a lot of effort fixing up a badly written article only to have someone else go and (correctly) propose it for deletion anyway because it's just not within Wikipedia's scope, and all your work was for naught. It makes more sense to just propose it for deletion yourself. -- Ϫ 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not an administrator. If I can propose deletions I'm not sure what the steps are. Actually I read up on it and will try doing a proposed deletion. This is my first prod; if I goof up on any steps please others let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Update: I did a PROD (hopefully right?) but I couldn't find the article's original creator -- it was an educational site not a user.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I highly recommend enabling Twinkle in your preferences. You can find it under the 'Gadgets' tab in 'My preferences'. It automates various tasks, including proposed deletion, allowing you to perform all the steps quickly and easily with a click of the mouse. -- Ϫ 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip. I installed Twinkle. I see this "TW" on my bar and maybe I'll use it in future. I have lots of handyman projects this week so I don't think I'll be contributing much unless I take a break and do more referencing of random unreferenced bios.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Rare form of Lacrimal Eye Cancer non hodgkins malt lymphoma
I was diagnosed with a rare eye cancer in 2004. I live in Ontario Canada. Quite frankly the specialists didn't quite know how to approach treating it. It was clinically termed non hodgkins malt lymphoma of the lacrimal gland. I am quite willing to submit medical documentation if requested. I had a biopsy to confirm but tumor was not debulked. It was scary hearing the oncologists state they had never treated this before. I suggested removal of the eye but they had hope for me. I was radiated with 3000 rads in 15 sessions from various angles. I contacted the Canadian Cancer Society as well as the American Cancer Assoc. but no one on file had "my cancer in my strange location". Long story short end result was loss of all teeth, trigeminal nerve damage which was avulsed in 2007 and I will have intercranial brain side ganglion cluster cutalage (cut) Jan 17/11 now 6 years post radiation. I am still trying to get back a painfree life. I had a lens implant done on the left eye but the retina cracked "like styrofoam" and bled obscuring vision in that eye. The right eye is slowly still developing a cataract and will require lens implant with hopefully a better result then the left. Maybe my lacrimal lymphoma experience and all its terrible treatment side effects will help will help future patients and doctors succeed at a better outcome then I got. As I await brain surgery I think of all the things I wish O had had the chance to do in life many regrets. But I did spend most of my years being a great mother to my 2 sons. If the right eye should also respond as the left did I will be clinically blind. The right lens is slowly clouding over. I do wish I had the opportunity to meet Gabriel Byrne as we share a great grand parent in Ireland and my dad was a WW11 Irish Regiment veteran. My husband is a Canadian Armed Forces veteran as well honorably discharged.
Sincerely Emilie LaMarsh - Allan Ontario Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.246.15 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm doubtful about the content balance of this article and about whether it's just been reduced to PR material. Is it possible to review this with anyone with a view to maybe having it removed? --Drewpuppy (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wondering what your problems are with this article? It appears well-referenced if a bit PR-ish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware that there are personal reasons why I definitely shouldn't try to make decisions about this myself. The talk page on the article will make this clear, and it's why I'm asking for help. I'm a newbie even though I've used Wikipedia for a long time, and even edited content a few times. Having found the pages on notability, I'm reading through them carefully. So far I can find reasons both for and against the inclusion of this article. There is one main issue that seems important to me. The article appears to be very vigorously edited by a specific person who always attempts to remove criticism and only add positive material. It doesn't seem balanced, hence my reference to PR. Should I, do you think, run through the formal page deletion procedure and accept the outcome or just accept that the article is here to stay right away? --Drewpuppy (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the article is clearly notable. He's being written about in newspapers => notable. So I don't think trying to delete the article will work on the basis that it's too positive, rather, if you have content disputes, you can argue your case on the talk page, and if it's important to you, try to work with the others to make the article fair & balanced. If well-referenced and pertinent additions to an article are removed without good explanations, you should revert the edits, and challenge the others to explain the deletions, and I'll try to help if you need me. But overall the Ahmed article looks (fairly) neutral at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Many thanks for your clear guidance, Tom. There are some further edits I will revert while adding additional citations. --Drewpuppy (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Tom, or anyone else who can help, could I ask another two questions? I need another neutral opinion. (1) Please take a look at the last reversion on Talk:Syed Ahmed. I've decided not to react. Should I continue to do so, and leave the text as is, or are my comments okay on the talk page? (2) On Syed Ahmed itself there are some references which are actually simply pointing to the subject's own words elsewhere. For example, references 5 and 13 refer to his own self-description. Also, reference 2 refers just to a "contact us" page that makes no mention of the subject. I suspect these are candidates for removal. Does this sound okay? --Drewpuppy (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- General policy is talk page comments should not be undone or wiped out unless there's a clear violation of rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's the tricky bit, Tom. I don't know for sure if my comment (the one that's been removed) is actually okay. --Drewpuppy (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dubious article. No references in Indian, British or US press. Removed unsourced material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Notability of Paul Vigay
I worry about the notability of the page Paul Vigay. The page is practically an orphan and seems to have been created in the weeks after his death. Is this an example of a memorial?--Flibble (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added two references to PV. There were many more suggesting clear notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, if he's notable as a 'crop circle expert' as your references suggest, shouldn't there be a bit more in the article about crop circles? (something more than "Paul had many interests, most public one being Crop Circles."). --Flibble (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, bit of a rant, there's a tad more than that, but not really a lot. The opening paragraph is a bit confusing though saying he was best known for one thing and notable for something else. I'm not really sure what the page as a whole is meant to be about, other than a bio of a man that had several hobbies and died ... --Flibble (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't spend much time on this, but what I did was a quick search using his name, just for British publications. About 10 listings came up; and there are probably more in other publications abroad. I used two for references. One of them referred to him as an expert. So, my sense is there's more to this guy than just a hobbyist. If you'd like to do a PROD, be my guest; my sense is he's notable, and that a sensible review would conclude the article should stay, regardless of what people think about UFOs and crop circles. (My guess is: all hooie.) That's my opinion about the article, however, that he's notable, that's all. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you don't worry too much about it! Anyway, I previously added a news article reference but on reflection, in my naivety perhaps I was being a bit too bold. A section on his (externally referenced) Works would increase his notability. If that or something similar doesn't happen then I agree that his notability for Wikipedia is questionable. --trevj (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Luckily editor LuckyLouie has improved the body text of the article a fair bit, so it's a lot less bitty. It could still do with references in general and to his UFO/Crop circle work *or* his RISC OS work to boost the notability (that arn't the links to Paul Vigay's webpages in the external links section), but it's much improved.--Flibble (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good work LuckyLouie and Trevj and Flibble. (reminder: Remember indenting using colons is used to indicate a new writer on the talk pages.) I think the article is better for your efforts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I searched but could find no books authored by Vigay, or anything to expand material regarding his work as a 'crop circle expert'. Aside from the onetime BBC mention, it seems limited to his own self published website. It appears the newspapers treated the story of his death as somewhat of a novelty factor (UFO Expert Dies Mysteriously!) and tagged him with superlatives to amp up the drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you wish to PROD this article, be my guest, but my hunch is a review will have people concluding to keep it because of numerous newspaper accounts identifying him as an "expert" as well as an unsolved mystery regarding his death, again with newspaper accounts. To suggest the newspapers were wrong, or misled, that Vijay's expertise was bogus, well, I don't see how we are in any kind of position to make such a case. The newspapers said X. Wikipedia says the newspapers say X. That's how Wikipedia works. But I agree with you that crop circle expert is kind of a bogus credential; but that's my POV, perhaps yours too?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the article as is, since Vigay's death is shown to be reasonably notable, at least in Britain. I think his notability as an "expert" would fail WP:PROF, WP:AUTH or WP:BIO though. I have no issue with people being actual crop circle/ufo experts. But I'd have liked to see wider sources than newspapers describe him as an international expert in whatever. If the newspapers said someone was a "gigolo", it may not necessarily follow that Wikipedia has to describe him as a gigolo. But again, no big deal, and certainly I have no real disagreement with the article as is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you wish to PROD this article, be my guest, but my hunch is a review will have people concluding to keep it because of numerous newspaper accounts identifying him as an "expert" as well as an unsolved mystery regarding his death, again with newspaper accounts. To suggest the newspapers were wrong, or misled, that Vijay's expertise was bogus, well, I don't see how we are in any kind of position to make such a case. The newspapers said X. Wikipedia says the newspapers say X. That's how Wikipedia works. But I agree with you that crop circle expert is kind of a bogus credential; but that's my POV, perhaps yours too?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I searched but could find no books authored by Vigay, or anything to expand material regarding his work as a 'crop circle expert'. Aside from the onetime BBC mention, it seems limited to his own self published website. It appears the newspapers treated the story of his death as somewhat of a novelty factor (UFO Expert Dies Mysteriously!) and tagged him with superlatives to amp up the drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good work LuckyLouie and Trevj and Flibble. (reminder: Remember indenting using colons is used to indicate a new writer on the talk pages.) I think the article is better for your efforts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Luckily editor LuckyLouie has improved the body text of the article a fair bit, so it's a lot less bitty. It could still do with references in general and to his UFO/Crop circle work *or* his RISC OS work to boost the notability (that arn't the links to Paul Vigay's webpages in the external links section), but it's much improved.--Flibble (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you don't worry too much about it! Anyway, I previously added a news article reference but on reflection, in my naivety perhaps I was being a bit too bold. A section on his (externally referenced) Works would increase his notability. If that or something similar doesn't happen then I agree that his notability for Wikipedia is questionable. --trevj (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't spend much time on this, but what I did was a quick search using his name, just for British publications. About 10 listings came up; and there are probably more in other publications abroad. I used two for references. One of them referred to him as an expert. So, my sense is there's more to this guy than just a hobbyist. If you'd like to do a PROD, be my guest; my sense is he's notable, and that a sensible review would conclude the article should stay, regardless of what people think about UFOs and crop circles. (My guess is: all hooie.) That's my opinion about the article, however, that he's notable, that's all. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Indie Screenings / Good Screenings
Hi. I would like to add a new page on Indie Screenings (www.indiescreenings.net) - an online film distribution system. The system gives anyone anywhere access the opportunity to purchase ato licenses to screen certain independent films, hold a screening in the location of their choice and keep any revenue for themselves. It launched with Franny Armstrong's climate change blockbuster The Age of Stupid.
Indie Screenings has been taken up by Channel 4's BRITDOC Foundation under the guise of 'Good Screenings' (www.goodscreenings.net). They feature only award-winning social justice films.
Currently Indie Screenings is referenced on a number of wikipedia entries (some i made myself) - ie The Age of Stupid, Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford.
FILMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE on Good Screenings - The Battle for Barking 1.4 Billion Reasons The Yes Men Fix the World Heavy Load Chosen The Age of Stupid In the Land of the Free McLibel The End of the Line The Day after Peace Erasing David Moving to Mars The Hunger Season The Reckoning
I wanted to check that you felt this a suitable topic for a new page before i went any further than just thinking about it.
Thank you. Madsy19 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus
The problem: a few months ago, some fellow thought he saw a woman using a cell phone in 1928, gleaned from the public premiere footage of the 1928 film The Circus. He made a YouTube video of it, and it quickly picked up millions (at last count, I think it was 10's of millions). Major news outlets picked up the story, and it was all over the news for about a week or so.
In the article, there was a lot of resistance towards mentioning the observation at all, citing that it wasn't related to the actual film, but instead to a supplementary reel included in the DVD set that filmed the premiere of the movie at Mann's Chinese Theater. After a lot of (heated) discussion, the event was whittled down to just a mention in the "See Also" section, and wikilinked to Internet Phenomena.
The article has pretty much languished both before and after this kerfuffle, seeing little int he way of expansion.
Recently, there's been a push to remove it from both places, leaving the article with no reference of the matter at all. I am of the opinion that the event should be included, in a popular cultural reference section, which would look something like this. I don't think that the event could stand in an article all by itself, as has been recommended by at least one person (which to me seems like a sneaky way to simple delete the content indirectly); I am fairly certain that few pop cultural references could survive in their own article, especially when it seem inextricably linked to the film and it's premiere.
It was suggested that some input and insight could be garnered here, and I am always in favor of widening a loop instead of keep it down to a small group of exclusionists (perhaps a faintly unfriendly assessment, but a valid one indeed, considering the lack of expansion in the article by anyone seeking to nix any mention of this matter). Any thoughts on the matter would be very helpful. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- This shows appaling bad faith. The objections are based on the fact that A; it has had no lasting impact (not news), B: most (if not all the coverage) treated it prety much as a but of a joke (not news, Trivial, fringe), C: that it has nothing to do with the actual film (Fringe, Undue), D: that no actual expert has accpted the 'time traveller' explantion (fringe), E: that (as far as I can tell) RS have generaly not confirmed what the one reported witness has seen (fringe). There may also be other objecttons.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- To begin with, if any bad faith is being presented here, it would likely be by your, Slatersteven. Someone suggested that I bring it to a noticeboard, and I did so. Are you suggesting that doing so is forum-shopping? Now, that's appallingly bad faith. Get your facts straight, before tossing accusations around, please. Now, to address your points:
- A - No lasting impact? The event was 80 years ago! It was reported by major news organs; its still cited by the same, and is notable (therefore dismissing your Notnews argument en toto).
- B - It is your opinion that the news organs treated it as a joke; you haven't any citable evidence that they treated it as such. It was reported as a news story in at least a dozen major news networks and followed up on later by reporters seeking to debunk the hypothesis of a cell phone. therefore, not trivial. As well, you are seriously misapprehending our fringe guidelines; no one is advocating the idea that it was a time traveler. What was curious was the usage of what appeared to be a cell phone. That is what generated the interest, the news stories and their follow-up stories. As far as I can tell, cell phones are not fringe science.
- C - Wrong again. The source film was included in the DVD collection Chaplin films, this one related explicitly to the film in question (to whit, its premiere at Mann's Chinese Theater). We don't have to look too far to find a connection - the compilers/manufacturers/producers of the DVD collection all found it to be a connected matter. To say it isn't connected is to dismiss the fan craze at the premieres of Harry Potter movies, because they aren't related to the films.
- D - No one has specifically stated that the film shows a time traveler; Clarke himself only suggested it. Most of the news agency stories have been on the cell phone anachronism. So again, no fringe.
- E - Of course, Slatersteven is completely mistaken here, as every news story not only commented on what Clarke said, but made their own observations as well. As did the debunkers. Yet again, neither Fringe, Notnews or Trivial. In point of fact, you have offered each of these arguments before, and every time they were dismissed by myself and others, SS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- There has been no lack of input from editors at the article's talk page and the discussion is not at any kind of a standstill. Regardless of how much one editor may disagree with the outcome, there's a clear consensus that the material shouldn't be included. But I guess additional input is always appreciated even when the disagreeing party engages in
forum shopping andthreats of ARBCOM over the issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)- In fairness, I specifically suggested Jack post at this noticeboard as an alternative to his desire for "arbitration" and to get wider input from the community. I've since asked him to refactor the text of his notice to be a bit less accusatory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like I did say 'arbitration' instead of 'mediation'. Oops. I meant that I see this attempt to first marginalize then remove a heavily cited news story as censorship. Not one valid policy or guideline has been presented that actually negates the interesting nature of this story, which is obviously of value to the article (page stats went through the roof for the article during the initial reporting of the matter, and have remained rather higher than they were pre-reporting). Again, I am not sure where my forum-shopping has occurred.
- Lastly, if my "tone" seems "accusatory", its due to the fact that no one can cite a valid policy/guideline that this information violates. All I am getting is 'I don't like it' dressed up in links to wiki policies that the editors in talk are apparently not actually reading. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fairness, I specifically suggested Jack post at this noticeboard as an alternative to his desire for "arbitration" and to get wider input from the community. I've since asked him to refactor the text of his notice to be a bit less accusatory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- There has been no lack of input from editors at the article's talk page and the discussion is not at any kind of a standstill. Regardless of how much one editor may disagree with the outcome, there's a clear consensus that the material shouldn't be included. But I guess additional input is always appreciated even when the disagreeing party engages in
- Yes, the notability of the article itself is not in question. This is an issue of placement of text within an article, and whether it belongs there at all, given that it has no relationship to the film itself. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- As stated before, i disagree, and so do the folk who produced, edited and created the DVD collection. Last time I checked, our personal opinions do not outweigh actual facts - they considered it related. Therefore, it is. In a more basic way (if the previous wasn't enough), consider that the only reason this film was made was because The Circus was premiering, and the creators of that film wanted to show people in attendance (presumably, for marketing purposes). Does it have to do with the plot of the movie? Clearly no, but then, how many film articles do we have in mainspace that discuss pop culture/controversy/etc. sections? Purging this sets a precedent for removing any and all material that doesn't meet the NEW criteria for inclusion being presented here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the notability of the article itself is not in question. This is an issue of placement of text within an article, and whether it belongs there at all, given that it has no relationship to the film itself. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've no objecting to closing this and moving it to the fringe noticeboard as notability isn't in question. But I think the best place for this is someplace in dispute resolution (mediation seems like too big of a stick and third opinion too small though). Hobit (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I oppose the preemptory closure of this discussion. It is not a fringe-related matter. At all. I'd like to get some weigh-in from someone other than the folk opposing this in the article discussion, if that wouldn't seem untoward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you've got my support for the inclusion of the material. Keeping it out is very strange in my view. I just don't think it should have more than a sentence or so due to WP:UNDUE. That said, this noticeboard is about the notability of sources and there is no real debate on that so there is no real reason to keep the discussion here. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hobit, for the support. I am not inclined to put a lot into the article, either (I too, want to avoid undue concerns, esp. in such an anemic article) Not sure where the matter should go, though Fringe is clearly not the route.
- As for the strangeness of keeping it out, I share your view, and suspect that some folk don't want their article about a classic film 'muddied up' by any of those internets tubes. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't get the reticence, either. It smells like censorship to me, or just laziness; only one person has expanded the article at all since the story broke (aside from my attempt of adding 4 sentences and one for the Lede, that is); everyone seems more hell-bent on keeping this out than actually improving the article. That's why a noticeboard seemed the only sane avenue left. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself. I support the present weight and wording of the exisiting "See also" link. As originally wrought back in October, it represented a good compromise between yourself and several opposing editors. I think it works fine as is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was fine with that as well, until the indef blocked user thought it might be nifty to stir up things by calling for its removal (and of course, removing it). I think that the article would be better served by a mix between the pre-existing form and the edit I added as a test. the current one is too short, and mine is considered too long. I think ts pretty important to point out why the person was thought to be a time traveler; thousands of readers came to us to find out. They undoubtedly left disappointed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree with you, Hobit. As for you, Scotty, I've seen your talk page opinions, so I'm simply going to loan you a few bucks so you can head out to the store and pick up some AGF, okay? Calling an edit which in any other article would be considered just fine as disruptive is a pretty solid example of bad faith. In point of fact, I created the edit to demonstrate how the info could be used effectively and not unduly. That you cannot see that is more your problem than mine. If you want to take more shots at me personally, do so on my talk page - Wikipedia isn't a battleground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- You should not be adding edits "as a test." See WP:POINT. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that WP:BRD is also relevant. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, not if it's a "test." Editors are not permitted to disrupt Wikipedia for the purpose of conducting "tests." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the last time, SB, it wasn't disruptive, but constructive. Changing all the text in the article to bold, making every third word pink, wor writing an entire treatise on the Franco-American mindset in the middle of the article would all be considered disruptive as per our guidelines. My edit was offered as an edit to improve the quality of the article, Now, if you wish to argue that my edit was disruptive, Wikiquette complaints or AN/I is located elsewhere in the Wikipedia. Please stop trying to tangentially reframe the problem, and focus on the issue at hand, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- BRD only apllies when you are trying to identify all interested edss. As this was already known it cannot apply. This was 9as the user admits) just a test edit, that is what sandbox is for. It mwas not disruptive, but it should not really have been done.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, not if it's a "test." Editors are not permitted to disrupt Wikipedia for the purpose of conducting "tests." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that WP:BRD is also relevant. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was fine with that as well, until the indef blocked user thought it might be nifty to stir up things by calling for its removal (and of course, removing it). I think that the article would be better served by a mix between the pre-existing form and the edit I added as a test. the current one is too short, and mine is considered too long. I think ts pretty important to point out why the person was thought to be a time traveler; thousands of readers came to us to find out. They undoubtedly left disappointed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself. I support the present weight and wording of the exisiting "See also" link. As originally wrought back in October, it represented a good compromise between yourself and several opposing editors. I think it works fine as is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you've got my support for the inclusion of the material. Keeping it out is very strange in my view. I just don't think it should have more than a sentence or so due to WP:UNDUE. That said, this noticeboard is about the notability of sources and there is no real debate on that so there is no real reason to keep the discussion here. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I oppose the preemptory closure of this discussion. It is not a fringe-related matter. At all. I'd like to get some weigh-in from someone other than the folk opposing this in the article discussion, if that wouldn't seem untoward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've no objecting to closing this and moving it to the fringe noticeboard as notability isn't in question. But I think the best place for this is someplace in dispute resolution (mediation seems like too big of a stick and third opinion too small though). Hobit (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Again, I'd like to get some input from editors who aren't actively involved in the disagreement in the article to participate in this discussion; most of us in the dispute are already of a cemented opinion on the matter, and many are not really in a collaborative mood. I'd like to hear from others and get some new ideas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved editor, I have to agree with WP:UNDUE for any more than a small sentence about the time traveller, perhaps included in a larger paragraph on the DVD release; within a rewritten rerelease section (suitably renamed to cover all releases). That said I think the Time Traveller would meet the criteria of a notable Urban Legend and could either hold an article of it's own or be more likely included within an Time Travel Urban Legends article if merged with Andrew Carlssin along with small sections on John Titor and the Philadelphia Experiment. In that case The Circus (film) would only need to wikilink to that article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Stuart Jamieson.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think moving it to Time Travel Urban Legends articel would be a good idea. We could then have a link in the see also section but no explanation .Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which I've pointed out is a mistake, Slatersteven. People come to the article looking for more information. Directing them to a non-existent article, without explanation means that we are ignoring what the reader wants. Understand that there is ample proof that readers come to the rather anemic article to get info on the time traveling cell phone user stuff. Why do you want to flagrantly put your own interests above that of the reader? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that a reference to this in "Time Travel Urban Legends" would be a good idea, but reserve judgment on whether such an article would be notable. Evidently this would be a product of the merger of existing articles, which indicates there may be enough for an article. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- We would create the articel, not re-direct to a non-existing one. I thought that would have been obvious I appoligise for my mistake. Just becaseu readers come to a page to look up something is ot a reason for it being there (and by the way they can look it up by following the link to the newly created page, if we have one). If a page said that Barak Obama was a panda disguised as a man and that generated 15 million hits that would not be a reason to retain it. How are my interests involved in this? do you know what my interests are?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Stuart Jamieson.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now created a page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I saw. I have some concerns about the notability of that topic, to be frank. Wouldn't merger with Urban legends be a better idea? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1> I am thinking of a reanem to Time travellers cuaght on film. 2. Its onlt the first part, I suspect (and if oterhs want to show willing chip =in) that there may be otehr such 'time traveller myths'. At this tuimke lets see how this goes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The original suggestion was that several articles be merged into this, if I understand it correctly. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was. But someone has to start. Which I decided to do. Now we have something to work on lets do so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I understand the suggestion made above, this article would be the product of a merger involving (or simply incorporate) Andrew Carlssin John Titor and the Philadelphia Experiment. If it's just about The Circus I don't think it will work. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I as not aware I had susgested it should only be about the Chaplin story. Nor do I bleive the artciel gives the imprsion it is. Its a work in progress. I agree that these should be merged in, I was hopinig that otehrs might consider helpiing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Two of the articles mentioned above (Titor and Philadelphia) are quite lengthy. I'm not sure they could be merged. cScottyBerg (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Titor and Philadelphia should be summarised and a {{main}} hatnote should link to the full articles. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking of something like that. Not sure those four examples are sufficient to support a separate article, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are a lot more than four, for instance de:Rudolph Fentz (en doesn't seem to have an article on this one despite being an American Urban Legend) also Montauk Project another Philadelphia experiment style Legend. , Chronovisor, Moberly-Jourdain incident and so on. Reasonably the article could have as much notability as Time slip. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, good. This seems to have potential. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are a lot more than four, for instance de:Rudolph Fentz (en doesn't seem to have an article on this one despite being an American Urban Legend) also Montauk Project another Philadelphia experiment style Legend. , Chronovisor, Moberly-Jourdain incident and so on. Reasonably the article could have as much notability as Time slip. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, it's great that the dissent has created a new article, but that doesn't alleviate the need to mention the matter in the relevant article. The kerfuffle arose out of a DVD extra for The Circus. I don't believe that anyone has suggested overloading the article with the topic, but it seems unbalanced to fail to mention it at all (sort of a reverse WP:UNDO, whenrein something is studiously and purposely avoided when it shouldn't be). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)