Wikipedia talk:The Heymann Standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Essays
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.


I have just seen this. The degree of an expansion of the article was a particularly high one. It represents a true expansion, not a mere improvement, and , and many articles have been kept after substantial, but much small improvements. I do not think the term should be "standard" and I propose to replace it with "level" and adjust the text to incorporate what I am saying here. I'm going to look for an example ofthe modest improvements which are typically needed to provide the necessary N V and RSs.

It's an essay, I drafted it with the Heymann article in mind, and anyone who chooses to refer to this is probably looking for a real sign of improvement and expansion.. !Voters at afd are free to make up their own minds so I don't think rewording is really necessary, it would change the spirit of the piece and in terms of articles being deleted or expanded would be unlikely to have much impact. Your attention might be better focussed at WP:N or WP:BIO. Deizio talk 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As someone who frequently tries to do improvements on articles up for deletion --though to a somewhat less impressive degree-- I reworded slightly, but I think in the spirit DGG (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance and coherence[edit]

I don't want to sound too harsh, but this doesn't really make sense. "Heymann Standard" suggests a unit, an amount. And indeed it's described in such terms. But it's not used that way, at least in the example and the usage I've seen. If you're just saying, "This needs a Heymann Standard," that's practically a non sequitur. It would make more sense to say "such and such needs to happen, that's my Heymann Standard here." The bullet points at the end are practically peacock terms praising editors who quote this essay. It reads like someone was trying to hard to make a "thing." Last year, the essay was cited a total of four times in deletion debates. Not that that's a reason to delete or anything. My essay only had three. But I strongly suspect the fact that this essay doesn't make much sense and the fact that it's infrequently quoted are related. I'd like to see it improved. Hey, I just desire to see quality content on Wikipedia. (I'm also baffled by the redirect Wikipedia:KERRRZAPPP, which may be worth a trip to RFD.) --BDD (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, is a Heymann Standard the amount that the Heymann article itself was improved? --BDD (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This essay fails to describe the most common use of WP:HEY[edit]

I think this article fails to define the most common use of the link WP:HEY. I often see it invoked at AfD, usually in the form of a !vote "Keep per WP:HEY." In that context it is used to mean "keep because the article has been significantly improved since it was nominated".[1] [2][3] [4] In other words the editor is invoking a Heymann Precedent - of an article which is kept because it was significantly improved - rather than a Heymann Standard that they would like to see the article brought up to. I have frankly never seen anyone say "I would !vote to keep if somebody improved it per WP:HEY." (However, with some searching just now I find that it WAS commonly used that way in 2006-7. [5] [6] [7] [8])

Anyone who clicks on a "Keep per WP:HEY" !vote to see what it means ought to be able to find that explanation here, but right now they won't. This essay describes the Heymann Standard being used as a hypothetical - "I would !vote keep if the article were improved per the Heymann Standard" - along with some justified hand-wringing about people who ask for improvements rather than actually improving the article themselves. At least that's my understanding of what the essay says; I am open to correction. But I think this essay is now much more commonly invoked to mean "since the article HAS BEEN improved to meet the Heymann Standard, it should be kept."

Let's work out a wording to add something explaining this use. How about adding a sentence to the lead saying something like this: The Heymann Standard may be also invoked to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion, as the original David Heymann article was; in such cases an editor may say "Keep per WP:HEY." --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)