Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

It is daily reported in Indian newspapers about the dog bite cases, in many of such cases it results in deaths. Mainly because the anti-rabis doses is not available in the Government Hospitals or if available it is dubious. The affordable have to go to corporate hospitals to administer injections at exorbitant rates. The government wants to control street dog population by sterilising and vaccinating the dogs. But the unfortunately, had been unsuccessful in containing the stray dogs population. It is growing at fast pace. The stray dogs also becomes a reason for obstructing the traffic on the roads many a times accidents occur. The citizens suffer the bad quality of life due to the dog menace. I have petitioned the State Human Rights Commission to advice the government to come out a action plan to contain the population of dogs. The case is posted on 9th December, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prravinder (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate guidelines for an article on this topic are Wikipedia:Notability (events). As you will read, coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope and persist over a period of time. HairyWombat 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This article already passed a proposed deletion, but I'm not satisfied with the results. I think the author is probably not notable, and none of the keep votes indicated any actual notability. The current biography has one source, this. The media section of Stasheff's site has little on it. There are small mentions spread about the web, for instance here, [1] slightly more here, and this. But I don't really see that it meets the general notability guideline or the notability policy on creative professionals. I didn't click every single link in the google news search.

At the least, I feel that the "keep" consensus on the deletion page was unsupported. I'd like to know what others think, and particularly if anyone feels that we need stricter standards on deletion proposals, such as "if notability has not been established by the end of the deletion discussion, the closing administrator should close as "delete""

Cross-posted here B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"I've never heard of him, so he must not be notable"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about sources, Sarek. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If the claim made during the deletion debate, that the author has published 40 novels (including, according to the article, one co-authored with L. Sprague de Camp, a huge name), then they pretty much have to be notable. I agree no references emerged during the debate, but logic suggests that they are out there. With regard to closing debates, I feel the current practice is fine; it was followed in this instance, but that is not always the case. HairyWombat 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I know how it seems, but that's the whole point: where are the sources, actually? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

During the 2010 debate, an anonymous fan asked for advice on what sources were required. I have now given that advice over at Talk:Christopher Stasheff#Sources for notability. Hopefully this will generate a response, even though it really should have been done a year ago. HairyWombat 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, cool thanks (: B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's practical, but I'm interested in the general picture even more than this article. I see a lot of "it ought to be notable, so keep it," and I'm just wondering if this is considered enough for a legitimate "keep" on an article, especially BLPs. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This Noticeboard is for receiving advice on individual articles, so I must suggest that this is not the place for a discussion of the general picture. I am not sure where you could discuss the AfD closing procedure, however, if you do start such a discussion elsewhere please drop a note (and link) here. HairyWombat 20:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Already done (; [2]. But I would think that if there's no other place, this would be it, no? Or Wikipedia_talk:Notability? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The only claim of notability that I see in this article is that Berkley Island was named after the subject. There's obviously no notability guidelines that directly covers this situation. I don't feel comfortable PRODing it (and I shouldn't have nominated it for A7) so I thought I'd suggest some others take a look at it. OlYeller^Talktome 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He seems to be known for only a single event, over-wintering in 1957 at Wilkes Station. As the event isn't notable, the best chance for this article is for it to be merged into Berkley Island. Most of the information is there anyway. I would suggest you propose this (see Help:Merging for instructions.) HairyWombat 22:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I created this article after a recent visit to the memorial during my yearly trip to Interior Alaska. I guess I sort of assumed that a state memorial to all veterans that were either from or served in a particular state would probably fall into the "automatic notability" realm, but now that I think about it I don't know where I got that idea. Most named places are in that realm, but this isn't a populated place or anything, in fact it was deliberately placed out in the middle of the wilderness. (It is inside Denali State Park and there are spectacular views of Denali itself on clear days) WP:V is fairly easily met, but in the course of trying to pull a DYK out of it the reviewing editor slapped {{notability}} on it. As it was built in 1983 and dedicated in 1984 the press coverage something like this obviously would have gotten at the time is not available online. In recent years other memorials in more accessible locations have sprung up, but this is still the only official state memorial to all our veterans. GNIS has no entry on it. I know there are older sources out there but I am not going to be making the four hour drive to Anchorage to locate the hardcopies in the library there. So, have I created an article on a non-notable topic? Is there any precedent for a specific notability guideline for state-sanctioned, rather than local, monuments and memorials? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is some advice over at Wikipedia:Places of local interest. You seem to have two choices. The first is to merge your article into an article about a local region; this would seem to be Denali State Park. This would inevitably mean losing a lot of the content. The second is to tough it out. Even if your article is proposed for deletion, it may still survive. I doubt that many people will lose sleep over an article about a veterans memorial. Also, if it is nominated for deletion ask for help from: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. (You could ask for help from the last two now.) HairyWombat 05:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes looking at the issue.  The map linked by the article only has the name of the memorial, and the State of Alaska is not entirely independent of the topic.  The visitors center associated with the memorial, whose existence implies notability, is also used for visitors to the park and for the adjacent campground.  But WP:N only requires that the references be "likely", and it is likely that newspaper references exist in libraries with 1983 Anchorage newspapers. 

I think the most important point is that the material is encyclopedic.  This means, regarding the worst case for a lack of notability, that the material in the article is not subject to deletion, only to being merged.  Is there a consensus to merge the material to Denali State Park?  Since the editor that posted the notability template has not started a discussion on the talk page, the answer is, "No", there is no consensus to merge anything anywhere, so I think the notability template can be removed as a moot point.  At the same time, there are legitimate questions about the current sourcing, so if this bothers someone, and they are willing to volunteer to merge the material to Denali State Park, I think this would be fine.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NRVE indeed states:

Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.

I am convinced, and will remove the {{notability}} tag. HairyWombat 03:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input, it looks like the DYK nom is back on track. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not find any pages detailing the military-air force-navy International ground to air codes, usually rock symbols laid to tell planes "food required...Land here..." etc. Looked for quite a while. Just curious as to whether or not someone could request or make that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.119.200 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You can request an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles. This Noticeboard is for discussing notability of articles. Such an article would be notable if there exist sources for the topic (which I assume would be the case). HairyWombat 04:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iriver Story ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I nominated this article for deletion. As my rationale states, I couldn't find any notability guideline specific to computer devices, or even technology. So far, two editors have !voted to keep the article. One says the reader has been reviewed by many reliable electronics publications, which establishes notability. Assuming that's true (the article has nothing in it to that effect, but it wouldn't surprise me), is that enough? Many devices and many software apps are reviewed by computer publications. If the editor is correct, we would have tons of articles on freeware and shareware, not to mention devices. For computer hardware and software, that's a pretty low threshold for notability. Although satisfying WP:GNG establishes only a "presumption" of notability that can be overcome by consensus, wouldn't it be better to have a guideline for computer hardware and software that requires something more than just reviews by reliable sources?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This problem is not confined to computer hardware and software, but to gizmos in general. (I couldn't think of a better generic term.) There doesn't appear to be any guidelines for gizmos, and they are not even mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (which does not contain guidelines). Yes, it would be better to have such guidelines. It would be better to have guidelines for everything. The problem with this approach is that somebody has to write them, and to then achieve consensus.

I believe the problem with reviews is that many of them are just recycled press releases. (Journalists are not given the time to do their job, and so are reduced to such "churnalism".) Such material is not independent of the subject, and so is already covered by WP:GNG. This leads to a separate problem I see, which additional guidelines will not address; that of closing administrators being swayed by spurious arguments and not applying the existing guidelines. HairyWombat 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about the difficulties in creating guidelines. As to the reviews of the reader, I'd have to, uh, read them to determine whether they are "recycled press releases" or real reviews.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do so, and comment on them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, on reflection, a discussion of a general problem is better placed at Wikipedia talk:Notability. This Noticeboard is for discussion of the notability of individual articles. (As you can see above, I am a perpetrator in this.) HairyWombat 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

HairyWombat says "the problem with reviews is that many of them are just recycled press releases" which may be true some of the time with product articles in general, but it is not true regarding the reviews I brought forward regarding this specific device, which is the topic being discussed here. I did find one article published before the product was released that fell into that category. However, the majority of the published reviews I found were clearly not based on press releases, because they included detailed criticisms of the shortcomings in the product. I believe that every review I added to the article as a reference is a genuine, independent review. Click on them and read them. Lacking a specific notability guideline, we always default to the GNG and overall policies. As a participant in roughly 1000 AfD debates so far, I see no evidence that closing administrators are regularly "swayed by spurious arguments". Please point out some examples of that, HairyWombat. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A growing number of television sitcoms and dramas feature actors of South Asian descent, perhaps at the expense of other ethnic groups. I'm particularly curious about the rise of Indians/Pakistanis on television and since I could not find an article on Wikipedia, I thought it would be an interesting one to start. I found several relevant links (see below), but nothing with the community power of a Wiki. This would be my first contribution and I was hoping for guidance. Is this a suitable topic?

• http://www.racialicious.com/2010/06/15/whats-behind-the-south-asian-boom-on-tv/
• http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/imagesasiansbib.html
• http://purnima-fic.livejournal.com/1000.html
• http://gayblackcanadianman.com/2007/11/28/south-asian-american-actors-can-they-just-be-doctors-on-television/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyassameer (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The topic may, perhaps, be suitable if there are sources for it. But I can tell you right away that all of those sources you gave, besides the Berkeley one, are not reliable sources. They are either blogs or a random person's Livejournal. Now the books listed in the Berkeley link seem like they would be reliable sources, but that means that in order to write such an article, you will need to be able to get a hold of the books listed there so you can access their information. Reliable sources are generally newspaper articles (including online news sites), books, and papers written by academics. If you are unsure about whether a source is reliable, you should ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I hope that helps. Perhaps you can title the article South Asians in television. In fact, you might want to see about doing a broader article, such as Asians in television, as that doesn't seem to exist either. Silverseren^C 18:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

the character name is Tusskie The Hedgehog. can i create a page about her?

"Tusskie The Hedgehog (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)'

Please read WP:MADEUP. Furthermore you appear to have a very significant conflict of interest in creating this article. As such it is very unlikely that your article will remain here. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was told by SigmaWP and Logan (talk · contribs) on IRC that this article does not fall under A7 simply because he held a governmental position, according to the article. I have a hard time believing this, and the article itself does not describe how the person is significant "otherwise", if at all. Can I get a notability check here? (Also, I would rather SigmaWP and Logan not do the check for me, because I know they will say the exact thing they said on IRC, which, again, I have a hard time believing) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 01:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of speedy deletion, the issue is whether as a former mayor he has "received significant press coverage" and whether Montclair is a city of "regional importance". See WP:POLITICIAN. Speedy deletion of a former mayor would be tricky, and I can certainly see it being declined. Nominating the article for deletion after a check as to how much press coverage he's gotten seems better to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are people who are passionate that this article not be deleted then wouldn't they flesh out the article a bit more? All it says is that he was a former mayor. I am not sure whether that fact alone makes someone notable? MsBatfish (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Is it allowed or appropriate to write an article about a company or business when you, for example, know someone who works for that company? Assuming the article is unbiased and properly referenced of course :-)

2) Is there a guideline on how big or well-known a company must be in order to merit it's own article?

3) And lastly, are there guidelines on what is and isn't an acceptable source when writing an article about a company/business? Is one allowed to cite that company's website, for example? Or is one only supposed to use outside sources such as newspaper articles etc?

Thanks for your help! MsBatfish (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think I may have found the answer to my first question, at least regarding Wikipedia policy, in the Conflicts of Interest section, but I would still like to hear people's opinions. My understanding is that having an interest in something is not necessarily the same as having a conflict of interest and that one should just be very careful and transparent when writing an article about something you have an interest in, (I understand that some people might argue that almost anyone who is creating or editing any article must have an "interest" in the topic).

I would still really like some advice on my 2nd question, as I don't want to put a lot of time and effort into writing an article only to have it deleted for not being deemed notable enough :-) MsBatfish (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer your 2nd question: The guideline is WP:Notability (companies).

To answer your 3rd question: The company's own website can be useful for obtaining factual information, however it won't go very far at all to proving notability. In order to provide notability you would need several external sources, newspapers being a good example (international ones being the best). See WP:Verify for more information on reliable sources. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the all the help Mrmatiko ! :-) I will check out those articles. MsBatfish (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on nominating this for deletion, but I wanted to get some other input first. I don't really consider a random guard at a Nazi concentration camp to be notable. There are some sources on her, but her name is either included in a list of guards in them or they have a sentence or two that is basically what the article has now. The article as it is will never be expanded, there's nothing else to add. She was a guard at two concentration camps, she and many others were sentenced to prison. She got out after five years. End of story.

I would prefer though, rather than having to slog through a deletion debate, to have the article merged/redirected to some overarching article that discusses guards at the concentration camps, but i'm not sure if such an article exists. She is far too minor to be mentioned in any of the main articles, like concentration camp. Is there some sort of list of concentration camp guards article? That would work too. Silverseren^C 02:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Silverseren^C 01:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. Tough call. I think a merge/redirect would work best all around, possibly to Nazi concentration camps. This article in its current condition lacks sufficient sources; and it is correct that the person herself seems non-notable in and of herself; however what the person allegedly did (torture etc) was notable. And there are people out there still alive in the world who wish to preserve the memory of what she did and who are (I assume) upset about the light sentence and early release from prison. If there had been a trial after WW2, then additional source information could be found -- although it will appear either in newspapers or magazines which are probably not online today (but could be in the future). Or, maybe somebody will work harder to dig up the source material and be able to present something than the pdf which is in German, or work thru the sources that you found. The article may potentially be helpful to historians of WW2 as well as researchers of the Holocaust. So, I'm unsure what to do, but my best guess at the moment is that a merge/redirect is the way to go; if it came to a deletion discussion, I'd perhaps vote weak keep but improve since there are sources found like you note above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be a lot better if there was an article about Nazi concentration camp guards and then she could have a sub-section there. Extra thought: I just did a search and ran across Female guards in Nazi concentration camps, would that work better as a redirect target? Silverseren^C 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Agree, provided of course that Female guards in Nazi concentration camps was not some kind of porno movie but encyclopedic etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Kinkiest porno movie ever made. Anyways, done, it's redirected now. Thanks for your input. Silverseren^C 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, While editing Young Justice (TV series), after ref-tagging the cast section in the article and initiating discussion and waiting three days (with no comment), I removed a sizable chunk of what appeared to be (to me) non-notable information (1) and was reverted once by an anon from Toronto with less than 100 edits (2) without so much as an edit summary. I moved the removed bits to the discussion page in a collapsible box for citation and notability vetting, as well as expanding on the initial discussion. It was again by Mr.Fennoy75 (3), another newer contributor with less than 200 edits, also without discussion. I sent the latter a 'talkback' message to come on over to article discussion and work on finding a solution.

I think I have acted appropriately, both before moving the material to the discussion page for vetting and discussion. The fact that there were no edit summaries from either contributor makes me think they might revert yet again. I'd like some input as to policy/guideline basis for the removal of additional voice roles and one-off cast members. I know that they should be removed, but am not altogether clear as to what signpost to provide to the new users so they can learn. Can someone offer some assistance? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Some feedback would be helpful; I'd prefer that this issue gets nipped in the bud, and not blossoms into something uglier. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? Ladyada Just a random Internet nobody.

205.254.147.8 (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this article fails Notability.

It is a small, private company, and the article is written similar to WP:NOTADVERTISING. Most of the references are arcane, except for one small Bloomberg story, so there isn't Significant coverage. Swim900 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding whether or not there is significant coverage, I'd say that "Significant coverage" is the sum of any material that is more than trivial.  As far as I know, being "small" and being "private" are not factors in determining notability, wp:notability exists independently of the topic.  I removed four sentences from the article that I considered to be promotional.  I added some info that I think readers would like to see but that promoters would not include, such as the fact that the company is not currently profitable.  I also added the info about the deal with Chrysler that failed to save Chrysler from bankruptcy.  The Bloomberg reference is from a company with an international reputation for reliable data and is a strong indicator of notability.  Business.com appears to be a credible national or international source.  I'd also consider the selection by Chrysler and Hyundai and the subsequent nationwide advertising campaigns to be indicators that the company "attracts attention".  I removed one reference that I considered to not be useful, but I haven't looked at all of the references.  I've seen enough that I think readers want to have this stand-alone article in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if somebody who is not me could check out this article and evaluate the notability of the subject. I should mention that if you look in the page history you will see it was created by Drlesmgolden (talk · contribs), who created several other articles that have all now been deleted because they turned out to be puffery based on weak, marginal, or unreliable sources. The other main editor of the article is a now-blocked sock of Golden's. I have now nominated three other articles created by him for deletion and they are now all gone. It is in the interest of avoiding any appearance of some sort of vendetta that I referring this here for others to evaluate, but here is what I believe I am seeing in the current references:

• [3] a user created website, created by Les Golden
• the second and third ref are seemingly the same, [4] an obituary that does verify some of the claims in the article
• The fourth, according to the article text itself, is a letter to the editor written by one Les Golden

Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Moscow is a Hull band from the 1980s. Got a significant amount of coverage way back when. Thinking that it would deserve a wikipedia page.

More recently they're in the studio to record a new album with notable producer Stuart Colman who has wikipedia article already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Colman

Thoughts please?

And how to do I create a page - I'm new to this.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twigleafe (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

An issue has been raised here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Jewish_Anti-Zionist_Network over notabiltiy. There are a number of sources used that give a paragraph or more coverage [5] [6][7][8], whilst this say they are important [9]. Is this sufficant to establish notability?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alf morgan is a power kiter from south england. He has been power kiting for around a year. The kites he uses are Flexifoil sting, buzz and bug buzz. He is a promoter for mutiny kites and hopefully trole industries too. In his spare time other thank kiting he edits videos for youtube, he does all of his own editing. His youtube account is alfmonsterarmy (http://www.youtube.com/user/alfmonsterarmy?feature=mhee). In addition to kiting his other sports include trampolining and target rifle shooting. His most played song in his library is xv las hero ft. patrick stump. Other music artists he likes are Deadmau5, Skrillex, Patrick stump, Dr. dre, Nero, Hoodie allen, Dj splash and more. He plays xbox (gamertag v M A U 5) his favorite games are Skate 3, Call of duty modern warfare 2, Fortress craft chapter, Dirt 3 and Bomberman live. In 2012 he plans on starting kitesurfing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealfmondo2 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This isn't a place to post suggested articles, it is a place to discuss the notability of article subjects. As far as I can tell we have never had an article on this person. You can go to WP:RA to request an article be created, or review Wikipedia advice on how to write your first article and take a stab at it yourself. Be sure to locate some relaible sources before posting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize that we do not have a specific policy on notability of geographic features, and that a RFC specifically to decide if geography was inherently notable failed. Dr Blofeld is creating a massive number of articles, all with identical content (which is none whatsoever, except saying the name of the river is a river in germany, and including the template to the german language version of the place. ). The german articles do appear to have some content in them, but it is not being brought over, and the work to bring it over for the number of articles being produced would be incredibly immense. I asked Blofeld about it, and frankly got a very rude response. If the comunity thinks these articles are fine, I don't care, but it seems almost a type of spam to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The point in them is not xxx is a river of Hesse etc but for an initial bridge to get content already written on German wikipedia into English which will eventually much benefit our wikipedia. Of course we need German translators but anybody visiting the articles can reasonably expand it. If we are to progress as a resource we cannot ignore 700 rivers in each German state! There is a reason why the articles are not speedy deleted; if you were to take any stub to AFD they would be kept because I'm certain virtually all will have some reliable sources ready to expand. I need say no more. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you followed Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Gaijin, instead of scattering the conversation over many different locations, how about you keep it all here? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize i risk looking like forum shopping. I believe my notice here was premature, as this is not really a notability issue, but more of an issue with Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation which identified the village pump and administrator noticeboards as the correct location for discussions such as this. I will not be posting it to any other locations, as I belive now the appropriate boards have been notified to make their decision, which I will abide to. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone look at this article? I am not sure if a person who only played 8 professional indoor soccer games qualifies as being notable for a Wikipedia article. KitHutch (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been engaged in conversation with a user about violating the 3RR on the article Free software. From my POV, he's a single-purpose account, and has no edit history apart from the article on the application and the free software article. Furthermore, the article has no references other than the developer's site, and is not notable. I'll send him a link to this to get his opinion, but I wanted a third party. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 07:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You have nothing better to do then to attack me, i see how it is. If you honestly have nothing better to do, how about looking around to what i posted before what you just posted and you will see on Sudo's page all the 3rd party you want or a google search would have helped but whatever, i see you like escalating situations and wasting time, must make you feel like a bigger person except im going out of my way to tell you right now, that you are not because you are obviously going out of your way to purposely upset me and target me for reasons which are currently unknown. Oh and FYI, you would know ive had this account for a long time and that its obviously my personal one if you really bothered to do some more research and not accuse other people of things you just aren't aware of, especially doing what you just did with this post. Its just not only uncalled for but alittle (sigh) i dont even know how i can explain it to you so i will just sigh. --Nevoexpo (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any specific guidelines or precedents for creating articles about food or drink recipe's? I came across a request for a review of Minced pork rice, which had apparently been written because someone had eaten it and liked it. There are many similar recipe articles that are completely unreferenced but have survived for years! Mind you, 'Minced Pork Rice' is allegedly included in the Michelin Green Guide, which presumably could be an indication of notoriety? Maybe specific 'Food & Drink' notability guidelines would be useful. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check/comment if this article on Srivatsa Ramaswami is suitable to have its own article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithS77 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he isn't. First of all, the article is completely unsourced. Second, a yoga teacher with couple of books on yoga is not notable unless he has had a significant impact, and nothing in the article suggests he has. Third, teaching training courses adds nothing to notability. Unlikely that sufficient sourcing will be found to establish notability. The article is purely promotional, and can be deleted in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Two days ago, (202084) 2004 SE56, an unnamed speck among untold thousands way out in space, was a redirect to a chart of thousands and thousands of such rocks. Today, along with thousands more, it has been made into an article. This mocks notablity guidelines and if allowed to stand will may be forever pointed to as proof that Wikipedia has no effective notablity standards. Every minute that goes by, the creator of this astroidette article creates more and more, yet no one has yet acted to stop him. He has no consensus to do this even from the astrology community, let alone the community at large. Please act now. Chrisrus (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To keep discussion together, please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_of_notablity_violations_in_progress, which Chrisrus also opened. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There are already 200,000 List of minor planets, of which nearly the first 7,000 have their own article page, many of which go back at least 5 year. There is already a discussion on the Notability (astronomical objects), and I will repeat my opinion that I have there: I believe that all subjects on Wikipedia should be subject to the same notability criteria. Different people find different articles notable. There is no doubt that many of the 200,000+ minor planets are not notable, are not even well sourced, let alone have multiple independent sources. But personally I find them interesting and factual, so I can see no reason for their exclusion. Someone could make the argument for another subject, and while I might not find them notable, nor interesting, I don't see why my lack of interest should be imposed on someone else. --Iantresman (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What I see in the linked article is one sentence, with one external link (presumable a source). There really is not much point in writing a one sentence article - certainly if you don't expect to expand it soon. But the notability guidelines are written a bit differently: it needs "significant coverage in reliable sources." Note the "s" ==> "more than one." Please come back when you have more than one source and (to get my support) more than one sentence. Smallbones (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur that these articles should not be getting created, unless this particular item can shown to be notable. Further, I believe the wikiproject astronomy notability guidelies (newly formed, or possibly still pending) address items such as this. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

They've just finalized the guidelines. Now we're waiting to see what they plan to do about (202084) 2004 SE56 and the thousands more. Chrisrus (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The current article for Digimon card games mixes the two card games that were produced, the Digi-Battle card game, and the Digimon Collectable Card Game, the first using more of the described "Rock, Paper, Scissors system", while the second is a general copy of the Yu-gi-oh or Magic the Gathering Attack stat vs Defense stat method. Both games are properly listed on the page List of collectible card games, as well as the Digimon D-Tector game.

Is it reasonable within Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria to separate Digimon card games into a page for the Digimon Collectable Card Game and the Digimon Digi-Battle Card Game?

PD2525 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Do good-quality reliable sources treat them as completely separate games, or as variations on the same theme? We generally follow the sources.

To some extent, this question requires you to use your editorial judgment. Two separate pages that largely repeat the same material isn't desirable. One page that cleanly differentiates between two versions might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how to ask, but I feel that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monteiro_da_Costa might not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The page is currently a stub and no further information was given than the player's position and birthplace.

The sports notability guidelines say that if he did not play in a notable international competition or play for a fully professional Association Football league then he is most likely not notable. I would appreciate if somebody investigated the matter and deleted the page if he does not meet this requirment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.132.90 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to amend my former statement, his team history is listed and external links are provided but he is not officially cited. I am a Wiki Neophyte, so I'm not really sure what to do about it. I recognize that this page is probably not the best place to question random pages' citations, therefore I apologize and abscond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.132.90 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability doesn't require any citations. It definitely doesn't require properly formatted citations, e.g., listing WP:General references under a proper section heading rather than under ==External links==. The requirement is only that somewhere in the world, somebody has published reliable sources on the subject. So figuring out whether this person qualifies for a separate article requires searching for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone offer an opinion on this article in terms of whether the article and the references meet GNG notability guidelines. Disclosure: I've written the article - part of a series on Irish cheese. It's a small article, but it has 5 references. The cheese has had significant coverage - it has been written about (more than one full page) in a recently published book on cheese, and has been mentioned in the largest regional newspaper in Ireland, as well as having won an award in this year's British Cheese Awards. I appreciate any suggestions, thanks. --HighKing (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added my comment on the article's discussion page. Sionk (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that anyone would keep fussing about notability after the article survived a trip through AFD. It may be a borderline case, but surely we have much better uses for our time than to keep picking at a single page. Perhaps it's time for the nom to learn WP:How to lose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a non profit organization that currently works in Central America helping erradicate a specific type of fly that damages crops. I am just wondering if this would be accepted as an entry. It is in now way trying to promote a company but rather let people know how they work and what their whole process is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.160.230 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This entry has just been created by Brandonfarris, and from looking at his other edits - including creating an article on Campbell's story attacking the competitor newspaper - it seems very likely that he is the subject of the article. He keeps adding new biographical material which is unlikely that anyone but the subject would've known, and adding highly POV claims about the subject. He also keeps restoring without reference to the talk page any material removed for being POV and unsourced.

In any case, Wikipedia does not have an article for every journalist at the Herald Sun. Campbell's two recent attack pieces - the one on Nicola Gobbo and the one accusing his employer's rival of "hacking" - do not make him "notable". Garth M (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on the New Zealand government programme Better by design has been marked for speedy deletion. I've addressed the speedy deletion concerns on the articles talk page (as is usual). But I'd appreciate a third party perspective on the fundamental notability (as opposed to importance) of the programme for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have a potential conflict of interest so I'd rather ask the community for an independent perspective instead of making a case entirely myself. As a starting point I've put newspaper, magazine, academic and government sources into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjthomson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems 'notable' to me, with good references. Sionk (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to have an entry on the comparisons among the world's most developed countries and what their governments are doing to make them that way? Statistical databases such as http://www.oecd.org, http://www.internationalcomparison.org, and http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/. While studying Political Science at university, i found that Google's search results for terms that students like myself showed a propensity to use (e.g. "international comparisons" or "international statistics") yielded poor, irrelevant results. An encyclopedia appropriate entry on Wikipedia could potentially prove a valuable and accessible tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.106.96 (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

He's listed as a writer, but his work is self-published (non-fiction about aid and development). The Wikipedia article and talk page don't make any claims for his notability and the article doesn't have any references. He works in the aid industry, so may be notable for that even if he doesn't seem to fulfil the notability criteria for a writer. One of his self-published books, The Hungry Man, survived an AfD[10] - albeit by "no consensus". If one of his books survived an AfD does that mean he's notable, or maybe his page should be a redirect to the book? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't fulfil the notability criteria for a writer and, as you say, the AfD for his book was inconclusive. Why not prod the biography for deletion, the book would surely then follow swiftly also? Exok (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article Circball was deleted due its supposed non-notable reasons. A copy of the article can be read at this talk page. User:GalingPinas/Circball. A series of analysis has been written in the AfD discussion page to provide support of its notability per WP guidelines of WP:Notability of article creation. It states that " If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." In this case a significant coverage in independent sources were found. Do these sources passed the Notability creation of an article or not? Remember notability as it relates to article creation is entirely different from notability as it relates to article Content. Please judge by this very specific criteria. Thanks. GalingPinas (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The copy of the deleted article does not demonstrate notability to me either. The cites references are mainly to videos, including several self-published on Facebook and YouTube. Where were the significant independent sources? Sionk (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are three sources. See AfD discussion page for detail analysis of these three sources. I've copied part of the discussions below:

Comment "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..."WP:GNG. Let's discuss in detail these sources and how they meet these 5 criterias for notability purposes.

Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":

1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.

2. "Reliable" - Saksi news coverage is reliable because it came from a major news media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, GMA.

3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.

4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.

5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":

1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.

2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, Q-TV and GMA.

3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.

4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.

5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:

1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.

2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, UNTV.

3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.

4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.

5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.

These sources and others establish the notability of Circball per WP:GNG and must be included in WP either as a standalone article or merge with similar articles that discusses basketball related topics, in particular, variations of basketball.GalingPinas (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GalingPinas (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• It would have been simpler to give a link (which you have done now) to the AfD discussion. I was only offering my opinion. I've no intention of reopening the discussion about notability, which has already taken place and reached a consensus. Best of luck with your future contributions to WP. Sionk (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus was flawed if not questionable. Here's my analysis of the vote:

Analysis of votes:

1. Delete by Hobbes Goodyear - No substantial arguments here as this user only stated that sources couldn't be found. It was indeed found. This vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus.

2. Delete by Jimfbleak - No substantial arguments either. Statements of personal opinions should not be counted as part of consensus.

3. Delete by JamesBWatson - User charged that article is being promoted. This is outside the discussions of notability. User thinks it's not "prominent" yet. Again, notability doesn't mean it's popular or famous. This vote should not be counted as part of consensus.

4. Delete by η-θ - A comment of ":p duh.". Does that count??

5. Delete by Tarc - a charge of advertising again or that it was "made up" sport that the user didn't like. This shouldn't be counted as consensus.

6. Keep by Circball. Notability was argued here by providing three reliable sources.

7. Comment by GalingPinas - Analysis of these three reliable sources was provided. Additional reliable sources was also provided that confirm Circball's appearance in a children TV show by Abante-Tonite. If number of votes is the only criteria considered on Afd, then the decision to delete may be correct. However, that's not policy. Policy says that we need to look at these votes and determined if they are substantive enough to merit consensus. Also, disregarding reliable sources is not within policy just because this sport is not popular, prominent, or famous yet.

Article is now restored and userfied. Thanks for your opinions.GalingPinas (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think the decision was flawed, then the place to appeal is at WP:DRV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's DRV'ed, would the notability analysis given above stand to scrutiny?GalingPinas (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reindent:

Source #1 and Source #2 came from the same source: GMA News and Public Affairs, hence any source from those would count as from one "source."

• Apparently, the game made a round of two programs produced by GMA News, once. After that they were forgotten. It's like your typical fad featured on Inside Edition.

Source #3 is borderline reliable, if at all. I even didn't know UNTV 37 had a sports unit! I'd personally pass it as a reliable source, but I'd look for another source (either ABS-CBN, GMA, TV5 or the Philippine Information Agency) and won't use that. It's letter of intent of Chris' sakes.

Now on Abante Tonite. Abante Tonite is a tabloid. Think of it as the Philippine version of the now defunct News of the World. Unlike UNTV 37 which can barely pass off as a reliable source, this one won't. And apparently, whatever Abante Tonite said about the game is immaterial since it didn't even say anything about the game per se; it said that Tropang Potchi featured the game.

Apparently, we have a notability guideline for games and sports: WP:SPORTSEVENT. The relevant bullet point is:

• A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match) (Emphasis mine)

The question is if a feature on Saksi (the equivalent of late night news in the U.S.), the Tropang Potchi children's show and a letter of intent from UNTV 37 would be enough to create an article. Is it? –HTD 19:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes we do have a notability guideline for games and sports but that guideline only applies to persons/organizations/league but not to an actual sport itself: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia" We are talking about an actual sports here that was "Noticed" by a major news media in the Philippines that is notable. and per WP:NNC, when a sport has a source outside of WP, it is notable. GalingPinas (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• A source isn't enough. Multiple sources is. –HTD 03:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about a computer PHP framework used to format wiki texts. I am positive it has its notability but I'm having troubles finding ways to establish it because the project is not well-known yet and its main advantages (abstract syntax tree, document object model, extensibility/modularity, language neutrality, etc.) are hard to prove without referring to the source code and not something concurrent projects will talk about so it can be referred to.

Perhaps you might give me a bit more info on this problem? Thanks in advance. Proger_XP (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the "references" are to the project itself. While this allows you to clarify the issues, it doesn't demonstrate notability from independent reliable sources. What external references you do have are only mentioning features that the software supports. As you yourself said the project is not well-known yet it has not yet hit the WP notability threshold. This was probably rejected on the grounds of WP:Notability. Take a look at the 2 policy pages and see if it really makes sense for us to have an article on this. If you want, I'd be happy to apply my "new page patrol" rubric to the proposed article so you can see what kind of opposition you'll have. Hasteur (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Hasteur; so the project cannot be notable in terms of features, implementation, etc. but only in terms of 3rd party "usage" and "interest"? (I'm sorry if I'm using funny words because I'm no expert on this field.) Proger_XP (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The framework needs to have significant (More than just a passing mention) coverage from multiple reliable sources. An article in a reputable publication that enforces editorial standards (not writing about every PR story that comes across) that covers the high points of the framework and why it's superior to other software helps lend the notability of the topic. Usage and Interest are somewhat analogies but not quite. Did you want me to apply the NPP rubric to the proposed article? Hasteur (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand now. Two final questions then: do only English sources count (didn't find any info in WP:Notability on this one) and can I leave the draft where it is for now (in my userspace)?

The NPP rubric - yes, please do. Proger_XP (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to UverseWiki so that we can work on the article. Hasteur (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Proger_XP (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

85.103.28.131 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Model United Nations is no longer a mere "extra-curricular" activity that involves only a few high school students. MUN is an academic simulation for both high school students and college students. Not to mention its universality! There are thousand of students seeking help while writing their "resolutions." Resolution are what entire MUN conferences are based upon, without resolutions there would be nothing to debate on, and thus MUN would fail to meet its goals. I am certain MUN Resolution is worth "noting" and I think it's an important improvement to Wikipedia because of the following reasons: 1) There are no reliable and specific sources that explain (step by step) how a resolution has to be written, this article would provide such information. 2) Wikipedia should also address young students who benefit from Wikipedia every day, this article will be one more reason thousands of students will rely on Wikipedia. 3) Writing an MUN resolution is truly challenging, as there are very strict rules and procedures, this article refers to all the details one has to know in order to write a format and information wise correct resolution. 4) MUN is (besides debating) the most beneficial extra-curricular academic activity, this article supports the Model United Nations by aiding its participants and encourage participation (which by the way is not an advertisement).

There are almost no need for sources, as I have wrote the resolution solely from my own knowledge. I wrote, read, edited MUN resolution for over 5 years. I've been a delegate myself, I've been an MUN coordinator, an MUN Chair and MUN Club President. From the extensive knowledge I have about MUN, I did not require various resources and yet, I used Stanford's and some other reliable sources to provide better understanding.

One again I strongly believe Wikipedia needs this article, and I'm open to any criticisms. Please help make my article a reviewed, notability wise correct, reliable article!

I also had a lot of fun doing MUN growing up, but unfortunately wikipedia is not a how-to web site. A better place to do this would probably be Wiki books. I yield the remainder of my time to chair. a13ean (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)