Fixing notability. The notability requirements have started to damage knowledge and editor retention. Examples: editors leaving for lack of something to write about, b/c something valuable that they've contributed is eventually deleted... people who turn to WP as a comprehensive resource for FOO discovering that a few years later it is now only an 80% resource (and not because of merging into a smaller number of still-comprehensive articles, but because of removing useful information that fails arbitrary notability requirements)...

Topic notability

We should define a canonical place to put verifiable information that isn't considered notable. Notability standards change over time, and may be evaluated incorrectly... the past work to gather verifiable data should not be discarded.

Topic suitabiity

If the glove fits...

lots of clueluess newbies like it...

Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event. Blueboy96 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

People often decide that an article must be deleted for reasons unrelated to its notability, quality, or source reliability. If lots of people who don't know much about Wikipedia try to get involved, they not only are inspired to leave, but it is suggested that they are somehow subverting the goals o the project by involving themselves for the sake of a topic that matters to them. This is both counter to policy, counter to the wiki spirit, and a little confused: this is how we all got started; just usually not in the crucible of a debate. For deletino discussions, it is natural not to consider 'me too' arguments, there is no need to be angry at people for making them (it is natural to make such an argument before realizing that a more productive one can be made!)

(see also: it's important to create an environment that supports people in making errors; errors made won't be used in making decisions, but should be welcome)

editors of the article have also contributed to it...

the article was written by Tobias Walkowiak, who's been very active on on the software's website[2] and who is also listed as one of the 'people are/were involved mainly in wmii and dwm development as developers and contributors'[3]." —Psychonaut (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As with aggressive stances against 'COI' of a staff member of an org, or a member of a group, contributing to an article: people who contribute to software are sometimes expected not to help write about it. On the other hand, they tend to know the most about the details of the topic... and their work is more easily criticised and checked than written from scratch by others.

Perhaps a way around this is to automatically provide links to relevant wikiproejcts that can send off a request for review from more neutral editors who can come in and quickly verify and spruce up new contributions...

Topic verifiability and original contributions

A level of original writing and 'common-sense' information, which is not immediately citable or strictly verifiable, is often a component of any good article. Standards for how much information can be of this form (per paragraph? per useful citation as a conceptual anchor?) should be developed. As it stands, there is high variance in how argument via 'V' or 'OR' is used to remove otherwise useful material from an article.

Source reliability

Current meme: Never use a wiki as a source

You never user another Wiki or Wikipedia it's self as a source as a Wiki is usually an open site and subject to false information. Rgoodermote 23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a sound reason. We can come up with reasons not to use a source related to its overall perception as reliable or not over time, but being a wiki should not inherently keep something from being a good source. The same goes for news sources that accept open input and then revise it into final works.

We regularly accept as sources publications that have horrible standards of fact-checking and journalism; we should both improve on that and not accept those sources, perhaps through a comprehens ve Wikicite project, and should accept information from the canonical source, for instance when looking to information on the historical value of debian or fedora packages that are best covered on their project wikis.

Sorry we do not merge content which is not supported by reliable sources. We delete that. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a common argument, but not a very good one, for deleting good, carefully written information whose author claims that it is notable and citable, but whose opponents feel have not been sourced well. Deleting makes it difficult to discuss where to find notable sources; and encourages the person whose work was deleted to leave (and generally not return).

Comment: "I would consider a random Linux Journal article not so notable; whereas a project wiki for a project with knowledgable people on the mailing list would be very notable." - mstone.

We often fail to recognize some of the more reliable and notable sources, especially in communities and niches where there isn't a publishing culture. It's interesting that we continue to privilege the traditional publishing methods as a substitute for respectability or authorithy, despite recognizing how that no longer applies for us and declaring that personal certificates of authority (degrees, &c) shouldn't affect how the value of individual edits are weighed.

Examples

for more on software deletion, chat with User:Ben_Kidwell

window managers

awesome or awesomewm: wm from ~2004? dates from b/t ratpoison and xmonad; graphical representations of gnu screen. popular for a few years.; created in 200X, deleted in Feb 2010, restored after DRV in March when a single notable source was found (Linux Mag).

wmii: a similar wm. one of the only tools on Linux that uses 9p.

dwm: Has been proposed for deletion a number of? two? times. To a community familiar with window managers, this is patently ridiculous. since there is no active wikiproject working on window managers, the people who set notability guidelines here have an arbitrary understanding of the niche.; created in 200X, nominated for deletion in ? and March 2010 (and put up for drv in March 2010 after no consensus)

All are tools notable in this field of programming b/c they were short and usable. There were few feature rich wms until that time that were not long and complex. These created the background that supported the creation of xmonad.