Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 9

Inherited notability?

I have recently come across a group of bio articles on people who's sole claim to notability seems to be that they are/were related to someone who is notable... in this case, President Bill Clinton... the articles are on Clinton's biological father William Jefferson Blythe, Jr., and his step fathers Roger Clinton, Sr. and Jeff Dwire).

According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria, That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A... I would assume the same is true for parents and step-parents. The idea that "Notability is not inherited" should go in all generational directions.

My instinct would be to merge these articles into the bio article on the President... instead of outright deleting them. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If they don't have any inherent notability of their own merging seems wise.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If the biography of the notable person is getting very long, consider merging all the family stuff to The Clinton Family or something. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  I read the bio William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. and have these comments.

• The sources in the article satisfy WP:GNG.  The topic is "worthy of notice" and passes WP:N.
• IMO, the idea, "outright deleting them", that this article could be deleted because of one clause in WP:Notability (people) is inconsistent with both our WP:Deletion policy and our notability guidelines.
• WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion mentions by way of WP:Editing policy the need to WP:Preserve our encyclopedic content.
• As per WP:N, WP:Notability (people) is an alternative guide to notability which is irrelevant if the topic passes WP:GNG.
• With emphasis added, here is what Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria says, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)
• I read the William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. article with interest, finding it to be well-written and useful, explaining issues that I preferred not to know about while Clinton was President.  While passing notability criteria is not by itself a requirement to have a standalone article, I think the encyclopedia is well-organized here by keeping this as a separate article, but I didn't look at the two step-father articles, and an article on Clinton's fathers or family might make sense.
• I can tell you from personal experience that Abraham Lincoln's grandfather (13 May 1744 – May 1786) still attracts attention in Kentucky, in fact, Wikipedia has an article on him, Abraham Lincoln (captain).  Unscintillating (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, looking at William Blythe, I don't know that it does pass GNG. This requires multiple sources indepedent of the subject. We often take this to mean news articles dedicated to the subject. Of all the articles there, only 1 "first father" seems actually dedicated to the subject. The rest are just pulling information from write-ups on the family. As such it would probably be better to merge to a family article if the other articles are similar.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement that starts "We often..." at first appears to be an "argument from authority", but given that the "we" has an unclear antecedent, the rest of the statement becomes one person's opinion, one that is supported neither by WP:GNG nor any notability essay that I have ever seen.  Do you have any references for this assertion?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that Bill Clinton's father and step fathers are just not that notable on their own - absent their relationship to their son/stepson. I am liking Crossmr's suggestion of merging them together ... do we have similar articles on other Presidential parents that we could use as a guide? Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A reason for a standalone article on A is if reliable sources are writing about A. Even if the reliable source's motivation for writing about A is that the person A has a relationship with well-known person B, that reliable source's motivation does not raise Wikipedia inherited notability issues. Merging articles of topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject merely because the topic is connected to someone even more notable doesn't make much sense. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul Sutera

I wonder if this person is notable. He portrayed Peter Brady in Brady Bunch movies. Nevertheless, this was PRODded; I proposed a PROD. I attempted WP:REFUND, but someone figured that I never intended to have this article undeleted. --George Ho (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There might be enought reliable source material to mainain a stand alone article. Here's one[1]. Here's another[2]. Rewrite the article using these and other sources and they'll have to send the article to AfD, where you may get a better outcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh.... I don't think he should be notable for only Brady Bunch movies. What should I do next: request userfication or undeletion as an article? Perhaps I may add sources as Further reading? --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Plummer v. State (of Indiana)

I have a question about the notability of Plummer v. State (of Indiana). Although I created it, I don't want it to be in the encyclopedia if it isn't notable. The most "notable" thing about this case is something that I removed from my first version over concerns about verifiability: there are a huge number of online sources that misquote this case and claim that it makes resisting arrest, even to the point of killing a cop, legal if the arrest is "unlawful". Flyers have been passed out at occupy wall street protests (with claims that arresting OWS protesters is unlawful, so you should violently resist arrest), and the false quote comes up regularly in discussions on Reddit. Do a Google search on "Plummer v. State" and you will see what I mean. So it is pretty clear that a large amount of people know the fake version, but none of them appear to be even close to being reliable sources. All of this is on blogs, discussion boards, Youtube comments - all worthless for our purposes. It just feels like we should have an article about such a widely held misconception, but I really can't see how to meet our general notability requirements. So is this a lost cause? It looks that way to me, despite my wanting it to be otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance someone could take a quick look and comment on the notability (or lack thereof)? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not enought reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article on Plummer v. State, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Given how old it is, it doesn't even seem to be a popular legal case. Since others have contributed to the Wikipedia article, you'll have to list it at AfD to get rid of it. You may want to add the case to Wikisource at Plummer v. State. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I am going to list it at AfD as you suggested. I am taking this page off my watchlist, so if anyone adds a comment that I should see, please drop me a note on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Formula SimRacing

Does Formula SimRacing satisfy notability guidelines? It seems they had a brief tie up with the real world championship Auto GP, but is that enough to make them notable? Readro (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No. There doesn't seem to be enought reliabile source material to support a standalone article on Formula SimRacing. We're talking about people sitting on their computer simulating an auto race. News reporters are not going to flock to people's private homes to report on their simracing activity, which accounts for why even simracing only is weakly notable. I say list Formula SimRacing at AfD. Wikipedia isn't a personal website and, given that only a few new users have contributed to the article,[3] I don't think they can muster the troups to provide "Keeps" at the AfD. Feel free to repost this post in the AfD as a "Delete". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've listed it for deletion. Readro (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead Moon Circus

Dead Moon Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This topic is a group of antogonists from Sailor Moon. Is this topic notable enough to guarantee a stand alone list? --George Ho (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the size of List of Sailor Moon characters it can be said as per WP:TOOLONG that the list Dead Moon Circus can be seen as a sub-article of List of Sailor Moon characters. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Twin Falls Ovni Incident

About 2:42 a.m an Object no identified (O.V.N.I) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.69.57.22 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Death of Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr.

Locally this event has received a large amount of coverage, that maybe sufficient to pass WP:GNG; however the Marine Sergeant clearly doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER and would fall under WP:1E furthermore there is WP:NOTNEWS. That being said, if the event is found to have a consensus to be notable, would this best be covered as a standalone event article, or under a related article such as the Orange County Sheriff's Department (California), San Clemente High School (San Clemente, California), or elsewhere? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's almost certainly best to leave it until after the funeral has happened and the autopsy and obituaries are published hehehe great; this ensures maximum sourcing and lowers the chance of heat-of-the-moment mistakes. Orange County Sheriff's Department (California) seems like a good choice, particularly since many refs are likely to talk about people mentioned there. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good topic. However, I would just cover the event in a "Death of" article since the Marine Sergeant isn't Wikipedia notable by himself. The Orange County Sheriff's Department has been around since 1889, and covering this death of in any detail in that Sheriff's Department article might give the topic too much weight compared to the department's 123 year history. Death of Sgt. Manuel Loggins Jr. seems a possible article name. The memorial service was Feb 27, 2012, so the topic seems good to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I will appropriately notify active editors at that [[Orange County Sheriff's Department (California) to get their opinion as to whether they believe that their history section would be a good place to place a subsection regarding this subject. If there is a consensus that it would be appropriate, I will start there; otherwise it can have its own article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a new pls see template to the Los Angeles Task Force as the pls see template at the Orange County Sheriff article have not brought in further opinions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Codehook

About Codehook - Leading Call of Duty Hack provider

CodeHook provides game 'hacks' for download for CoD 1, CoD 2, CoD 4, CoD 5, CoD 6 (Modern Warfare 2) CoD 7 (Black Ops)and Call of Duty 8 (Modern Warfare 3) that can be used to cheat in online multiplayer games. Our very popular service has been available for several years and we continue to out-class our competition with the improvements we make every single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codehook (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Codehook seems unlikely to be notable in the near future. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Mason-Scharfenstein Museum of Art

I was wondering what the notability requirements of an art museum would be. The Mason-Scharfenstein Museum of Art is a Museum in Demorest, Georgia. Some sources I have: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I also have print sources including regional magazines and newspapers that aren't online. It is owned by Piedmont College so for now it may be best as a piece of that article, but I was curious as to if it would be notable at all. Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ORG for the relevant requirements... essentially you should look for a few reliable sources that are independent of the museum (and the college that owns it); and you want sources that discuss the museum in some depth. Passing references, such as an announcement/advertisement in the local paper about an upcoming exhibit, would probably not be considered significant enough... while an extensive article from a national newspaper, talking about the museum in more depth (outlining its history and mission, for example) would be excellent. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion policy and substantial numbers of articles

Dear Helpboard/Wiki community, I am only an occasional editor and I have some questions please regarding deletion of articles. I know and realise that Wikipedia generally proposes and recommends that alternatives be found to deletion, or some sort of consensus be evolved, via discussion/s; but for some time, I have been noting that there are many articles, or stubs at times, falling under the aegis of the Wikiproject Pakistan, of a biographical nature, that relate to : civil servants, government oficials, diplomats, many minor politicians and media/journalistic people (mostly living) that by and large dont meet (a) notability standards/guidelines and (b) arent really suitable for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I am also posting a notice for discussion on the WO Pakistan community site, proposing some sort of stndard criteria for such articles; and was wondering if most of these articles which dont meet Wiki standards can be deleted 'en masse', or would each require detailed, piecemeal discussion? I think that this is an important issue with long-term implications, and would really be grateful for guidance/advice here, please. many thanks 39.54.151.179 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja (Pakistan)

I've commented at the other location. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Selection

A few years ago, I published a couple of alternatives to the current theories in sexual selection in peer-reviewed journals. I added a brief paragraph to the WP article on sexual selection describing those articles, but other editors have said it violates guidelines on notability. At first, they contended that it was not notable because it was not cited. I pointed out that there appeared to be a confusion between "noted" and "notability". I then pointed out that the guideline for notability focused on article topics, not necessarily content. The response was that the work would not be included until more researchers cited my work. Please clarify for us. Thanks.--BooksXYZ (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in some detail at WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I read it, Fringe theories must be within guidelines for Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. I can't see how my research violates those. Please help, thanks.--BooksXYZ (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:Undue weight section of WP:NPOV policy? I suspect it applies. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Himmapan Forest

The Himmapan Forest is a highly significant mythological place from Thai and Hindu mythology. (www.himmapan.com) While acknowledgment and references to different creatures are given on Wikipedia, there is no page designated to the varied and vast details which comprise the Himmapan Forest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeeowww (talk • contribs) 05:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... even you... so, if there is a topic that we do not include, feel free to write an article about it. That said, before you write it, do some good research. Look for sources that discuss the topic and build your article around those sources. Cite those sources to support what you write. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

2011 Michigan Notre Dame football game

2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am wondering if the 2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game article is sufficiently notable to be included on Wikipedia. I grant that it is Michigan's first night game, but the game itself is covered sufficiently in the 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team game capsule section. Moreover, the only sources that signify the game as notable are from the Michigan athletics website, which serves as a marketing tool for the university. I believe the article should have multiple independent and reputable (not a fan blog) sources that signify this game as notable or important to the game of college football (i.e. "game of the century" status). I do not believe press releases from Michigan or Notre Dame or an ESPN recap to be reputable, (they televised the game) as they serve to sell interest in the game itself for the purposes of generating revenue. I am also unaware of any other programs (such as Alabama, Notre Dame, USC, etc) that have a similar article (i.e. first night game). Regards. Tedmoseby (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have now updated this article with what I think is good sources from sites like SI, Yahoo, Fox and NBC to name afew. This game set a NCAA record for attendance. It was the 1st night game in Michigan Stadium History. It won like 5 team/player of the weeks awards. Was ranked in atleast 2 best of 2011 game/event articals at the end of 2011. There are other articles of regular season games that set NCAA records like this 1 did on wikipedia. I would like to know if it is sufficiently notable to be included on Wikipedia in a stand alone article. Theworm777 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of anime Shiba Inuko-san to the Siba Inu article

I've been trying to add this bit of trivia into the Shiba Inu Popular Culture section but have received resistance due to a perceived lack of notability (also because I had previously accidentally linked to an incorrect source).

Shiba Inuko-san is a four-panel gag-based manga that started publication in the magazine Manga Club Original in November 2010 that depicts a "normal" middle-school girl that appears to actually be a Shiba Inu. Starting April 2012 two minute anime shorts depicting the series began running on the Tokyo MX station in Japan.

Oda Mari notes that a 2-miunute short on a local station is not notable enough and pointed to this page for clarification. However, I don't agree. As noted, it's not just an anime, it's a serialized comic that has been running in a magazine available in Japan for over a year. It is not a one time short but the first of a series of shorts that will play for at least 12 weeks. The vast majority of anime produced in Japan is Late night anime and is usually only shown locally before a DVD release. The manga and anime short series is in the tradition of others of its kind such as Morita-san wa Mukuchi and the currently airing Recorder and Randsell and Poyopoyo, which have all aired in the United States on the popular website Crunchyroll. The show is not as popular (or IMO as good) in the US as to warrant its own Wiki page yet, and I do not have the drive or enough interest in the manga/anime myself to make one, but when I visited the Shiba Inu page after having watched the episode in question, wanting a little background on the breed, I figured fans of the breed might be interested in knowing of the existence of the show. It is admittedly minor, but I thought it satisfies notability standards.

BTW, I admit that I am a novice in wiki editing and only today created an account. Previous editing has been done anonymously and noted only with IP addresses of whichever machine I worked on, but I'd rather not continue getting messages that way, as it is a work computer that others share. Nonsuch Ned (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

SMK Bandar Puchong Jaya (A)

File:Http://i.imgur.com/d6GaL.jpg

PEMBINAAN Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Puchong Jaya (A) mula dibina pada tahun 1999 dan siap akhir tahun 2002. Kontraktok bertanggungjawab ialah Syarikat Urus Budi Sdn. Bhd dan arkiteknya pula ialah Azaharah Ahmad Architect Sdn. Bhd. Siap sepenuhnya dan mula beroperasi pada tahun 2003.

PERINTIS PEMBUKAAN SEKOLAH BAHARU Januari 2003 , Pn. Zabibiwati Bt Mansur dan En. Mohd. Noh Marzuki bertanggungjawab untuk membuka SMK Bandar Puchong Jaya (A) oleh Pejabat Pendidikan Daerah Petaling dan Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri Selangor.

TARIKH RASMI OPERASI Pada 9 Jun 2003, sekolah rasmi beroperasi. Perhimpunan rasmi telah dihadiri oleh Encik Norhashim Bin Ibrahim dari PPD Petaling. Pada peringkat awal, Pn. Zabibiwati menjadi Bt Mansor (PK Akademik) juga menjawat jawatan Pengetua dan En. Mohd. Noh Marzuki (PK HEM) juga memangku tugas PK Kokurikulum. Dibantu oleh 10 orang guru serta dua orang pentadbir. Kelas bermula dengan satu kelas tingkatan 1 dan dua kelas tingkatan 2. Jumlah murid hanya 82 orang.

REKOD ENROLMEN PELAJAR SMK BANDAR PUCHONG JAYA (A) Tahun dan jumlah pelajar : 2003 - 79 orang pelajar 2004 - 326 orang pelajar 2005 - 554 orang pelajar 2006 - 788 orang pelajar 2007 - 939 orang pelajar 2008 - 1020 orang pelajar

SEJARAH SEKOLAH 2004 - PMR pertama dijalankan. 2006 - SPM pertama diadakan. 2007 - Keputusan SPM mencapai tahap membanggakan iaitu 90.6% dan menempatkan sekolah berada di tangga ke-4 dalam Negeri Selangor. 24 orang pelajar telah mendapat keputusan A dalam semua mata pelajaran. 2008 - Majalah pertama sekolah jilid pertama diterbitkan. Murid cemerlang PMR 2008 dijemput ke Majlis Anugerah Kecemerlangan Pendidikan Negeri Selangor 2008. 2009 - Persaraan Pengetua , Pn. Zaniah Bt Hashim. 2010 - Blog sekolah diwujudkan oleh GC En. Abdul Ghalib bin Yunus. Lagu sekolah "Kasih Ilmu Mulia" diperkenalkan. Nama sekolah terpapar di akhbar The Star, Berita Harian, dan New Straits Times. 2011 - Sekolah kini dilengkapi sistem litar tertutup (CCTV) hasil kutipan Senamrobikthon 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiqah SH (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Article on Chaghar Matti - Section on Shakil khan and two image of a boy (his son??)

In this article, I wonder how far a special paragraph on Shakil khan and two image of a boy (his son??) are relevant from notability point of view. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

VillageFest Street Fair in Downtown Palm Springs

Wondering if a Thursday night street fair called VillageFest that has taken place in Downtown Palm Springs, CA for 21 years, deserves notability. Our official site is www.villagefest.org. Thank you. Villagefest (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORG is the relevant guideline. The starting question is whether you regularly get coverage in national/international press? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, i'm no Wikipedia Editor myself, BUT i checked a few of my local such events and found BOTH of Summerfest in Milwaukee AND this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_and_Booms which is an annual fireworks show, both HAVE Wikipedia Pages, therefore I'm siding with Palm Springs! Sounds like VillageFest SHOULD have a page! I could go on and check more such events, and KNOW that's hardly the criteria, but just saying. Lesbrown99 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Then again, Gemütlichkeit Days, Tobacco Days, and Taste of Madison DO NOT have pages, so maybe not. . . sorry Palm Springs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesbrown99 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

List of whitespace characters

Should this redirect to the Unicode table on the Whitespace Space (punctuation)#Spaces in Unicode page? This would mean that the redirect page shows up in web searches like "List of whitespace characters" which is what somebody might type rather than just "Whitespace", which is what somebody who did not know what that term meant or wanted more undetermined general information about the subject. Arlo Barnes (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tanim Chowdhury

Tanim Chowdhury is a guy who lives near London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanim1994 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this info on this noticeboard? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

3D Chess variant inclusion

I'm looking for more opinions on the guidelines for the inclusion of 3D Chess variants
in the 3D chess article. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As it is the article is overstuffed with images. Overloading further would convert it into a photo album with a few descriptive notes. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

international no facebook day.

i am wondering whether this topic is suitable as a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisgood222 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well this should not be a problem, after all Facebook, good or bad, has become part of most of our lives just like television or the internet itself. It is also important to note that we have an article on Uncyclopedia - a satirical website on Wikipedia itself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Uff Teri Adaa

Is the above article really notable?? There is nothing that special about the song that warrants a seperate article. Roshan220195 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The song topped a chart for one week and moved within site of the top of other charts, which WP:NSONG calls "probably notable." Rather than deleting, it suggests redirecting single song articles to other relevant articles. In this case, Karthik Calling Karthik (soundtrack) makes the most sense. Keeping the article would require enough content to build a detailed article. The song was popular in 2010, and real article content was last added in August 2011. If this song has taken the world by storm, with enough reliable sources reporting on it, maybe the article can be salvaged. If the world has moved on, the scant information could be quickly and easily merged into the soundtrack article. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Geocoder.ca

Hi folks. I'm wondering if "Geocoder.ca" is notable. This is a Canadian company that uses crowdsourcing to create a geocoding database. Recently they were sued by Canada Post. This is generating a lot of media attention, and now a Canadian MP is making public statements on the matter. But is this a case of just '1 event'? Please see User:Eclipsed/Geocoder.ca for a rough list of possible references found so far. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding a dispute not linked with the website in question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello there First and foremost I want to apologize if this is in the wrong category/section to state this. It has been brought to my attention that a site in which I founded (www.wordswithmeaning.org) has been the source of a recent dispute with users claiming its' "notability" and being accused of having a direct relationship with the website. (see the deletion discussion)

There has also been a previous attempt at WordswithMeaning! which was also removed, and significantly, contained an argument where a few editors were linked to the deletion discussion page as promoting or advertising the said site

I just want to put it on record that I -- and my fellow site operators -- had no involvement with this issue. Whether or not the website is notable or not is a matter for Wikipedia, but I must clarify that there were no affiliations with myself, the company or anyone directly linked to the website in question.

I am bringing this forward not only as a means to keep a good reputation, but to commit that the website should not be seen as one that can be spammed or promoted via the encyclopedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordswithMeaning (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Garbage fetishism

This is a topic which I think is worth writing about, but which I'm having trouble finding sources for. The fetish exists, as evidenced by many fetish sites, e.g. Trashcan Stories.net. However, so far my searches of things like Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Web Search have not turned up much in the way of the coveted "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I've found evidence of the fetish in such sources[10] but little that is descriptive enough for an article to take its statements from. The best I've been able to find is this article (warning: non-safe images) about the making of a garbage-themed pornography film.

What I've got is basically this: the fetish exists, and has not been written about previously on Wikipedia. (There is some overlap with BDSM and saliromania, but all fetishes overlap to some extent with others.) However, there are not many good sources for an article, at least not from my search so far. So is this topic notable? If so, do the sources I have currently contain enough information to support an article? If not, could anyone point me in a direction where I might possibly find some sources? Knight of Truth (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not notable. Not being able to find any reliable references to use is a pretty good clue that you're dealing with something that just isn't notable. Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right that notability can't be established, as it is now. I was thinking I might just be looking incorrectly or in the wrong places, though--I've never started an article before, let alone one on a more fringe topic. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you've not created an article before, I'd suggest starting with something that is easier to source just to get the hang of it and become familiar with the potential hazards. As interesting as some of the stuff out on the fringes can be, it's much easier to learn good article creation processes closer to the mainstream. Once you know the ropes, THEN jump out to the edges.

Regarding WP:RS references and notability, my personal practice is to first do a targetted google search. That should reveal at least a few good sources if the topic is notable. If not, and it's a topic with a narrow audience or out of the mainstream (ie: a very academic subject, something relating to a subculture, etc) then I might try to find a book or journal relating to the larger field and hope to find a mention of the topic within that. If that doesn't pan out then I'll either just drop the topic and move on to another or I'll put it on a list to check back on sometime in the future. Autumnalmonk (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

NuttX RTOS

Hello, there has been a complicated discussion about the notability of the NuttX RTOS article, since it was challenged for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NuttX_RTOS), several improvements have been made to the article to attempt to qualify as Notable. Thanks for reviewing. Jpcarballo (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards

Are the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards sufficient to count towards notability of the web comics that have won it? Google news archive search shows 239 results. [11] Its something notable enough for news sources to mention someone has won when they list their accomplishments. WP:WEB like most of the subject specific guidelines, list winning an award as counting towards proof of your notability. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Dream Focus 22:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Count towards? Sure, why not. Winning a meaningless award certainly dosen't hurt. However, it's not substantially notable. However, webcomics are an area where articles do not need to be notable to be included in the encyclopedia, by precedent - they merely need to have rabid fans. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you determine what awards are meaningless and which ones are not? Reliable sources seem to consider it notable enough to mention. Dream Focus 22:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Remember that the guidelines are just that: guidelines. They aren't hard and fast rules. If a reliable source mentions something, that doesn't immediately give it notability. I have found in Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards two reliable sources and one potentially reliable source. The NY Times gives minor mention that the awards took place. In a book, the awards are mentioned merely as something for librarians to consult. Neither tells us anything about the history or impact of the awards. I was unable to actually listen to the G4TV video, so I can't tell what the coverage was. But what do we know about the reliability of G4TV and it's reporting reputation? The rest of the sources for Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are blogs. Blogs can be fine if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in their field, and they need to be subject to editorial control, much like any reputable news organization. You'll have to assess the blog sources for that (see Self-published and questionable sources).

Remember also that the notability guidelines for people, films, books, etc. do point to awards, but they qualify that with "major," "significant," and "important." When I searched on Proquest for news articles, I was unable to find Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. I did find Hugo Awards though. So, take a look at news coverage about the Hugo Awards and compare that with WCCA. And examine each of the blog sources. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It has to be a "well-known and independent award" according to the subject specific guidelines for internet related things. Although some would argue this award is a "major, significant, and important" for webcomics. When they talk about a notable webcomic they often mention this award if it won any of them. And its not just blogs doing this either. Example: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Dream Focus 14:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Big Shiny Robot qualifies as a reliable web source, but I agree you have reliable sources that mention the awards in articles on webcomic artists. And these would count for content in those artists' Wikipedia articles. As for the article on the WCCA, there isn't much content you can cite. Based on these six articles, you would have a list of artists who have won the awards or were nominated. Probably your biggest hurdle is going to be the fact the WCCA is defunct and has been replaced by the Webcomic List Awards. Not that that should keep it from having an article on Wikipedia. The Sundance Film Festival started as the Utah/US Film Festival.

I'm not refuting the claim that WCCA is important in the webcomics world. The issue is coming up with reliable sources that back that statement up. Simply stating an artist won a particular award says nothing about how important the award is. Take for example a winery that gets gold medals at a state or county fair. Walk through any wine store, and you'll find little cards next to bottles that name different wine publications such as the Wine Advocate and Decantor. The state fair? Not so much. I'm not trying to belittle the WCCA. It's just that reliable sources are hard to come by that go beyond confirmation of an artist receiving an award and actually discuss the awards, their background, and their impact. And that is what you'll need to bring to AfD discussions. For further help, I would start looking at the people behind the awards. You could start with the founders,Scott Maddix and Mark Mekkes, and work your way through important figures like Frank Cormier. According to Comixpedia, there has been some controversy over the importance of the awards. There's bound to be something useful there. Good hunting! Encycloshave (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points, and good suggestion to look at the people behind the awards. It looks like founder Scott Maddix is the creator of a webcomic called Psychic Dyslexia Institute[17]. "Psychic Dyslexia Institute is hosted on Keenspace, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics." Founder Mark Mekkes is also a webcomic artist who "does Zortic and also Abby's Agency - both at Keenspot."[18] Frank "Damonk" Cormier is also a webcomic artist "Naught Framed!!! © 2000-2006 Damonk. It is hosted on Keenspot."[19] The list of "Web Comic Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards -- Executive Committee" also lists "Teri Crosby (Keenspot)" and says "Hosting provide by Keenspot."[20] The winner of "Best Comic" in the first 2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is Boxjam's Doodle and "BoxJam's Doodle is part of Keenspot Comics."[21] Winner of "Best Art" is Cool Cat Studios which is also part of Keenspot Comics.[22] "Best Writing" would be College Roomies from Hell!!! which was of course hosted by Keenspot. The list just goes on and on. The more I look the worse this looks. "Best Special Event"? "Keenvention" of course. That's a whole lot of people from webcomic collective Keenspot making up an award and then giving it to each other. This is not at all an independent and well-known award which might be an indicator of notability. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

At that time, almost all webcomics were hosted on Keenspot. Were webcomics included from any other source? Dream Focus 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"At that time, almost all webcomics were hosted on Keenspot"? No. At that time in 2001, Keenspot hosted "over 40" webcomics.[23] Years earlier in 1998 people were making lists (by no means complete) of hundreds of comics on the web.[24] "Over 40" is nowhere near "almost all" of "hundreds". Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Encyclo's comments. It's also worth noting per WP:INHERIT that there is no inherited notability. If award X has its own WP article, that does not mean that every winner of award X automatically gets its own WP article. But it does "count towards." Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tricky Subject

I'm in a bit of a quandry (although I suppose you assumed this given that you're reading this on a message board). I'm in a debacle over Wikipedia's own "disregard the rules" and "exceptions exist" policies. The article that I'm watching has an issue that certain subscribers feel is notable enough to vandalize it over, and it has been asked more than once why an article is not created to deal with this issue. I feel a bit silly admitting this, but:

The article in question is the Wild Kratts article, and the vandalization is regarding the relationship status of Martin and Aviva. Of course there aren't any sources, but then I view the Wikipolicies above and wonder. On the one hand, I understand why it would not be permitted (as annoying as it is; both it not being allowed and the entire argument in and of itself). On the other hand, viewers that are new to the show may wonder what all the fuss is, and there are no unbiased sources for them to view- either no one has said anything, and of course both factions are going to try to convince them to take their side. The situation is not addressed in the main article (until it's vandalized, anyhow) to keep neutrality in tact, since to say that they are not in a relationship would also be biased.

I have a draft article created in namespace that I feel is at least mostly unbiased and represents both sides truthfully, and the major reason for it is to hopefully detract the vandals from the main article. (Despite admins being there, it has been vandalized twice, which doesn't seem like much until you look through the history and find the edit war). I was also hoping against hope that it would allow new viewers who come to Wikipedia looking for an answer about the argument a place to view both sides and make their own decision.

Also, the argument is about more than just Martin and Aviva themselves, but also the behavior of both factions, and Martin Kratt himself (the man that cartoon Martin is a caricature of). Part of the argument is about a character that is based off a living human and his brother (whose caricature was victimized as being Martin's competition). That was another reason why I hoped it was an exception, was because of him. I've provided a link to the draft and hope that it's read before a decision is made, and hope that it's allowed into mainspace.

[25]

RigorMorticius (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Of course there aren't any sources..."
• "...there are no unbiased sources..."

Along with "ignore all the rules", one of the other five pillars is "neutral point of view." In order to prove neutrality the information must be referenced to reliable sources independent of the subject. If you cannot find such references, the subject is not notable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

Write your article and get it published in a major newspaper (not as a letter to the editor), magazine or scholarly work. Then get interest generated in the subject so there are multiple articles in multiple reliable sources so that it meets the notability guideline: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."

The editor(s) changing the Wild Kratts article appear to all be IPs. Perhaps you wish to look into getting the page protected? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a previous editor tried that a while back, and the page was not protected. There was an admin watching, but I suppose they've stopped watching the page since it had been a while since the edit had been made, and the edit remained for approximately two weeks before I reverted it. To quote a friend of mine, "This is why this fandom can't have nice things...". Do you think I should try getting page protection again?

RigorMorticius (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the show has now been sold to Germany, resulting in a number of news stories on the subject. Because of those news stories (which appear for the most part in independent, reliable sources) I'd say the subject is notable, albeit somewhat marginally. By all means feel free to request page protection - the worst that can happen is an admin says "no". Looking at the history, though, I don't see enough recent vandalism to warrant protection at the moment so personally I'd be minded to decline such a request. waggers (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Waggers, at question is the userfied article Wild Kratts Shipping War; it appears to have been written to combat unsourced shipping changes to the main article, Wild Kratts. As the shipping article is not notable and likely to get deleted, I proposed protecting the main article. I do not know if it would succeed, it is just the only thing I can think of - aside from getting Kratts shipping into the news - to allay RigorMorticius' concerns. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Another thing too, is that a previous editor attempted to merge a small blurb on the shipping war into the article as well, but it was also removed. That is why I'm so confused; there has been such a fuss kicked up over this that it is indeed notable to the community, and I'm not the only one with concerns about new watchers seeing the battles and wondering what is going on. We all feel like it deserves a mention somewhere, but no one has an idea of where to put it. Naturally, the vandals care nothing for the talk page, and really don't care whatsoever. That is really the entire problem with the war in itself. The entire thing is so frustrating... it's just a lose-lose situation all the way around. Thanks for the help, everyone (although further thoughts will forever be appreciated). RigorMorticius (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I able to start an article for the Poquoson High School Islander Band?

Just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach4997 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You could add any sourced material that you find to Poquoson High School, if you can find any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Chrislam

The religion of Chrislam is a relatively new religion (founded in the early 1970s) held by approximately 1,500 people (less than .00002% of the world's population), the adherents of which having made no significant impact outside of one (otherwise not notable) community in relationship to their faith or practice. I can find only a dozen or so sources of information, only three of which seem to have any level of academic and/or professional reliability. I am of the opinion that based on the lack of evidence present in the Wikipedia article and what I could find elsewhere, this religion has not met the notability requirement as a subject for an article. I would appreciate feedback before I move on AfD for the article. Thanks.  Jim Reed (Talk)  22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the CSM article, I could only find a small number of brief passing references, so I can't see clear evidence of notability. An alternative to deletion would be merging into Religion in Nigeria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A blanket reference to record label

I'm at a loss what to do about Valhall (band). It has not apparent references, and the issue is whether is satisfies WP:BAND or should be deleted. I had originally prod'ed it, but the prod was removed and the notability issue was addressed by simply adding record label names to the three albums that this group has released. I wonder if that is sufficient in itself. Identifying the label on which an album is released would address the criterion of the notability guideline for musical groups which reads in part "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". Should there be a demand for more formal referencing. If so, how should that be presented? __meco (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OPCS-4

I've rewritten and expanded the OPCS-4 article to reflect those of Current Procedural Terminology, ICD-10 and SNOMED CT articles. Is it safe to remove the notability header with how the article currently stands? Little pob (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, i've tweaked it and removed the tag. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

fine. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Care in Mann

minor charity. Googlable. What do you think? Egg Centric 11:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Got any useful wp:Reliable sources that might establish wp:Notability? A quick search just turns up one-para directory listings and fundraiser news, neither of which is very helpful. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Are archdeacons inherently notable?

Can we assume that all archdeacons are inherently notable? For instance I don't think that David Booth (priest), Arthur Royle (priest), Richard Roberts (priest), John Plemth and many many more (see Category:Anglican archdeacons) are notable enough to have their own articles here. Routine inclusion in Who's Who and Crockford's and a mention of their appointment and death in The Times doesn't seem to me to count as "significant coverage" as required by the notability guideline. These worthy people appear to have done nothing outside their jobs that would make them notable - hence my question about inherence.  —SMALLJIM  17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No... we should not assume that anyone is inherently notable. Notability always needs to be established. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question as phrased, no. If you look at Archdeacon of Orkney there are many on that list (e.g. William Brown, 1420) who would fail the test. However, if there is non-trivial coverage in The Times, Whos Who and Crockfords for someone that would suggest they easily pass the test - as they are all clearly independent reliable sources. I don't understand the motive for deleting them? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both. I think most would agree with us that archdeacons aren't automatically notable by virtue of their office. So we have to consider what makes each individual archdeacon notable enough to have an article:

• Crockford's Clerical Directory. Since this is the authoritative directory of the Anglican Communion in the UK, inclusion of any particular archdeacon provides no notability information at all (unless all archdeacons were notable, in which case it would prove membership of the class). If notability can be shown on other grounds, though, the information in the Crockford's entry could be used to build the article.
• Who's Who (UK) (WWUK). Assessing the value of an entry in this is not so easy. A wiki-search on "who's who" notability throws up several discussions on the subject in which various opinions have been expressed. There's possibly a detectable shift in the last year or so towards greater acceptance that an entry in WWUK does confer notability, but there is no policy, guideline, or even clear consensus that that is so, so we mustn't proceed as if it is.

Furthermore, this article from 2009 in The Daily Telegraph provides some possible reasons why we should be wary. Talking about inclusion in WWUK it says: "Other shoo-ins include officers of the City of London, archbishops, bishops, and archdeacons..." and "Except for the royals, the Ks and the other certains, entrants are dependant on the subjective opinions of a mysterious conclave." The same piece quotes the publishers as saying: "The criterion of selection is primarily the interest which a candidate may be considered to have for a reasonably large section of the book’s purchasers." So in other words, some groups (including archdeacons) are apparently included automatically; for the rest no-one outside the company knows who decides who gets in, or the exact criteria for inclusion, except that they're strongly influenced by what the publishers think the likely purchasers would find interesting. That's a long way from our notability criteria!

Actually, for our archdeacons, the situation is worse because we're mainly looking at old editions of WWUK, about which even less is known of the selection criteria at the time. It's reasonable, then, not to weight inclusion in WWUK too highly. It's also important to remember that the entries are essentially short autobiographies, so their content must be treated as primary source material.

• The Times, or similar. Well a decent-sized article about a person in a quality paper has always been considered useful evidence towards notability, but if all we have is a few lines about an appointment in "Church News", or a brief obituary, we would need several more sources as well. I would guess that since The Times etc. will be regular subscribers to WWUK, they are more likely to include notices on people included therein purely on the basis that someone else has already decided they are worth noticing (for whatever reason). [Yes, that's a bit of original research!]

So, I contend that the four archdeacons I listed above, at least, don't pass the notability test - and to be honest I did just pick them with little difficulty from the hundreds listed at Category:Anglican archdeacons. What to do? That's for further discussion, I think, but I am sure that User:Bashereyre should exercise much greater restraint in creating such articles in future.  —SMALLJIM  16:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I had always assumed that not all archdeacons or cathedral provosts/deans would be notable. When I have redlinked them in templates and list articles, it has not been my intention that such articles would necessarily be created (merely that iff they were, I had predetermined the best location). I would have no objection to Bash exercising more caution regarding clergy notability. DBD 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have to ask, though: what about Edward Raynes that you've just moved. Do you really think he's notable - shouldn't he be deleted instead?  —SMALLJIM  20:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If all we can say about Edward Raynes is that he was Archdeacon of Lewes in the early 1800s, I would certainly question his notability. I also have to wonder why we have a List of Archdeacons of Lewes article. Is there something notable about this particular Archdeaconry that warrants our having a stand alone list of its office holders... or is this just ecclesiastical trivia. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything unique about this one - it seems to be part of an ongoing project to document them all, see Category:Lists of Anglicans. Oh no! - looking at that list, the same problem applies to Deans as well.  —SMALLJIM  16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To get some further opinions on this I've submitted David Booth (priest) and John Plemth to Articles for deletion, as test cases.  —SMALLJIM  18:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the re-listed AfDs for Booth and Plemth would benefit from some opinions from those well-versed in the application of the notability guidelines.  —SMALLJIM  00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Most archdeacons, deans and other so-called "senior clergy" are not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The constant creation of articles on such historically obscure clergy is pointless - and also tedious as the editor who is principally responsible for creating these non-notable articles constantly ignores a significant number of MOS issues. He even often indiscriminately refers to them in the articles as being "eminent" - which in many cases is highly dubious. I have removed this POV adjective from the articles I have come across - in one case from the article on a former Australian Anglican bishop who was officially defrocked for sexual abuse. Hardly a qualification for being called "eminent"! I have wasted far too much time attempting to bring these completely unecessary and frustrating articles into some kind of basic conformity with the MOS. Unfortunately the editor who keeps creating them seems to have an obsession with creating as many articles as possible and mistakenly thinks that he is in some kind of virtuous competition with other multiple article creators. Enough is enough of this nonsense! Anglicanus (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Both of the above test cases that I sent to AfD have been closed as 'keep' after discussions that didn't really centre around inherent notability as I hoped they would, and for no stated reasons by the closing admins. It appears that keeping articles on such minimally notable people by any means possible is more important than establishing useful principles - at least that's how it seems to me at the moment. A similar case that happened to crop up at the same time dealing with the apparent inherent notability of minor TV relay stations was also deemed to have no consensus to delete, see here for the reasons (under AfD for Cwm Twrch transmitting station).

But this all sounds like self-pity because I didn't get my way :) I suppose the lesson to be learned is that the notability guideline is gradually assuming less importance. As long as an article doesn't advertise anything, promote a person, or violate any other policies it stands a good chance of being kept, no matter how minimal its interest to the world at large is, because "it does no harm". One reason for this is probably people's continuing desire to contribute something useful to Wikipedia. Since all the main topics are by now complete enough that the only acceptable changes to them are minor adjustments or the addition of carefully referenced information, new article creation is the only way that extensive contributions can easily be made in anyone's sphere of interest. If we keep telling editors that what they add isn't good enough they won't stay - and we're told that editor retention is an issue. Ah well, us oldies must adapt and since I don't have much of a problem with the "it does no harm" point of view, I shall move on with a revised outlook having learned something useful from this exercise.  —SMALLJIM  11:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Woody Interruptus

Woody Interruptus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This topic is claimed to be notable for accolades of direction and ratings. However, I have searched sources that substantially cover this episode with and without using this episode's title. Unfortunately, no coverage about this episode's plot have been found. I even tried words, 'woody kelly henri'; none are found, as well. Moreover, there is no consensus to merge into List of Cheers episodes. Do accolades and ratings make this episode notable? --George Ho (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Id think all episodes should eventually be on WP as the show is notable and akin to the all the movies that get WP pages, most of which are hardl worth more than a screening.

note: im involved in such pages with George.Lihaas (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Club Chess in Greece.

Due to my fairly good knowledge on this topic, and access to reliable sources, plus knowing people who can provide with even more knowledge, I am interested in writing articles about club chess in Greece. That includes pages for clubs, players and competitions.

Do you believe it's considered notable enough? --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 21:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Two days and no reply, and I'd like to bring this back to the attention of people who use this page. --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a new month and still no reply, I'd really appreciate it if someone could share their opinion about this so I can decide if I should proceed or not. --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 07:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)