Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 12 February 2007

On main page DYK today

Randy Conrad

sigh. (just needed to vent) Bwithh 22:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the conflation of news media mentions with encyclopedic notability is just out of control. (though I don't think this item belongs on Wikinews either)). .Bwithh 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How big is the newspaper? Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle Herald has a circulation of 114,000 in Nova Scotia [1]. Cape Breton Post has circulation of 27,000 in Cape Breton [2]. Times & Transcript has as a circulation of 38,664 (2004) in New Brunswick [3]. But I don't care if the story is covered by the New York Times or the BBC or hundreds of newswire stories - attention should be paid to the encyclopedic notability of a story, not just the fact that its been given attention in the news media. Bwithh 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Bwithh says, arguing over circulation figures is not the answer. But what's the alternative to Wikipedia hosting news and memorial pieces? WP:N has Uncle G's "notability-is-not-subjective" yardstick which ties neatly into WP:V/WP:NPOV. In practice it's open to debate, but it usually results in irremediable cruft, vanispam, and the like, being deleted sooner or later. It won't serve to delete news and memorials. WP:ENC, regardless of being on the Five Pillars, is not likely to get you far at AfD: Encyclopedia Dramatica is an encyclopedia too. So should we be joining Jeff in rejecting "notability" as a basis for inclusion, and what would we replace it with? Simple ways to define, never mind measure, encyclopedic-ness aren't obvious to me. The current system may be least worst and a quantity of newsy articles may be all that stand between Wikipedia and the hordes of MySpace bands. There's the demonic possibilities of mediocrity again.Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BIO, Randy is notable - "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" (a direct copy - paste from the text). As this can include newspapers, Conrad is notable as he has been covered by 3 of them.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we're all aware of WP:BIO - which is a guideline subject to contesting interpretations and reform. Furthermore, WP:BIO as a guideline is secondary to Wikipedia's overriding mission as an encyclopedia (as opposed to all-purpose information dump and news report archive) as emphasized in key no.1 official policy WP:NOT in WP:POLICY. The discussion on this page is about reforming notability guidelines such as WP:BIO or introducing new guidelines in the light of articles such as Randy Conrad. Besides this, Randy Conrad's article is still debatable under existing guideline/policy framework and is subjectable to afd. Bwithh 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be put up for AfD. The fact that there are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" means that plenty of contributors will argue to keep it, but it might be useful as an exercise in focusing attention on how foolish it is to hide behind a guideline without regard to the overall encyclopedic value of the subject. Eusebeus 19:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, once you bend one rule, you can't then argue for strict interpretation of other rules. This article is the exception. They've found a completely stupid topic and wasted perfectly good time sourcing it? GOOD. I , for one, have no problems with crap articles as long as the things they talk about are verifiable. The problem with going after this with deletion is that "strict" deletionists like myself have no real choice BUT to vote keep. I'd rather have a few articles like this and strict following of policy than a gajillion bullshit iterations of IAR-enhanced spam.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, thanks for the thoughts guys. A good read.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! OK, that bums me out. As does this yardstick of notability. How about, at least, if there are no secondary sources, then they're not notable... Pete.Hurd 05:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are both first and secondary types of sources in the Conrad article.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 20:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed "news" notability guideline

As we all know, wikipedia is being flooded with minor news stories that will completely fail the 100-year test, such as ~~2007 Western United States freeze~~ 2006 Auckland Blackout. There is currently no policy that addresses these articles, and they all pass WP:N as they've been featured in multiple published works. I am of the opinion, and I've noticed that others agree with me, that not only do these pages clog up wikipedia with poorly-written non-notable articles that will never be revisited a week after their creation, but they undermine wikinews, whose primary goal is to report these events.

Obviously, not all news events are non-notable - for example, see 2003 invasion of Iraq - so I don't think we should cull all news-related articles. I do, however, think that we should create a guideline that addresses the historical importance of these events.

This guideline should take the following into account:

Historical impact

If something is likely to make the history books, such as the aforementioned 2003 invasion of Iraq, then it is notable. If it significantly changed (or, for that matter, ended) the lives of thousands of people, then, again, it is notable. If something got featured once in a couple of newspapers/blogs because it was a slow news day, (for example, a high school student calling a McDonalds turkey BLT a "gigantic cornucopia of awesomeness"), then it is not notable, and should not have an article created on it.

Continued news coverage

If a story is deemed important several times by a wide variety of news sources and therefore receives continued news coverage over a period of several weeks - for example, the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning - it is notable. The probability of the article in question receiving attention during and after the story's development is high, and the article will therefore be of greater quality.

If an article doesn't meet these criteria, there is very little chance of it being revisited, and therefore very little chance that it will ever become a good article. It should be taken to wikinews instead, where such articles are welcome.

What do you guys think? Any suggestions?

Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples don't hold, except at the extremes. North_American_ice_storm_of_2007 is the general article; 85 deaths, Kyrill(storm in Europe about 47 so far. They will probably be included in detailed treatises on economic history. If they turn out to have been a precursor of worse, they certainly will be N. Reminds me of the practical working criterion in recent AfDs for Notable murderers: 1 killed is NN, 2 is debatable, 3 or more is N. (in the absence of other factors). WP will be of much more use 100 yrs from now as a record of what was seen as notable in 2005-200?. It cannot pretend to be a definitive history. DGG 04:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll suggest a merger of those two when I've got some time. I've changed the example to 2006 Auckland Blackout - it lasted 4-8 hours and hasn't been updated since september. The worst thing is, these articles are making it through AfD because of their news coverage - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Queens blackout. I would like to see this stopped. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right - I could not agree more. The problem is that people conflate media coverage with encyclopedic value. The tendency is amateurish, silly and prone to abuse and I would welcome listing such articles for a concerted evaluation. Eusebeus 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's News Notability Page

See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(news). He just let me know on my userpage and I wanted to bring this to the attention of the project. (I do have stuff to say on this subject but need to think more about it) Bwithh 08:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reviewing

I've started setting up the framework for reviewing articles. The goal , of course, is to FIX an article so that we don't need to delete it. I think we can all agree that only articles that fail the policies need deletion, so we typically have a three-step framework here.

1) Someone comes up with a list of possible remedies. As an example, a list might be "source the article, and if we can't make sure we can verify it. If we can verify it, stub it, otherwise delete it."

2) We try to fix the article ourselves. Sourcing, notability support, wikifying, whatever. If we can't, we take a very quick straw poll on whether the article is "for shit" or if we proceed down the list of remedies.

3) If the article is officially "for shit" (fails ALL of the following WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, then we go ahead and nom for deletion. Otherwise, we proceed down the list of remedies.

The goal is fourfold here.

- To fix articles. Our primary desire is a factual encyclopedia, so the more articles we can fix up, the better Wikipedia is. IF an article CAN be sourced it SHOULD be, and it's always better to have a sourced article than a deleted one.
- To interface with other Wikipedians. The more people we get sourcing and fixing, the happier we'll all be.
- To find neglected articles. The four I have up for review now aren't "bad" articles, just not paid attention to. Those are the ones the inclusionists always claim they'll source and cleanup, and you can see how well that gets done. We can do it ourselves.
- So that people can see we are not all about deleting, but rather, using deletion to remove only crap, not the things that can be fixed.

So, ideas? Feedback? --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I like it. I've left some comments on the discussion pages for the articles in question. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On notability (revisted)

An interesting effort by User:Trialsanderrors to look at WP:N. Some good ideas, others perhaps not so wonderful, but my first impression is that it is progress. See User:Trialsanderrors/On notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herm

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion I kind of want to mount this on a wall somewhere here like a moose head Bwithh 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it! there's no moose head pictures on wikipedia or wikicommons, as far as I can tell <=P Bwithh 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moose head with weirdly aligned staring eyes preferably Bwithh 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You must be kidding about the pictures, right? Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't find meese head pictures on wikipedia or wikicommons. But I'll give drawing my own a shot! Bwithh 21:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bun fight

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dreams NewsCenter would benefit from editors who don't have a political axe to grind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, completely crap article, but seemingly notable. Could be sourced. I've left my comments. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This afd was nominated by an editor, who with certain other editors, often give the impression that they are especially targeting particular articles for afd in line with their political beliefs (or more accurately their distaste for other political perspectives). Sometimes there is some valid point in their noms. In this case, while I disagreed with some of the claims made in the nomination, I !voted delete based on my own research (and, mind you, my personal politics I think are far closer to the website in question than the nominator's). Bwithh 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Did some scoring recently. Out of 10 random AfD's, I could only find one keep I disagreed with, but two deletes that I might have voted keep on, and both of those went back to DRV and were overturned.

Biggest issue is definitely neglected AfD. This is where things get abused, articles can be wrongly deleted out of hand. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

This Wikiproject is for realists, not deletionists, correct? I pray that the right mindsets join this project. — Deckill er 00:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could be more specific. That almost sounds like deletionists aren't realistic. Also, if you do read the front page, it says everyone is welcome to join. We welcome viewpoints, mindsets, and constructive concepts and comments, but not knee-jerk reactions. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True; my definition of deletionist is a bit more "on the extreme edge of the spectrum". What I meant by my comment was that I hope people take the front page seriously (which stressed realism when reviewing pages for deletion, from how I see it) and work with the project the way the creators intended. — Deckill er 05:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have assumptions about deletionism that members of this project don't share, and I disagree that "reviewing pages for deletion" as a principal description of this project. Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "realism" which is a term with a varied history way beyond wikipedia (though it does not appear on the handy guide to common wikiphilosophies on meta[4]). Bwithh 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get what you're saying. By realist, I meant people who don't just AfD and delete pages with potential and so on (basically what is discussed in the project explanation); they see the potential and they understand all perspectives. I'm glad there aren't extreme deletionists in this project, who wish to delete anything unsourced/poorly written immediately instead of looking to see if it can be merged, cleaned up, etc. — Deckill er 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it depends. There are some things that were created and just weren't sourced. If they can be sourced, we should. Then there is CRAP, and I'm sorry, but CRAP needs to die. In my opinion, and especially after looking hard at AfD's, too many people conflate cleanup with actually doing something. Most cleanup requests NEVER get filled. Articles with unsourced statements are , by default, deletion worthy. The fact that we're trying to source them at all actually sets us apart from deletion policy...which means I'm puzzled as to the exact nature of your concern. You're talking about people like MER-C, I think. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Elaragirl said. A prime example being articles on controversial issues like this. At the AfD a load of people turned up claiming it absolutely must be saved in spite of the glaring lack of sources/POV problems and general lousiness. How many of them have worked on cleaning it up since then? The page is still a complete shambles and will probably be allowed to fester indefinitely, lowering Wikipedia's reputation for reliability in the process. On the other hand, this very project has "Articles for review" where we actually take substandard pages and see if we can clean them up and save them from the axe. --Folantin 11:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point was brought up which is what I'm concerned about: giving ample time for people to clean up articles. I can understand how annoying it gets when an article survives AfD on a cleanup promise that is not fulfilled for many months, but I also believe that we shouldn't put people on a 2 week timer as well. One thing I've been concerned about is when people use deletion merely as a tool/threat to get people off their current priorities and onto the item needing cleanup. Looks like I don't see that issue here though, which is a relief. — Deckill er 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I share the same concerns. Often at XfDs, I don't vote "delete" or "keep", instead I try to give helpful comments about improving an article under review so it might be saved. Sometimes I've seen articles on encyclopaedic topics deleted because 5 days isn't enough time to fix the problems they have. On the other hand, we have the issue of terrible content being allowed to survive indefinitely, thus wrecking WP's reputation. We need to think up new ways of dealing with this particular dilemma.--Folantin 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "adopt an article"? :-) It might work; someone offers to improve an article within a set period. If they cannot, then the article is returned to AfD with an added pro-delete argument. — Deckill er 12:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is we should have "Put on probation" as an alternative to "Keep" or "delete". Give a set period of time in which editors can fix the major problems with an article. Put a warning tag at the top of the page telling readers the article is undergoing serious revision and the content shouldn't be trusted. When the probation period expires, the article comes back up for review. The article doesn't have to be immaculate; it just needs to show there has been a good faith effort at a clean-up. So long as outstanding problems with POV, sourcing, verifiabilty, claims to notability and so on have been addressed, it can be saved. --Folantin 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very solid idea. We've been trying to do that over at the Final Fantasy project, where I've been organizing the "anticruft" movement to clean up the gameplay-based articles. Anyway, I'd like to bring up an issue I see a lot: people who !vote "Merge and delete". We cannot merge without redirects, because it violates GFDL and simple edit history logic. But I'm pretty sure that it's mostly understood, anyway. — Deckill er 12:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the idea I have with my article reviews. If I see a good article with some problems, I put one of our templates on it and we try to see if we can fix it up or what can be improved. So far, it's in a trial phase with only four articles. Yes, there are some things that don't get enough time to get sourced....maybe. I'm a bit biased in this regard because whenever I create an article from scratch I try to always include at least one solid source from mainstream media, and I haven't yet heard how a topic that's clearly notable can be so hard to source. I know, I know, anons create articles, people aren't familiar with things, etc..but if you go through my contribs, you'll see I've sourced many articles that could have been deleted. I've voted keep on things that COULD be cleaned up. I'm trying to get people to actually look at the process of deletion, and the process of making articles, rather than having knee-jerk reaction when "their" article gets deleted. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. Hopefully, people won't dismiss the project as a trigger happy camp before actually viewing the project page and this talkpage, because it's clearly not that. — Deckill er 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input request from the deletion experts

I listed Template:Anglicanism2 for deletion on MfD. Did I do everything correctly? This is my first *fD posting. Kyaa the Catlord 13:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, relisted it at TfD. Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sweet god, not more NPOV forks. Yeah, that looks good. I really, really wish more people would stop being dumbly bold and making bizzare POV forks. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

User:GRBerry/Deletion Log Stats contains a statistical summary of all items deleted on January 24, my time zone. I just finished parsing deletion reasons last night. It is an Excel file with pivot table on my home computer, so if analysis of a particular sub-set of the data (eg, Image space only, or non-redirect (Main) space only, or Articles deleted by the 10 most active admins, or...) is requested, I can do it but only at certain times of the day. Already analyzed: activity by namespace, activity by reasons, activity by admin. GRBerry 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is good data...I'll have to look at it more carefully. That's a lot of unclear deletion reasons, which worries me. :( --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 85 were in main space, and about 1,800 pages were deleted in that space, so it is 5% unparsable rate. Almost all of those were using the auto-summary text. Sometimes the software prefills the reason with the page text, sometimes it doesn't. If a speedy delete tag was in the text, I assumed that was the deletion reason, so those aren't in the unparsable number. I didn't go look for talk pages to see if the page was also deleted, which would have made the unclear talk pages G8s. If you want that data more parsed, let me know. GRBerry 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah!

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_Conrad. I actually though this would survive an afd, but it seems to have been unanimously given a delete consensus by other editors (I didn't even know it had been nom'd). I fully expect this to turn up at DRV soon with the argument that "its a DYK article, and it is unacceptable to have redlinks in the DYK archive" plus "this guy appeared on TV and in local newspapers". Bwithh 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam articles

I ended up doing some poking around in two books I owned about anime and manga (bought them when I was on a big Macross kick). There's some notability in here for a lot of these minor suits, I think, although it is difficult to find.

I've stated before that if something can be sourced, it should be. After a rather long series of posts on WP:GUNDAM, I think I'm beginning to see the scope of the problem.

It's not that the things aren't notable. Most of the sourcing is buried in Japanese, which I can't fucking read very well. Lots of it is scattered around rather obscure books like the ones I own. Certainly we know Gundam itself is notable. A lot of the minor suits may or may not be notable. But the REAL issue is that the people writing the articles aren't focused on showing notability.

It's not easy to write, or to learn to create articles, that will stand up to an AfD. I suspect everyone in WP:SCISSORS does it naturally because of the way we think, but this is, in our own way, a sort of systemic bias. I was making what I intended to be a stub yesterday and I ended up finding five mainstream sources for it. Most people don't make articles that way.

With the Gundam articles, some of the stuff, like the RX-78, was clearly notable. But finding signs of it was difficult. A lot of the stats and history are available in a number of places, a lot of the artwork for some suits influnced later things such as Battletech and Robotech. But the people making the articles don't think to include that stuff -- or in some case, know where to FIND it.

I remain unconvinced that the best thing to do to unsourced articles is to delete them out of hand until and unless an attempt is made to source them. I assumed, and I think most of the people voting in these AfD's assumed, that the articles COULD not be sourced reliably. I'm beginning to think that some people writing them don't see the POINT of sourcing them reliably. "Well, if my sources aren't good enough for you, too bad" seems to be the mindset for some of them. This is more due to the fact that they aren't here to do anything but write articles for what they like. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

But no one else is making an attempt to fix what is wrong here. I'd like to see some firm guidelines one what makes things notable. Star Wars has a lot of problems with some minor elements in the same fashion as Gundam does. I don't want to delete things (I'm not a believer that calling something "cruft" magically means I can delete it at will) until I'm convinced they can't be sourced. Right now, I think many of these can be sourced and just haven't been.

Thoughts?--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Another problem is there are not enough level-headed people around to help source articles that wouldn't stand up in AfD, especially on Star Wars. I've been having my hands full with sourcing and trimming the Final Fantasy gameplay articles, and last year, I spent quite some time keeping the Star Wars elements contained into a list format. Therefore, we must keep unsourced or ill-sourced articles around so that we can eventually get to them without just deleting them from existence. I think our tags work wonders to the reader; they cover our rear end, while providing opportunities to source when there is time or resources available. — Deckill er 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be a bit more immediatist, which may or may not be popular here! Generally, my approach is to place {{unreferenced}} or {{primarysources}} and {{notability}} tags on articles which are of questionable notability with no sources or primary sources only. Generally, within a week, one of three things has happened:

The article gets secondarily sourced. The {{notability}} tag specifically mentions likelihood of being considered for deletion, amazing the motivation that provides.
The article does not get sourced, and someone comes along and nominates it for prod or AfD. Someone sees that, and then secondary sources are provided. Again, amazing the motivation that provides.
The article does not get sourced, someone comes along to nominate for prod or AfD, and it gets deleted. Good! This means either that no sources exist, or that no one cares about the article enough to find sources in one business week of time.

WHAT? You think it's good an unsourced article gets deleted even if it might be on a notable subject???

In a word? YES! For a couple of reasons. First, lack of sourcing is a tremendous problem. Deletion provides the "stick" complement to the GA/FA carrot. WP:V states that unsourced information may be removed by any editor. If I had my way, we'd make a logical extension to that-unsourced articles may be removed on sight by any administrator. Of course, that would never achieve consensus, and I wouldn't dare do it, but if I had my way it'd happen. Those considerations aside, however, there is a more practical and pragmatic aspect here. We have quite a few articles here. We have only so many recent change patrollers to check for vandalism, we have only so many WP:BLP people checking for libel, we have only so many people to check if something's a copyvio. Sourcing helps tremendously with these things, and assure that someone cares enough about an article to bother to do a little more then write a half-wrong garbage article from memory on. If that's not the case, it should be deleted, and brought back when someone cares enough to source the thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often believe that with these things, merging, or even just redirecting (if there is nothing verified to merge), to an appropriate list is better than deletion. The content isn't gone, our non-admin editors can see the history, but the poor article is not creating a bad impression and encouraging the creation of more poor articles. We are deleting about 1,800 pages a day in article space; about 15% through PROD or AFD.

Sometimes a deletion discussion acts as an educational tool, but that should never be the purpose. However, because the opportunity exists, take the time to make your opinions in AFD (or DRV) educational. If doing a PROD, avoid jargon and offer an explanation on the talk page. If someone engages in discussion, educate, educate, educate, even after that deletion process has run its course. In the long run, getting advocates of good quality articles in the relevant wikiprojects, who communicate standards to the other participants, is what will do the most to limit problem articles. (Because anyone can edit, there will always be a need to educate new editors.) GRBerry 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! In a couple cases, I've even had a couple "obvious" speedies I've tagged discussed by the editor that created them, and they ended up working alright. (Of course, in 99.99% of cases, it's just a drive-by vanity bio or ad piece, and the creator never comes back and never intended to.) Education is my whole point here. But there are some people who just don't care, who don't understand that "I watched the series and I'm sure this scene meant that..." is original research, and without some prodding (or prodding, as the case may be) are just going to keep it up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Gundam again. Alright, let's see...there's nothing wrong with writing about what we like. Heck, don't we all? I certainly do. The thing, especially with fiction-based material, is that you have to make it relevant to the real world. Which is something hanging around deletion fora certainly teaches you to do. With something like William Savage I make pretty sure I get an actual real-world assertion of notability in there somewhere.

When you think about it, there really isn't much difference between these Gundam articles and what I write about, opera. I would have no objection to the real-world Gundam topics being written about: the people who created Gundam, the designers, the popularity spread - that sort of thing. Similarly, I have no objection to there being articles written about the people associated with the premiere of Agrippina (opera). I wrote those articles/stubs myself. The problem starts when we get into heavily-fiction based thinking: I would object if anyone created an article about the character of Agrippina in the opera named after her, simply because you could not write a featured article about that topic. This is true for a fair bulk of all fiction-based material, and even with fact-based material I often think "Could I write a featured article about this person" before creating an article. This is perhaps a good thought for these minor suits: even if there are scraps of notability here and there, could you reallywrite a featured article about one of these minor suits? Wouldn't you be better off with a featured list for the whole lot, which would be more viable. Something to think about, at any rate. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Granted, some fictional characters genuinely are iconic and encyclopedic. Superman is already a featured article, and I would imagine Darth Vader or Han Solo very well could be. But I don't see the need for separate "bio" articles on general-fiction characters. If non-trivial secondary source coverage really can be found, great! If not (and generally it's a "not"), cover them under the parent article heading with a brief overview, and save the detail for a specific wiki themed to that work of fiction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find Sources Template

Hi, I've created {{FindSources}} to help... well... find sources really. Especially in AfDs and so forth. Addhoc 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is VERY good. Thank you. ;) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage essay on grandiose notability claims

I've written one on the above topic at User:Moreschi/My left sock. Something we all know already but I thought it would be useful to have a model we could check against if it is suspected that an article matches this "My left sock" pattern. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese porn stars?

Hello, deletionists. Not sure if you as a group have came across this issue before, but take a look at the articles in Category:Japanese porn stars. Now I'm sure some of these people are notable. But then there are articles like: Saya Misaki, Kyoko Ayana, Yuria Kato, Miho Maeshima, etc etc. And some of the articles look lengthy, but they seem to be just a description of a porn star's personal life or career, without asserting why the particular porn star is worth noting, if there is anything about her that is worth noting at all. I can't go through all of the articles. Help would be appreciated. I don't care to see WP become a directory of Japanese porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I haven't just been trying to improve these little articles in the Japanese porn star category, HongQiGong. I've also been working on the Boontling‎ article lately, so you might want to sic the "deletionists" on that one too. I wonder if the editors here appreciate you using them as tools to retaliate for my temerity to disagree with your bias and edit-warring at the Japan article. -- Dekkappai 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing for me to "retaliate" against you. You did not make any edits that I disagreed with, and we have not been involved in an edit war or anything. And I've long felt that some of the articles in that category are about people who are not notable. Anyway, I'm just bringing these articles to the attention of editors who are much better versed at what ought to be deleted and what ought to be kept. I'll let them decide what to do, if it is to do anything at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a couple of things. One, this isn't the place for whatever row you fellows have been having. Two, we aren't deletionists here. We are editors interested in deletion. There's a difference. Three, please see WP:PORNBIO and WP:N and work from there. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the WP:PORNBIO guideline exists and is quite clear, I think the main problem with attempting to delete these articles is that most contributors to the English wikipedia do not read Japanese, and therefore can't tell if these "actors" meet the criteria. We could always say "there are no English sources on the article that indicate that the subject passes WP:PORNBIO so they probably don't pass it", but most of the people here like to be very sure that, when they're nominating/voting for the deletion of an article, the subject is non-notable. The same applies when checking the stars against WP:V - if we can't read the sources, we can't vote delete on account of them failing WP:V.

Anyone who can read Japanese, however, is free and encouraged to check the articles in question against WP:PORNBIO. I just don't think that people should be voting for the deletion of articles when they can't read the sources. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 ::There is nothing for me to "retaliate" against you.  You did not make any edits that I disagreed with, and we have not been involved in an edit war or anything.  And I've long felt that some of the articles in that category are about people who are not notable.  Anyway, I'm just bringing these articles to the attention of editors who are much better versed at what ought to be deleted and what ought to be kept.  I'll let them decide what to do, if it is to do anything at all.  [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 Right, a couple of things. One, this isn't the place for whatever row you fellows have been having. Two, we aren't deletionists here. We are editors interested in deletion. There's a difference. Three, please see [[WP:PORNBIO]] and [[WP:N]] and work from there. Thank you. Cheers, [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[Wikipedia:Requested recordings|Request a recording?]]</sup> 10:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
+Although the [[WP:PORNBIO]] guideline exists and is quite clear, I think the main problem with attempting to delete these articles is that most contributors to the English wikipedia do not read Japanese, and therefore can't tell if these "actors" meet the criteria. We could always say "there are no English sources on the article that indicate that the subject passes [[WP:PORNBIO]] so they probably don't pass it", but most of the people here like to be ''very sure'' that, when they're nominating/voting for the deletion of an article, the subject is non-notable. The same applies when checking the stars against [[WP:V]] - if we can't read the sources, we can't vote delete on account of them failing [[WP:V]].
+Anyone who ''can'' read Japanese, however, is free and encouraged to check the articles in question against [[WP:PORNBIO]]. I just don't think that people should be voting for the deletion of articles when they can't read the sources. <b>[[User:Ultra-Loser|<span style="color:#112B84">Ultra-Loser</span>]] <small><sup>[ [[User_talk:Ultra-Loser| T ]] ] [ [[Special:Contributions/Ultra-Loser| C ]] ]  </sup></small></b> 11:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)