Template talk:Notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Use for sections?[edit]

I want to put in question the notability of some of the individuals on this list: Taipei First Girls' High School#Notable alumnae. Does a header for sections exist with this template?--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 08:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the same situation with Warp zone#Unreal. Seeing as I haven't been able to find any reliable sources at all, I'm thinking about deleting the section, but I'd rather let someone who knows a bit more about the topic handle it. Can't we let this template work with sections as well? Maplestrip (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
{{Importance-inline}}. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts[edit]

This template needs to be deleted. It should be sent back to TfD at the earliest permissible opportunity to see if consensus has changed. I also observe that TfD is a niche area and that the previous deletion discussion was so 'well advertised' that I did not even know that it was taking place. The primary effect of this template is to deface articles on topics that are notable. A secondary effect is to encourage and facilitate large numbers of erroneous nominations of articles on topics that are notable, by providing a list of articles on notable topics to nominate and creating the illusory impression that they are all a massive problem that can only be solved by going on a massive deletion spree (especially of plausible redirects and mergeable content). I have just found one of these templates on the article of an author who had an obituary in the NYT, where it should not have been. I have seen large numbers, possibly hundreds, of erroneous nominations caused by this template. It seems to me that if an editor has complied with BEFORE, he will nominate the article for deletion; and if he has not complied with BEFORE, he should not be placing this template on an article whose notability he has not attempted to investigate. NRVE and BEFORE provide that notability depends on the existence of sources, not their citation, and that articles therefore do not have to assert or demonstrate the notability of their topics. I therefore see no legitimate use for this template. Placing this template on an article about a notable topic will not help a new editor in any way, is likely to confuse them (by creating the impression that our notability guidelines are stricter than they really are), and might cause them to leave the project. James500 (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments certainly have some merit, and though I'm not sure if they're so persuasive as to get me personally to support a deletion nomination, I think it would be worthwhile for the community to discuss them. Why are you raising the issue here, though, rather than formally nominating the template for deletion? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Psychonaut: (1) The template is fully protected, so I presumably would not be able to complete the nomination, as I do not possess the user right needed to edit the template to add the notice of the discussion. (2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is so large that the web browser of my device cannot load it. It has been a number of years since I last nominated a template, and I can't even read the instructions. (3) This template was nominated in 2013 without success and I was not sure if a sufficient amount of time had elapsed since that nomination ("earliest permissable opportunity"). (4) I would have expressed my opinions in the previous deletion discussion, if I had known it was taking place, but can't do so. James500 (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no set time one needs to wait before renominating a page for deletion; you can do so whenever you feel consensus has changed, or could change due to new facts and arguments you intend to present. To nominate a protected page for deletion you will need to use the {{edit template-protected}} template here and an administrator will add the deletion tag for you. If your browser chokes on the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, you'll have to use another device, at least temporarily, in order to perform the rest of the nomination. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This template's intent[edit]

I think this is a valid template which is useful as a way of document and inform users – which is the whole purpose of templates in the first place – the fact that an article is currently lacking established in-article notability. It may not necessarily be a comment on whether the subject in general is notable. This is the spirit in which I have used this template, and it is unfortunate that I have been disallowed to use it, because I think it is a useful template. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Subcategorising[edit]

Why doesn't this template add the articles into more specific subcategories? For example, when {{Notability|Company}} is used, the article should be added to Category:Company articles with topics of unclear notability. Is there any reason it doesn't do this? @Rich Farmbrough: who created the unused subcategories. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe there was opposition: not to the idea, but to me changing the template BOLDly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

Athletics/athletes[edit]

Someone should change sports and athletics to sports and athletes... Obsuser (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)