Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 8

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

End of American Soap Opera Era

Does this topic meet "general notability guidelines"? If so, should this article stand on its own to be notable? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Randi Morgan

Does this character meet WP:GNG? This article does not mention the real-world context of this character? --George Ho (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

There are no sources independent of this topic; no news articles about games other than Plinko and a few other games were found; even no books about them other than Plinko were found. This was nominated for deletion several times; does it currently meet WP:GNG? --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sources on notability grounds at Mindell Penn

As per the edit comments in these next three diffs, sources were removed because they were "trivial", "do not 'address the subject directly in detail' ", and were "mentions...in passing".

Two references removed:

Revision as of 2011-12-19T05:41:54 Purplebackpack89

(Additional references: rm trivial references that have no relevance to the article's content)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mindell_Penn&diff=466643439&oldid=466627839

One reference removed:

Revision as of 2011-12-16T15:35:42 Sionk

(Bibliography: per WP:GNG source does not "address the subject directly in detail")

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mindell_Penn&diff=466172043&oldid=465942698

One reference removed:

Revision as of 2011-12-12T17:41:11 Purplebackpack89

(References: rm reference that only mentions Penn's name in passing, and is irrelevant to rest of article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mindell_Penn&diff=465488479&oldid=465423177

Other pages involved in this dispute:

Here are the three sources to be reviewed.

Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle staff writer (November 3, 2004). "Richmond. Richmond sticks with 3 council members". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. p. B8. Retrieved 2011-12-15. Mindell Lewis Penn waits along with...Chronicle photo by... (picture of Mindell Penn on election day 2004)
"Tragedy Inspires Action in Richmond: Penn Spearheads Plan to Improve the City's Rental Home Inspection Program". West County Times. April 11, 2005. Retrieved December 11, 2011.
Nanci L. Valcke (December 23, 2001). "USFilter beats out EBMUD". San Francisco Business Times. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 2011-12-18. The plant is 'a very large asset to the city,' said Councilwoman Mindell Lewis Penn, one of USFilter's five votes. 'Giving up that asset was a big consideration for me.'

IMO, these sources are nowhere near to being phone book entries; or the example given in the guideline, that of the high school band "The Three Blind Mice". In the first source, a photographer for the San Francisco Chronicle photographed Mindell Penn while she waited to vote, and then in the headline of the article, while not using Penn's name, Penn is one of the three featured incumbents. The second source features Penn in the headline of the article, and the entire article appears to be about her project. The third source quotes Penn about a council decision. As per WP:GNG, anything that is not trivial is relevant to notability. But even more basic, wp:notability is not a function of the content of articles (WP:N#NNC), wp:notability exists independently of the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. So functionally, it is never correct to remove content based on a notability argument.

As you can see from the edit comments, both editors assert otherwise, so the first question for the noticeboard is (1) can notability guidelines be used as grounds for the removal of content. It would also be helpful to resolve two other points, (2) are these sources trivial or more-than-trivial under WP:GNG, and (3) are these sources WP:RS reliable. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also relevant is that they were non-inline citations. That's generally bad practice under any circumstances. More on how trivial the references actually are below Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Question (4), why didn't the edit filter label the edit comments, "Tag: references removed"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Because they weren't inline citations, probably...again, we seem to be skirting the issue that while non-inline citations don't exactly violate policy per se, they are very much frowned upon Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. I've come across people who don't know how to 'lose', but this is a case of people not knowing how to 'win'. Despite the article being examined objectively, deemed notable and kept, the ardent supporters of the article want to beat the ardent opposers with a stick, in public! The place for deciding whether or not a source is non-trivial or appropriate for the article would be on the article's Discussion page, wouldn't it? It seems the article will remain, even without the disputed trivial sources, so what is the problem?

As for me, I had no axe to grind with the councillors of Richmond, in fact I argued strongly for keeping one of them. However, I'm continually perplexed with the idea (which some here believe) that notability is based on the number of 'hits' on Google. This plainly isn't the case. WP:GNG (which we should all be able to recite backwards after all this) requires the subject receives significant coverage, meaning that "sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In the example of the source that I removed, Penn was mentioned as part of a list of a handful of councillors defending their seats, and was also one of 5 councillors in a photo. In my mind, this was not addressing the subject "directly in detail". Maybe if the editor thought the photo was so important, they should have added it to WP and claimed 'fair usage'? Adding the article as part of a list of random Google coverage at the bottom of the article only served to cloud the issue during the deletion debate and, personally, I believed the list was being put there to cynically convince a casual observer that the subject was indeed very notable. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly (as they're expressed below). This seems either an attempt to bamboozle undecided editors, or to get a consensus to continue a questionable editing practice. There doesn't seem any point in this thread, at least not one that would be more effectively decided on the article's talk page. Oh, and for the policy wonks, the relevant one here is WP:NOTREPOSITORY..."excessive lists [of external links] can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia" Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, the purpose of references was to allow WP:Verifiability of content. Citations that don't verify content should instead be included in, and should meet the requirements for, 'External links' (WP:EL) or 'Further reading' sections. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. See WP:CITE#General_references. Footnoted references associated by <Ref>s with particular article assertions are better, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, necessarily: "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation." ("supports content" = 'verifies content') Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Content from User talk:Nihonjoe

My talk page is not part of this dispute, and I will remove any further comments there regarding this dispute. I simply closed the deletion discussion, and I clearly spelled out my reasoning there. In order to allow people to read the comments there (which are quite small), I am reposting them here for your convenience. The diffs for these edits can be seen here: [1] [2] [3] [4].

I see it was kept (even though the majority of people voted delete). Since it's still going to be here, could you help me get rid of the references that you yourself acknowledge add nothing to the article? As of right now, there are a bunch of references that aren't inline and are primarily trivial (by both our admissions), and I think they should be removed. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, AfD isn't a vote, and my reasons for keeping were clearly laid out. If you wish to remove the refs, feel free to do so, though there is nothing wrong with keeping them there. Not every ref used in an article needs to (or should) establish notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that I had an issue with...I thought non-inline refs that don't establish notability should go Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you can certainly fix the links to be inline, but once notability has been established it doesn't matter if any of the other references help in that respect. Passing mentions and non-substantial mentions can certainly be used to establish various facts throughout the article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, please keep this dispute off my talk page. I am not interested in participating any further than I already have. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The references were not being used inline, so they aren't "establishing any facets". Unscintillating simply dumped them in en masse, which was very poor form and most likely would've been reverted had it been done on a higher-profile article. It's abundantly clear to me that the one that only includes Penn's name in a photo caption is just a passing mention and therefore trivial. Same with the BizNews one...she is quoted; that means what she is quoted on is significant; she isn't. As for the third one, I can't tell if it's significant or not; it's conveniently behind a paywall. I will continue to maintain that it violates a bunch of guidelines to mass dump bad references; especially since now that this is an article, inline citations are always preferable. Bottom line: make 'em inline or toss 'em. Also, why is this here? It could have been decided on the article's talk page Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, "make 'em inline or toss em" is specifically in reference to the three references this thread is about. It should not be interpreted as applying to references not being discussed in this thread Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment "Make 'em inline or toss 'em" is your invention; it is not Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources which allows for both inline citations and general references. If you are deleting references simply because they are not cited inline, Wikipedia policy does not support you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mel, I think your analysis needs to look a little closer at what the references actually entail rather than assume a blanket policy (about only part of reason a source can or can't be used) applies perfectly here. The problem is that the references in question not the general type of references you'd use for non-inline references. These references refer to very specific events (events that may not hold significance to the article, in fact). Generally, non-inline references are supposed to be general references; If you wanted the type of general information you'd expect from a non-inline citation, these references are not the place to get it. And I never said that non-inline citations were against policy, merely that inline ones were preferable. My argument is about style rather than policy; policy might turn a blind eye to this while style makes sense. Also see Sionk's comment about these references...at least two of the three barely deal with Penn at all Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have said this before, as have others: PLEASE KEEP YOUR ARGUMENTS THE HELL OFF MY TALK PAGE! This page here is the place to discuss these issues, or to reply to what people say. Don't repeat your arguments on people's talk pages. You have been scolded enough for this practice that you should have realized by now it is offensive. And BTW my name is not Mel. Now that I've got that off my chest, my point here was not to quibble about the individual references. My point was simply to get you to retract your non-policy-based assertion "Bottom line: make 'em inline or toss 'em." --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, ma'am...since my point is about the individual references, it holds. My statement was never meant to be applied to references in general; if you thought that it was, you have misinterpreted what I said. I have clarified it above. You may not be here to talk about individual references; but as this thread is about individual references, I am. Also, it's perfectly acceptable to clarify points you make to other users in talk page comments; your "get the hell of my talk page!" is many times more offensive than any remarks I made there Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another example of how you choose not to WP:HEAR what people are saying to you. You are the only person I know who will post a comment at a discussion and then repost the comment on the talk page of the user you were talking to. I have asked you previously not to do that. Nihonjoe has asked you twice in this very thread. I seem to recall that Luciferwildcat once interpreted that behavior on your part as "stalking." I think that's an exaggeration, but I tell you again: commenting at the discussion page, and on that page ONLY, is the way to discuss things. Following people to their talk page to repeat your arguments is offensive and unwelcome, and is not common Wikipedia practice. The courteous action on a talk page is to post a generic invitation, once, along the lines of "here (link) is a discussion that you may be interested in". And if they choose to participate, talk to them in the public forum where they are participating. I repeat: do not badger me on my talk page again. And if you wish to be a well-regarded editor here, do not do it to other people. --MelanieN (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You're failing to address the issue. I already am a fairly well-regarded editor here. It is, and always will be, acceptable to post comments on editor's talk pages. Your rant above belongs on my talk page and not in this thread, because it doesn't have anything to do with the issue of referencing. Now, could you actually explain why the three references in question belong in this article? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment They should be kept, they put things into context and highlight her career.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, if they're "putting things into context", why aren't they inline? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 06:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to be. Why don't you put them in line yourself since your so passionate about it and have so much free time to whine about it?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, because above I explained why they don't belong in the article at all, as did Sionk Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 23:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Good God! would you people please get a life? --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (and apparently, Sionk does too)...there's absolutely no reason for this thread to be here. Anything said here would be better said on the article's talk page, or not at all Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Article about a new outdoor game (Aquarian Gladiator) created at a local school by a friend

A friend of mine (recently deceased) was founder and director of Open Fields School in Thetford, VT, USA. (www.openfields.org) In 1992, she created a non-competitive, non-contact outdoor game that could be played by all of her students, along with teachers, parents, and others. She called the game Aquarian Gladiator, and playing it has been a fun tradition at graduation ever since.

I would like to write a brief article about the game, so that teachers at other schools might find out about it and adapt it to their own situation. The article would include a brief introduction explaining the reasons for creating this game, along with a brief description of the action, with two or three photos to illustrate the action. This would be followed by the rules and then a discussion of field size and equipment (all of which can be adjusted to suit the locale and needs of the group). The school has no interest in trademarking the game or trying to commercialize it in any way.

Is this a suitable stand-alone article? As far as I know, the game has never been played anywhere else. (It's possible some of the graduates or their parents have tried playing it at home with friends.) It has never been described in a magazine or book. I am planning to add a web page about it on the school web site, but am aware that would not count as a notable source. Thanks Deanwhitlock (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless 'Aquarian Gladiator' has been noticed by others and described in reliable, independent sources I fear your article will be quickly deleted. Haven't the local newspapers ever reported on it? However, if you create your own webpage your problem (of describing it to others) will be solved, so maybe you should focus on that instead. All the best! Sionk (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I second Sionk's comments. Unless the game has been written about significantly by independent reliable sources, this isn't the place for an article about it. I think your idea of memorializing your friend by writing about the game is a wonderful thought - just not at Wikipedia. Consider a standalone webpage or a Facebook page - which the school might agree to link to from their website. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding so quickly. Your reply is pretty much what I expected, but I wanted to make sure. I'll continue with the page on the Open Fields School site, as you suggest, with a link from their Facebook page. We might also get some official news coverage this coming spring at graduation. Happy New Year! -- Deanwhitlock (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Most Deadly Game

This topic has a star of Route 66 (TV series), George Maharis, and some other guy well-known. However, the only coverages of this series are the premiere and the cancellation. There is no way for this topic to be that notable as more than just either short-lived series or a series with George Maharis in it. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have an article, even though the TV show was not on for a long time. It's still a TV show, and we should have an article on it.

Imperator Sascha (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

F.lux

Does this topic have significant coverages in reliable sources? --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Weinreich

Mostly non-notable dot-com era executive. Involved in the original social networking website, but his article seems to be mostly about personal promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.228.137 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

StopWar_Vancouver

they seem like an active group, but it is very hard to find any RS in the google news searches, etc. - should they stay or should they go? Soosim (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd really, the article seems to be confused about its subject. Is it about StopWar Canada (which may well be worthy of an article)? I can find little online (or in the article for that matter) about 'StopWar Vancouver'. The original author hasn't been active for 5 years, unfortunately. You would think a march of 10,000 people would have attracted news coverage. Sionk (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Arik Ascherman

he seems to be a one trick pony, with lots of blogs mentioning him, but it is very hard to find any RS in the google news searches, etc. - should he stay or should he go? Soosim (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This article in a Jewish community paper says he has been interviewed in Israel and internationally, but otherwise the WP article (and Google searches) don't throw up much. His one award was shared. Maybe you should stick a 'notability' tag on the article. Sionk (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Georgia Stitt

I am a fairly new editor and am trying to clean up this article, first by addressing notability concerns. Thank you for your patience as I learn. I am not the author of this article.

The subject of this article, Georgia Stitt, is flagged as perhaps not being sufficiently notable. I have added multiple links to other Wikipedia articles to indicate that she is in fact one of America's significant rising musical theatre composers and music directors. The existing 24 external references seem to bolster my claim.

As a separate issue, I agree that there are many cleanup issues that need to be addressed in the article. I will continue to work on those to improve it.

Do editors agree that the notability flag can be removed from the article? If not, please describe your continued concerns and how they might be addressed.

Irelandkm (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I'd say 'notability' is not established. The one news source is the wedding announcement in the New York Times. The remainder of the sourcing is from a theatre ticket club website, an (internal?) Broadway newsletter and IMDb, which I wouldn't put a lot of faith in. WP:GNG requires in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent (news) sources. Sionk (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament

Not sure if the page for 2012 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament should be on Wikipedia. As of now it seems it goes against WP:FUTURE since it does not begin until March, and even after the event occurs, it looks as though the page would only be a listing of the brackets and who won which would go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Are pages like this common on Wikipedia? Should this be deleted? HotshotCleaner (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FaceTheJury.com

I recently created an article (albeit small) about the website FaceTheJury.com. It was almost immediately nominated for deletion and I don't feel that's correct. The site has been around for more than ten years, has over 500,000 members, and is only run by three people. I feel as though, just because a site has somehow magically flown "under the radar" for its lifespan online, it should not be precluded from being listed on Wikipedia. There are many other websites listed that have only one or two "references" and I attempted to use two references myself. One was black listed (no one told me why) and the other seems perfectly fine to me, but they say that's not "notable" enough. I know Wikipedia's policies on Other Stuff and Notability, but I'm curious as to how something so prominent can be ignored simply because there aren't any news articles about it. It's kind of like, if a website doesn't advertise itself and become featured somewhere, on Wikipedia it doesn't exist. Doesn't seem very logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.142.131 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't make judgments on things which are prominent. We let reliable sources do that. If it's flown under the radar, it's probably not really that notable to the general public. In this day and age 500,000 users is not a huge amount. Facebook has hundreds of millions. That said, a google news archives search returns a couple links. Facethejury features prominently in this article [5]. It goes beyond trivial mention in that it's brought up many times and discussed, and the article here is primarily about facethejury as well [6]. However in 10 years, that's it, and it's a pretty tenuous grasp on notability--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Local News Anchor Notability

I've tried several reasonable combinations of search phrases but have not found a SNG regarding Local News anchor, so I put forth John McCaa. I tried strengthening the case by putting in an additional citation regarding broadcasting at a political convention. Thanks for the time and consideration. Hasteur (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart

THE IMPORTANCE & NOTABILITY FOR INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT MATTER: "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart"

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS: Important decisions are made everyday, by everyone! Some such decisions can be "Life Changing!"

FACTS: Microsoft Corp. (Topic found in Wikipedia) developed a software package called "Excel" (Topic found in Wikipedia) for use by the general public & the business world and released it in 1985. This software package was designed to use an old charting method for Radar charts (Topic found in Wikipedia) to be constructed from a spreadsheet and to be used for making "Trade-off Decisions."

This Definition is also found in Wikipedia: A trade-off (or tradeoff) is a situation that involves losing one quality or aspect of something in return for gaining another quality or aspect. It implies a decision to be made with full comprehension of both the upside and downside of a particular choice.

Microsoft Excel (Topic found in Wikipedia) was designed to "present" charts that make it possible to analysze, manage, and share information, helping you "track and highlight important data trends" that help you make better, smarter decisions (See article Ref #8).

Since 1985 (27 yrs.), Excel has been the most popular method used to make "estimated" Trade-off decisions, but unfortunately, not very well, as attested to by its users! (See article Refs #2, 9 - 12).

Fortunately for those wanting to make more accurate Trade-off decisions, there was another method developed in 1985 by a Product Manager. This method however, selected products to match specific industrial control applications, but at the time, was only used within his company. Later, this method was written up in a trade magazine (See article Ref #5) and included in The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation (See article Ref #15). This method constructed a "SpiderGraph chart" (Topic of this article), which was very similar to the Radar chart, but arrives at a trade-off decision by calculation and not estimation!

The reason this article is so significant and timely is that this virtually unknown charting method is soon to be developed into a "SpiderGraph Visual Decision-making App" for the world renown Apple iPad. Unfortunately, over the past 27 yrs., this chart's name has been confused with that of the Radar chart and now is the right time to correct that confusion with an article on such a widely known and impartial venue as Wikipedia!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 21:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to sell software or popularize the term you coined? The problem is that the term appears to be not so widely used that it deserves an article of its own. The article you wrote doesn't seem to point to enough reliable sources of the term as a notable topic; it seems to rely primarily on your own paper and a couple of blogs. The stuff about Excel here and in the AfC seems to only confuse things and don't support the claim of notability too well. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hussein Sumaida

There are several articles and a book (Circle of Fear ) about Hussein Sumaida. Not sure how to add or if you are interested to add it to your site. I added 3 articles and not sure what is next. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samthehandyman (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

New articles on Warhammer 40,000 websites

I plan to write articles on the following website related to Warhammer:

User:Imperator Sascha/Articles- You can read a list of them here, since I will start them in my userspace.

I notice that Wikipedia has many articles on websites, but none about Warhammer websites.

Input or suggestions on how to make sure I keep everything notable, or any websites which are questionable?

Imperator Sascha (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fan websites are rarely notable. In fact except for a very small number it's very true to say that fan sites are in fact not notable as a general rule. You'd need to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources, or that the website received a major notable award, like a webby. Not some random award from some other random Warhammer fansite.I would suggest you don't start writing any articles on those until you can provide the links required for each one. You'd need news stories on the website (not just name drops), or evidence of awards, or something of that nature. If all some story says is something like "There are many warhammer fan sites like Dakkadakka" this isn't significant coverage. It's a trivial name drop. Even a paragraph would be insufficient. The article as a whole would need to be mostly written about the site itself. As an example, the first site we pull up is Dakkadakka and a google news search gives me nothing on it [7] this is a pretty strong indicator that it isn't notable enough unless there is a major award hidden somewhere that somehow didn't get reported.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it be better to include all the websites under one article, maybe about Warhammer websites or Warhammer in popular culture or something like that, rather than having separate articles for each of them?

Imperator Sascha (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

These don't qualify for "topic in popular culture" references. A fan site isn't the topic in popular culture. It would be better not to include them anywhere unless they get any genuine coverage at all. Wikpieda is not a link directory among other things.--Crossmr (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of a defunct mall

Talk:Summit_Place_Mall. Thomas Paine here somehow has it in his head that the mall is no longer notable because it's closed off. I've tried several times to explain to him 1.) notability is not temporary, and 2.) notability is already well asserted through a valid claim (first enclosed shopping mall in Michigan), multiple reliable sources, and precedent that "super regional" malls are notable in general. However, he still just doesn't seem to get it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider approving this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kryss_Shane

I worked with Ocaasi in the help department and we have submitted this to be approved. Although we understand that it may be difficult to show how notable someone is, this person is a pioneer in the field of social work. Social work is already undervalued in America and the manner in which someone is honored is different than in other fields. In this field, a person is honored by being asked to write one piece in the only National Association of Social Workers sponsored magazine. This person has written several pieces, was given her own column, and the column has been used as a cover story because she is so well known that it helps to sell the magazine.

We understand that most other industries deal with acknowledgement by others, but this person is a true pioneer, not only writing for the premiere magazine in the industry but also by being asked to speak at a state conference (in Ohio), by speaking at Ivy League's Columbia University, and by working with both the huge NY City Housing Authority and with Museum of Moving Art, one of the most well-known museums in the country.

I hope you will consider adding and approving this entry into Wikipedia, she more than deserves the honor.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.93.109 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Academic book

Could someone please direct me to the notability standards for academic books? 'neath the wings (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NBOOK#Criteria :- ) DCS 17:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. --'neath the wings (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OBKB

Looking for input on notability of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/OBKB

It has been rejected several times by two editors claiming lack of notability. However, it is arguable if this is a valid rejection. The article details a TV series that Bill Cosby has starred in. It seems like that alone makes this series notable as all of Bill Cosby's other works qualify as notable: television shows, films, music endeavors, books, etc. They all have their on wiki stubs.

But if that isn't enough, then several independent media sources have reported on this series: IMDB, The Today Show, Associated Press, WTNH Local 8 News, etc. This seems to meet the general guidelines on notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nydc201 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, per my comments on the AfC page. --Iantresman (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Least Notable Article Referent on Wikipedia

Please help!

Does Wikipedia truly have notability standards or not? This is important: there are a massive number of articles in blatant violation of notability guidelines on Wikipedia.

Please, everyone, take a look at (101380) 1998 UT17, just to pick one at random. This is the least notable thing imaginable, a rock in the middle of nowhere. No one denies it does not pass our notability standards. It exists because no automated system of redirection has been created to the chart exists, and is in clear violation of more than simply WP:NASTRO, not to mention general guidelines.

How can we speak of Wikipedia’s notability standards if a rock in the middle of nowhere that has nothing to do with anything is allowed an article? Wikipedia's notability standards are unfair. How can you, we, go about denying articles to referents as you, we, routinely do, on notability grounds alone, knowing that (101380) 1998 UT17 and the rest have articles? This is a great injustice to any referent denied an article on notability grounds alone. Please, until this is dealt with, observe a moratorium on denying articles to referents on notability grounds alone. Find some other reason to deny articles to referents other than notability if you can, but notablity grounds should not be used as to do so while that article exists is just wrong.

Please help create an automated system to redirect them all as stipulated in WP:NASTRO. It cannot be done by hand and is only not being done because no one knows how to do it automatically and carefully as per WP:NASTRO].

Thank you.

Chrisrus (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Small lumps of rock in the Solar System are the least of our problems. There's plenty of companies, organisations and people with dubious notability who have a WP article. They benefit from appearing in WP, while a small rock in space will just carry on along its merry way regardless. Sionk (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All of them are more notable than (101380) 1998 UT17, so by rights should also have articles. Chrisrus (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

But do we have 280,000-odd articles on "companies, organisations and people with dubious notability", like we do on these rocks (most of which, I suspect, have simply been detected by a computer attached to a telescope, been given a number, and then been forgotten -- probably without any human involvement)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the problem with the existence of (101380) 1998 UT17 etc.?

It's not likely to be contentious. No one is going to be arguing over the contents. So there's essentially zero maintenance cost associated with the article.
It's not promotional. No one is contending that the intent or effect of the article is to unduly advertise the rock.
The load on the servers is trivial, and would scarcely be reduced by combining the info in these articles into lists (or even deleting them).
It's related to astronomy, which is a serious scientific field. It's not like it's a Pokemon character or something.

I looked at WP:NASTRO, and it looks long and complicated and subject to argument. Arguably better would be to simply replace it with this: "If an astronomical entity has a name or designation, and there's at least one reliable showing that it 1) indeed exists and 2) indeed has that name or designation, it's in; otherwise not."

We do this with baseball players for instance. The rule is simple: if you've appeared in a major league game you're in, otherwise not. This saves a great deal of arguing on the order of "Well, he's not really notable, he only played part of one year" vs. "Yeah he was, his team was in a pennant race" and yadda yadda. Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

":What, specifically, is the problem with the existence of (101380) 1998 UT17 etc.?" They are not even remotely notable. This is not WP:Contentiousness/Noticeboard, WP:Advertising/Noticeboard or WP:Hardware/Noticeboard. It is WP:Notability/Noticeboard. So you might wish to try arguments that have some relevance to notability.

...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
— WP:NOT

This material (i.e. List of minor planets and its hundreds of subordinate pages) is (in the words of {{Overly detailed}}) "an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience." In fact I doubt if you'd find anybody who was interested in this endless spewing of incomprehensible numbers, who did not already have access to a far more reliable source for it than an encyclopaedia that anybody can edit, and thus that anybody can vandalise (with very little chance of the vandalism being easily noticeable in this instance).

Here's a suggestion, unless somebody has actually bothered to give a name (not a mere number) to a minor planet, or otherwise give it notice beyond recording the mere fact that WP:ITEXISTS, it should be presumed that the minor planet isn't notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is it true, as WP:NASTRO says, that a sub-stub must pass a good faith effort to establish notability before being redirected to a chart? I thought that articles that don't establish notablity could be redirected or deleted without putting the onus on us to prove that it's not notable.

Wondering,

Chrisrus (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh look, it's another WP:OTHERCRAP argument!</sarcasm> But it's the same reason that we have articles on geographical landmarks and villages- Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer. Oh, and if you want to, send it over to articles for deletion where consensus can be gathered. A412 (Talk * C) 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

~~Oh look, it's another unhelpful sarcastic WP:JERK!~~ Landmarks people use and places people live are at least a tiny bit notable and of potential interest to someone, such as local people. No one is questioning whether these articles violate WP:NASTRO or meet notability standards, as nothing could possibly be less notable than these. The question now is how to deal with them all. That's the reason for the question, and the reason an answer actually would be helpful; it would help the process move forward. Chrisrus (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Use WP:OTHERCRAP when someone argues that "crap" should be created because there already is "crap". Do not bring it up to support not getting rid of "crap". WP:OTHERCRAP says the existence of "crap" does not justify creating more "crap", which is true. WP:OTHERCRAP does not justify keeping "crap".

So please answer my question. Must, as WP:NASTRO says, a good faith effort to to establish notablity be performed before converting a stub into a chart redirect? I had understood that, as in WP:SPEEDY if an article doesn't establish notability, it can be deleted (a harsher move than chart redirected) without us having to prove that it's not notable. Articles have to prove notablity; no one has to prove a referent is not notable if there's no proof in the article that it is notable. Chrisrus (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Grinder & Delozier (1987) Turtles all the way down

Could someone please comment on whether the book by John Grinder titled, "Turtles All the Way Down: Prerequisites to Personal Genius" is notable under wikipedia criteria for books. It is considered important within parts of the NLP community especially those interested in Grinder's new code of NLP. There are about 35 references to the book in google scholar.[8][9][10]. It is listed in Library of Congress[11] in the country of origin and worldcat[12]. It is essentially a self-publication but from what I undertand that does not automatically mean it is non-notable. So does it meet the criteria for notability under: "the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]"Wikipedia:Notability_(books) Is there are rule of thumb in terms of number of citations or to what extent it is discussed in those works listed in google scholar? --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fictional organization—Alliance of Twelve

As someone quite new to the encyclopedia, I have been reviewing the notability prescripts, but I wonder about one specific case: the article Alliance of Twelve. Verifiability issues aside, is this article encyclopedic? I have not found many strong sources to support it in detail, except in broad Alias sources that discuss it on small scales. I am curious in part to clarify the principles of notability. NTox (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Paul Michel

  I am interested in writing an article about an inspirational speaker that I know in Austin, TX.

I just work at a movie store, but this guy just makes my day telling me about his incredible life and the meaningful changes he has made to the music industry, and I feel he is verifiably notable in these ways. I am just getting into Wikipedia and have wanted to contribute for a while, and I think it is a good challenge because there is a lot of data to work with.

I have done some fact-checking and am impressed by what I've found, but it is my first time writing an article and am unsure of how to do it correctly. Examples of notability:

Helped to form the Creative Opportunity Orchestra with Tina Marsh, in 1980. Has personally won numerous awards for albums and films that he produced, performed in, and wrote the music for. His films have also won awards, such as Moondance International Film Festival (Audience Award (as a Feature Film)) and Starfish Award (as a Narrative Feature)). That film also won Strasbourg International Film Festival's Best Script. Has had interviews and information shared in major publications such as The Boston Herald, the Austin Chronicle, New York Times, Slant magazine, the Philadelphia City Paper, Variety, etc.

He has also helped produce, mix, and played with many influential artists. Produced and mixed (David Olney, Mike Kindred, Ponty Bone and the Squeezetones, Paul Metsa) and I believe those CD's have gone on to win awards and have done very well. Played with: Odetta, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Peter Yarrow, Hoyt Axton, Butch Hancock, David Amram, Flaco Jimenez, Jimmie Dale Gilmore, Douglas Sahm, Joe Ely, and Townes Van Zandt. This is from an article I read, I would individually fact check each artist to ensure his collaboration...

I am unsure if this is how I go about doing this, I am open to all feedback and responses and advice! I appreciate anyone that takes the time to look into this.

From Tina Marsh's Wikipedia: After moving to Austin, Marsh attended concerts by Anthony Braxton and Sam Rivers at Armadillo World Headquarters.[4] These performances inspired her to form her first professional group, New Visions Ensemble, with Alex Coke, Rock Savage, BOOKA MICHEL and Horatio Rodriguez.

Cmaru (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tokuko Nagai Takagi

Tokuko Nagai Takagi was the first notable female Japanese actress.

She also introduced toe dancing to Japan and became queen of operetta there.

The filmography of the first Japanese film actress consists of no more than four short features released in America and England in 1911 and 1912. She was only 20 years old when she died, but made an impact on the future of Japanese women and the globalization of ballet.

Apart from the simple historical significance of her films, those appearances are of interest in that they (1) reflected the tone of U.S.-Japanese political relations and established a precedent for anti-Japan themes in American films, and (2) conveyed an all-too-familiar stereotype of the Japanese.

There is a good article on her in the Bright Lights Film Journal, but I can find little else from those times that supports this data. I have contacted the writer of the article to see where they got their information. Perhaps I just don't know how to look for documents from the early 1900's. http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/30/tokuko.php

Anyways, she is an inspiration to me as a ballerina and actress, and I think there needs to be more available online about her to spurn others to find information about her. There is currently no Wikipedia article about her. Please give me advice, feedback, your thoughts, I appreciate them!

Cmaru (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mpampis Petrakos and other Football League 2 players

I started an article on Mpampis Petrakos and in my surprise it was tagged for notability. I want to discuss notability here because I plan on starting articles on a mumber of Football League 2 players.

Football League 2 is included in list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football player and is the third tier of Greek Football. I don't see why Mpampis Petrakos, or any Football League 2 for that matter, is any less notable than Tendayi Darikwa or Mark Peers (picked at random). My sources on Mpampis Petrakos were 4 (fully verifiable) when tagged for notability, I added a few more and an external link.

I would like to know if this is considered notable now, or if I'm going to have problems with my articles. Please help me, I am rather new. How can I establish notability for this and other players of Greek Football?

Alhktw (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not followed the particular recommendations for sports people, but if you are confident that some guideline is satisfied, remove the tag with a mention of your reason (that is, link to the relevant guideline in the edit summary). Otherwise, you might ask at WT:WikiProject Football. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Faith Freedom International & Ali Sina (activist)

These articles are about a website and the founder of this site. There is a discussion if these articles should be merged, and, if so, how it should happen.

The main argument for this discussion is that "the problem is that given how little reliable coverage there is of either of them, two articles are certainly superfluous." Although this might be true, another problem is that the website and founder have anti-islamic viewpoints, which makes them and their articles quite controversial. As a result of this, these articles were already victim of several editors with a prejudiced agenda. And this makes me quite cautious to endorse requests for merging or deleting.

Therefore, could an unbiased editor look at the articles & sources and see if they would pass WP:GNG? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would an anti-Islamic subject matter for an article not also attract many editors with a sympathetic viewpoint? You might have just poisoned the well here with this post. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this post is entirely ridiculous. Is Jeff5102 really suggesting that users pointing to the paucity of sources are going at the article in pursuit of an agenda, while users who admit that there is no coverage but say we should keep it because Muslims are awful are acting neutrally and following policy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that my request for unbiased viewers/experts attracted some editors who already clearly gave their strong opinion at the talk- and AfD-pages of the mentioned articles. Like I said, these editors might be correct, but I would like to hear that from a third party.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. William M. Barter

I'm questioning the notability of this autobiography, which seems to be written by the subject, as referenced in comment by user:Wbarter "This is autobiographical, written about the original author." It is not written like an encyclopedic article, more like a resume, which is why I added the Notability|date=March 2012 and Cleanup-resume tags. But I really don't see anything notable in this article and think unless other notable information is added it should be baleted. -Tubeyes (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sulieni Layt

I have written an article about Tongan TV personality Sulieni Layt but the administrator has noted that this person is non-notable. I have added links to the page and an edit summary for the Wikipedia team with the hope it won't be deleted within 13 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulieni (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulieni Layt. Part of the problem might be that his name is Julian (Sulieni) Layt, so seaching only under Sulieni Layt may not being forth articles on the topic. Another problem is that he is in Tonga and the reliable source material is in Tonga, but perhaps not available on the internet to the general Wikipedia editor. You'll have to find the sources yourself. Maybe you can get help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pages for individual locomotives

There appears to be a large number of pages for rather unremarkable individual locomotives (railway trains). For example:

...and many, many more, few of which seem notable in my view. Are there any guidelines to help judge what is and isn't a noteworthy locomotive? It seems to me that this subject attracts a certain degree of obsession which, rather than erupting into a delete-war, should be best handled with a nice set of rules. If there are no such rules, could a sufficiently experienced train enthusiast editor write some, please? For example, whether the locomotive was one-of-a-kind, whether it is the last surviving example of a notable kind, whether it was the first to employ a particular technology, whether it was the first to provide a particularly notable service (e.g. connect notable major cities, cross a difficult geographic feature), whether it was statistically the largest, smallest, fastest of its kind etc. Andrew Oakley (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than using importance, if a train topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it should satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article (it meets Wikipedia Notability). For trains, they are big, seen by many people over large distances, and people are fascinated by them. The longer a train has been around, the more likely it will have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Schools, trains, governments - people write about these all the time. Your best bet is to work with WikiProject Trains. To get an idea of what people look for in a train notability discussion, check out Articles for deletion/LMS Sentinel 7164. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting random participants in events

I was wondering about this after seeing a current event article which quoted a protester without giving any significance as to why that protester was quoted. Are their any standards of inclusion for quoting random participants in events? I see too many problems with including these quotes (possibility of undue weight, arguing over who gets quoted, how many quotes do we include, etc etc) unless notability of that individual is established in news sources beyond the quotation, but I don't know if there's any policy on it. Some guy (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the current event article which quoted a protester without giving any significance as to why that protester was quoted? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Jose Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas & Wikipedia:BLPN#Jose Antonio Vargas. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo commented on the talk page, in case others are wondering. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary of New Zealand Biography as an authority for notability

There are a great many stub articles that appear to be one-line bios from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. At least once, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hone Taiapa, it has been flatly stated that "having an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is sufficient to establish notability." I question that. For example, all that our article on Samuel Russell Feaver says is that he was "a New Zealand farmer, pharmacist, veterinary surgeon and photographer," as well as supplying place and date of birth and date of death. This would not be enough to establish notability ordinarily. Looking at the actual article [13] on the DNZB website, again I don't find anything that would be sufficient to establish notability, and if one clicks on through to their sources, I believe they would be deemed inadequate if used directly. The impression I get from their self-description on their website is that they are not just a collection of biographies on notables, but that they also accept submissions of interesting (for some meaning of the word) ordinary people who would not be candidates for the NZ edition of Who's Who. There is a project within WP:NZ to enter these things, which would be OK if it were being held to the same notability standards as other parts of the enterprise. At this point I'm inclined to believe that it isn't. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We should use WP guidelines for notability. Having an entry in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography does not necessarily mean that a person will meet WP criteria for notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand#Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/NZ/Dictionary of New Zealand Biography before these articles were created, although the discussion focussed mainly on how to word the articles rather than on the notability of the people concerned. There are some entries in the DNZB which didn't get added to Wikipedia because they didn't seem to have any notability, e.g. Anne Swift (although she is a case study in the Digital Schools Crime and Punishment resource kit).

In the case of Sam Feaver, used as an example above, he is notable as a prolific photographer documenting the history and geography of the Opanuke area. Puke Ariki also has articles on him, such as In focus: Samual Feaver, coastal photographer.

I thought it was established that the subject of an article in a significant national encyclopedia was considered notable. If DNZB is not considered an encyclopedia, then Te Ara Encyclopedia certainly is.

The one-line stubs do need to be expanded, and additional sources added. I plan to work on these; at the rate of about one a week, it will take quite some time. The three I have tackled so far are Frank Oswald Victor Acheson, Alfred Albert Thomas William Adams and Sophia Taylor.-gadfium 01:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain that every person in Te Ara Encyclopedia is notable. Te Ara was developed incrementally, using the 1966 An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand as a seed. Te Ara URLs starting http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/... lead to this content. I'd be hesitant in granting automatic notability to each of the four Rhodes brothers, for example, noting that only two of them made it through to Te Ara 'proper.' Stuartyeates (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Rhodes Brothers were the subject of the 1966 encyclopaedia article. That doesn't mean each individual one was notable, but the family was, and that might translate to articles on two of the brothers in WP, with a significant mention of the others in those articles. Alternatively, it might be reasonable for us to have an single article on the family, with redirects from each name. As it happens, we have a substantial article on William Barnard Rhodes, a smaller article on Robert Heaton Rhodes, the newly created stub for George Rhodes (New Zealand) and as far as I can see nothing on Joseph Rhodes. Additional cross-referencing of these articles would be appropriate.-gadfium 08:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created most of these stubs, here's my take. (a) I believe that all the people I created articles for are assumed to be notable, by the long standing consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. (b) I believe that all the people I created articles for are notable under the WP:GNG. (c) There are some DNZB people I skipped (see for example the red links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/NZ/Dictionary of New Zealand Biography/A-M). (d) The creation of these articles was a long-standing existing project before I came along with a script (note: this was scripted, but I was not using a bot, I hit "save page" on every page). (e) I actively sought consensus before and during process (discussion linked to above). (f) Some of the DNZB pages had more script-extractable information that others, this is reflected the produced stubs (g) I improved my script as I went, based on experience and feedback; thus later created stubs tend to be better than earlier (h) As I went I created more than twenty new categories to categorize these people. (i) None of these people are living, so there are no WP:BLP issues. (j) This was not a drive-by stub creation exercise, I have a long-term involvement in New Zealand wikipedia articles and am currently re-visiting every stub adjusting the categories (except for those stubs where someone else has removed the Category:New Zealand people). (k) The DNZB accepts nominations, it does not accept submissions. (l) The earlier The Cyclopedia of New Zealand was mainly vanity press. I appreciate all feedback, since I have another script in development for the conceptually similar ADB as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australia#Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography; the issues involved are broadly similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mostly Notable My take is that the biography is generally authorative. There are a few entries that might not meet the notability level and these seem to be being addressed at a reasonably intelligent level by those involved in this discussion.NealeFamily (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Update I've been continuing the second-pass mentioned above and in the last 24 hours have G7'd Patrick and William Denis Nolan and Henry and Thomas Newman, both created near the beginning of the process. I'm hoping not to find any more than require nuking. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Stuartyeates -- I think your approach is admirable. It is reasonable to create stubs on a large scale using Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Having an entry in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography does not necessarily mean that a person will meet WP criteria for notability. However, Wikipedia has been expanded in the past by using a similar approach, and not everything posted back then survived. In this case, it's better to crate the group of stubs and address the notability individually. Plus, there seems to be a group working together on this. So continue to rattle your dags, sir! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)