Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard

Welcome to the notability noticeboard
This page is for users seeking advice on notability and whether or not a topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for its own article. Sources showing notability, and whether they meet Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, will be examined here. Some topics have specific topic guidelines, which are listed below under "Subject-specific guidelines". To show notability, you should list the key evidence of reputable journals, independently published books, reputable news and media sources, widely reputed measures of recognition, and other reliable independent published sources, which show significant attention being paid by those independent sources to the subject of the proposed article. These are crucial and must be available to support an article, as it is a measure of how much the wider unconnected world has shown significant and likely enduring attention. Sections older than 31 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Additional notes: For possible non-notability, you should review and summarize the available sources, showing why you feel the criteria are not met. Detailed contents of articles and their quality of writing is not discussed here, and opinions expressed here do not guarantee an article will be kept on Wikipedia (ie, editor feedback and not a formal decision).
Click here to start a new discussion

Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Robert Whealey

It seems like both Robert Whealey and Alice Whealey are basically self-promotion devices, since neither seems to have reached any particular pinnacle of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.212.73 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Linares (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, I looked into this for (only) 10 minutes, roughly. I think R. Whealey is a (1) historian (2) expert on one particular area (maybe others) -- area => Spanish Civil War. (3) he's retired. So the article, being very short and unassuming, I think is basically reasonable. Whealey doesn't get huge press, but he's a respectable historian, so if students want to learn about the Spanish Civil War, perhaps, they'll benefit from being able to see this article, in my view. I added a few "references" (not truly secondary sources, rather just pointers to indicate he is a historian). I bet if somebody searched harder they'd find his previous publications, with reviews, so if a PROD was conducted fairly, they'd probably decide to keep him. I feel there are others more blatant cases in Wikipedia which deserve our attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of The Maccabeats Article

The Maccabeats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I put a notability template on this article and raised the issue of whether the article is sufficiently notable on its Talk page. So far, I've captured the attention of only one other editor. I've pretty much expressed my views in that one discussion and have nothing much to add here. Essentially, I don't believe the group meets the criteria in WP:BAND. The group performed one video/song. It captured the attention of a lot of people on the Internet (YouTube) and the mainstream press. That's pretty much it. I thought about proposing the article for deletion but I wanted more discussion first. Unfortunately, although I appreciate the one other editor's responses, no one else has, which means the discussion has been pretty limited.

I will post a message on the article's Talk page and on the one editor's Talk page about this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia."

If 3600 hits to this article were redirected to Google for their information, I don't think Wikipedia's motto would be fulfilled. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The stats probably correlate to the popularity of the video on YouTube. If popularity is all that it takes to establish notability, perhaps the guidelines should be changed. Hey, I like the song, too. It's a lot of fun.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really just popularity, or is it meaningful notability? It's all the talk in the MO community that this video has tagged millions of hits, and I advance that it's a notable phenomenon, in contrast to, say, Kosher Delight just being a popular restaurant and everyone I know or ever met has heard of it. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. To me, DRosenbach's comments enter into the realm of WP:EVENT, as opposed to whether the group itself is sufficiently notable. But even if one analyzes the song as an event, it fails the guidelines. At this point it smacks of recentism, it doesn't have "enduring historical significance"; rather it is more in the area of a viral phenomenon.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Question. Well, DRosenbach and I have had a very pleasant, civil conversation about the article, but we could have remained on the article's Talk page for that. Isn't anyone else going to comment on the issues presented?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmm. Can you sense me rubbing my beard here? That is, if I had a beard. I think we live in a culture which celebrates hits, popularity, appearances, and there's little that any of us can do to change this. In our media world, popularity is notability. C'est la vie. Appearances can be important; a hit song can change people's attitudes. I think the best we can do is accurately reflect reality, as best we can; when something a pop-culture phenomenon, that's what we say it is; we shouldn't give it undue emphasis.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers

Are there any more specific guidelines regarding Newspapers like the WP:BK is for books. The Mormon Worker has been tagged (not by me) as having questionable notability since June and I would like to resolve that issue, but I'm not sure what the guidelines regarding Newspapers themselves when they help establish notability for there subjects.

Rebecca Loudonsack

Notability concerns. Probably a British soap opera actress. But no mention of her in British or American press, entertainment/TV sources, worldwide newspapers. the following: thesun.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, telegraph.co.uk, independent.co.uk, dailynewspaper.co.uk, dailymail.co.uk, thetimes.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, ew.com, divatvmagazine.com, realitytvmagazine.com, entertainmentavenue.com, hellomagazine.com, hollywoodreporter.com, instyle.com, themightyorgan.com, okmagazine.com, people.com, popmatters.com, radaronline.com, thecelebritycafe.com, urban75.com, usmagazine.com, variety.com, digitalspy.co.uk, cable360.net, atnzone.com, realitynewsonline.com, realscreen.com, smarttvandsound.com, telechimp.com, tvweek.com, tvguide.com, tvrundown.com, videoageinternational.com, videography.com, wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You did a huge amount of research. I'll be interested to see the response from other editors here, as I often come across very non-notable articles on people and books, and the process for getting rid of them is, to say the least, extremely cumbersome, so that WP is cluttered. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this http://www.emmerdale.org/emmerdale/profiles/emmac.htm - it appears she did a single role, age 13, and then never appeared again. Gave up her child and moved to Germany in 1998 apparently. Perhaps she changed her name too. 81.227.230.210 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple of months ago I listed a whole load of similar (but interconnected) British actors/actresses here that suffered the same problems (listing bit parts in Casualty and the Bill as notable but with no references) I got no response here about any of them but the process of dealing with them all seemed too cumbersome for me to get them deleted myself. For a single one like this I would simply mark it for WP:PROD. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My way of contributing here is to reference things, write articles, do revamps; I like writing and exploring and learning new things; I'm not into deleting stuff which I see as a particular skill that others have but which I'm not that keen on learning although this may change.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion is an unfortunate but sometimes necessary decision to make. Sometimes you will find that you've spent a lot of effort fixing up a badly written article only to have someone else go and (correctly) propose it for deletion anyway because it's just not within Wikipedia's scope, and all your work was for naught. It makes more sense to just propose it for deletion yourself. -- œ^™ 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not an administrator. If I can propose deletions I'm not sure what the steps are. Actually I read up on it and will try doing a proposed deletion. This is my first prod; if I goof up on any steps please others let me know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Update: I did a PROD (hopefully right?) but I couldn't find the article's original creator -- it was an educational site not a user.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I highly recommend enabling Twinkle in your preferences. You can find it under the 'Gadgets' tab in 'My preferences'. It automates various tasks, including proposed deletion, allowing you to perform all the steps quickly and easily with a click of the mouse. -- œ^™ 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I installed Twinkle. I see this "TW" on my bar and maybe I'll use it in future. I have lots of handyman projects this week so I don't think I'll be contributing much unless I take a break and do more referencing of random unreferenced bios.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Potomac Stages

This article refers to a defunct website about theater in Washington, DC. It seems not notable. PixiesAreNice (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It has a reference in the Washington Post and the article in terms of length and style doesn't seem to be promotional or offbase. People may want to know what it was, or maybe get access to older archived articles it has about theater. My sense is this is a borderline case probably not worth fussing about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Miya Hisaka Silva

This article is a copy/pasted bio of a dancer, whom I don't believe meets the notability requirements. PixiesAreNice (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked sources. I found a reference in the Washington Post with a fairly glowing report. While it could use more references, my hunch is the article is fairly solid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed

I'm doubtful about the content balance of this article and about whether it's just been reduced to PR material. Is it possible to review this with anyone with a view to maybe having it removed? --Drewpuppy (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wondering what your problems are with this article? It appears well-referenced if a bit PR-ish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that there are personal reasons why I definitely shouldn't try to make decisions about this myself. The talk page on the article will make this clear, and it's why I'm asking for help. I'm a newbie even though I've used Wikipedia for a long time, and even edited content a few times. Having found the pages on notability, I'm reading through them carefully. So far I can find reasons both for and against the inclusion of this article. There is one main issue that seems important to me. The article appears to be very vigorously edited by a specific person who always attempts to remove criticism and only add positive material. It doesn't seem balanced, hence my reference to PR. Should I, do you think, run through the formal page deletion procedure and accept the outcome or just accept that the article is here to stay right away? --Drewpuppy (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is clearly notable. He's being written about in newspapers => notable. So I don't think trying to delete the article will work on the basis that it's too positive, rather, if you have content disputes, you can argue your case on the talk page, and if it's important to you, try to work with the others to make the article fair & balanced. If well-referenced and pertinent additions to an article are removed without good explanations, you should revert the edits, and challenge the others to explain the deletions, and I'll try to help if you need me. But overall the Ahmed article looks (fairly) neutral at this point.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Many thanks for your clear guidance, Tom. There are some further edits I will revert while adding additional citations. --Drewpuppy (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, or anyone else who can help, could I ask another two questions? I need another neutral opinion. (1) Please take a look at the last reversion on Talk:Syed Ahmed. I've decided not to react. Should I continue to do so, and leave the text as is, or are my comments okay on the talk page? (2) On Syed Ahmed itself there are some references which are actually simply pointing to the subject's own words elsewhere. For example, references 5 and 13 refer to his own self-description. Also, reference 2 refers just to a "contact us" page that makes no mention of the subject. I suspect these are candidates for removal. Does this sound okay? --Drewpuppy (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

General policy is talk page comments should not be undone or wiped out unless there's a clear violation of rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the tricky bit, Tom. I don't know for sure if my comment (the one that's been removed) is actually okay. --Drewpuppy (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Elenbaas

The external links are spam and don't lead (as far as I can determine) to any information on this person. There are no references of a person with this name in the following media:

Dutch newspapers amsterdam-idea.nl, dutchinamerica.com, dnd.nl, dutchinternationalsociety.org, dutchnews.nl, expatica.com/nl, nisnews.nl, rnw.nl/english, godutch.com/newspaper Sports sources athleticbusiness.com, athlonsports.com, camelotsportsmedia.com, espn.go.com, insidesport.com.au, iplayoutside.com, sportingnews.com, sportsillustrated.cnn.com, world-newspapers.com/car-racing.html Major US newspapers wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com Major newspapers worldwide guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english. Did a PROD.Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maka'ala Yates

There was no mention of this person in January 2011 using any of these spellings:

"Maka'ala Yates" OR "Maka ala Yates" OR "Makaala Yates"

... in any of the following news sources:

Hawaiian publications: staradvertiser.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com, westhawaiitoday.com, mauinews.com, allhawaiinews.com, hawaiinewsdaily.com

US or world newspapers: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariana Fuentes

There was no mention of this person in January 2011 using any of these spellings:

"Mariana Fuentes"

... in any of the following news sources:

Venezuelan publications: english.eluniversal.com, latin-focus.com, latinpetroleum.com, vcrisis.com, veneconomia.com, venezuelanalysis.com

US or world newspapers: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/English, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english

Entertainment magazines: ew.com, divatvmagazine.com, realitytvmagazine.com, entertainmentavenue.com, hellomagazine.com, hollywoodreporter.com, instyle.com, themightyorgan.com, okmagazine.com, people.com, popmatters.com, radaronline.com, thecelebritycafe.com, urban75.com, usmagazine.com, variety.com)

TV newspapers: digitalspy.co.uk, cable360.net, atnzone.com, realitynewsonline.com, realscreen.com, smarttvandsound.com, telechimp.com, tvweek.com, tvguide.com, tvrundown.com, videoageinternational.com, videography.com--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of villages/towns/places

The following conversation is copied here from a TfD for a navbox on a Burmese township. Your input is appreciated. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Homalin Township. I am building coverage of Burma on here and will be tackling the main towns/villages of each township first. To delete the templates would be counterproductive, especially when they would only be restarted again. Have patience and allow things to develop. At some stage mass dabbing will be done, hopefully be a bot and linkes will be fixed and articles started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. Are all of those villages in that township really notable enough to have their own articles per WP:N? --Mepolypse (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Perhaps you should view these images of the people who inhabit these villages. It might be a real eye opener.. But my intention is not to start every single village (at least not in the near future)... I've created templates so I can cross cut from one township to the other and start the most notable towns/villages first like Kutkai, Onbet etc. Building will take time and patience. Most townships will have at least 10 villages which have some information in a British Burmese gazeteer to make it a worthy stub..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for that notability guideline at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines but didn't find it, since it appears to only be an essay, not a guideline. I don't have any experience with notability of places, it just seems to me that these villages may not be that notable. Hopefully someone else can comment on this. --Mepolypse (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I have years of experience as a site developer... If Ambrosden is notable why is it so hard to believe that a similar sized settlement in any other country is notable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(What does site developer mean in this context? Are you talking about non-web sites, web sites in general, or this web site specifically)? I agree that places above a certain size threshold should generally be considered notable. I just have no way of knowing what size these places are, since for example Kyaukkwe (or the link from that article) don't claim that that place is any specific size, so from looking at the article I cannot tell if it is smaller or larger than Ambrosden. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of articles for what experience I have on here.. What I will do is survey each township on google maps. Identify the settlements which look sizeable visually and then use google nbooks to find some info about them. The best thing we can do in regards to Burma is start those which actually have sources available first and are the most notable settlements. Of course there is less likely to sources available on the Internet as "western" villages but you;ll just have to trust me on that one. See Allagappa that's the sort of village stub I'll be starting from township to township. That makes them much more worthwhile than a xxx is a village types stubs. In regards to verifiable populated settlements I believe the vast majority are notable. Bodinnick for instance is a small village as is Aberchalder. The vast majority of Burmese settlements are larger than Aberchalder but many won't have sources readily available on the web yet..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point about being a site developer is. Why is your article count relevant? As for notability of these places, I'm not sure it's a good idea to base the decision of which places are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia on which dots look subjectively big on a map. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I've started 68,000 articles which still exist. That should vouch for something in such a deletionist environment that I clearly have an idea of what is notable... You claim you have no experience in talking about settlement notability, I've had this conversation 10,000 times before.. Did you not read what I said? I said I will find settlements by google maps (by actual village size) and then find sources in google books to start them...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, it's a list of Wikipedians by number of articles started, I thought it was a list of Wikipedians by number of articles edited. The list doesn't make this especially clear, as "article count" is ambiguous. Either way, I fail to see what bearing this has on the arguments.) If you've had this discussion so many times previously I would expect you to have reasonable arguments. Just saying to trust you on the fact that villages are notable when no notability is claimed doesn't seem like a good argument. Yes, I read what you wrote. You said you "identify the settlements which look sizeable visually". You now also say you do so "by actual village size" (which you previously did not say). From this I assume you are judging notability based on the physical area of the populated area. This begs further questions: Are you looking at maps or satellite photos or both? How do you determine where the borders of the populated area are? Are you actually measuring the physical area and have an actual cut-off point (a fixed number of square meters/feet/whatever) or is it more of a shoot-from-the-hit decision whether you consider these places notable. You also say that you "then find sources in google books to start them". I fail to see the results of this last part on for example Kyaukkwe, for which no such sources are noted in the article. --Mepolypse (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are lots of villages where there's content to create useful articles, but I suspect there are also villages where there may never be any such content. IMO there's no rush to create articles for places before we know whether there is. As a bare minimum I think there should be some sort of claim to notability in the article, such as it having a population over a certain threshold, or that something interesting has happened there, or something else that in any way adds notability to the place. The first nine places linked from {{Homalin Township}} which you mentioned earlier don't have any such claim. Why must we create these articles before we know if there's ever going to be anything else added to them. Wouldn't it be better to first check to see if there is any info about them (in Google Books or elsewhere) before creating them? If I were to draw a line of when to create a new article and when not to, it would be between the ninth link and the tenth. --Mepolypse (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how you can possibly say that there is any village where there will not be such content. Our reach into other than the traditional ?Western countries is increasing; our ability to deal with other languages is increasing, at least to the extent that improvement in Google translate permit, the current reach of Google news is increasing, the amount of material in Google books and similar projects likewise--including many projects that are working with nonEnglish material that G Books does not yet extensively handle. I'd keep the present line: if it is a recognized settlement and not a mere neighborhood or group of buildings, it can be expanded. (and even these sorts of subjects often can be, but their definitions are so capable of indefinite expansion downwards that I wouldn't suggest including them automatically). The political or recognized geographic or official definition of a place is sufficient importance. This is a sort of subject where the GNG is irrelevant. (and once again, the concept of WP:N is not a policy, just a guideline--it is the basic rule that Wikipedia includes the elements of a gazetteer which is the supervening policy. And reasonable so, for gazetteers have always been part of encyclopedias.

It would further be a very poor use of time to argue about each article of this sort, & I can predict on the basis of past experience endless quibbling at AfD. The more we get out of AfD the better, so we have time to discuss the serious issues that arise there.

And finally, as important as actual content, is that it would be very counterproductive to discourage such articles. They are the very easiest things for beginners, either to create in the first place or to expand. We must continue to attract new people, and many of them will be up to doing this better at first than they could many other things. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David (DGG). Well said. You are a wise man. It might be that a village or town isn't "notable" yet, but will be in time, or that people move there or want to learn about it, and as the population expands, and our reach expands in terms of knowledge (and language), that it will be useful to have such articles and avoid the quibbling. And a place (unlike a person or a biography) is arguably less contentious of an issue, like a philosophical position or religious edict (what tends to draw conflict and dissension).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rare form of Lacrimal Eye Cancer non hodgkins malt lymphoma

I was diagnosed with a rare eye cancer in 2004. I live in Ontario Canada. Quite frankly the specialists didn't quite know how to approach treating it. It was clinically termed non hodgkins malt lymphoma of the lacrimal gland. I am quite willing to submit medical documentation if requested. I had a biopsy to confirm but tumor was not debulked. It was scary hearing the oncologists state they had never treated this before. I suggested removal of the eye but they had hope for me. I was radiated with 3000 rads in 15 sessions from various angles. I contacted the Canadian Cancer Society as well as the American Cancer Assoc. but no one on file had "my cancer in my strange location". Long story short end result was loss of all teeth, trigeminal nerve damage which was avulsed in 2007 and I will have intercranial brain side ganglion cluster cutalage (cut) Jan 17/11 now 6 years post radiation. I am still trying to get back a painfree life. I had a lens implant done on the left eye but the retina cracked "like styrofoam" and bled obscuring vision in that eye. The right eye is slowly still developing a cataract and will require lens implant with hopefully a better result then the left. Maybe my lacrimal lymphoma experience and all its terrible treatment side effects will help will help future patients and doctors succeed at a better outcome then I got. As I await brain surgery I think of all the things I wish O had had the chance to do in life many regrets. But I did spend most of my years being a great mother to my 2 sons. If the right eye should also respond as the left did I will be clinically blind. The right lens is slowly clouding over. I do wish I had the opportunity to meet Gabriel Byrne as we share a great grand parent in Ireland and my dad was a WW11 Irish Regiment veteran. My husband is a Canadian Armed Forces veteran as well honorably discharged.

Sincerely Emilie LaMarsh - Allan Ontario Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.246.15 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of 'time traveler' film in The Circus

The problem: a few months ago, some fellow thought he saw a woman using a cell phone in 1928, gleaned from the public premiere footage of the 1928 film The Circus. He made a YouTube video of it, and it quickly picked up millions (at last count, I think it was 10's of millions). Major news outlets picked up the story, and it was all over the news for about a week or so.
In the article, there was a lot of resistance towards mentioning the observation at all, citing that it wasn't related to the actual film, but instead to a supplementary reel included in the DVD set that filmed the premiere of the movie at Mann's Chinese Theater. After a lot of (heated) discussion, the event was whittled down to just a mention in the "See Also" section, and wikilinked to Internet Phenomena.
The article has pretty much languished both before and after this kerfuffle, seeing little int he way of expansion. Recently, there's been a push to remove it from both places, leaving the article with no reference of the matter at all. I am of the opinion that the event should be included, in a popular cultural reference section, which would look something like this. I don't think that the event could stand in an article all by itself, as has been recommended by at least one person (which to me seems like a sneaky way to simple delete the content indirectly); I am fairly certain that few pop cultural references could survive in their own article, especially when it seem inextricably linked to the film and it's premiere.
It was suggested that some input and insight could be garnered here, and I am always in favor of widening a loop instead of keep it down to a small group of exclusionists (perhaps a faintly unfriendly assessment, but a valid one indeed, considering the lack of expansion in the article by anyone seeking to nix any mention of this matter). Any thoughts on the matter would be very helpful. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This shows appaling bad faith. The objections are based on the fact that A; it has had no lasting impact (not news), B: most (if not all the coverage) treated it prety much as a but of a joke (not news, Trivial, fringe), C: that it has nothing to do with the actual film (Fringe, Undue), D: that no actual expert has accpted the 'time traveller' explantion (fringe), E: that (as far as I can tell) RS have generaly not confirmed what the one reported witness has seen (fringe). There may also be other objecttons.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, if any bad faith is being presented here, it would likely be by your, Slatersteven. Someone suggested that I bring it to a noticeboard, and I did so. Are you suggesting that doing so is forum-shopping? Now, that's appallingly bad faith. Get your facts straight, before tossing accusations around, please. Now, to address your points:

A - No lasting impact? The event was 80 years ago! It was reported by major news organs; its still cited by the same, and is notable (therefore dismissing your Notnews argument en toto).

B - It is your opinion that the news organs treated it as a joke; you haven't any citable evidence that they treated it as such. It was reported as a news story in at least a dozen major news networks and followed up on later by reporters seeking to debunk the hypothesis of a cell phone. therefore, not trivial. As well, you are seriously misapprehending our fringe guidelines; no one is advocating the idea that it was a time traveler. What was curious was the usage of what appeared to be a cell phone. That is what generated the interest, the news stories and their follow-up stories. As far as I can tell, cell phones are not fringe science.

C - Wrong again. The source film was included in the DVD collection Chaplin films, this one related explicitly to the film in question (to whit, its premiere at Mann's Chinese Theater). We don't have to look too far to find a connection - the compilers/manufacturers/producers of the DVD collection all found it to be a connected matter. To say it isn't connected is to dismiss the fan craze at the premieres of Harry Potter movies, because they aren't related to the films.

D - No one has specifically stated that the film shows a time traveler; Clarke himself only suggested it. Most of the news agency stories have been on the cell phone anachronism. So again, no fringe.

E - Of course, Slatersteven is completely mistaken here, as every news story not only commented on what Clarke said, but made their own observations as well. As did the debunkers. Yet again, neither Fringe, Notnews or Trivial. In point of fact, you have offered each of these arguments before, and every time they were dismissed by myself and others, SS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been no lack of input from editors at the article's talk page and the discussion is not at any kind of a standstill. Regardless of how much one editor may disagree with the outcome, there's a clear consensus that the material shouldn't be included. But I guess additional input is always appreciated even when the disagreeing party engages in forum shopping and threats of ARBCOM over the issue. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, I specifically suggested Jack post at this noticeboard as an alternative to his desire for "arbitration" and to get wider input from the community. I've since asked him to refactor the text of his notice to be a bit less accusatory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I did say 'arbitration' instead of 'mediation'. Oops. I meant that I see this attempt to first marginalize then remove a heavily cited news story as censorship. Not one valid policy or guideline has been presented that actually negates the interesting nature of this story, which is obviously of value to the article (page stats went through the roof for the article during the initial reporting of the matter, and have remained rather higher than they were pre-reporting). Again, I am not sure where my forum-shopping has occurred.

Lastly, if my "tone" seems "accusatory", its due to the fact that no one can cite a valid policy/guideline that this information violates. All I am getting is 'I don't like it' dressed up in links to wiki policies that the editors in talk are apparently not actually reading. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the notability of the article itself is not in question. This is an issue of placement of text within an article, and whether it belongs there at all, given that it has no relationship to the film itself. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, i disagree, and so do the folk who produced, edited and created the DVD collection. Last time I checked, our personal opinions do not outweigh actual facts - they considered it related. Therefore, it is. In a more basic way (if the previous wasn't enough), consider that the only reason this film was made was because The Circus was premiering, and the creators of that film wanted to show people in attendance (presumably, for marketing purposes). Does it have to do with the plot of the movie? Clearly no, but then, how many film articles do we have in mainspace that discuss pop culture/controversy/etc. sections? Purging this sets a precedent for removing any and all material that doesn't meet the NEW criteria for inclusion being presented here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no objecting to closing this and moving it to the fringe noticeboard as notability isn't in question. But I think the best place for this is someplace in dispute resolution (mediation seems like too big of a stick and third opinion too small though). Hobit (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the preemptory closure of this discussion. It is not a fringe-related matter. At all. I'd like to get some weigh-in from someone other than the folk opposing this in the article discussion, if that wouldn't seem untoward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've got my support for the inclusion of the material. Keeping it out is very strange in my view. I just don't think it should have more than a sentence or so due to WP:UNDUE. That said, this noticeboard is about the notability of sources and there is no real debate on that so there is no real reason to keep the discussion here. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hobit, for the support. I am not inclined to put a lot into the article, either (I too, want to avoid undue concerns, esp. in such an anemic article) Not sure where the matter should go, though Fringe is clearly not the route.

As for the strangeness of keeping it out, I share your view, and suspect that some folk don't want their article about a classic film 'muddied up' by any of those internets tubes. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't get the reticence, either. It smells like censorship to me, or just laziness; only one person has expanded the article at all since the story broke (aside from my attempt of adding 4 sentences and one for the Lede, that is); everyone seems more hell-bent on keeping this out than actually improving the article. That's why a noticeboard seemed the only sane avenue left. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself. I support the present weight and wording of the exisiting "See also" link. As originally wrought back in October, it represented a good compromise between yourself and several opposing editors. I think it works fine as is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I was fine with that as well, until the indef blocked user thought it might be nifty to stir up things by calling for its removal (and of course, removing it). I think that the article would be better served by a mix between the pre-existing form and the edit I added as a test. the current one is too short, and mine is considered too long. I think ts pretty important to point out why the person was thought to be a time traveler; thousands of readers came to us to find out. They undoubtedly left disappointed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, Hobit. As for you, Scotty, I've seen your talk page opinions, so I'm simply going to loan you a few bucks so you can head out to the store and pick up some AGF, okay? Calling an edit which in any other article would be considered just fine as disruptive is a pretty solid example of bad faith. In point of fact, I created the edit to demonstrate how the info could be used effectively and not unduly. That you cannot see that is more your problem than mine. If you want to take more shots at me personally, do so on my talk page - Wikipedia isn't a battleground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You should not be adding edits "as a test." See WP:POINT. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:BRD is also relevant. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not if it's a "test." Editors are not permitted to disrupt Wikipedia for the purpose of conducting "tests." ScottyBerg (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For the last time, SB, it wasn't disruptive, but constructive. Changing all the text in the article to bold, making every third word pink, wor writing an entire treatise on the Franco-American mindset in the middle of the article would all be considered disruptive as per our guidelines. My edit was offered as an edit to improve the quality of the article, Now, if you wish to argue that my edit was disruptive, Wikiquette complaints or AN/I is located elsewhere in the Wikipedia. Please stop trying to tangentially reframe the problem, and focus on the issue at hand, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BRD only apllies when you are trying to identify all interested edss. As this was already known it cannot apply. This was 9as the user admits) just a test edit, that is what sandbox is for. It mwas not disruptive, but it should not really have been done.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Again, I'd like to get some input from editors who aren't actively involved in the disagreement in the article to participate in this discussion; most of us in the dispute are already of a cemented opinion on the matter, and many are not really in a collaborative mood. I'd like to hear from others and get some new ideas. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I have to agree with WP:UNDUE for any more than a small sentence about the time traveller, perhaps included in a larger paragraph on the DVD release; within a rewritten rerelease section (suitably renamed to cover all releases). That said I think the Time Traveller would meet the criteria of a notable Urban Legend and could either hold an article of it's own or be more likely included within an Time Travel Urban Legends article if merged with Andrew Carlssin along with small sections on John Titor and the Philadelphia Experiment. In that case The Circus (film) would only need to wikilink to that article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Stuart Jamieson.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think moving it to Time Travel Urban Legends articel would be a good idea. We could then have a link in the see also section but no explanation .Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Which I've pointed out is a mistake, Slatersteven. People come to the article looking for more information. Directing them to a non-existent article, without explanation means that we are ignoring what the reader wants. Understand that there is ample proof that readers come to the rather anemic article to get info on the time traveling cell phone user stuff. Why do you want to flagrantly put your own interests above that of the reader? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a reference to this in "Time Travel Urban Legends" would be a good idea, but reserve judgment on whether such an article would be notable. Evidently this would be a product of the merger of existing articles, which indicates there may be enough for an article. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We would create the articel, not re-direct to a non-existing one. I thought that would have been obvious I appoligise for my mistake. Just becaseu readers come to a page to look up something is ot a reason for it being there (and by the way they can look it up by following the link to the newly created page, if we have one). If a page said that Barak Obama was a panda disguised as a man and that generated 15 million hits that would not be a reason to retain it. How are my interests involved in this? do you know what my interests are?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now created a page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw. I have some concerns about the notability of that topic, to be frank. Wouldn't merger with Urban legends be a better idea? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1> I am thinking of a reanem to Time travellers cuaght on film. 2. Its onlt the first part, I suspect (and if oterhs want to show willing chip =in) that there may be otehr such 'time traveller myths'. At this tuimke lets see how this goes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The original suggestion was that several articles be merged into this, if I understand it correctly. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It was. But someone has to start. Which I decided to do. Now we have something to work on lets do so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the suggestion made above, this article would be the product of a merger involving (or simply incorporate) Andrew Carlssin John Titor and the Philadelphia Experiment. If it's just about The Circus I don't think it will work. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I as not aware I had susgested it should only be about the Chaplin story. Nor do I bleive the artciel gives the imprsion it is. Its a work in progress. I agree that these should be merged in, I was hopinig that otehrs might consider helpiing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Two of the articles mentioned above (Titor and Philadelphia) are quite lengthy. I'm not sure they could be merged. cScottyBerg (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Titor and Philadelphia should be summarised and a {{main}} hatnote should link to the full articles. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of something like that. Not sure those four examples are sufficient to support a separate article, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot more than four, for instance de:Rudolph Fentz (en doesn't seem to have an article on this one despite being an American Urban Legend) also Montauk Project another Philadelphia experiment style Legend. , Chronovisor, Moberly-Jourdain incident and so on. Reasonably the article could have as much notability as Time slip. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, good. This seems to have potential. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's great that the dissent has created a new article, but that doesn't alleviate the need to mention the matter in the relevant article. The kerfuffle arose out of a DVD extra for The Circus. I don't believe that anyone has suggested overloading the article with the topic, but it seems unbalanced to fail to mention it at all (sort of a reverse WP:UNDO, whenrein something is studiously and purposely avoided when it shouldn't be). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dharanidhar Sahu

Dubious article. No references in Indian, British or US press. Removed unsourced material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Paul Vigay

I worry about the notability of the page Paul Vigay. The page is practically an orphan and seems to have been created in the weeks after his death. Is this an example of a memorial?--Flibble (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I added two references to PV. There were many more suggesting clear notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, if he's notable as a 'crop circle expert' as your references suggest, shouldn't there be a bit more in the article about crop circles? (something more than "Paul had many interests, most public one being Crop Circles."). --Flibble (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, bit of a rant, there's a tad more than that, but not really a lot. The opening paragraph is a bit confusing though saying he was best known for one thing and notable for something else. I'm not really sure what the page as a whole is meant to be about, other than a bio of a man that had several hobbies and died ... --Flibble (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't spend much time on this, but what I did was a quick search using his name, just for British publications. About 10 listings came up; and there are probably more in other publications abroad. I used two for references. One of them referred to him as an expert. So, my sense is there's more to this guy than just a hobbyist. If you'd like to do a PROD, be my guest; my sense is he's notable, and that a sensible review would conclude the article should stay, regardless of what people think about UFOs and crop circles. (My guess is: all hooie.) That's my opinion about the article, however, that he's notable, that's all. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't worry too much about it! Anyway, I previously added a news article reference but on reflection, in my naivety perhaps I was being a bit too bold. A section on his (externally referenced) Works would increase his notability. If that or something similar doesn't happen then I agree that his notability for Wikipedia is questionable. --trevj (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Luckily editor LuckyLouie has improved the body text of the article a fair bit, so it's a lot less bitty. It could still do with references in general and to his UFO/Crop circle work *or* his RISC OS work to boost the notability (that arn't the links to Paul Vigay's webpages in the external links section), but it's much improved.--Flibble (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work LuckyLouie and Trevj and Flibble. (reminder: Remember indenting using colons is used to indicate a new writer on the talk pages.) I think the article is better for your efforts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I searched but could find no books authored by Vigay, or anything to expand material regarding his work as a 'crop circle expert'. Aside from the onetime BBC mention, it seems limited to his own self published website. It appears the newspapers treated the story of his death as somewhat of a novelty factor (UFO Expert Dies Mysteriously!) and tagged him with superlatives to amp up the drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to PROD this article, be my guest, but my hunch is a review will have people concluding to keep it because of numerous newspaper accounts identifying him as an "expert" as well as an unsolved mystery regarding his death, again with newspaper accounts. To suggest the newspapers were wrong, or misled, that Vijay's expertise was bogus, well, I don't see how we are in any kind of position to make such a case. The newspapers said X. Wikipedia says the newspapers say X. That's how Wikipedia works. But I agree with you that crop circle expert is kind of a bogus credential; but that's my POV, perhaps yours too?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article as is, since Vigay's death is shown to be reasonably notable, at least in Britain. I think his notability as an "expert" would fail WP:PROF, WP:AUTH or WP:BIO though. I have no issue with people being actual crop circle/ufo experts. But I'd have liked to see wider sources than newspapers describe him as an international expert in whatever. If the newspapers said someone was a "gigolo", it may not necessarily follow that Wikipedia has to describe him as a gigolo. But again, no big deal, and certainly I have no real disagreement with the article as is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hill Street Blues-"Notability" of cast list

I am at a crossroads in a mild edit/revert tug of war over the addition to the cast list of Hill Street Blues of 'one off' or short early appearances by actors who later found fame and fortune. The other Cerberus editors involved; Debresser, JohnFromPinckney, and Drmargi who have ONLY reverted MY additions to the list, cite wp:notability and wp: indiscriminate. I disagree and maintain that notability refers to initial article subject choice more than content and that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply either. One editor stoutly maintains that notability is a "pillar". The list IS untidy and the section concerned "Other Characters" has too many red links but is worthy of inclusion in my opinion.It may need sub dividing. One editor suggested that the list should be deleted as the WP page is not a "fan page". I found a fan page but it is poorly resourced and maintained. IMDB contains a comprehensive cast list for each episode including these appearances but they are not all listed together anywhere else. Rather than continue as hounds snarling politely over a disputed bone, I thought to go with the suggestion of listing it here for consideration. Thoughts ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hill_Street_Blues

There are 2 discussions on this page about the cast list

The cast-- sortable table? New organization? and

One off appearances by those who went on to fame and fortune

Simply adding back the 10 names each time to a 30 name sub section list seems like a tiresome edit badminton exercise. I would like to see the list restored with both the episode concerned and the time mark included where the appearance is a short one off. Chris Rock in the "A Pound of Flesh episode" @19.51 looks about 14 years old. Having such a precise reference for each such appearance seems to me a useful resource. Any suggestions?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with what Tumadoireacht is proposing is the list amounts to an arbitrary laundry list of appearances by actors who (in his/her own words) "went on to fame and fortune." If that isn't WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT, particularly absent any criterion for inclusion aside from his/her personal judgments, I don't know what is. Hills Street Blues is 30+ years old, and every show of that age is bound it have a group of what ranges from stars to blink-and-you'll miss 'em appearances by actors who went on to greater things to its credit. Heaven knows, we could talk the day away about Burt Reynolds' start on Gunsmoke or Clint Eastwood's on Rawhide, much less the incubator for talent any American soap opera has been. But does that make any of this notable, whether in the Wikipedia sense or in the simple application of the word? Moreover, is any of it encyclopedic? Tumadoireach has yet to address these points, preferring to pick at our application of Wikipedia principles and guidelines as a means to force his/her edits.

The HSB article needs a major cast reorganization. Another editor removed the trivial "fame and fortune" list once Tumadoireach had seemingly left the discussion with a petulant farewell. I then took a first pass at reorganizing the cast list and command structure in such a way that a casual reader at least stood a chance of determining who the main cast and major players were. It needs vastly more work, not addition of more and more names of less and less consequence. Drmargi (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This petal is still here petal, and petulant as ever was.I am delighted that my suggestion of subdividing the list has been taken up but am getting tired of simply adding back the 11(so far) names of characters played by big name actors in early roles. An encyclopedia is a compendium by definition; what one editor might characterize as 'trivia" and of "no consequence" might be the useful detail that a wikipedia reader might delight in finding neatly,clearly and concisely collated. Editors hotly opposed to this inclusion have variously suggested that this should be a separate list away from the cast list, that including the 'wrong' actors or that failing to list some invalidates listing others, that such a subsection of the cast list constitutes a "laundry list" (?), and that this information has no business being here at all. Brandishing guideline articles and actually reading them seem to be two disparate activities for some editors which can create both confusion and heat. "Fancruft" can be both a pejorative and uncivil term as its article reveals to those who read it rather than just mention it. Also "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." Listing the actors concerned links to the real world.I am curious to see where this goes. Any big guns got an opinion?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the sarcasm in this and several others of your posts, including your back-handed attempt at insulting me on my talk page (now reverted), I would again invite you to review WP:CIVIL. My position is clear. Unfortunately, the complaining editor has yet to observe the custom of posting notices of this discussion on the article talk page and the talk pages of involved editors. One would hope he/she will do so, and allow all involved and interested parties, as well as the desired "big guns" an opportunity to address the issue at hand. Drmargi (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The position adopted by the honourable member is far from clear and has been far from civil. There has been a sea change since I posted here which is welcome but the accompanying shift from describing my edits as trivial,diluting,meaningless etc to the loud pious moral superiority of injured waiting to "weigh in"(whatever that means) borders on the risible.I have asked for a rationale for repeated reverts of 10 names from a 112 name cast list and the removal of one name from the recurring minor cast members list. No useful rationale has been forthcoming other than vague adjectives such as "watery'" or "we would have to do this for other pages" The cited policy references are bogus. Notability,for instance refers to subject, not content,very clearly and is not a pillar as claimed. I believe a confused notion of notability is being exercised in the fullest sense of the word. I have raised these and other objections but have been repeatedly reverted.This discussion was linked on the article talk page as soon as it was opened.

Given the bristling response to my post on this editors home page, I hesitate to post on others but will attempt to verify whether the assertion of policy and practice is, at least in this one instance not in error.If it is correct I will post a notice on the pages of the 2 other editors who are involved, if they have not chimed in by tomorrow. Yours in WikiJesus--Tumadoireacht (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am one of the editors who has taken the point of view that one-off appearances are not notable. Unless we are taking about guest appearances, which should be listed properly and in a separate sub-section. I have with amazement seen the posting editor say that notability is not a concern here, and his unbased claim that all appearances are noteworthy. Since he did not want to listen to other editors on the talkpage discussion, where three other editors seem to disagree with him, I referred him to this noticeboard. 04:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Wrong,wrong and wrong. A confederacy of dunces does not make something right. Guest appearances are another matter.They were not a part of the HSB.It was not that kind of show. I have listened agog to assertions like "notability is a pillar" from Cerebrus. They make me ask once again-have you read the notability article or just heard about it?. An analogy may help -a talk show host is doing a "this is your life" type exercise with an elderly actor -what gets included invariably-a charming clip of early roles(people love it). How about this- a wikipedia reader attends or writes a table quiz or has a bet -Did Don Cheadle ever appear in Hill Street Blues ? Bingo! the notable early appearances list-one happy customer. The laughable part is that the editor leading the charge on this one began by listing the people she felt should be on the list before a u-turn to repeated reversions of it.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is turning into such a disagreement. I've been away from the HSB pages for a while, but historically I have contributed a large number of edits to HSB and HSB List of Episodes, so hope I may just chime in on this discussion. I agree with those requesting that the conversation remain civil! I would also like to lend my support to Tumadoireacht (talk). It would be nonsense to include those who have merely walk-on one-liners or appear in background shots as "film extras", but I do believe that the cast list should include those who had a significant plot role, whether it be across the many years of HSB, or just for one series (which is English for 'season'!), or just for one episode. An encyclopedia is meant to inform, and I am therefore very much an inclusionist. We can't include everyone who ever appeared on-screen in any HSB episode, and we are bound to include the principal characters, so somewhere in between we must draw a line - for me that line comes between irrelevant walk-on or background extras, and characters who had an actual place in the storyline, even if only for one or two episodes. If in doubt, leave it in - it's all information. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 14:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Guest starring roles of size aren't at issue; it's the endless list of walk on's, under-fives (under five lines) and similar minor appearances that are of concern. Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What I am proposing is putting back 9 notable names onto the cast list of 112-all had speaking parts. all are now huge stars. This is the first mention of a five line cut off- it seems like a good idea . Some progress at last ! .Thank you Timothy Titus. This inclusionist was starting to feel very lonely. All 9 fit the five line requirement.("Chris Rock" turned out to be Lahmard J Tate) Unless I see compelling arguments to the contrary i will put the 9 famous 5 liners back onto the page.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to do so. Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

do you have consensus for flippant and vindictive reversions ?--Tumadoireacht (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Although mentioned by name in the first paragraph of this thread, I wasn't notified about it until some 10 hours later, although I was actively editing during part of the intervening time. I see that since I last looked at the Hill Street Blues (HSB) article, much has happened, not all of it civil or productive.

I should point out a misnomer which may seem minor but could confuse uninvolved editors reading here. This isn't about the cast list; the only one in the article is the set of 15 starring roles in the infobox. What we are actually talking about (or should be talking about) is the list of characters on the show.

The character list of this cop show is (surprise!) mostly cops, and the HSB article has a somewhat extended list of them in its "Police officers (listed by rank)" section. Non-cops are listed in "Other characters", starring parts first. I take the character list in each part and in the aggregate to be the significant characters, where the character was either important to the story or other characters, or at least recurring. Clearly, we needn't (and IMO shouldn't) list every credited part ever appearing on the show.

The conflict there is that User:Tumadoireacht wants to add a few names to this character list not because the characters are important or recurring, but because the individual actors later became well-known. I happen to think that's inappropriate. I believe there may have been (or we could have had) consensus to make mention of these before-they-were-stars appearances, but in a completely separate list.

What editors at this noticeboard choose to consider here is up to them, but I don't want anyone (more) confused about what the issues are. I don't think every character is notable just because the actor's career developed thereafter. I also don't think mentioning that Ally Sheedy had a part once tells the reader anything about the show. The actors became notable, but their characters weren't; adding them goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

John dear - they WERE in a separate labeled list when you first removed them on the 6th of January before even checking the talk page). We have come full circle. At this stage we have a swirling spectrum of objections to a very small and useful addition to a big page. The debate text now exceeds the whole page text. That is really funny. The obstructionism and non inclusion fever has spread to adjoining and to new sections of the page(see Guns subsection -currently reverted- an irrelevant part of a cop show page apparently) Sadly the battle over this small cast inclusion has also infected the critical faculties. 1/ a cast list is not about actors ? (by definition and in this case too the cast list lists actors) Let he who is without sin cast the first bone 2/Hollywood stars are not notable? Come on lads ! that dog will not hunt 3/recurring characters may or may not be notable depending on who is wielding the revert conch today-at present Jerome Thor (I know) is "notable' but Ally Sheedy is not.Go figure. Something stinks on the Hill.4/ a show with an ensemble cast and no guest stars should have a guest star listing instead. Needs no explanation.This is 1981 and HSB not 1971 and Mannix. I could go on but the anal obstructionism is clearly apparent, and is the opposite of what wikipedia is about. Wiki is not paper and editing is about MAKING the best use of available material and people. Am I to take it from John of Pinckeys two conditional pluperfects(" I believe there may have been (or we could have had) consensus") that we can include the nine cast members if we list them elsewhere on the page under a label other than cast ? That was, after all, what I was trying to do 5 days and a lot of pixels ago.--Tumadoireacht (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess not ! -the redoubtable veteran editor Drmargi just reverted Ally Sheedy again and the vastly improved Guns section without a second thought citing INDISCRIMINATE. The problem is that that guideline has no section that applies in this case just as NOTABILTY does not apply. i have asked Drmargi to be a little more precise about which section of it applies. No reply just yet. Could it be that some editors simply cite an arbitrary policy when they dislike an entry or an editor  ? Both Drmargi and I have just received edit warring warnings so i am at a loss of where to go from here. The Village Pump ? The discussion here seems to have stalled/died. Hello HELLO anyone there ? --Tumadoireacht (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah Lads !! We are on the wrong page ! read the blurb at the top ! Notability is about page subject SELECTION not about mingey edits-which kind of clinches my argument --Tumadoireacht (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view (never edited a HSB article - only watched it a few times). First, yes, notability in WP generally has to do with the question of whether an article about a given subject is sufficiently notable to even exist. It is not about whether a given piece of information is sufficiently notable to be included in an article.

Second, I would support the inclusion, in some form (and I agree as part of the character list is not ideal), of lists of actors who had minor roles but later went on to become famous. Maybe it deserves to be a separate note or section in the article. Regardless of how it's presented, there are many reasons to include such information, but I suggest the most important is it might be interesting. If some actor is listed to have appeared in one of these episodes, then a reader seeking to learn about that actor's early career can learn about that appearance simply by clicking on "what links here" on that actor's page. So it might not be a significant enough role to warrant listing on the actor's own page, but the information is still there, because that actor becoming famous later makes the early appearance on that show, well, noteworthy. While I understand the objection to including this information in the character lists, my understanding is that that was not where the information was first added. I have not seen a reason for objecting inclusion elsewhere in these articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is always a fresh breeze when cycling

Thank you Born2cycle for providing both confirming and supplementary rationale for inclusion. I would like to include that 9 name actor list and a section perhaps on guns as "characters" too but dog in the manger reverts sit squarely and silently across the threshold at present.

I am curious to know your thinking or indeed anybody's on these actors not being appropriate for a subsection of the cast/characters list but I am not hung up particularly on it being placed there.

I think such a list would be further enriched and useful by including the year and relevant episode title for each person. The minimum five lines of dialogue idea mentioned by user Drmargi seems like a good cut off point.

However my life does not depend on the inclusions or on "winning".

What has been most illuminating has been following this thing through and the realization that citers of policy pages are often unfamiliar with the cited policy page contents and repeatedly take the chance that a lesser experienced editor once they see WP:BIGBLUELONGWORD cited in an edit description or talk page will simply walk away assuming the citer knows what she/he is talking about and thus lets the smoke and mirrors citers get on with owning and tag teaming an article. This emperor's clothes mullarkey is more likely to be afoot when 3 or 4 policy pages are cited all at once. It is a funny and unintended effect of initially taking such legerdemain misdirection and tomfoolery seriously that this debate has ended up on a Notability debate page.

Discovering this has encouraged me greatly. I may post something on my user page or elsewhere about it- to encourage others who might falter before such ersatz erudition edits. Asking the practitioner of such obfustification to direct you to the section of the policy page they reckon applies can have a salutary effect. Also, I had a further realization that when such a fever of ownership infects a Cerebrus cabal that patterns and timings indicate canvassing and co-ordination taking place outside the Wikipedia communication system. Blanket citing of "notability" or "indiscriminate" for new content edits are good warning signs particularly in combination. This should not be read as an attack on any particular editor but as a good faith observation on an insidious practice.

I was going to go straight on to the mediation/dispute resolution route to see whether it might help ease this log jam but I may wait a while and keep my powder dry to see if more reasonable folk like yourself come out of the woodwork or there is a thaw on discussion from the now edit-by-silence triumvirate brigade. Mind the Divas. Yours in wikijesus [1].--Tumadoireacht (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indie Screenings / Good Screenings

Hi. I would like to add a new page on Indie Screenings (www.indiescreenings.net) - an online film distribution system. The system gives anyone anywhere access the opportunity to purchase ato licenses to screen certain independent films, hold a screening in the location of their choice and keep any revenue for themselves. It launched with Franny Armstrong's climate change blockbuster The Age of Stupid.

Indie Screenings has been taken up by Channel 4's BRITDOC Foundation under the guise of 'Good Screenings' (www.goodscreenings.net). They feature only award-winning social justice films.

Currently Indie Screenings is referenced on a number of wikipedia entries (some i made myself) - ie The Age of Stupid, Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford.

FILMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE on Good Screenings - The Battle for Barking 1.4 Billion Reasons The Yes Men Fix the World Heavy Load Chosen The Age of Stupid In the Land of the Free McLibel The End of the Line The Day after Peace Erasing David Moving to Mars The Hunger Season The Reckoning

I wanted to check that you felt this a suitable topic for a new page before i went any further than just thinking about it.

Thank you. Madsy19 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your help needed!

Please, give your attitude about the article Kommandcore on its Discussion page.

Damir Zakiev (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Solace game

I feel like there should be a page about Solace. It's an indie game, but it has won multiple awards, (listed here:http://solacegame.com/?page_id=32 ) and one of them is from the famous PAX 2010. Multiple times, I have come to this website in hope of just reading about it (like I do with any subject that I am intrested during openings in my time) after seeing it on television. G4 TV to be exact. I found it, realized it was free, played it, and it was one of the most unique games I have ever played. (more information here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/CassandraKhaw/20101208/6581/Solace_Rewrites_Grief_Into_Something_Beautiful.php ) I think this game deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videogamegenius (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not write the article? First check if it's mentioned in other places. If you need guidance, ask moi.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Symposium on Combinatorial Search

I created a wikipage about SoCS, the Symposium on Combinatorial Search. However, an editor deleted it because he found that it only references primary sources and personal webpages. Although the Symposium on Combinatorial Search is not among the most important Artificial Intelligence conferences in the world (yet!), it is the most prominent reference to all researchers in the field of combinatorial optimization and heuristic search. Thus, I added an entry in section 15 (Others) of List of artificial intelligence conferences with a link to a new wikipage on the conference. Since it has been deleted, you can check its contents in one of my subpages SoCS.

I am not advertising the conference! All I want is to improve the list of conferences in the field of AI and I did like in the case of ECML KDD and created a wiki page which is much the same and I would be very happy if you would give me some feedbackCarlos Linares (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What your article needs is references. First, identify newspapers and journals and magazines that are likely to have posted information about SoCS. Next, reference them. You can use this guide or others. Then float the article. If you need further assistance, ask moi.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic Video Management System

I would like to write an article on "Academic Video Management System", thus creating an overview of an emerging niche of software solutions/products helping universities and other academic institutions to deal with the increasing amount of video, created mainly by recording lectures. The reason for writing the article is that AVMS have emerged throughout the last couple of years as a new and unique product range, constituting their own market segment (cf. reports from Frost&Sullivan and Wainhouse). The article is supposed to be part of the "Educational_technology" section where it would help to identify this new group of products. In this, it would be structured very much like the article on "Learning Management Systems" or the one on "Web Conferencing" by outlining the features of AVMS, their role in education and the underlying technology, with an additional overview on existing solutions. The article would also seek to consolidate the terminology in subsuming "Lecture Capture Solutions" (as they are being referred to in the market reports mentioned), "Lecture Recording Technology", "Media Management Systems" etc.). Finally, the article will also relate to "Lecture Recording". Caveat: I'm the product manager for Opencast Matterhorn, an open source AVMS. --Oas777 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Blackarachnia

This is a fictional character who was a star of 3 tv series, and has a video game where she is a player character. She once had a page which was deleted for lacking sources, so I've been working on it in my userspace. User:Mathewignash/Blackarachnia It's still a bit long, so I need to trim back some stuff, but is was originally MUCH LARGER and full of plot summary. I've also added many citations. Helpful advice would be appreciated. Mathewignash (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You've put a lot of work into this; good job. My advice => first paragraph should have some sentence explaining why the character is notable -- perhaps first female transformer which became successful in such-and-such a world, etc, or whatever you think the notability is. I think it would be helpful for us non-transformer types (such as me) to get the context of what it was about first, perhaps even a mention of how the transformer-type toys came about, what their impact has been, and where this toy or character fits in with the overall development of related toys. That is, assume people are totally clueless about TV shows, transformer toys, and write in a way to bring them into this world, by bringing them from what's familiar to what's less familiar. Generally the article needs much trimming; good writers know that less is more. Particularly chop stuff that looks promotional such as links or references to toy sites. My sense is the quality of references can be improved, that inline ones are better than uncheckable ones (such as a reference to a book). The general problem is that there isn't a lot of good secondary source material about things like toys or fictional characters so what happens is that standards for references must sometimes be lowered. Good luck with this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a tidbit about her being the first reoccuring female villian Transformer, and added the years of broadcast to the tv series. Mathewignash (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Good. Reoccuring => recurring. Villian => Villain. FYI. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There will be spellcheck of the whole article next. ;-) Mathewignash (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Contributor, Nashville

I wish to find out if the non-profit organization and street newspaper in Nashville, The Contributor, meets eligibility requirements for a Wikipedia. It is run by a non-profit organization -- newspaper vendors are homeless or formerly homeless individuals and much of the content is submitted by homeless authors/poets/artists as well as many articles by people in the community, outreach workers, and students. As of December 2010, The Contributor became the largest street newspaper in the country, circulating over 100,000 copies a month. This organization has been featured on many news stations, filmed for documentary purposes, covered in a story by NPR, and much more. The founder, Tasha French is a leading community outreach worker and business woman in Nashville. IN the past year, this paper has grown exponentially, but has yet to have a Wikipedia page. For even more information and details, please feel free to visit the direct website: www.thecontributor.org While there is a Wikipedia page for a Mormon publication, The Contributor, it is in no way related or linked to the newspaper.

Thank you very much.

68.53.56.36 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's received as much media attention as you say it has then yes, I would say it meets general notability guidelines. You may want to compare against some of the other articles we have on street newspapers, see: Category:Street newspapers. -- œ^™ 07:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Salus Alpha

I have marked the new article Salus Alpha as patrolled but have also attached the Notability tag as there are no outside sources establishing notability. I would judge that the subject is notable, but the whole article reads like company propaganda rather than an encyclopedic article and I do not know Wikipedia policy on this or how to tag it appropriately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it for being a copyright violation, it was copypasted straight from the company webpage. In the future if you come across articles like this you can tag them with {{db-spam}} or if you can confirm it's been copied from a website, use {{db-copyvio}}. -- œ^™ 11:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will know better what to do next time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Armstrong - Notability?

I'd like to add a new page on Peter Armstrong. best known as the founder of the BBC's Domesday Project often cited as the first multimedia project. He was a producer at the BBC for 25 years, founded well-known series like Everyman, Songs of Praise and Global Report as well as writing/producing one-off series and programmes including The Sea of Faith which led to the formation of The Sea of Faith movement. He went on to set up the BBC's first MultiMedia Unit and then his own company, MMC, the Multi Media Corporation. He co-founded oneworld.net in 1995 [2], the first internet portal devoted to global justice and development and received a Lifetime Achievement BAFTA at the Interactive Awards [3]. Any comment welcome ... Madsy19 (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Adam Wishart - Notability?

I would like to add a new page on Adam Wishart. Author / director. Has written Leaving Reality Behind, co-authored with historian Regula Bochsler, and "One in Three: A Son's Journey Into the History and Science of Cancer" published in 2006 by Profile Books in the UK, by Grove Atlantic in America and translated and published into German, Finnish, Chinese, Icelandic and Japanese. The book was nominated for The Royal Society Book Award in 2007. As a Director, he made "A Class Apart" for the "Back to the Floor" series, for the BBC, which won The Royal Television Society "Best Feature" in 1997. He directed one episode of the BAFTA-winning "Blood on the Carpet" series and was Series Producer on the "Trouble At The Big Top" four-part series following Peter Mandleson as he pushed through the Millenium Dome project. In 2006 he wrote, directed and presented "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing" for BBC2, which followed the battle against the Oxford Animal Lab, and which went on to win the Grierson Award for Best Science Documentary in 2007. In 2008, he directed "Warlords Next Door?" for Channel 4, which won the "Best World Political Documentary" at the Banff International Television Festival in 2009. In 2009 he wrote, directed and featured in "The Price of Life" for BBC2, about the rationing of high cost cancer drugs by the British "Death Panel", which was nominated for Best Science Documentary in the Grierson Awards of 2009.

Phew ... ! I think he definitely deserves his own page! ;-) Madsy19 (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Warren L. Carpenter

I don't think this article meets the criteria for notability so I'm posting a message here. Warren L. Carpenter served in the Marine Corps as a doctor and the article goes into specifics about the awards he won, where he studied, and where he was stationed at but that's basically it. There's nothing significant beyond the fact that he was an officer in the Marines. There's nothing in the article that warrants him being on Wikipedia more than any other Marine doctor. I don't think this article meets the notability standards in WP:GNG. WLC doesn't seem to have significant coverage because only four sources as used. Not sure whether or not the sources used are reliable because only one of them has an web link which verifies the day he died. Overall, there aren't enough sources to verify what is stated. It looks like a resume in paragraph form. Comments are appreciated. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Zoran Abadić

I would like to make article about Zoran Abadic. Architect and works at Faculty of architecture in Belgrade. He is one of the leading contemporary architects in Serbia, highly awarded and founder of 1x2studio. References can be found on Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade, 1x2studio.com, The Association of Belgrade Architects...