Talk:North American Young Generation in Nuclear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Notability[edit]

I haven't had a chance to look at the previous discussion for this page, so I'll make a point to add a little here. I found one news source for the article, which should give it that one 3rd party reference needed for it to stand. I also want to point out that it has a lot of connections to the ANS and the NEI, and I found plenty of mentions on the internet from both of those organizations (I think the NEI works with the NA-YGN to plan conferences and I know the ANS has had some events in conjunction with them). Of course, that in itself isn't notable but it is reliable, and I think many people who find the NEI or ANS articles useful will also find this article to be useful. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 05:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the third-party references did the trick. Realkyhick 05:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! It didn't get published until like 2 weeks ago :P -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it's just a passing reference near the end of the article. That's not enough to satisfy the Notability Guideline:
  • "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."1
    • "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. 'Tough love child of Kennedy', The Guardian, 6 January 1992. ) is plainly trivial."
Perhaps there's an article out there with more substantial coverage.--A. B. (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the new reference I added and tell me if it fits the secondary source requirements now. While I can not provide you with the silver bullet of a one page article from the Pittsburgh post or whatnot, I still consider this to satisfy the requirements laid out in Wikipedia policies. In particular, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criterion:
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
This seems like what I'm getting to. Just above I was discussing the references to NA-YGN from other nuclear organizations, which seem perfectly attributable although not necessarily notable, though I think the new source, would satisfy notability as well, being of the nuclear news nature. That all said, I would be lying if I said I thought this was equal treatment when the American Nuclear Society article doesn't even have third party sources, period. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)