User:Gerald Waldo Luis/essay
 | This essay is in development. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion, especially since this page is still under construction. |
| This is an essay on contributing. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: There are some things that I adhere to whilst contributing to Wikipedia. You may see me frequently implementing to this, but you don't have to tell me it's not a policy, because I know that. |
_(29472579101).jpg)
Other than (nearly) adhering to guidelines, policies, and manual of styles, I also have certain techniques, manuals, or ideologies that I follow to make myself consistent and genuine throughout editing. The range from expansion packs of the guidelines/policies/manuals themselves, opinion towards a certain thing, or pure original style manuals. Like the view of Shiprock, it is the landmark of my edits.
You are free to follow these too, although be careful when citing these in discussions, as essays are weaker than vetted rules. Additionally, you may see me citing this at some point in a discussion, if I need to. I will be sure to use this with caution, and the fact that this is merely an essay prompts me to use this with balance. Know that when I cite this, I do in good faith. If I misuse this, please alert me: do not template me, or take things to a whole other level; it'll be weird.
Notability
[edit]In initial thinking, I will not care about subject-specific notability guidelines (i.e. WP:NCYC). Instead, I care about the most broad guideline on notability, the general notability guideline (GNG). Different editors have different interpretations of what GNG really means, and I do, too.
- GNG seeks significant coverage on Wikipedia article subjects. This means that an article or book or journal must discuss the subject in detail (not just mentioning trivially) in order to warrant an article. To be mentioned by a press agency does not make you ultimately notable a la Wikipedia, so if you see your name in there, don't get too excited first.
- GNG seeks reliable sources on Wikipedia article subjects. WP:RS talks in-depth about what sources are considered reliable. So by combining this point with the preceding point, this means that there must be at least several sources discussing the subject in detail. Personally, I seek three sources.
- GNG seeks secondary sources independent of the subject in more quantity to qualify notability. This means that there should be three sources that discusses the article detailly without having affiliations with the subject, even as minor as an interview. Despite the significance of this point, that doesn't mean primary or tertiary sources are not allowed. Many editors confuse GNG as to "do not include interviews or about-self articles, as GNG prohibits." No, darling. GNG merely is the starting point.
Exceptions
[edit]Generally, my take is that stubs describing ongoing events that have reliable sources, which you will let other editors expand, do not need citations to start. It can be a low-quality stub at first, but you'll be satisfied by watching it grow. This thing is called eventualism. This is why I avoid immediately tagging an article for deletion without checking if the subject actually merits deletion. If an article is not in good shape, why not trying improving it yourself first? Then if you feel like nothing can be done, you can proceed in tagging.