Jump to content

Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Notability of Administrators

B.V. Ramana Reddy. This person seems to be just the dean an institution; has no special achievements/contributions. Is it notable enough to be kept on wikipedia? Personally, i see it as a waste of Wikipedia's resources; as i mentioned before, the only notable thing is that he is a dean of a (un-notable) school, if more information is required,then a link could be given at the page of University itself. Pratik.mallya (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If WP:Independent sources do not write about this person, then you might consider boldly WP:MERGEing the information into an article about the school. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
HGe's a fellow of IETE which probably meets the basic standard for WP:PROF, of being accepted as an expert in his field. IT is an unsettled question whether the Dean or Director of a semi-independent part of a university is notable--we tend to accept it for medical or law schools, but then their heads always turn out to meet the other requirements also. WP:PROF supersedes the GNG , and was adopted to supersede it, because the types of expected sources in this field are different. Professors are not movie stars, and very few people write about them unless they reach the status of famous,; notability is broader than fame. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(Heated) discussion(s) at Talk:List of YouTube personalities over subject's notability

Hi there. There are a number of "discussions" ongoing at Talk:List of YouTube personalities (#ADD RAY WILLIAM JOHNSON!!!!, #DO NOT add Ray William Johnson!!, #Did You read all the topics?RWJ, #Disputed, #Ted Williams but not RWJ? and #Add Ray William Johnson!) and an RFC at #RFC: Ray William Johnson, mainly about whether this subject (deleted previously at Ray William Johnson) is notable enough for inclusion in the list. Since it seems not to go forward at all, I hope maybe some brave readers of this noticeboard can wade into that mess and give outside opinions on this, so we can establish some kind of consensus to build on. Thanks in advance! Regards SoWhy 19:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I second this. We need an outside opinion as the RfC didn't bring forth any consensus liked I'd thought it would. We need some consensus so we can try to bring this issue to a close or in the least, give it some direction. We have a stubborn few that just won't except anything less than the subject at hand being on the list. They don't realize that popularity doesn't equate notability. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles_for_creation/Dario_De_Toffoli

Hi, I have been trying to create this article for a few days now. Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_creation/Dario_De_Toffoli On the second attempt I was surprised to have it flagged for not demonstrating importance. I now have an article that I think should comfortably demonstrate the GNG but wanted to check that people agreed.

After the second review I got in contact with the reviewer who was complaining that book reviews hat contained paragraphs on the subject were not RS. There are definitely more "presumed" sources but they can be difficult to find. Tetron76 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he's notable; the article needs work. Generally I recommend writing within the references only -- that is, do the research first, find out what reputable sources say, and then use what you find as the basis for writing the article. Every line should have a reference. Further, shorter is better that is less is more in the sense that too much content intimidates reviewers, and suggests on some level that the subject is more important than he is. Keep it short. If you need my help writing this, bug me about it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the feedback. I did originally try to keep the article much shorter but the problem is that his contribution comes across a very broad range of events within a narrow field of games. Perhaps, I should cut the list of games and change the books to references?
The other problem that I have is that I know from mentions in primary sources, that many of these sections could be expanded with RS by someone who is an expert in the field who is Italian.
I will try to fix the two to three unreferenced lines that could constitute original research before I bug you for help.Tetron76 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Try this. Copy this search string here: (site:adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English OR site:ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english OR site:corriere.it/english OR site:dolcevita.com OR site:florencenewspaper.it OR site:italymag.co.uk OR site:laspecula.com OR site:lifeinitaly.com OR site:international.rai.it/radio/multilingue/presentazioni/inglese.shtml OR site:theamericanmag.com OR site:wantedinrome.com) You may be able to add other Italian magazines and news sources to your list. Paste the search string of Italian news sources into your browser along with the words "Dario De Toffoli" in quotes and see what you find. If anything emerges, it's probably a good source. Then, re-do the article, one line at a time, only adding in information for which there is a reference. Initially, a short, well-referenced article using inline citations (see WP:Referencing for beginners with citation templates) is likely to be well received. Good luck. Another possible worldwide search string: (site:wsj.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:guardian.co.uk OR site:usatoday.com OR site:france24.com/en OR site:chinadaily.com.cn OR site:english.aljazeera.net OR site:indiatoday.in OR site:economist.com OR site:news.bbc.co.uk OR site:journalperu.com OR site:brazzil.com OR site:rnw.nl/english OR site:canada.com OR site:cbc.ca OR site:japantimes.co.jp OR site:dailytelegraph.com.au OR site:sunherald.com.au OR site:hongkongherald.com) -- --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe a better approach is: try to identify magazines and newspapers which have some coverage of board games, poker, backgammon, game design and so forth, and look for mentions of this person there. Choose only good references. You could perhaps use a primary source to show that he was the game designer of game X, but then you shouldn't go beyond that in your text -- just say he designed game X. Remove adjectives; all adjectives are suspect in Wikipedia unless your source says them. Keep it short. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ted Hodge

I would like to submit an entry for Ted Hodge, my father, who enjoyed a long career in radio broadcasting starting in 1937 in St. Albans, VT, his hometown. He was still working actively in radio into the mid-1990s. He was an announcer for the New York (football) Giants Radio Network from 1963-68 and for the New York Jets from 1969-70. He also broadcast Syracuse University football from 1962-67. These broadcasts were heard all over the northeastern United States. Ted was inducted into the Elmira, NY Sports Hall of Fame in 1978. He has been the subject of articles in the Elmira Star-Gazette, most recently 7.12.2008.--Maryann.long (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryann.long (talk • contribs) 13:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Please read reliable sources, notability, and WP:Referencing for beginners. Write a short article (3-4 sentences at most) working FROM the references; don't write any sentence which lacks an inline citation reference at the end. The first sentence should be something along the lines of "Ted Hodge was a radio broadcaster notable for ..." and say why he's notable. If you need assistance write something on my talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray Vaughn possible hoax

I searched rather intently and couldn't find any good sources for this supposed preacher. The article has no references. It states that Vaughn was the brother of Helen Smith Bevington but in four obituaries of Bevington, there was no mention of a brother who was a "singing minister" with either the name Ray Vaughn or Boyce Smith. Serious concerns about WP:NOTE. Possible hoax. I'll keep looking but I'm alerting people here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Update -- I trimmed article considerably; still possible that this whole article is a hoax; need references; it's a WP:BLP--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Manga

Would a minor online manga be worthy of an article? The manga is Land of Lions by Cassandra Jean, on mangamagazine.net. As you can tell, I'm inexperienced, and wouldn't make it until I know a bit more about creating articles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceameo (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you inquiry. Articles on Wikipedia need to be about notable topics {{WP:NOTABILITY]] and have content supported by verifiable and reliable sources WP:RS. I think if you take a look at these two Wikipedia policies you will be better able to assess whether or not the topic(s) you have in mind qualify as a Wikipedia article. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

I edited a lot of the unimportant information from the page, but the page's editors have expressed feelings of ownership over the work. There is a lot of ego connected to the page because it was rated GA class by means of a speedy, uninterested group of reviewers. The history and talk page discussions show that emotions ran high when previous edits were made to remove unimportant details.--Screwball23 talk 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That statement is certainly untrue. I carried out the WP:GAN assessment it was my 365th assessment (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews) and it took me the best part of two days to carryout. The editor making this comments has never ever completed a WP:GAN review, he started work on one (see here Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2) and was Proded by an Admin (Wizardman), the reply was was "Sorry, I read your message, and I think the #1 issue about the article is its style. It is not engaging or fun to read. I didn't gain any new insights or interesting details. The minute details about it's omissions are irrelevant; it is just a really boring article, and I can't put myself into the mood to edit it anymore. And truth be told, this lack of interest is what is killing its GAN, and will continue to do so. --Screwball23 talk 03:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (it can be found at User talk:Wizardman/Archive32#Codex Vaticanus and was copied by the Admin to Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2).
I believe that that editor is engaged in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and that this referral is part of the disruption. He regraded the article to C-class without going through WP:GAR (see [1] and Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company#Demoting to C - class); is attempting to have the article renamed (see Talk:Churchill Machine Tool Company#Requested move; and now this Notability Noticeboard referral. Pyrotec (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not see why there are so many trivial facts on that page, or why it is so hard to read, and why the information on its topic, which should be Churchill Machine Tool Company is so inaccessible. I firmly believe the GA nomination for the article was too speedy. Is it well-researched? Yes. Is it referenced? Yes. Does it go into excessive detail? Absolutely. And we should turn that around, because as it is now, the page contents are far removed from its title. The naming dispute can be resolved if the page is better sectioned. As it stands now, the History section is such a hodgepodge of indiscriminate information that I can't even see where the Churchill Machine Tool company began without sorting through tons of information on its parent company. I would also like to remind you that this page could easily be split into two pages, one on the CMTC and one on Churchill&Co, that would be the solution I would go for.
I also feel that this entire GA class issue is nonproductive. I know you don't want your GA review count to go down and neither do I. I am more concerned with the content than the class status, and these are the types of changes I want addressed. Check my edits for more.--Screwball23 talk 02:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I have submitted the article to WP:GAR for Community Reassessment. It can be found at (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Churchill Machine Tool Company/1). I have currently completed 369 WP:GAN reviews, with another four reviews underway. Out of the 369, two that I passed subsequently lost GA status, and in the case of one was probably due to several years of WP:Vandalism and quite a few became FA-class articles, so doubt that my count will go down significantly. Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

drugs-forum

I propose to write an article about the website www.drugs-forum.com

Drugs-Forum is a website of the S.I.N. foundation. The Substance Information Network is a registered non-profit. (registered charity)

From the mission statement: "Drugs-Forum provides comprehensive and accurate information as an alternative to the scaremongering, political propaganda and uninformed journalism often found in the media. With the ever increasing popularity of internet informatics, we believe that this is the best medium to bring balance. This is our mission."

From the 'about' section: "Drugs-forum is an information hub of high-standards and a platform where people can freely discuss recreational drugs in a mature, intelligent manner. Drugs-Forum offers a wealth of quality information and discussion of drug-related politics, in addition to assistance for members struggling with addiction. In this capacity, Drugs-forum has proved to save lives. Our members include researchers, drug users, harm-reduction specialists, concerned parents, officials, NGOs, lawyers, doctors, journalists and addiction specialists."

This website has many interesting features: Drugs Wiki (A project to create an article based online high quality information source on psychoactive drugs) recovery and addiction section (place where members can get information and support for issues with addiction) document archive (archive containing thousands of scientific articles) rehab index, and sections for German, French and Dutch speakers

To fulfil this criterion: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself Would this be sufficient, for now? :

Mentioned significantly (for several pages) in this report: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, DIRECTORATE-GENERAL, Health and Consumer Protection. THE PSYCHONAUT 2002 PROJECT Authors: Fabrizio Schifano*, MD, MRCPsych; Paolo Deluca*, BSc, PhD (Eds.) *Department of Mental Health-Addictive Behaviour; St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London (UK)

I will keep the article neutral by, for example, describing aspects of the website's mission as 'how the website aims to present itself' stats: "We have over 85.000 members and over 850.000 monthly readers."

I am a long time wikipedia user, but this is my first attempt at contribution. If anyone has time, I would be most grateful if any particular considerations or limitations I would need to work in with this particular topic were pointed out. I am fully prepared to comply with any and all regulation which is necessary for this article to be written on wikipedia. Much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe5htp (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 March 2011

Thanks for you post and inquiry. As a "long time editor" you are aware that Wikipedia articles must be notable and based on reliable, secondary sources. And while primary sources (such as the subjects web site) may be used for some content must not promote itself and those primary sources cannot be the basis or foundation of the article. So the real question is: Has this web site been the topic of enough news reports, books and other valild secondary sources that would speak for its notablity and provide a sound basis for an article? You may want to also check WP:NOTABILITY Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, he mentioned he's a "long time user", as in reader, not editor, as this is his first attempt at contributing. -- Ϫ 20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
What counts are the reliable sources you can find that include articles on the topic—these establish the notability required for an article (if you included a couple of those here, we could give better advice). See WP:IRS and WP:N and WP:WEB. I suggest that you use WP:AFC where you can create a draft article and work on it for a while. Other editors can comment on the result before it is moved into "mainspace" (that is, before it is made a proper article). Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the comments. We will see if there are enough sources. The problem we have is that because of the nature of the website, it is under-reported on despite it's significance. Might some slack be given in this case, because of this? We will certainly start with the draft article application as suggested.
No, all articles of this type are held to the same standard. If there are no reliable sources, you simply can't prove notability let alone write a proper article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
ok I see that is of course correct. We will begin this project now, starting with seeing whether we can determine notibility. Thanks again to all that have advised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.244.158 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hideaki Akaiwa

Is Hideaki Akaiwa notable? He has received international attention, written as the main subject of multiple articles from multiple reliable sources; therefore, he should pass WP:GNG. Or does he fall under WP:BLP1E? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My sense he's notable. but this is based on a cursory observation of news sources and your comment above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Broadway plays

In this afd for an old Broadway play that ran just 21 performances, I argued that Broadway plays should be inherently notable the way some other categories have been determined to be by consensus (state legislators and secondary schools are, I believe, two frequently mentioned examples). The result was "keep" without a consensus on the notability issue I raised (the play was individually notable due to newspaper and book coverage). I would argue, given the money and effort required to produce a play on Broadway, notability can be assumed, and a play running a very short time is therefore a notable flop. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Your logic makes sense to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Do Military Decorations Grant Notability?

Hello. Item #1 of WP:ANYBIO says that receiving "a well-known and significant award or honor" makes someone notable. I wonder if this covers military decorations. While I intuitively believe that military decorations are a kind of award, I question if any recipient of any USA military decoration (for instance) is to be considered automatically notable.

I believe most of these people will not have been the subject of multiple published secondary independent sources. Or am I mistaken?

How do we usually deal with these? --Damiens.rf 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, just found this old thread: "Military decorations establish notability?" Helpful thoughts but still not a conclusion, I think. --Damiens.rf 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And there's a notability essay for military people, WP:MILPEOPLE, that mentions only the top decorations. I'm still interested on input from notability experts. --Damiens.rf 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and there's this current discussion about the very same topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Notability of recipients of decorations. I should have done the searching beforehand. --Damiens.rf 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsure about this. I bet Kumioko would know. Suggest ask him.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that notability is so very subjective. Whats notable to a stamp collector means nothing to a NCAA basketball fan and vice versa. I try not to get too wrapped up in the are they, or are they not notable debate, but look at if from an are the references available to write an article point of view. Typically though the rule is if they recieved the highest Military medal for a country (ie Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross) then they are notable. They are also generally considered notable if they received multiples of a 2nd or third level award (5 Navy Crosses like Chesty Puller or 8 silver stars). Most of the ones I mentioned previously are pretty well documented but when you look at the early Medal of Honor recipients for example the information can be hard to find. Typically though you can find at least a couple books and websites that refer to them. There has been some debates about wether a brigadier general or a general who never saw combat qualifies but in general I would just leave them. Is there a specific case you are referring too or is this just a general observation and question? --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I put that as a general question, but of course it was one specific case that came to my attention. I'll have to do some studying about how to recognize the level of the decoration. In general, I think your rationale is sound, and I'm thankful for the input. --Damiens.rf 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome. Im glad it was useful but please let me know if you had any more questions. --Kumioko (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say simply receiving an award like that is insufficient if no one has really written about it. We typically take awards as evidence of notability, however usually the subjects this comes up in are websites and the like winning notable web awards. These awards typically will come with some reliable coverage. If all you can write about a person is "Soldier X received award Y" then I might think about whether or not we need an article on that.--Crossmr (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like the way you put it. It's a harbinger of notability, but not a notability mark itself. --Damiens.rf 16:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That is essentially true however most of the time there are references available although they are not always online. Case in point are many of the early Medal of Honor recipients. There are a number with limited available info but most of them can be fairly easily written about. When you get below that though and start talking about Silver stars, DSM's and things of that nature it becomes a lot harder to find documentation and its a lot harder to stake a claim of notability. There are a lot of articles for recipients of the Silver star, navy cross and such that probably don't meet the notability requirements but many of them did something else as well so its hard to use that as the sole disqualifyer. Not all though.--Kumioko (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, of course not receiving a high level honor can not be a disqualifyer. And yes, references don't need to be online. --Damiens.rf 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Potentially precedent-setting AfD going on

Hello- I wanted to alert interested editors that there is a discussion going on that may have wide-reaching impacts to notability among U.S. college athletes. The discussion is of NCAA basketball player Justin Watts and the AfD discussion is going on here. The discussion is interesting, but currently has a relatively small group of people discussing it. I think it would be useful for a wider audience to review it before it closes because it could either open up or close off AfD discussions for literally thousands of college athletes. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian detained by campus police

I'm a Wikipedian who was trying to improve the article about Union County College. It's a public college in NJ. My daughter takes classes there. It's paid with taxpayer dollars. I was taking pictures of buildings, classrooms, hallways. I made sure to avoid faces in these pictures. I took about two pictures which included only a few students (I made sure to ask their permission and got email addresses so their permission could be confirmed). Surprise! A uniformed policeman approached me and I was detained by campus police for a half an hour. I was told that I was prohibited from taking pictures. I asked: why? it's a public college? it's paid with taxpayer dollars? and I'm trying to improve the article and make it a better addition to Wikipedia. I was told no pictures. Not even buildings? Do buildings need privacy? NO PICTURES. I asked, may I take a picture of you, officer? (He looked like he would arrest me if I tried, so I didn't follow through with this.) So I'm alerting the Wikipedia community out there to watch out for this stuff. I realize pictures are obviously a contentious area -- privacy rules haven't been sorted out -- and there MAY be good reasons not to post photos of students (even with their permission) so I will obey this policy. Still, I think the overall no pictures policy is wrong and it's a violation of freedom somehow. The good news? Drawings are allowed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you had this bad experience, and in my opinion, the campus police were entirely out of line. I have photographed several high schools and city halls for Wikipedia without incident. However, I don't think this is the best forum for this discussion, because this is not a notability issue. Instead, I would take it to the administrator's notice board. If it is considered important, they can put you in touch with Wikimedia lawyers, who may possibly want to discuss the First Amendment with your local campus authorities. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, I'll post this comment there; if you think we should remove this comment from this page, let me know or else remove it. What bugs me is that it's a public college; I was trying to improve the article. I can somewhat concede that pictures of people may generate privacy concerns, and if a college wants to intervene about that, well, I'm not sure who's right. But photographing buildings? Yes I am miffed about this whole episode, and am thinking about what to do. And what I'll probably come back to is: following the rules. Wikipedia's rules. The college's rules. No pictures, okay. Drawings, okay. And following the rules. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

MystiCon AfD discussion getting heated

The AfD discussion for MystiCon seems to be getting a bit heated. I've only taken a passing glance at the article itself, but I can't find anything that supports the initial claim of non-notability. However, the person who proposed the AfD is claiming advanced understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I don't believe that my own level of understanding of policy or time spent reviewing the article are sufficient to formulate a sufficient counterpoint. I'm requesting that someone better acquainted with Wikipedia policy review this article and help resolve the ongoing dispute.

Also, please excuse me if I am using the wrong venue for this, since I haven't edited Wikipedia in quite a while, and I'm trying to relearn everything I forgot from back then. --Tathar (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Beonex Communicator

Should Beonex Communicator be tagged with {{Notability}}? See Talk:Beonex_Communicator#Notability.Smallman12q (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Candidates

I have read the definition of notability and see its applicability to Wikipedia.

My question is this: Should lack of notability prevent a person (otherwise legally registered and recognized) from being listed in the slate of candidates for a particular office if the article is about the election itself?

A wiki article listing the candidates for a particular elected office, should draw the line at registered candidates, I believe, and not notable candidates. For instance if the slate consists of X, Y and Z, all legally registered and all appearing on the ballot, but only Y and Z are notable, then the article listing only Y and Z on the slate is factually inaccurate.

In such a case, I think the general reader (if he knows) might wonder why WP lists only a partial slate and will have reason to suspect that WP is engaging politics rather than functioning as an objectively neutral source of information. This would be an unfortunate result, but I think easily correctable by applying a more liberal standard than notability, a standard which allows the entire slate to be listed.

Thoughts?ChrisCurzon (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your question is a bit confusing. Can you please provide the context of the question by providing links to the article in question and info on the specific person(s) that you are concerned about including or excluding from said article?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
All article's subjects are required to meet notability guidelines, at the very least general notability. Specific articles who subject falls under a particular category where previous consensus has been created that can be considered notable under possible less/more stringent guidelines can be notable under the requirements set forth in those guidelines, such as WP:SOLDIER. In this case you may want to see WP:POLITICIAN. After reading it, if there are some questions regarding a specific candidate, or list of candidates, please expand on what has been stated above. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Duh. Of course you can list candidates who aren't notable in an article about an election if they show up on the ballot. RayTalk 04:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I think you've identified the real problem here.
To look at it the other way and a bit more generally, just because a person is mentioned in an article doesn't mean that they themselves qualify for an article. They're two separate issues.
Another example is family members. It's often appropriate to mention family members, particularly parents, in a biographical article, but that doesn't automatically justify creating articles on these people too.
Good question, IMO. The issue is covered in the lead to Wikipedia:Notability: These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list (my emphasis), but perhaps it could be made even more prominent. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Chanco on the James- a retreat, summer camp, and chapel of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia

Chanco on the James, or commonly known as Camp Chanco, is a retreat, summer camp, conference center, and chapel located in Surry, Virginia under the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. It serves thousands of children and teens during the summer and countless other churches during the off-season for church retreats. In addition, it serves as a wedding location for would-be couples and a conference center for business retreats. It was named after Chanco the Powhatan Indian of Virginia. I propose to draft an article on this retreat on my sandbox in userpage and then implement it into an article; I hope to be able to choose whether it is a notable enough place for its own article. I welcome any ideas on my talk page or simple responses here for information; thanks for your time, —Rsteilberg talk 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Billboard Top Track pages

I would like to open a discussion regarding whether Billboard Top track Listings (such as many listed at Template:AdultTop40Tracks) are notable in themselves. I know that Billboard is notable, but to have a list of every week's #1 track for each year seems like it has overstepped the WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. I'd like a few external opinions/viewpoints before I potentially go on a Prod/AfD spree for these articles. Hasteur (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Echo Bazaar

The article about the online game Echo Bazaar has been speedily deleted; I have now restored and expanded it - the game has won the best browser game award in The Escapist. [2] I hope this makes it notable enough. (Disclosure: I am a player of the game.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How does an indie musician become documented on Wikipedia??

Who documents them independent musicians? Should their inner-circle take care of that? We, the fans? The press? Who? I see some on there but not some that I would've thought for sure would be on there.

TiKkO4 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Silverbolt

I'm been working on improving the proof of notability of the fictional character named Silverbolt from the Transformers. Feedback is welcome. User:Mathewignash/Silverbolt Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Marcos Mateo page

This page - Marcos Mateo - raises on face the question of Wikipedia notability to me. I am new here so I am unfamiliar with the protocols, and whether I should be raising the matter somewhere else. If so, someone please so advise.

I have no dog in the fight. I merely stumbled on the page. Immediately I find myself questioning the amount of information dedicated to this ballplayer, who to date has pitched a sum total of 33 innings in Major League Baseball. (A "cup of coffee" in baseball parlance, a flea bite, nothing.)

I speculate that simply becoming a Major Leaguer meets Wikipedia's basic notability threshold; however, the amount of detail on this figure's minor league experience is completely disproportional to any other Major League baseball player's page I have visited. Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, nobody - and certainly no-one so insignificant relative to the sport they participate in - has such extensive detail and cites on their minor league exploits. Having an utter dearth of Major League achievements is no warrant to substitute such a superabundance of minor league fodder.

How may this page be brought into balance? What is the mechanism? Questioning Notability does not seem the optimal course; it is, however, the first step that comes to me. What should be the next?

Thanks in advance for recommendations. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Subject of article passes WP:MLB/N, specifically criteria #2. Content regarding minor league career appears to be well cited, by reliable sources. However, one can argue that the amount of content falls under WP:UNDUE, and you can propose that it be whittled down and summarized and get consensus before doing so, or you can just be bold and do it without a discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability of a scientific topic that lacks non-blog publications

Editors with experience in assessing the notability of a scientific topic may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Priming. The scientific topic Genetic Priming seems to have been mentioned mainly on a blog or two, and hasn't generated any peer-reviewed publications. Can it be notable? -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please offer opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Priming. So far, besides the nominator, only the CoI page author and several of his non-Wikipedia friends have offered opinions. We really need additional experienced Wikipedians to figure out if this is merely a promotional page that should be deleted, or something more. Health Researcher (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BMW Car Club Great Britain & Ireland

I have created the following page in my user area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dteagles/BMW_Car_Club_of_Great_Britain_%26_Ireland Could someone please check the notability/suitability of this page before I go any further. I have been unable to find any on-line references from major sources other than the fact that the club has a direct link on the BMW UK web page (referenced in the article: http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/owner/car_club/0,,___,00.html). There are other links to the club from magazines such as BMW Car, Total BMW and I am sure others.

BTW, I am a director of the club.

Thanks Dteagles (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well. First, being a director of the club, you really shouldn't be writing about it here in Wikipedia because of a possible perceived conflict of interest. But we appreciate you being bold. That said, references are a key, and you need inline (easily checked citations). Use a search string -- plug the whole thing in your browser along with terms you select perhaps in quotes such as "BMW car club" -- such as one for British papers here; that is the term "BMW car club" followed by the entire newspaper string goes into your browser (cut and paste -- CTRL C and CTRL V -- right?). Here are a few strings:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
British papers
(site:thesun.co.uk OR site:guardian.co.uk OR site:telegraph.co.uk OR site:independent.co.uk OR site:dailynewspaper.co.uk OR site:dailymail.co.uk OR site:thetimes.co.uk OR site:bbc.co.uk OR site:orange.co.uk OR site:bbc.co.uk/news/ OR site:belfasttelegraph.co.uk OR site:express.co.uk OR site:megastar.co.uk OR site:economist.com OR site:epolitix.com OR site:expatica.co.uk OR site:thisislondon.co.uk OR site:ft.com/home/uk OR site:itn.co.uk OR site:theliberal.co.uk OR site:mirror.co.uk)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Or Irish ones here:
(site:ireland.com OR site:theirishworld.com OR site:irishcentral.com OR site:examiner.ie OR site:independent.ie OR site:electricnews.net OR site:eircom.net OR site:businessworld.ie OR site:online.ie OR site:rte.ie/news OR site:dublinpeople.com OR site:donegalnews.com OR site:limerickleader.ie)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Or automobile related ones here:
(site:motortrend.com OR site:caranddriver.com OR site:automobilemag.com OR site:roadandtrack.com OR site:aaca.org OR site:autoweek.com)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Next, if you find suitable references, use the inline citation format. One is here: WP:Referencing for beginners with citation templates but there are other formats. If you need help, write something on my user page. Good luck.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Listed buildings

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooburn Grange Country Club as to whether being a "listed building" (technically English "Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest") confers notability. The best reference I could find was at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_41/Archives/_23#British_Listed_Buildings which seems to suggest a consensus that Grade I ("of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important") or Grade II* ("particularly important buildings of more than special interest") should be deemed notable. Are there any clearer guidelines on this? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The {{notabilityguide}} template doesn't seem to contain any policy or guideline specifically on the subject, and nor does Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, so I think that these buildings simply have to stand on their own merits under the GNG. (The whole question is more or less academic as far as the deletion discussion in question goes, since it has not been established that the country club was listed at all, never mind to I or II* standard.) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Television crews

Are these kinds of articles notable, for example, List of Sesame Street crew and Crew of The Shield? Seems to me they fall under the category of lists (WP:NLIST), which guideline I've always found difficult to apply. Even if the lists themselves are sufficiently notable, some of the contents are not, but I'd like to focus just on the crew list articles themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree that these articles are more like lists but I am not sure what the notability guidelines are. What is your sense about this? My off-the-cuff sense is to keep this content in since it's information that possibly (a few) folks might want if they're interested in these TV shows, and I don't see people getting worked up enough to challenge it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Myriagonal number notable at all?

I see no references and google scholar results about it. On Chinese Wikipedia I saw it was mentioned in The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, David Wells (Penguin Books, 1997), but I don't know if it was a 'significant coverage'.--Inspector (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this. I think it needs attention from someone skilled in mathematics. I agree there is not much information on the subject on the web (I did a cursory search too); I wonder whether the WP article (or even the name -- should it be "myriagon number") is accurate. If a myriagon is a polygon with 10,000 sides, and a regular myriagon would be something like a circle essentially. Not sure it's used much in mathematics. Maybe we should stick a tag on it saying "needs attention from an expert".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No hits at Google Scholar or, more tellingly, at Zentralblatt MATH. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A sequence isn't interesting just because it's in a "dictionary of [...] interesting numbers". Unless some cultural significance somewhere comes up, this should probably be deleted. Hans Adler 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yakir Yerushalayim

Is receiving the Yakir Yerushalayim award sufficient to pass WP:N? I see that most of the people on the list have entries (but OTE - so no proof from there). Opinions? Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're asking whether if somebody wins this award, then they are notable, therefore worthy of an article? I'm not sure what others think, but my guess would be that most of the people winning the award have already been notable for other reasons? If not -- that is, if a person's only claim to fame is this award, then I suppose it's a judgment call; usually WP likes multiple independent sources. And how prestigious is this award? If it was the Nobel Prize -- and the only thing a person did was win a Nobel Prize, then I'd think that the person was notable regardless of a lack of other awards or attention. Problem is, I don't know how important an award this prize is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Tom, you comment of "most of the people winning the award have already been notable for other reasons" is an astute one and in most cases true. The only problem may be WP:RS without the award. The city of Jerusalem maintains a web list of recipients along with the rational. that can serve as RS supporting the existing WP:N. As to how notable the prize is, I'm still searching. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Houlding

I came across this page Deborah Houlding and wonder if it passes the notability test. No external sources or references are given. Person claims to have written a book and translated a few others, also runs a website. Looks like a classic case of self promotion, with 5 links at the end all pointing to her own website."MakeSense64 (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)"

Agree there are problems. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. No references in newspaper searches but hits turned up in Google Books. Did cleanup for article; removed unsourced material; copyedited; added references (3); trimmed external links; article still needs picture.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lackadaisy

Additional opinions regarding the notability of this webcomic are requested. There is a pre-existing discussion here. Thank you! Doniago (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards apparently has 26 categories, suggesting it isn't too hard to win. The Eisner Award was a nomination not a win. Wikipedia knows nothing about the Ursa Major Awards. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The standard for notability is significant coverage in multiple sources which are independent of the subject. There are plenty of sources in the article, including that the article topic is featured in, and is on the cover of, a current magazine.[3] It seems to meet the standard, to me. --Elonka 19:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, That seems to be Walter Simonson (or at least, his work) on the cover. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
If anyone else cares to weigh in, I think the additional opinions would be appreciated. We seem to be having a fair bit of trouble reaching a consensus, unfortunately. FWIW, my understanding is that an Eisner win might satisfy notability criteria; WCCA awards and an Eisner nomination do not. That being said, I'm not familiar enough with sourcing to offer an opinion as to whether the sources currently used for the article might elevate it beyond the GNG standard. Thanks for your help. Doniago (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW to me the sources on that article are a total mess and are only getting worse as people seem to be adding anything they find on the internet as a reference. Now we have "plenty of sources" like the trivial coverage in the unreliable examiner.com and TV Tropes. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The consensus on WP:RSN seems to have been that examiner.com is not RS. Tv Tropes is a wiki, so again would not be RS. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Overall, though, there seems to be sufficient material in magazines that cover the comic world and which look reliable to establish notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Marina Bai

Notability concerns on this page Marina_Bai Biography of a living person who seems to be notable only for one event WP:BLP1E MakeSense64 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere ringing those bells to warn those colonists

Numerous sources have quoted former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a gaffe about bells on Paul Revere's ride. There's even a YouTube video. What's unfortunate is that discussion on the Paul Revere talk page, including pictures, is being deleted offhand. It should be Wikipedia's position to be neutral about this stuff, and especially not to delete talk page comments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The event is notable for the Sarah Palin page, in that she mentioned it, and there was a media event surrounding it.
The statement about bells used by Paul Revere, with sufficient reliable sources, other than Sarah Palin, can be included in the Paul Revere page, without mention of Sarah Palin, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Future Steel Buildings

Is it possible for anyone to add to the discussion of the notability of Future Steel Buildings? The article has been nominated for deletion (here) based on unreliable sources and lack of notability leading to an article that seems to be promotional in nature. It has mainly been myself (the nominator) and the author of the article participating in the discussion. It would be very helpful to get some other opinions. Thank you. Zm69051 (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fearless Books

A number of publishers have wikipedia articles for them. In addition, Fearless Books is referred to by a number of wikipedia articles about authors/books that were published by Fearless Books. So far, I have found six independent articles regarding Fearless Books. Here is what I have so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lmbhull/Fearless_Books. I would be ever so grateful for feedback. Thanks much. lmbhull (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Essay elevation to Guideline proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Essay to Guideline. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

SuperSearch Search Engines

A class of web full-text search engines have appeared that classify themselves as "SuperSearch" engines. The meaning of "SuperSearch" seems to mean "an search engine that uses multiple individual search engines, such as Goolge, Bing, and Yahoo, to find relavant web pages and present a combined search results page to people search the Internet for information.

[Note to editors: There are no articles or authorative sources that I know of. The only source are on the web itself. I think it would help people with who are interested in information technology to learn about this category of search engines. Not sure it qualifies as notable.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrisier (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If the subject is not mentioned, with significant coverage, by third-party reliable sources, chances are the subject is not notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Trackoholics

The Trackoholic Music Group is a production group founded by a group of childhood friends. While attending North Carolina A&T University, childhood friends Jay Waddell & Bryant Wheeler came together to form “The Trackoholics”. After years of developing a potent sound, with superior quality The Trackoholics have turned into a production POWERHOUSE. With the addition of Jonathan Mudd in 2010 The Trackoholics are poised for greatness and determined to achieve it. Now based out of Orlando, Florida The Trackoholics have reached many successes as an independent production team. In late 2010 they were nominated for "Producer of The Year" at the 2011 Orlando Hip Hop Awards and later won the honors after producing over 20 records for artist in Orlando after only 1 year on the independent scene. The Trackoholics have gone on to appear on DIRECT TV's "Sammy Priso Show", a late night television show, to promote their 2011 production album series with the release of "Trackoholics Anonymous" hosted by DJ Five Venoms featuring some of their biggest songs to date from artist across the country including Prissy Polet, Jettson, Wreck Wregular, Bonez, and even The Trackoholics themselves. With awards, magazine covers, television appearances, and shows The Trackoholics are truly setting themselves apart from the competition. Be on the lookout as they continue to reach new heights, not just a music group, but a family of musicians.


[1] Thetrackoholics (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sebastiani Theatre, Sonoma California USA

The Sebastiani Theatre is a piece of architecture constructed in 1934 and today is one the few remaining single seat theatre's in the United States (it seats approximately 323 people).

Most of the press coverage for the events at this theatre come via the Sonoma Index Tribune, a local newspaper that has been in existence since April 17, 1879. The also is a local .org website that runs an annual Sonoma Film Festival here

Below is a direct link to the archives of the Sonoma Index Tribune newspaper:

http://sonomanews.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

Other on-line resources exist that describe the history of this newspaper:

http://hillonhistory.com/test-columns

Film festivals, celebrities and most popular Pixar always premier's it's movies here and donates proceeds to local schools

Is this topic worth it's own Wikipedia page?

Can you tell me if Wikipedia admins will consider these sources "notable" enough for an entry?

Thank You

GregGregrank (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

It has been noted in multiple reliable sources, however from what I seen from my searches none of it has appeared to be significant coverage. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There do seem to be some stories about the Sebastiani Theater's relationship with city council (1998) and restoration (2000), and perhaps other topics? - possibly this will help meet notability? -- Presearch (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The GNG is not the only yardstick by which we may measure notability. If seen to be of historical inportance, and even if only to Sonoma, California (as book and news articles provided by User:Presearch seem to indicate), national or international coverage is not a mandate for something with less globally-impacting historical note. We do not expect that a theater (amazingly) constructed in Sonoma during The Great Depression would have hit the headlines of the New York Times... specially as the Times had wider concerns during that timeframe. Sourcable notability to a notable community, area, or city is good enough, and as as long as the article is encyclopedic and properly sourced, it will serve to increase understanding of the topic for Wikipedia readers. I am satisified through my own searches that it HAS been written of, directly and in some historical detail, in reliable sources independent of the subject, and believe that a decent article can be created on the topic. I have begun one at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Sebastiani Theatre. I invite User:Gregrank to contribute, as I'll be expanding and citig it over the next few days in preparation for an eventual move to mainspace. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have three video's of Tom Smothers performing at the sebastiani theatre, the videos are on Youtube though. Are those (Youtube) external links OK - ?Gregrank (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

LDDC

Could someone please give me advice as to which cite template to use on this monograph? Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, use cite web. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Rainfall

Operation Rainfall is a videogame localization fansite that started last week. It has received short-article coverage on several online gaming sites which are cited in the article. In the past, other campaigns that received similar amounts of coverage were not deemed notable outside of their respective games' articles, examples being Mother 3, and Tales of Graces. (src src) Is this subject notable? - Onmyounomichi (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Extremely notable. Consider this: a 4 day old article has 5000+ hits per day. Are you going to try to fight that level of interest? What's cool is how Wikipedia has beaten out major news sources on this story -- I get no mention of it in major US or world newspapers -- yet it's a big story. USA Today will be quoting Wikipedia it looks like, if they choose to do a story on it (they will soon, trust me.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I highly doubt it will end up in USA Today or any sort of mainstream print, when was the last time they talked about even, say, Final Fantasy or other games that actually sell in the millions of copies? But I respect your take on this as a neutral observer so I'm convinced it's notable at the very least... - Onmyounomichi (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's see what happens, okay? My sense is when a page gets 5000 hits in one day is that there's a story -- in celebrityland, eyeballs means truthiness. What's becoming clearer to me is a reality that many of us here I think are beginning to suspect -- that Wikipedia is, in a sense, a kind of newspaper of its own of sorts -- a media outlet -- and a peculiarly powerful one in its own niche in a kind of uneasy alliance with media sources like USA Today, The New York Times. Like, it used to be the dog (mainstream media) wagged the tail (Wikipedia) but increasingly, it seems as if it's the other way around. Like, when the battling on the Paul Revere article about sources became, in itself, a story in the press. Interesting what's happening.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Followup about a week later -- Onmyounomichi you may be right so far -- mainstream newspapers haven't picked up the story, although there are indications it's fairly newsworthy in the blogosphere, particularly for online magazines covering Nintendo and electronic games. I still think it's a story when fans, online, organize a kind of protest directed at a videogame maker regarding what titles they offer, and when. My sense is the mainstream media is more adult, over-30 oriented, not attuned to what younger people are in to these days. I've noticed in other places in Wikipedia that often times, what happens in TV, particularly for younger audiences (teenagers, tweens, earlier) isn't taken very seriously in the press; as a result, it's harder finding sources for WP; but I still think it's important for younger game-oriented readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.trackoholicmusic.com/#!about
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_5&oldid=1144664829"