Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

Wording change in NOTSOAPBOX

In the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section, in a footnote attached to the first bullet, it says

Talk pages, user space pages and essays are venues where you can advocate your opinions provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive

and editors are wanting to change it to

user space pages and essays are venues where opinions can be argued, provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive.

And that's been disputed. Clearly a minor point, but as a matter of principle wordings of policies should not be altered by back and forth warring in edit summaries, and WP:BRD applies particularly strongly for policy pages. So I'm inviting the editors to come here and make their case. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As written it is wrong. It implies that advocacy is allowed on all talk pages, including article talk pages, when it is not. I suggest changing it to:

User talk pages, other user space pages and essays are venues where you can advocate your opinions provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive.

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you can't advocate on article talk pages then what are they for. "I advocate for the notion that we should do X because reason Y" or (if you want to word the same thing differently) "I think we should do X..." or "It would be a good idea if we did X..." or whatever, you consider these illegitimate? (And beside the argument on the merits, there's aint-broke-don't-fix, no call to roil the text.) Herostratus (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The wording of the text that it is a footnote to is:

• "Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."

That makes it very clear what kind of advocacy is being talked about, and obviously excludes "I think we should do X...". --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Article talk pages are still valid locations to speak "I think we should do X..." as long as X is narrowly about improvement of that specific article. That's extremely common use of talk pages, so I don't see why that's being omitted. --Masem (t) 13:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think the language is unnecessarily confusing and obfuscatory in the way it is organized. I would suggest scrapping the whole thing and saying something like "All discussions in any venue on Wikipedia should be focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles, discussions which are unduly promotional, combative, social, or unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia should not happen in any part of Wikipedia." The way it is written it is hard to track the intent of the sentence, and we should make that the forefront of the clarification: We don't want people to use any space in Wikipedia for anything except making Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 12:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, but what about essays such as WP:CANCER and WP:YWAB which are purposely combative, but combative in the interest of making Wikipedia better? Excluding those sort of essays (and Jimbo's comments that they are based upon?) would be a major policy shift. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are "focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Those are entirely about the mission of Wikipedia. Perfectly fine. What we don't want is people doing things like bitching about some political leader on their article talk page, or stuff like that. --Jayron32 13:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Slight copyedit though: "All discussions in any venue on Wikipedia should be focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles. Discussions that are not - particularly those which are unduly promotional, combative, social, or otherwise unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia - should not happen in any part of Wikipedia." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'm fine with any and all modifications and improvements on my proposal, up to and including complete rejection of it. I'm not particularly attached to it. It's just an idea, and not one I am saying is any better than any other idea. Just an idea to be considered and improved as needed. --Jayron32 13:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader fixed the problem, which is the language "discussions which are unduly promotional, combative, social, OR unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia". As worded, it would prohibit WP:YWAB, which is purposely combative while being related to the mission of Wikipedia. The use of "or" instead of "and" changes the meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the biggest valid exemption to this rule is WP:Reference desk, but I think that can be justified per WP:IAR. I would also support moving this text out of the refnote and into the body itself, as I think it's a key corollary. I appreciate both the current and this wording don't describe the status quo entirely, as we tend to turn a blind eye to political bashing in user talk etc. Though, I've never seen such FORUM-y conversations result in anything productive, sometimes devolving into personal attacks, circlejerks, or bad feelings between editors. I don't imagine strict enforcement will (or should) result, but it's worth noting this. I also appreciate some take a different view as to the degree of divisive socialising necessary to build an encyclopaedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the reference desk is already mentioned in WP:NOTFORUM as If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. I wonder if the wording somewhat duplicates that section though, and if so might it be smarter to link back to that somehow? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Reference Desk already serves the Mission of Wikipedia (broadly) by helping readers connect with Wikipedia content (insofar as the answers to their questions can be referenced to existing Wikipedia content) or in connecting them with reliable sources outside of Wikipedia that could be used to improve Wikipedia content where it is lacking. That explicitly sounds like discussion which is directly related to Wikipedia's mission. --Jayron32 14:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I have a minor gripe with the wording of a lot of this page, because it doesn't really acknowledge the extra degree of freedom we afford users on their user and user talk pages. But with respect to this particular issue (WP is not a soapbox), my gripe doesn't apply, because I don't believe that the leniency we show to banter and chit-chat on user talk pages should apply to non-WP-related advocacy. As for the comparison of the current wording and the proposals here, I prefer Jayron's submission (or rather, ProcrastinatingReader's edit of it). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  For a user talk page, is the "unduly [...] social" wording of Jayron's suggestion not still a bit... harsh? Obviously the primary purpose of a user talk page shouldn't be to socialize and chit-chat, but that does still happen a fair amount (not to name names), and there are probably editor retention and collaboration reasons why we would want to accept some amount of socializing when it's not degrading the quality of the encyclopedia. The WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK wording, [t]he focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration, feels to me a little less restrictive. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, remember that this wording being discussed is specifically for WP:NOTSOAPBOX, not for :WP:NOTSOCIAL. With respect to soapboxing, I don't think the wording is too harsh at all. With regards to socializing, yes, this language would be a bit too harsh for my tastes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I support "All discussions in any venue on Wikipedia should be focused on the operation of Wikipedia or on the improvement of articles. Discussions that are not - particularly those which are unduly promotional, combative, social, or otherwise unrelated to the mission of Wikipedia - should not happen in any part of Wikipedia." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• If someone wants to say that no editor can argue opinions on talk and essay pages, fine. Then say that: facts only, no opinions. Good luck explaining how that is supposed to work. Here we all are, right now, advocating our opinions. It appears indispensable.

  But to say "Talk pages, user space pages and essays are venues where opinions can be argued" while pointedly using passive voice to refrain from saying "where you can advocate your opinions" is too coy by half. If it's not the editor's opinions they are arguing, then whose? Yes, if says "provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive." Obviously. But if an argument is being argued, someone is arguing it. Who? You. The editor. The Wikipedian who has opinions and wishes to persuade others so as to achieve consensus. We do indeed argue our own opinions, not some opinions received from on high by the Great Giver of Opinions. Or immaculately conceived opinions spontaneously born of nothing. No.

  Passive voice is often appropriate but we need to ask ourselves why we are using passive voice to avoid mentioning agency. If it's because we're afraid to say out lout who is doing the thing, we need to reconsider. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• The reason I tried changing the text is because, as Guy points out, as written, "it implies that advocacy is allowed on all talk pages, including article talk pages". While of course, that is an obvious no, since "advocacy" of any kind on article talk pages is not allowed, hence why I tried to remove that particular word from the equation. I'd support either Guy's proposal to just drop the "article talk page" bit, or Jayron's rewording. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The word "advocate" has too broad a usage/definition, and can mean several varied things besides "to argue for your perspectve". That word shouldn't be used if only due to lack of clarity. I'm pretty much neutral about the rest. - jc37 02:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Just leave it. It's probably been there forever and has never been invoked, or ignored if it was. And I mean if you go out of your way to remove mention of a permission, it's a fair indication that you don't think that that permission applies anymore, so that specifically removing "talk pages" and leaving just

User space pages and essays are venues where opinions can be argued, provided that they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive.

Is just another way of saying

Unlike user space pages and essays, opinions can not be argued on article talk page, even if they are directly related to the improvement of Wikipedia and are not disruptive.

So then now that you've said what article take pages are not for, you should say what remains, which is what they are for, which is.... what? "Article talk pages are for unexceptionable and anodyne statements about the article, such as 'Wow this guy was really amazing' or 'I enjoyed reading this article' or 'Gee I hope this article gets improved someday, altho I'm not allowed to say how' and so on" Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm still confused how anyone could think we can't argue or advocate for opinions on article talk pages too. Provided they are directly related to improving the article. Saying "This article would be better if we do X" is advocacy for an opinion that is directly related to the article.

It's true most of this is WP:BEANS. Even then, I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with seeing opinions or advocacy anywhere in the non-article namespaces. That's why they exist. The non-article namespaces are where we do advocacy and opinion, to persuade other editors. If nobody is allowed advocacy and opinion, how is consensus supposed to happen? What is the basis for this worry that somebody will think they're allowed to sell car insurance on Wikipedia because of some tortured reading that ignores the repeated ad nauseam caveats that it has to be directly related to improving the encyclopedia? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I say we simplify it down to the "lowest common denominator" level and just say:

If you're not talking about Wikipedia or a Wikipedia article, you'd damn well better be in User talk space, and even if you are, if an admin tells you to knock it off, you'd damn well better knock it off.

I mean, there's something to be said for writing things in a way that even the slowest-on-the-uptake person could quickly and easily understand.

By the way, this is not a serious suggestion. I'm just pointing out that that there's no amount of specificity that can't be misinterpreted, whereas a vague, but simple statement is -perhaps counterintuitively- generally quite clear and difficult to misinterpret. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. This hypothetical editor who is that sloppy with their reading wouldn't have read this far to begin with. Anyone who is on this policy page, and who is all the way down in the footnotes, is either someone who can be trusted to be faithful to the spirt of the text, or is reading in bad faith with malevolent intent, and will twist the meaning regardless of how we say it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTNEWS

Can someone please comment on the talk page of this deletion? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brad_Lander&diff=1022950764&oldid=1022930643

This relates to deleted text, reflecting reporting on an issue by the NY Post, the NY Daily News, and the Patch, among others, with the "news" responded to in an article written by the subject of the news -- but the deleting editor says "Not news" and simply deletes it. Thanks you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:84A1:5440:17B4:EFDA (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

NYPost is not a reliable source (see WP:RS/P). The piece from NY Daily News is an opinion piece and not news, and the other sources all also appear as opinion pieces. As this is just pieces that appear to be critical of a person that promotes safe driving for having traffic tickets, but otherwise not yet affecting their career, inclusion at this time violates both WP:BLP as well as NOT#NEWS - we should wait to see if anything more significant comes from that. --Masem (t) 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. What of the living person's own piece, published, addressing the subject, and what he will do as a result of it? 2603:7000:2143:8500:84A1:5440:17B4:EFDA (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If this content was cited to the New York Times and CNN and the BBC and Reuters too, there wouldn't be a problem. There's nothing in the NOTNEWS policy that says we can't mention a public figure's traffic records over the last decade, and nothing that says you can't cite a newspaper. It's not celebrity gossip, it's information that is directly relevant to a politician's public policy. The problem in this case is entirely that the sources are limited to a couple of highly unreliable tabloids. That makes it a verifiablity issue, and especially a WP:BLP issue. The lack of diverse sources makes it an Undue weight issue. But NOTNEWS? Irrelevant.

Deleting anything and giving WP:NOTNEWS as a reason almost always starts a nebulous, time wasting debate. It's one of the reasons it's such a bad fit for a policy page; it belongs as an MOS guideline, at best. Any case where you can truly justify deleting something due to NOTNEWS, you will certainly have a much more robust policy to cite, and you sandbag your argument if you throw NOTNEWS in there. Stick to veriifablity, NPOV, NOR, and BLP. They won't steer you wrong like this clunky and awkward news thing always does. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Thanks. That was my thought about the notnews charge. As used, it seemed one could simply delete anything one did not like, claiming notnews.

But as to verifiability, I actually think there can't be a problem here. The person himself published an article, in which he discussed and he himself verified it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:84A1:5440:17B4:EFDA (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

NOT#NEWS does apply - in conjunction with other policies like BLP - that we don't rush to add simple allegations against a person that do not have long-term or enduring affects on them. We can be current and keep articles up to date, but we have to make sure that we're including encyclopedic relevant information, and if all that's present are opinion pieces or non-RS pieces that haven't gained attention elsewhere, we don't include that. --Masem (t) 20:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The very first words of the policy are "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." We very much do include breaking news and current events -- as long as they're not "first hand reports", which is really about self-published sources and primary sources, not news media per se or current events per se. Those rules apply to any topic, not merely news or current events. It's an example of how NOTNEWS redundantly states other policies, but does so in a way that is utterly confusing and unhelpful, instigating off-topic debates.

When you say "we should not rush", you're making the straw man I referenced. Nobody argued that this should be included because of time constraints or deadlines. So by insisting on saying NOTNEWS relevant, you're insisting other editors have to engage with a loaded question, "when did you stop beating your wife?" The actual issues that need discussion -- unreliable sources and articles about living people -- have to wait while everyone debates the red herring that NOTNEWS introduces.

Not helpful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so not every bit of news about a topic is encyclopedia-worthy. Sometimes we know immediately that new information from the news is immediately applicable, sometimes we can immediately discern it is not, and often it is information that is unclear whether it will be important or not. Criticism towards individuals or groups that fundamentally is not tied to immediate legal or criminal activity is one of those areas where it is not clear if this really is, and that's exactly where the caution (particularly for BLP) we should wait until we have a better idea of significance of that criticism. For example for Lander here, if this bit of criticism (that he got a lot of traffic tickets despite platforming on safe driving) ends up affecting his political career, then it makes sense to include. But if this is just a bit of one-off criticism and never comes up again, its not appropriate for us to include. That's exactly the caution I'm saying. --Masem (t) 20:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody argued that "every bit of news about a topic is encyclopedia-worthy". See how the need to invoke straw man arguments plagues NOTNEWS? If this exact same story was coming from a broad cross-section of respectable sources, none of these other issues would matter. The problem is entirely one of reliable sources: two tabloids, the wretched NY Daily News and wretcheder NY Post (or vice versa?) and one first-person essay on a semi-respectable newsblog.

There is no Wikipedia policy that says we may not discuss allegations of hypocrisy or sleaziness or just seeming sketchy. No policy says we can only mention it if it's directly tied to criminal activity. We can write at great length at completely baseless allegations that even if true are not illegal, immoral or uncouth in any way. I refer you to Obama tan suit controversy. Or almost anything in the daily machinations of the Trump administration; nobody waited for a criminal indictment before asking if what they were up to was problematic in some way. We don't have to wait for proof their political career has been affected. All we need is enough reliable sources saying it matters, even if it doesn't matter. Because deciding that it doesn't matter is playing God and trusting reliable sources is how we ensure aren't the ones playing God.

The key is whether the sources are good. The stupid tan suit controversy mattered enough to have a Wikipedia article because good sources told us it mattered. Life is full of apparently meaningless trivia that gets elevated simply because the people who tell us it matters are people worthy of respect. Not because there's any universally objective measure of what matters. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that says we may not discuss allegations of hypocrisy or sleaziness or just seeming sketchy. Actually, that's BLP specifically. We are far far better than the media to avoid mudskimming. There are somewhat different allowances for public figures but there's still a level of treatment that we do not dip into that newspapers regularly handle.

In a case like Obama tan suit controversy, it is clear that there was a legacy as most of that sourcing on that is from its 5-year anniversary (and in fact, it was created in 2019 and not in 2014 when it happened, apparently when it was clear it was still a well-remembered incident). In the case of Trump, and in fact, many political figures nowadays, we actually do have problems that people want to include every bit of analysis and incident without waiting to see what will be important 10 or 20 years down the road, what really matters to an encyclopedia. This is likely because there is a systemic bias feedback loop between the liberal nature of both news sources and the majority of WP editors where it seems very easy to include material critical of those on the right and appears correct, but its just overloading these articles with opinion and analysis and less about developing an encyclopedia. This is a long-standing problem, and NOT#NEWS is meant to keep this in check combined with BLP, NPOV, and other aspects like RECENTISM.

This doesn't meant that articles must always be written this way. We absolutely are supposed to be trying to judge what is going to be non-trivial years from now, and avoid documenting every detail to the minute, and this is a skill of art. But it might take time to see is key, and so depending on the topic, it may be appropriate to document everything with plans to scale back, while other topics may be better to wait and then write only when the big picture can be seen. In the former case look at any of our COVID-19 by country articles - they are nearly proseline day-by-day summaries. That's fine now since its hard to try to shape the big picture, but I'd expect as COVID becomes less a concern we can carve away material to summarize better. But as most of the material is non-contentious, this is reasonable. On the other hand, with a BLP, it would be fully inappropriate to document an ongoing controversy with them to the same level of detail and chip away later once we know that, as that's against what BLP says. Instead, it's better to stay vague, if anything needs to be said at all (but documentation of key links can be made on talk pages) and add when it becomes clear it is relevant. --Masem (t) 21:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep talking of editors who want to "include every bit of analysis and incident without waiting". Nobody said that. I can repeat that it's a straw man, but I can see it makes no impression on you. You're right that this non-existent editor who made the non-existent argument that we have a deadline and also (didn't really) say that we have to include everything in the news is wrong. You have thoroughly thrashed the non-existent argument of this editor who doesn't exist. I guess imaginary congratulations are due. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. Even in the case here for Lander, even if, say, the NYTimes, USA Today, and a fair number of assured RS all reported the same story (in that it was simply observed this paragon of traffic safety had a large number of tickets himself), we'd likely not include it in the long run if nothing came of that that affected his career down the road. We'd certainly not include it if 2-3 years after it broke, there was absolutely no sign of any impact on his career. The fact that this is from weaker RSes in this case makes the argument to keep it out until it has a more significant impact even stronger. It is not just a NOT#NEWS issue but a BLP, NPOV and several other P&G factors, that we are simply not here to repeat the same mud thrown around the media, unless that is impossible to ignore and part of the importance to that person or topic. --Masem (t) 21:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to delete redundant sentence

The following sentence appears at the end of wp:NOTDIRECTORY:

Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.

I propose we delete this sentence for two reasons: First, it's meaning is unclear. What is a wider context? Second, it's redundant. The first sentence of the paragraph in which it appears already allows lists in "context," prohibiting only:

Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic merit.

There is no reason to say it again at the end of the short paragraph.
Any reason I shouldn't remove the last sentence of wp:NOTDIRECTORY? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 57#Bibliographies of why this sentence is somewhat necessary. --Masem (t) 19:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The archived discussion took place before we added "showing encyclopedic merit" to the first sentence. Is there any reason to think that a bibliography of an author's work wouldn't now be protected by that phrase? If there does remain a concern, what do you think about replacing the fuzzy last sentence with an example explicitly showing a bibliography as an acceptable list? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: (1) Does the modified first sentence (see immediately above) resolve your concern. And, if not, (2) what do you think about changing the current vague last sentence to an explicit statement that bibliographies do not run afoul of this rule? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Simple listings" text was added on 09:58, 14 September 2015 after discussion in this WP:VPPOL archive. The intent seems to be to rule out spam lists while allowing encyclopedic lists. I guess that a "wider context" is saying that a list is ok if there is a context (wider than the list) where the list makes sense. The "creative works" is not redundant and a tiny bit of repetition is not harmful. I don't see a need to omit the sentence. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we just need a re-write to make the intent clearer. I'll propose something. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, how about adding this sentence after "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." -

Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth.

Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTDIR

NOTDIR needs removal or qualification. Wikipedia now is a directory of census designated places, of schools (at least high schools and above), of athletes who have competed in the Olympics, of academics who have achieved a certain status, and more. In dozens of SNGs, the original assumption that these are the criteria that indicate the subject probably passes GNG, have morphed into an absolute belief that if the subject passes these criteria, then they qualify, regardless of the existence of sources about them. Many articles on people, buildings etc. have no sources outside of directories, but are maintained in the interests of "completeness"> It seems clear to me that there is no longer a consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these SNGs are all still presumption of notability, and at some point sourcing has to be provided. (The only category that doesn't would be census-designated places as there is agreement that one function of WP is to serve as a gazetteer). That articles are kept on a first pass at AFD because they meet the initial SNGs is reasonable when first challenged, but they have to improve to show they meet the expectations of WP:V and WP:N (third-party sourcing and secondary, independent sourcing with significant coverage). Repeat trips to AFD (assuming the nominator has worked per WP:BEFORE that sourcing simply doesn't appear to exist) puts the onus on editors trying to keep the article to demonstrate sources do exist or otherwise deletion is appropriate. If those editors do the hard work that ends up showing that all articles of a given class are actually kept in WP, that doesn't invalidate NOT#DIR, as I would think it is extremely rare that we have that many complete "directories" for any such topics outside of core academic areas. --Masem (t) 22:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

NOTADVERTISING shortcut

The shortcut WP:NOTADVERTISING is used twice in the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline article, and probably in other guidelines, talk page discussions and edit summaries, and links to the appropriate section in this article. It's a great shortcut that gets to the point fast. I'd like to suggest it be added to the shortcut list. 5Q5|^✉ 16:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We have had to cut down how many visible/advertised shortcuts are used on this page because they become spammy, but this does not restrict the use of any usable anchors (like WP:NOTADVERTISING) to be included as relevant. Given that we do include WP:PROMO/WP:PROMOTION we probably don't need this, though one of those two are duplicative, and we could replace one of the visible ones with NOTADVERTISING. --Masem (t) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31#Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhr_Contribs 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Advertising tag

Can someone please take a look at the propriety of the application of an advertising tag here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zach_Iscol#Promotional/advertising_tag

Two editors insist on it. (As well as on things such as, as recently as today, deleting the image of the subject of the article - I think fresh eyes in that discussion would be very helpful). I understand people may dislike a subject, but wonder whether that is the best approach here. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DCF0:CBEA:C4A4:EFA1 (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)