Talk:Wikipedia @ 20

This page was proposed for deletion by Vexations (talk · contribs) on 14 November 2021.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Wikipedia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Bsoyka, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 March 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

tone[edit]

It is massively problematic to refer to Wikipedia editors as "prominent and expert Wikipedians". This kind of self-congratulatory puffery is contrary to our commitment to neutrality. Vexations (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations that was removed and corrected. I would welcome hearing of more concrete issues you find. --Zblace (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that the subject is not notable, because it does not meet the relevant notability citeria for books, WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG:

"reflecting on particular histories, ongoing and future themes in Wikipedia discussions" is weasel-word salad. It sound impressive, but means nothing.
"distinct writing style Wikimedians used" is nonsense, there is no such thing
"endorsed by" is misleading, because it suggests that Wales is in a position where he can approve something, which is not true
the list of contributors is too long Vexations (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations in reverese order:

can not cut out list of contributors, can only display it differently, as I did initially
hm...I am not native speaker to know fineses well, however he is not approving it, but considering that he is co-founder and activly involved it is relevant that he finds it a good effort in making such publication reflecting on past 20 years
maybe this was not clear - but non-essential...
I am not agreeing here, but I do not mind it being modified.

As for notability, I think book is fairly notable considering it was published by MIT Press and got a review in Science mag. Maybe it is not the next book bestseller, but for sure is not in 10% of least notable books that already have EN Wikipedia pages. -- Zblace (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could review WP:NBOOKS and explain how "published by MIT press" and "was reviewed in one publication" meet any of the criteria listed there. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations I just review it and though those individual arguments do not stand as enough, together they point to notability... Never the less I added more both here and in Wikidata, so let us see what others think. Good night from Croatia! --Zblace (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG do you mind revisiting the page again and maybe lifting the Note if it is good enough? --Zblace (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]