Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Difficult to read

This VfD:Precedents page is extremely difficult to read. Major changes will be contributed over the next few coming weeks and any assistance would be appreciated in improving its readability.

[edit] VfD discussion

I was going to list this on VfD, but to avoid the accusation that I am somehow "trolling" I'll bring it up here first. This page is completely useless. It tries to make broad reaching precedents based on single examples with a small number of voters. This fallacious reasoning (proof by a single example) takes a decision such as to keep Affectional orientation, which had 1430 google hits, and attempts to say that this creates a precedent that "article[s] with 1430 Google hits merit inclusion". I modified this to at least at the word "could", indicating that not all articles with 1430 Google hits merit inclusion, but that makes this example rather useless as a precedent. Further, as the number of VfD entries increases, the breadth of opinion on a single VfD article becomes very thin. The proper way to set such precedents, if anything, is to take the broader issue (does a certain number of google hits merit inclusion) and discuss it directly.

I think this page should be deleted. If not it needs to be seriously reworked. anthony (see warning) 14:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for precedent in wikipedia deletion policy, each article should be judged based on its own merit. Darksun 14:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Certainly not in current Wikipedia deletion policy, in which the actual reasons for the decision are rarely articulated. Even if this part of the policy were fixed, I'm not sure we should have precedent set in a situation where a quorum of 50% of eligible voters is not reached. There are just far too few votes in a typical VfD vote to be binding on future decisions of Wikipedia in any way. anthony (see warning) 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hate the Google test! Here's an article whose subject had 2 Google hits at the time it was written, but who clearly merited inclusion. She now has 347, thanks mainly to the Wikipedia entry! A lot of knowledge resides off the Internet, even still and using Google hits as a measure of worth is just not always valid. That's that off my chest. Filiocht 14:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Google test works in most cases, but not all. It should be applied in conjunction with other reasons for deletion, but should never be used as a stand-alone reason for deleting. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! One of Wikipedia's strengths is that we have contributors with expertise in subjects not yet well covered on the World Wide Web, if they are covered at all. Naturally, some articles they write will fail the Google test.
I've been thinking for some time that we need to provide some more help for people making their first listing on VfD. This is one thing it should point out. Another possibility is a gentle suggestion that it's good to list only one article per week for your first few attempts. Some newcomers list several articles only to see them all fail to get consensus and there is ill feeling generated all around. Andrewa 20:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That page should have a note in the lead paragraph indicating that none of the precedents are generally considered binding just because they are precedents, especially as arguments given in discussion for retention or deletion do not necessarily reflect all or even any of the reasoning used by other individuals in casting their votes. Something like that should neutralize it. However, since no-one ever seems to cite this particular page on VfD, it seems actually quite neutralized and harmless as it is. It is not unhelpful to have a compendium of old discussions. The Google example cited by Anthony is indeed rather strange since I know there have been a number of retentions with less hits. Another one, besides the one Filiocht mentioned, had only 11 Google hits and is discussed at [1]. Google tests are usually reasonably evaluated by commentators. Most people can see when apples are being compared to oranges and when relative Google hits are very relevant and when they don't matter very much. Jallan 18:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I created this page and I do think it is important to recognize that VfD largely operates on precedent, whether you like it or not. For instance this time last year about every second VfD nomination was a list of obscure trivia, the first such being List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics. After several close votes it was determined that such lists are encyclopedic. Today these lists are an accepted part of Wikipedia, pages like list of films by gory death scene rarely appear on VfD. When they do the votes are overwhelmingly to keep, with even RickK supporting their inclusion (e.g. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions). This policy on list of trivia is nowhere written down, but is based on the long debates of a year ago. Similar consensuses have developed for 9/11 victims, misspelled redirects, surnames, towns with under ten people and many other areas. In the future I am certain that similar unwritten rules concerning high schools, micronations and conlangs will evolve. The vast majority of these precedents are only recorded in the memory of longtime users. This helps make VfD accessible to only a minority of experienced Wikipedians. VfD Precedents is an attempt to preserve early and trend setting debates that clearly affect a whole class of articles so that these precedent setting cases can be easily found and read by those without a long history of reading VfD. - SimonP 20:13, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've just looked at this article and I think the information in it is quite useful. Paul August 21:37, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think it has potential. So far, the selection of cases is too much the work of one person, but I think that it would be useful to build up a body of "case law" to complement our equivalent of "statute law". -- Jmabel 22:56, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

The concept of "case law" doesn't extend well to situations where 4 or 5 of the 100,000 interested persons express their opinion on a matter. At the most a VfD vote should set a precedent for a single article. To require someone interested in voting on a broad issue to vote on hundreds of individual articles is ludicrous. anthony (see warning) 15:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Small numbers of people voting is exactly how case law works. In the real world one, or at most a handful, of judges makes a decision that affects every subsequent decision. - SimonP 17:24, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
The problem isn't the small numbers of voters. The problem is the miniscule number of voters compared to the number of eligible voters. To bring the analogy to the "real world" you would have to have panels of unpaid self-appointed judges deciding whatever cases they feel like. When John's five friends decide that John was only doing 75 in a 55 and doesn't deserve a ticket that would then be a precedent when Mary does 72 and five friends of the cops show up to judge the case. anthony (see warning) 01:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bogus. The real world of VfD is a free vote outside of any case law. There is no case law here. A legislative body or corporate board of directors is similarly not bound by past decisions except insofar as individuals knowingly allow themselves to bound and to the extent that previous practice may weigh with individual voters. But the body may choose to totally reverse themselves or to be inconsistant with past practice, may vote for something unprecedented. No vote by itself establishes a precedent that must later be followed unless that is what the vote is about. And even then such a rule can be reversed. I see what Anthony is getting at. It looks like a single sysop is setting up rules which gives him an excuse to ignore consensus if consensus doesn't agree with the particular rules he (but not necessarily anyone else) thinks are binding, to attempt to claim that some results of consenus would be illegal and therefore should be ignored. But I am aware of no policy that voters on VfD or elsewhere in Wikipedia cannot vote against past precedent and no policy that if consensus is against any supposed past precedent, a resulting consensus can be overruled on those grounds alone. If suddenly all articles on minor individual fictional characters in any book or television show or comic book and so forth were accepted on VfD when submitted, regardless of how trivial that character was, that does not mean that a year from now, having seen the results of that, one might not find almost all articles of that kind being rejected regardless of what was being done in the previous year, and that many of the same articles that had been accepted placed again on VfD and rejected. People change their minds. Organizations change their group minds. Precedents on VfD may be cited as argument one way or the other, but they aren't law. Jallan 22:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. Case law evolves over time, and we have no equivalent of a Supreme Court. But it is very useful to track things like this over time and see if we can identify a consensus over time on certain issues. Like the records of trial courts, it will show many conflicting decisions, but over time it will presumably help us evolve toward consensus policies. If, for example, we can see that certain types of things always get deleted, we may have a new criterion to add to what may be speedy-deleted. -- Jmabel 01:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

I guess the page is worth keeping, as a number of people find it useful. It still needs to be cleaned up, though. Right now it seems like a dump of random VfD entries. Is there any reason the votes need to be listed on the page? This page should have more original text and less copy/paste. anthony (see warning) 00:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Since this page was a mess, not to mention severely outdated, I've moved it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents/Archive and put a new listing here that should reflect common procedure on VFD. Please copyedit, and such. Note that the intent for this page is not to be a guideline, but instead to document what regularly happens on VFD. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 12:23 (UTC)

[edit] "Students are not notable"

Perhaps this be changed to "Students are generally non-notable". It's entirely possible that someone may have notability solely for the fact that he is a student at a particular school (as opposed to having notability for other reasons but also happening to be a student at or an alumnus of a particular school). Kurt Weber 20:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, but it's a disclaimer that seems relatively unnecessary. Obviously "Students are not notable" doesn't mean that no students are notable, it just means that someone being a student isn't notable enough. This article is really about what is generally notable or non-notable anyway, obviously, since it isn't about policy. Mangojuice 22:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source

What is the source for these precedents? For example, "Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel". Bovlb 16:54:54, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Good point. There are plenty of counter-examples:

This isn't to say that all restaurants and pubs are considered notable, but quite a lot of them are. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks on notability

This list says clearly at the top: Items that generally get no consensus should not be listed here. Thus I've removed Schools remain the subject of much debate....
brenneman(t)(c) 03:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As the very low success rate of school deletion listings (less than 15% over eight months, more like 5% over the past four months) is an excellent counter-example against this piece of advice, I've decided to remove that rather than the correct statement on the unlikelihood of school articles being deleted. See the detailed figures below. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose there may be said to be a difference between whether there is no consensus of the first type: that schools are not notable (which is true) and whether there is a consensus of the second type: that schools are notable (which is not true) but in practice all that is needed for a school articles to be kept regularly is a failure of consensus of the first type. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by User:Aaron Brenneman

I recently edited the wording of the text on schools. Before the edit, it said:

  • High schools remain the subject of much debate, but are highly unlikely to be deleted on VFD. See WP:SCH
  • High school teachers, clubs, classrooms or lessons are not notable.

In the past eight months there have been some 270 school article deletion listings, but fewer than 40 school articles were deleted as a result of these deletion listings. This is a success rate of less than 15%. Moreover most elementary and middle school deletion listings also fail, though there is a slightly higher success rate with elementary schools. Even infant schools are sometimes kept where they are a regulated part of a state educational system. The only class of "school" that is regularly deleted if listed is the pre-school.

In August, Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois (K8), Andover Elementary School, King Middle School, Portland, Maine, Duveneck Elementary School were kept and Townsville_Primary_School/Temp (a rewrite of a copyright violation) looks likely to be kept. York Hill Elementary School, Netivot Hatorah Day School and two preschools were deleted. High schools are almost invariably kept--indeed although we may soon see an article about a high school built only an eight-years ago deleted, the last time this happened was St. Stephens High School, listed April 15.

I changed the text to remove the word "high" from both of the above lines.

Aaron has removed the first line. We then had nothing in this document describing the massive difficulty of successfully listing a school article for deletion. I have reverted to my version which I believe most accurately represented the current state of affairs:

  • Schools remain the subject of much debate, but are highly unlikely to be deleted on VFD. See WP:SCH
  • School teachers, clubs, classrooms or lessons are not notable

So...I'm relatively new and not sure what the policy should be regarding University dorms of no apparent distinction. In this case, the article is Clara Dickson Hall. Its page, recently marked by me as disputed, claims that its capacity of 450 makes it the largest dorm on the eastern half of the US. However, I have shown this to be untrue, meaning that there is evidently nothing special about this dorm building: there are hundreds or thousands like it across the country. Should I mark it for deletion, or go somewhere else first and ask (maybe I should've been bolder and just marked it)? Fsiler 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just redirect to Cornell University. If it's the largest dorm on campus, maybe it deserves a mention in the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School article AfD results Jan 1-Sep 8

Month Nominated Kept Deleted Merged/redirected Other
September 10 1 0 0 pending: 9
August 23 16 4 1 pending: 2.
July 28 26 1 1
June 44 41 1 2
May 75 74 0 1
April 20 18 2 0
March 29 19 8 2
February 35 23 12 0
January 12 2 9 1
To date 276 220 37 8 11



--Tony SidawayTalk 07:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of brenneman's revert of an edit by Tony Sidaway

  • Articles for deletion/Precedents is in state "A - line about schools included".
  • User:Aaron Brenneman changes to page state "B - line about schools removed" and places note on talk page.
  • User:Tony Sidaway reverts to state "A - line about schools included". Nothing on talk page.
  • User:Aaron Brenneman changes to page state "B - line about schools removed" with edit summary "see talk page."
  • User:Tony Sidaway reverts to state "A - line about schools included" and then uses on talk page.
  • As discussion is current, User:Aaron Brenneman places page in state it was in when discussion began. That's state "B - line about schools removed", by the way.

brenneman(t)(c) 04:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand any of the above. Seriously, I've no idea what the above paragraph is supposed to be about. Could you try to explain it in a clearer fashion? Ring Foo? Jabberjaws? Is this some kind of joke? --Tony SidawayTalk 04:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, can you understand it now? brenneman(t)(c) 04:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't provide an explanation on why you reverted. You only describe your perception of the sequence of events. In fact I created an extensive and detailed explanation of why I reverted your removal of material. You simply hadn't noticed it, or I hadn't finished writing it, when you reverted. Never mind, the restoration of the text you insist on excising can wait a few weeks if necessary. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain your rationale, by the way? Have you read somewhere, perhaps, an erroneous interpretation of policy to the effect that the presence of an ongoing discussion is an acceptable excuse for revert warring? --Tony SidawayTalk 06:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Be bold is fine to a point

Tony,
I'd like editting on the main page to slow down while we discuss the changes here first. I've asked on several occasions for you to come to the talk page here, but I'm not sure that I'm fully engaging you when you're still making changes, including to the material in question. I've asked on WP:ANI for some other input, but I'd also ask you to consider the respect you've been shown in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and see if you think that you've given me the same respect here.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, I've made numerous entries on this talk page, all of which you seem to have ignored. Please stop calling for people to stop and discuss when you're clearly not interested in responding to discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, please examine the edit history of this and the main page as to why this statement is in error.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what good the editing history will do us. I'm looking at three sections on this talk page right now in which you have failed to respond to me, and this fourth one which you have created instead in order to say " I've asked on several occasions for you to come to the talk page here" as if I haven't! --Tony SidawayTalk 08:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless discussion ending now

Tony,
I notice how "I don't see what good the editing history will do us." neatly avoids you actually examining it. Time is clearly divided into the before where there was something you didn't like about the main page and you cheerfully reverted several times without discussion and the after where the main page was as you liked and you're happy to use the talk page. However, rather than allow further obfuscation, I'll discuss your behavior no longer and concentrate on the matter at hand. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What has happened to this page?

Why is this page now a list of deletion rules? When it was created this was a place to store copies of precedent setting deletion decisions, those that helped form current policy. A list of rules is not a list of precedents. - SimonP 23:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I did prefer the earlier version. It gave references to concrete precedents, whereas the current version isn't a lot of use because just about anything it says is a generalization that is contradicted elsewhere. Does anybody know why the old format was ditched? --Tony SidawayTalk 11:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious changes to the main page

[edit] Removal of "Items that generally get no consensus should not be listed here."

This material should be replaced. Items that get no consensus but generate ongoing discussion are clearly beyond the scope of this page.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion..."

No point in having this discussion until the first one is completed. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Will this ever become official policy?

Just curious. Please respond on my talk page. Karmafist 02:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and veiled attacks on nn persons or businesses

Most of the AfD arguments related to notability surround "vanity" pages for schools, musicians and the like. I don't have a strong general view about such pages. A different and much more serious nn issue arises when an article about a nn business or person slams the subject of the article. Two examples I have in mind are Kathryn Blair and American Agencies. In the former article, about the minor child of English PM Tony Blair, there are frequent attempts to insert private alleged facts about the subject. The latter article appears to have been created by someone involved in a (dismissed) lawsuit against the collections agency which is the topic of the article. One argument against deletion was that (the article says) the company has some well-known clients. Well, really, I opine that there are very few businesses or professionals that don't have (or could be alleged to have) some connection to some notable figure. Because the subject of the article is not well known (even if arguably not sufficiently nn to be voted off in an AfD vote) few editors will have the interest or knowledge to correct a negative PoV slant. And the subject of the article may unknowingly suffer a lot of damage b/c Google searches return links from WP associating the subject with some alleged wrongdoing.

In short, where an apparently or marginally non-notable subject is being put in a negative light, especially by anonymous editors, we should be quicker to delete.FRS 22:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Precedents for Online chat

We have had an issue with regards to Planes of existence (chat site) in that it is a talker, a type of Online chat and there is no confirmed precedent that is set.

The article in question is notable within its core community, if for no other reason than because incidents that happened led to a mass of people leaving talkers and moving towards online messengers such as ICQ, sometimes referred to as "the death of talkers". Now, in my mind, that makes it notable.

However, it has not been open for 2 1/2 years (possibly more), was not the most popular of all time, and it is debatable even whether it was the most popular of its type. Its web page has not existed for 2 1/2 years, and its main web page hasn't existed for 7 years. But Alexa's Way Back When machine kept records of it, which Alexa only did for the most popular web sites, which seems to assert notoriety - except that we don't know how popular you have to be to have a web site stored on Alexa.

The thing is that WP:WEB is only for Web pages. This is not a web page. The web page is not the notable part of the site, and not the reason for the article's existence. If it did not have a web site at all (few talkers did), then it would still be notable.

In establishing a precedent, I tried to look for other examples. There is the comparable example of Star Wars MUSH which had similar kinds of claims to notoriety within the MUSH community - it was not the most popular MUSH ever, yet it had significance from a historical perspective. It was probably not as popular as the talker that I mentioned above, and indeed as far as I know the talker community was bigger than the MUSH community (certainly, there were a lot more talkers than there were MUSHes), but it passed due to historical significance.

A second precedent, however, was set with LambdaMOO, which is the most popular MOO in history. That article was eventually merged in to MOO, and hence some people said therefore that articles such as PoE should be merged in to talker.

Now, one thing is that the talker community was about 4 times bigger than the MUSH community, and maybe 10 times bigger than the MOO community, so perhaps a direct comparison is not applicable. However, none of these communities is big in comparison to something like ICQ. The most popular talker ever, Surfers (talker), had 2,000 users online at a time, which is nothing in comparison to the millions on ICQ, or LiveJournal or IRC.

I would like for us to establish some kind of precedent for what to do with things like this. I think that it should be added to WP:WEB so that when we have articles like this in the future, the thinking is a lot simpler.

My suggestion is that it is either historically significant, first of something or most popular of something. In my opinion either of those 3 is sufficient. But I think that we need to establish some kind of precedent about it.

For people who used talkers, understanding their history is important. And for people who use instant messengers, they may be interested in learning about some of the things that came before (or then again, they may not care).

I would appreciate a set precedent being made. Zordrac 06:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policies

Should it be made a precedent that pages like WP:AFD, WP:POINT, WP:BOLD, etc. should not be deleted? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Binding

Seeing as this isn't policy and gives no explanation for its generalizations, anybody else think an opening sentence to the effect of "These precedents are not binding upon AFD nominations, discussions, or outcomes" or "(A quantity of) editors do not regard AFD/VfD precedents as relevant"? The Literate Engineer 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree there should be a statement they're not binding, but it should also state they tend to be followed by most out of respect for consensus. I think most voters will go by precident, if they know about it, even if they're told they don't have to as a rule (as they like the idea of consistency). --Rob 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... You're right. So, maybe something like "While many editors may choose to follow these precedents, all are free not to. If some choose to disregard these precedents, that's ok: they just disagree with the precedent."? The Literate Engineer 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] local broadcasters

Currently, this says:

  1. Radio stations are notable if broadcast at least regionally (i.e. not limited to a single city)
  2. TV stations are notable if broadcast at least regionally (i.e. not limited to a single city)

I think that's false. Single city TV and radio broadcasters clearly are being kept regularly, unless they are a low-power station (limited to the local neighborhood) or inherently limited market, such as a local cable access channel, or a channel that only broadcasts a fireplace 24hours a day. Local programs of the broadcasters might get "merged up" but the broadcaster themselves are usually not seriously considered for deletion. If I'm wrong, please point me to some reasonably recent AFDs. --Rob 03:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rob on this; I've previously raised the concern that these criteria are unclear and don't constitute an effective inclusion guideline. How, for instance, does one draw a viable distinction between "regional" and "single city" broadcasters? Does the station have to have multiple transmitters? Or is it enough that the main signal reaches beyond the city limits? And how far beyond the city limits does it have to reach to qualify as "regional"? And how, really, does one quantify this anyway, given that a broadcast signal's geographic reach can vary depending on the day's weather?
I would suggest the following as a basic framework to expand upon as necessary: Radio/TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. (As an example, take WCMU-TV, a PBS member station in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. That station has its own article. However, WCML in Alpena, Michigan, which despite having its own callsign is in fact a repeater of WCMU, doesn't get its own article, but instead exists only as a redirect to WCMU. And for a Canadian example, the CBC Radio One station in Kelowna has 65 transmitters in the BC Interior, each with their own distinct callsigns, but that doesn't mean 65 distinct articles since only CBTK-FM actually originates programming.)
This doesn't have to be the only criterion applied, but I'm putting it out as a start for discussion. Bearcat 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above. --Rob 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I updated the project page, to reflect current precedent on radio/tv (keeping the typical tv/radio) basically worded as Bearcat suggested, but I mentioned licensing (to exclude unofficial stations), and said it might not apply to some low powered stations (I suppose in theory, anybody with a radio transmitter could call themselves a broadcaster, and we only want those with a sufficiently high signal). A more detailed guideline might be warranted (I don't know), but if so, it probably belongs on an appropriate guideline page. This change is just for the sake of reflecting existing AFD precedent, which I think it does now. --Rob 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that WCML redirects to the West Coast Main Line (railway line) in the UK. Stewart 13:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Companies

"small companies are not notable". How big is small? Some sort of dollar (sales, market cap, etc) threshold might be useful... Also what about former companies? I did up American Bridge Company which at 200M sales/yr is, I think, big enough sizewise (and which also has notability in having been the general contractor or fabricator for many notable bridges, and for having founded a town)... but for much of its life it was a subsidiary of US Steel. I think it should stand alone because it's separate now. If it got merged in again some might argue the article should merge back too. But I'm not sure I agree, and it can be confusing! Consider the story of Informix, Mercator, Ascential, and IBM (et. al.) The heritance around Informix and so forth are very tangled. Informix was a DB company, which bought transformation technology as a sideline, and then sold off the DB itself to IBM, took the 1B in cash and changed names to Ascential, then bought more companies (including Mercator, which can be traced back to a spinoff of D&B), growing to be a leader in its niche of integration and ETL with a very broad portfolio and market leadership, (with Datastage as the lead product) and finally got bought back by IBM last year (with interesting implications for the industry as a whole). How does one identify the proper set of articles that should (and should not) be created? The current Informix article doesn't seem quite the right home for all that (it has a section "2001: Other acquisitions" which barely hints at it). Some redirects certainly would help,but this seems a more tangled mess than that. I give this as an example of where general principles about mergers and acquisitions may help, not to get the specific answer (although I admit bias, I worked for Novera (at 75 persons, probably not notable...) which was bought by Mercator to get application server technology, and thus I now work for IBM!)? Maybe this belongs on the talk for WP:CORP (the current policy there doesn't address change over time I don't think, though). Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If sales per year are the only basis for notability, then I think the guideline should be large like $100M per year. We don't need articles on every local car dealership with a good turnover in one year. Most companies should be notable for other reasons, like being mentioned in the press etc. In terms of merging articles of subsidiaries, I think that if they are part of the same company today, and the amount that it makes sense to write is not too long, then putting on the same article is helpful. If there is a long history (e.g perhaps Sohio with a separate history to BP and Amoco) and the article is not a stub, then a separate article makes sense. Also if the subsidiary is a separate brand then it is fine to give it its own article, as we do for brands from e.g. Kraft or Unilever. Novera article? I think not needed (-Obina ducks-).Obina 11:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Small companies are notable if they satisfy conditions regarding uniqueness and/or relevance of product, geographical size of market (worldwide, not around the corner) and fit to multiple existing allowed categories. Technology companies do not need to be large in people or in sales to be relevant or notable. A three-person local florist shop is not notable, even if it is FTD-connected and delivers orchids continent wide. But a three-person tech company with a world wide user-base and a list of technologies already considered allowed material by other wikipedia pages is notable. Clearly, the burden of uniqueness/notability and category inclusion should be on the author of the article, but the deleter of the article should explicitly state which aspects of the technology are not notable or which categories are not relevant, and should perhaps propose deleting the categories as well, or at least several other equivalent members of the categories. As for the ubiquitous criticism that a company page is advertising, suffice it to say that advancing competitive advantage to defend notability cannot be construed as advertising for these purposes. Advertising must be understood in the much narrower sense: product + price. Yes, the "$9.95 for my widget" is objectionable, but anything short of that is fair game. So even if a link exists to the company site, and a presumption of commercial availability is obvious, a company site with a classifiable, world-wide and competitive technology still has notability and should not be deleted. Cascokid 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians have accepted that a small business, such as a restaurant, flower shop, etc., is not notable. But there are some exceptions. Defining those exceptions is another question. Some small businesses are written up in local papers, but are largely ignored outside the region where they are. Anyone who creates such an article may argue that a particular small business is notable based on the articles found in local papers.
In my opinion, a small business may be notable if it is referenced beyond the city/area where it exists. For example, most tourist attractions are notable because you will typically find writings about them beyond their locality. If a flower shop has been made famous through national media on its uniqueness, it then may be notable. A one-of-a-kind hotel, such as an ice hotel, may be notable. Or the first motel that is recognized as such. Or the restaurant where the president has eaten a lot, or a card shop that was featured in a movie. Or a single-branch bank where a hostage situation took place that received worldwide media coverage. You get the point.
If every corner grocery, gas station, and antique shop had a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would be clogged. So there have to be some additional rules beyond the need just for plain old references when it comes to these. For everything else, there is Google Maps, which collects reviews and whatever else people feel like writing about every yellow pages listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellno2 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authors

Under "Literature", this article says it OK to include anyone who has published a book other than with vanity publishers. But Wikipedia:Notability (people) says "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more."

I absolutely go with the latter - and even that's generous. I mean, do we really want to know about the childhood and religious beliefs of the person who wrote the 80-page Practical gardens and patios? Do you really want to know about my school and pets? Cos my deeply non-notable books certainly qualify under the 5000 rule. Amazon automatically creates an author page showing all the publications it can get hold of by a given author. Let them do the cataloguing - its part of their job - and let Wikipedia stick to writing about people who are actually notable (for some meaning of that word). JackyR 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether good or bad, the criteria under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Literature and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People still alive are now in sync – for as long as it lasts. --LambiamTalk 10:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] student groups

My general experience with AFD has been that when it comes to student groups, we vote to keep the national organization, but delete individual chapters (because otherwise we would have thousands of pages on each chapter of the Kiwanis club). As far as I know, this hasn't been formally written down anywhere, and this seems like the best place to do it. Can I just add it or is there some specific process this must go through before it can become an official precedent? --Bachrach44

[edit] School notability wording

The actual precedent suggests that what usually get deleted are not the big suburban schools that uncyclopedia complains about, but hoaxes, nursery schools, etc. I wonder if there's some neutral way to note that in the page so people don't foolishly believe (like I did) that they can slowly modify the precedent. --Chaser (T) 08:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City streets

Hiya, I saw on this page that it says that the topic of city streets is contested... Could someone please provide a link to where this topic is being discussed? Thanks. --Elonka 05:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bus routes

Is there a policy or guidelines on urban transit bus routes? Thanks. Ground Zero | t 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While the original policy was not to include single articles about transit routes, some articles created like this about bus routes in major cities have survived AFD. These include some that I helped a friend work on. Since then, more such articles have been created.
Here are some ideas for writing about urban transit routes:
  • Try to consolidate multiple routes into a smaller number of articles if possible. An article could either be about all the routes along a particular street (see Pennsylvania Avenue Line (Washington) for an example), or a particular group of lines, if the agency divides all their routes into several categories, such as by prefix.
  • A single page, listing all the agency's routes, either in sections or a chart is a good option. An example is List of bus routes in the Bronx. A separate article about a transit agency's history, describing the history of its routes in timeline form, is possible, too. See History of MTA Maryland as an example.
  • Bus routes with exceptional notability may have their own articles, include Bus Rapid Transit lines. See QuickBus for an example.
  • Transit agencies in smaller cities or towns with fewer than 20 routes or so should have their routes listed in the article about the agency itself. See Williamsburg Area Transport or TransIT services of Frederick, Maryland for examples.
Please be aware, the purpose of a Wikipedia article on a bus route is not to provide the information that a printed timetable or the agency's website can provide. The article must be encyclopedic, and provide notable, referenced information about the service. Some examples of what can and should be included if possible are:
  • The history of the route, dating back to its origin (e.g. as a streetcar)
  • A description of major changes that occurred on the route (such as its conversion from a streetcar to a bus, or a major routing change resulting from the opening of a new subway line)
  • News and political issues resulting from plans to change the service, and how these impacted the region
  • A photo of the bus clearly displaying its route number and destination is helpful, too, though this may be hard to obtain.
  • The map and timetable for the route should be listed as external link. As bus schedules are subject to change, this should be updated as needed.

Hellno2 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs

I believe suburbs should only be mentioned under the main city if they are merely neighbourhoods or districts of that city, but that they do merit an own article if they are legal municipalities (communes). LHOON 12:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on what makes schools notable.

I'm going to toss out some qualities that I think might qualify a school as notable; please give me some feedback. -Notable alumni -Significant largest/oldest/highest achieving regional or national status -One-time connection with notable news story -?Sports championships? I don't know anything about sports, but it seems to me like at some degree of achievment a school would become noteworthy.

Any others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dshack (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

I agree basically. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC) See my ideas. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Precedents for AfDs regarding "no new analysis or synthesis"

According to WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Are there any AfD precedents pertaining to this that would help in the interpretation of that policy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States health reform 1912-1920? Thanks! Medtopic 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research results, theories, etc.

I came here for some guidance on the use of more-or-less obscure, but published, academic research. How more- or how less- should it be for deletion? What are the other factors (own research is out, but what about "my professor's"?) --Homunq 17:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-single songs?

Should "songs are not generally notable, and should be listed under album or artist as appropriate" be changed to "non-single songs are not generally notable, and should be listed under album or artist as appropriate"? Singles are generally much more notable than songs and probably should have a separate article. Michaelas10 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Albums are notable"

...but "bands and musicians are notable if they have released two albums on a notable label." Is the remark about albums intended to refer to albums by musicians who are themselves considered notable? Otherwise you end up with an odd situation in which an album is considered prima facie notable but the band who made it might not be. Certain compilations might be considered notable in themselves, but in general it seems to me that albums ought, with some exceptions, to be considered notable only when the band is -- in which case, perhaps the privoso "by notable band or musicians," ought to be added, viz. "Albums by notable bands or musicians are notable, but please provide..." etc. --Rrburke 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Rrburke. And while this probably needs more discussion, for now I have changed it to "Albums can be notable in and of themselves, but..." This prevents a reader from assuming, incorrectly, that all albums are notable. What other requirements for album notability have been established by AfD precedent? Are we comfortable saying all albums from notable bands have been found to be automatically notable? --Satori Son 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice as to notability of companies

Hello Kevin Murray. I see that you are trying to be helpful in giving some advice as to how to evaluate the notability of small companies. Specifically, you say, "Please consider what the definition of a small company should be -- it can be subjective. Should the criterion be small related to the global economy or small related to a focused industry. Consider whether the company is significant in monetary sales, but also consider whether it is significant in effects on an industry." That may be helpful advice, and your input is greatly appreciated, but it is prospective in nature, and as such is inappropriate for this page. The purpose of this page is to summarize the results of the numerous previous AfD discussions. It is not a place for new policy discussion. As such, I have removed your advice and questions for the evaluator, since they are rhetorical in nature and not evidence of precedent.

The page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), which already includes some guidance on this subject, and the ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations). I'm sure your suggestions will be welcome in the discussions there. Thank you, Satori Son 04:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Satori,

CORRECTION - BEARCAT DID NOT REFINE KEVIN MURRAY'S WORK - THE BEARCAT EDITS WERE TO ANOTHER SECTION

Sorry KM, I reverted to a version by Satori without checking what the most recent stable version was. I see now that you were changing it back to (substantially) what Bearcat had last. You've already reverted my reversion, so I'll leave it at that. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice that there has been considerable editing going on in the project page over this point. May I suggest that discussing this until there is agreement would be preferable to making the page unstable? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to work discussed and changed last week - Companies

Note: REMOVED MY REFERENCE TO BEARCAT ... Satori has changed this without discussion until today. I tried to rework this section into a reflection of my concerns and a line reflecting Satori's concern about Sole Proprieterships. Additionally at Satori's suggestion (above) I took some of the content here back to the Notability page for consistency. It has been suggested that I did this to protect a particular article -- this is not the truth. I have recently recognized that fairly new editors are running rampant empowerd by inconsistences and truncated precedents, not thinking through the reasons for articles. I think that this is dangerous and we need some thoughtful guidance here.

If you object to what I have added, let's work together to fine tune.

Thanks.

Kevin Murray 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Murray, and thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, I still have several strong objections to your edits to this page:
  1. I have difficulty believing that any administrator would pre-approve the edits you have made to this article. If you can provide a diff or other link illustrating said approval, please do so. It seems likely the language was instead intended for a guidelines page.
  2. While your goal of providing guidance to new editors is laudable, this is a wholly inappropriate venue for such advice. Once again, the sole purpose of this page is to summarize the results of the numerous previous AfD discussions. If you wish to give advice as to how editors should prospectively apply the notability guidelines of WP:CORP, you should continue to do so at that page and not duplicate your efforts here. There is also an ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (companies and corporations) where I'm sure your perspective and strong opinions would be welcome.
  3. Previously you have reverted all of my edits to this page, even those that have nothing to do with your contributions. And you have done so with no comment or discussion whatsoever, all the while chastising me for failing to use this discussion page "until today", although you can clearly see my earlier comments from almost two weeks ago above. I would greatly appreciate if you could effect your reversions with greater care. Finally, Bearcat did not "fine tune" any of your "minor" contributions whatsoever. That is very misleading to say.
  4. You claim to have attempted compromise, yet your latest reversion is substantially the same as your earlier edits to this article. You are still trying to influence policy and give advice, an activity that is not appropriate here.
I am asking you politely but resolutely to please remove your well-intentioned advice from this page and, instead, conduct this debate at the proper forum. Please solicitously consider my request, and also where your counsel and insight might be most effective. Thank you, Satori Son 04:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working together

Satori,

I thought that someone fine-tuned what I wrote at one point and I thought it was Bearcat. I even wrote a thank you note, but must have been tired and confused and not recognized my own revisions to my work – no wonder I was so impressed. I’ve amended my comments.

I certainly am not looking for a battle, but I think my concerns are warranted. I apologize if I reverted work other than your reversion of removal of my work -- that was not the intent. Can we start fresh here in a spirit of cooperation?

Do you object to my method or my message? Maybe you could help me to achieve my goal. What are you trying to accomplish and why? Are we on different paths?

On October 23 it read ‘’” Small companies are not generally notable”’’, and I objected to that as very ambiguous Now my changes have been removed along with the words “Small Companies, but it has been modified to read: " Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations are not generally notable (unless, of course, they have received significant press coverage)".

I removed the bulk of my contribution which read ” Please consider what the definition of a small company should be -- it can be subjective. Should the criterion be small related to the global economy or small related to a focused industry. Consider whether the company is significant in monetary sales, but also consider whether it is significant in effects on an industry.” I agree that this tries to say too much for the purpose of this article.

I think that we are making progress. I’d like to see some more definition of what small means. I think that it is being misinterpreted. Just as mentioning “press coverage” can be pertinent, effects on an industry can be important. Kevin Murray 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On reviewing the situation, I'm going to have to agree with Satori here. The purpose of this page is not to instruct editors on how to handle company articles that are up for deletion, it is intended to instruct editors what the precedents have been. Since they are precedents, the contents of this page are not up for negotiation except in order to make them more accurately reflect historical facts about Articles for Discussion results. As your changes have no connection to these precedents, they aren't appropriate for this page. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Satoria & Saxifrage -- the more I understand the purpose of this page the more I agree with what you say. However, I came to this page a couple weeks ago because it was quoted as a reason for removing a valid article. I believe that the editor was inappropriately interpreting the purpose of this page. To me this begs the questions, what is the value added of this page, and could it cause more harm than good? Is this page adding clarity or confusion? If it is going to be a list of precedents, then it should cite the examples where this precedent was developed; and there should be more clear and frequent instructions for editors to read the underlying rules before trying to apply these precedents. I also think that there are editors other than myself who are tweaking this toward a list of rules rather than examples. Kevin Murray 20:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
That's entirely possible, but that's a project that you should put on the back burner for the time being. As you are currently involved in disputes about whether articles should be deleted, and due to your inexperience with the deletion process, you're not very well equipped to tackle a review of this page and its purpose right now. With more experience with the workings of Wikipedia and deletion in particular, and especially with some distance from the current disputes, a review of this page will be more effective. Changing pages in the Wikipedia: namespace isn't something to be done lightly or without a deep and broad understanding of Wikipedia's workings and how the page fits into that. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken regaring my objectivity and experience. But lack of experience in Wikipedia nuances should not discount years of expereicne in life and organizations. There is something wrong here and it shouldbe adressed. Sometimes thoughts and processes become inbred. I got involved in this discussion some time back; the dispute over one article is only an clearer illustration of the problem(s) which I seek to redress. I think that the culture of Wikipeia is becoming one of discouragement rather than encouragement -- this may become dangerous for inspiration. Kevin Murray 20:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There are things that Wikipedia properly discourages, and things it properly encourages. Not all articles are welcome, as not all articles belong in an encyclopedia. Whether the line is being drawn in the right place is certainly an issue well-worth debating, but it is a very finely nuanced issue as well that requires familiarity with the overarching goals of the project, as well as how the multitude of policies and guidelines interact with those goals. Not all companies and organisations belong in Wikipedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
YES! I think that you have hit the nail on the head in two ways" (1) the "overarching goals" need to be communicated to the individual editors, and (2) the "the multitude of policies and guidelines" need to be reconciled to each other and the goals. My problem is that rookie editors are not looking behind simplistic cookie-cutter rules, and are seeing the goal as cut-cut-cut, not think-think-think. Are the goals secret? Or can we all be empowered with the understanding? Kevin Murray 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Kevin Murray for your edit here. I appreciate your willingness to be reasonable and compromise. However, I am still unclear as to whether you still have specific objections to this page. Do you believe that it does not accurately summarize how the notability standards of WP:CORP are currently being applied in AfD discussions? If so, please be specific and provide links if you can. I am certainly more than willing to discuss any changes, especially those that could make this article a more accurate summary of precedent.

As far as the "overarching goals" of the project, I believe they actually have been openly stated and explained, starting with Wikipedia:Five pillars and the numerous guidelines and policies linked from there. And, at the moment, I do not see anything on this page in conflict with those goals and policies. Again, if you disagree, please be specific. -- Satori Son 04:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As has been pointed out in prior discussions, this is a page for precedents; however, you are asking whether this "does not accurately summarize how the notability standards of WP:CORP are ... applied". I don't beleive that it does summarize; it brings out different standards. However,Precedents and summaries are two very different things. (1) The section on Companies does not summarize the information at WP:CORP, a summary is a shorter more direct version of the same information. The information here is not necessarily the same -- it expresses other opinions. (2) Precedents are: "a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts" If this is a page of precedents it should be citing past actions approved by a recognized authority -- personally I don't think that precedents are practically applicable in this forum. In short, the page does not acheive your purported goal and the goal you state is inconsistent with the definition of a "precedents page."
I do not beleive that "overarching goals" in the context of Saxifrage's statement are as you defined them. I'd like to see Saxifrage's response before commenting on your well put statement. In my mind the Five Pillars should be overarching, but I think something different is being implied in the statement "very finely nuanced issue"

Your response is quite telling. I now realize your frustrations with this page stem from a misunderstanding as to what constitutes precedent. You have referred to the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry for precedent, but in doing so have overlooked the critically important first two words, "In law...". As an attorney in the real world, I can assure you that the concept of precedent is not restricted to our profession. Wikipedia is not a judicial system, and previous AfD discussions are not cases. The "recognized authority" you refer to is actually community consensus, not a court of law.

The dictionary definition of precedent is: "1. an act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future; 2. an example in the past which may be used as a justification for similar occurrences at a later time." [2]

In fact, it does not appear that you have even read the notice at the top of this article, which clearly states, "There have been many AfD debates over the years. This page summarizes how various types of articles have often been dealt with on AfD." Please note the word "summarizes". Once again, your objections to this page are not well founded. And I am sorry that your edits to the guidelines of WP:CORP have not been well received, but, I will state again as clearly as I can, this page is not the proper forum for notability guideline debates. -- Satori Son 16:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Satori - I think that we should stand down for a day or two to gain perspective. I can't dispute your facts, but only the conclusion that you are drawing from them. Kevin Murray 21:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

When I refer to the overarching goals of the project, I do mean the Five Pillars and everything connected to them—the whole tangled complex of policy and guidelines that come together to communicate our goals. (It is often summarised as "writing an encyclopedia", but this obviously needs clarification and specification.)
When I said where to draw the line between inclusion and exclusion is a very finely nuanced issue, I was pointing out that even the most experienced editors disagree about the exact position of the line, so disputing this without a very broad experience at Wikipedia is futile. To engage on such a nuanced part of how to achieve the project's goals requires familiarity with the principles that must underpin any arguments about inclusion and exclusion.
I'm going to have to agree with Satori about this page. There's no room to change this page except to more accurately reflect what happened in the past. Adding new instructions and distinctions to this page would be in contradiction with what this page is for. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cities and shops

I have added a new line: "Larger neighborhoods are notable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage". I have also updated the "shops" line to read "While the notability of large malls is in dispute, strip malls and individual shops are not generally notable".

I believe this to be an accurate and confirmable reflection of precedent, but if someone disagrees, go ahead and revert and I will round up examples. Thanks, Satori Son 05:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV problem with one of the literature precedents

"Books are notable if well-known" not only contradicts WP:FICT but it's just crying out for NPOV arguments. By whose authority is a book well-known? 23skidoo 04:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic notability

Hope someone here can help. The article Stillwater, Minnesota was recently edited to note that it is "directly across the St. Croix River from the state of Wisconsin." Personally, I don't see how it's relevant, but I can't find anything in the guidelines or any other precedence. Before I go and delete it, I'd like to hear if there are any thoughts on the matter here. Thanks. -the dharma bum 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Check an atlas to verify the disputed information. While I agree that Wikipedia is not an atlas, said information might be useful in helping someone find Stillwater, particularly if they are unfamiliar with its location. [[Briguy52748 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]]

[edit] Television shows

I am surprised that there has been no precedents listed for notability of television programs and television guides on the Articles for deletion/Precedents page. Perhaps this is not the right place to ask, but where would I go to suggest a proposal? The thing is, there seems to be a growing number of episode guide articles, and several of them — as far as I've seen, recaps of game shows and/or reality programs (e.g., Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (Season 1) — have been successfully nominated for deletion. Although not a perfect solution by any means, having a precedent would be helpful to wikipedians who are considering creating television articles, and perhaps refer them to more appropriate places to create their proposed articles (e.g., TVIV.org). So how about it — what articles merit inclusion, which topics have been afd subjects and which ones get deleted most often? Thanks in advance for your help. [[Briguy52748 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]]

I too am surprised, since I've articles kept on AfD because it's been demonstrated they are nationally broadcast and therefore presumed notable. I note that WP:BK has a clause that works adapted as a nationally broadcast show are notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highways

... see this removal where Radiant changed the wording of the tips, referencing a 'dispute'. It's not clear what dispute was meant, as the ArbCom case was about naming, not notability. There was previously no significant known controversy about notability in my view. However, given that there have been a few road articles nominated for deletion recently, and that there seems to be some discussion of this now, perhaps this is a place to foster further discussion. ++Lar: t/c 06:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

this change was just reverted by Rschen7754: [3] and I support the reversion. There is no precedent for any dispute about the notability of various Highways that I am aware of. If there is, please make that case here. Further, it is my view that in general, that sort of change, to a page that is supposed to be about precedent, practice, or policy, without a prior discussion, is not necessarily helpful. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37 all closed as keep, the last one as a speedy under SNOW. I think that pretty firmly establishes practice as being that we keep these. ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct, and the existence of 5700+ road articles, 30+ related WikiProjects, a portal, etc. And if ArbCom thinks they are not notable, they definitely had a chance to speak up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Rschen. We have to be careful about what we delete when it comes to state highways. I'd err on the side of caution; keep highway articles until they can be proven as either false or no longer active. jwhouk 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Outcome... rename?

There were several editors that contributed to this article's AfD discussion (see the discussion) that suggested a rename of this article to something like Articles for deletion/Trends, to place further emphasis on the fact that the items on this page are not binding, are not prescribing actions for the future, and that consensus can change. What do you all think? Rename?

  • I agree with this. I don't especially like "trends" either, though. Maybe "examples?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the simple fact is that these are precedents. I don't think they're trends really, and to simply call them examples is misleading. Precedents are very useful, in that we've based many guidelines and CSD criteria on them. Is it actually a problem that people consider this page binding, especially since its header clearly indicates it's not? >Radiant< 15:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The name precedent may mean to some people something more than guidance. It has the connotation for some of something prescriptive. Maybe not trends either... we should come up with a name clearly better than "precedents" before we decide to change the name, if we decide to change the name. Sancho McCann 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with Sancho. Calling AfD outcomes "precedent" implies they're authoritative, which (1) is bad for reasons I gave in the MfD, and (2) contradicts the top 3 lines of the page. Renaming the page probably won't do much to discourage AfD participants from continuing to "cite precedent" but it's a start. I don't see why Examples would be misleading. Pan Dan 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem with "examples" is that any random AFD could be called an example, even the ones that have an uncommon or controversial outcome. The point of this list is to show common outcomes. If we know that e.g. articles on Lord of the Rings characters don't generally get deleted, that should advise people not to nominate them (but rather, edit or merge them or something). >Radiant< 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • How about Common outcomes, or Typical outcomes? Pan Dan 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • "Common outcomes" sounds reasonable. >Radiant< 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Near perfect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed removal of example

I propose removing the following because it is misleading and inconsistent with the prime notability criterion at WP:CORP.

"Small companies such as Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations are not generally notable (unless, of course, they have received significant press coverage)."

The prime criterion does not specify either size or "press coverage" as requirements for notability. This seems to be someone's opinion which is not supported by eveidence that this is a "common outcome." --Kevin Murray 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether the primary criterion does or not isn't as relevant as whether WP:CORP does, which WP:N ultimately directs people to. With that said, the wording, while needing improvement, isn't entirely false. Perhaps simply rephrasing it to reflect the wording at WP:CORP is best? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm talking about the primary criterion at Corp which does not talk about size (corection made above). There is no specific size criterion at Corp; however, Corp specifically says that small organizations can be notable. That's where I see the implied contradiction. --Kevin Murray 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why we have a sentence to say that certain things are not intrinsically notable, which is essentially what this is. Why do we? -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason is that this page predates most of our notability guidelines; what is meant by that statement is that "Small companies such as Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations" have a strong likelihood of getting deleted when put on AFD. For instance, your local grocery. That doesn't mean they are always deleted (if they were, it would be a speedy), just "usually". >Radiant< 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What was intended by the author is not specifically what is being conveyed or if you prefer, what is being interpreted. If the precedent is local retail & service outlets, than let's say that. --Kevin Murray 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the brillance from Radiant's explanation, I rewrote the sentence, and then in a bold stroke, cleaned up the whole clumsy section to better reflect the meaning with, I hope, more clarity, and to incorporate recent changes at the Corp guideline. --Kevin Murray 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New shortcut for the new name?

Some ideas: WP:COUT, WP:OUTCOMES. Sancho McCann 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We aren't going to remove the old one, right? -Amarkov moo! 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. Sancho McCann 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television series episodes

What is the precedent for particular episodes within a notable television series? A list of episodes and short descriptions of them seems to be fine, but what about individual episodes? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I have seen it seems to be okay for popular shows such as Family Guy, Southpark, Heroes, and many others. I think it is just a matter of people putting the time into doing it. Acidskater 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masts

Even if a structure "is visible for miles around", as most structures of a certain height are almost certain to be, it may still be non-notable. Articles with encyclopaedic text could justify their place, as will towers (but not necessarily masts) in urban downtown areas, or towers with observation posts or restaurants to which there is public access.

The consensus and precedence of today shows there was no place in wikipedia for these, unless someone can show published articles per WP:RS why someone else other than the FCC or other govt body thinks said subjects are important by writing about them. Height in itself did not appear to matter. The FCC registration may be essential to establish its existence, but not its notability.

Successful batch deletions:

[edit] Survivor winners

A few weeks ago, this was added without discussion: Unless they are known in their own right outside of the show, people who appear as contestants in reality TV are not generally notable unless they are winners or runners up. Lists may exist for certain programs, such as Survivor or Big Brother (US).

It has been removed pending appropriate discussion -- and needs to be discussed. For a long time, the article has specifically said that national spelling bee winners are notable. It's hard to justify calling them notable and not call the more famous winners of Survivor notable. Spelling bee winners are not celebrities. Winning the million-dollar Survivor competition on a program with millions of viewers is notable. Merely being a contestant is not. I'm not sure I'd even agree than runners up are notable until they do more. Wryspy 22:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The item you removed says that Contestants in reality TV are not notable unless they are winners or runners up. You then go on to ask why national spelling bee winners should be notable, and Survivor winners not. The item didn't say that Survivor winners would not be notable, but that contestants who are not winners or runners up would not be. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Newspapers

Someone removing a speedy tag noted in their WP:ES that all Daily Newspapers are Notable. I don't see that to be a common outcome per this essay, nor do I find any guideline or policy on such. Anyone have any comments? — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy and past my rationale from the AfD: Here's my reasoning behind this. WP:OUTCOMES states that based on precedent, licensed TV and radio stations are generally considered notable based on the limited scope and so forth. While there is no legal limit to the number of papers that can be allowed within a geographic region, the money involved in undertaking and continuing to print a daily newspaper limits the total number of daily newspapers. As of 2000, there were 1,480 daily newspapers operating in the United States, yet 12,717 licensed radio stations. If every city's radio and television stations are considered notable, why would the print media not be notable? I realize this is kind of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I think it's a valid one. By the precedents, the TV station and radio station would be notable, but the daily paper which preceded both of them would not be? Smashville 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to add Bishops?

Proposed: "Roman Catholic Bishops are generally found to be notable." There have been around 10 landslide keeps in AfD over the last few months. It seems unlikely one will be deleted if there's proof that the subject is in fact a Bishop, and listing it will avoid wasting a lot of time. Horrorshowj 05:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Objections, comments? Horrorshowj 23:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
All bishops of established churches are inherently notable. AfD noms of the same ought to be closed and kept speedily. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inherent flaws

This has been bugging me (and others I have talked with), but this has to be settled since in the last few months people have started saying "Keep/Delete per OUTCOMES" as their only argument in AFD debates. This essay has NO sources to back up the claims that any of the consensuses the page are actually the consensuses (particularly the one about schools supposedly being notable). Both of these are problems (people using this page of opinions as their only argument, and not having any sources). TJ Spyke 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a notability guideline as such, but is an indicator of consensus at AfDs. I've just put in a few more links to guidelines and notability essays which go into more detail on subject areas, and reworded some sentences which assumed that a series of AfDs which result in a topic not being deleted therefore confers notability on that topic, rather than acceptance by the Wiki community. Notability depends on Wikipedia:Verifiability, and that is one of Wikipedia's core content policies which cannot be overlooked. A series of AfD discussions which result in a common outcome that a topic is unlikely to be deleted means that the topic itself is acceptable to the Wiki community, though notability still has to be established by verifying the topic through reliable sources. It's a fine distinction, but an important one. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this page is troublesome. It presents statements of outcome with no references and essentially operates on the honor system. How do we judge when something changes? Only someone going through all the AFDs for a particular topic could reasonably make a claim, and I don't see any of those claims here cited. Pages should be deleted based on their merits according to policies and guidelines; at most, there should be a page for consensus on each topic (for example, a place to discuss the inherent notability of roads). I understand that this sometimes happens, but this page is too general and unsourced to be of use in an AFD discussion, though I HAVE seen it cited by people. Epthorn (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I just encountered a person in an AFD a few minutes ago whos only reply was "Keep per WP:OUTCOMES". So it's still a problem as sometimes others will join in and cause an article (usually school articles) to be kept when it fails actual policies and guidelines simply because enough people cited this essay/opinion piece as reason to keep them. TJ Spyke 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Spelling Bee

Although it says the Spelling Bee winners are notable, what about national winners of MathCounts? They're notable too, don't you think?--Heero Kirashami 02:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Local government

The people section of the article contains the following:

"city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"

And was raised as an argument for keeping some articles I was proposing for deletion from London. Have looked further I think this article is confusing and also confused about the nature of local government in different cities. For a start is contradicts WP:BIO which states:

"just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"

and I think precedent has been for the deletion of London councillors with no other notability. Just looking at the examples cited Toronto has 44 city councillors, Chicago has 50 city aldermen and San Francisco 11 board members. London, on the other hand, has 32 councils plus the City of London, each election between around 40-60 councillors, giving it around 1,500 councillors (I'm not listing all 32, but you can find them all at London borough. The London Assembly on the other hand only has 25 members, who I think do attain notability. Could I suggest that the text in the article be re-worded to:

elected local officials are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping the members of city-wide bodies of major, internationally famous, metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London.

This avoids confusion from the different titles and gives an unambiguous statement about the level of office required for notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, this kind of thing is an example of why we shouldn't blindly follow precedent, but need to thoughtfully consider cases on their own merits and consider applicable policies and guidelines. If we could apply simple rules to the deletion process, there would be no need for us humans. Jakew (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My only concern would be that membership of the City of London Corporation, for historical reasons, should be considered notable in a way that being a borough councilor should not be. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When looking at London you have to take into account that the London Assembly has very limited powers. I would consider that the leader of one of the borough councils, such as Paul Lorber who is up for AfD, is more notable than a member of the London Assembly, as most decisions which affect the lives of Londoners at the local level are taken by the borough councils. The London Assembly is little more than a talking shop. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There is also the argument that a councillor has more real power than a backbench MP, because the councillor has more direct access to the people responsible for the services most people care about, like housing, education or social care. However, the test for Wikipedia is not power, but notability. On that criteria most council leaders are not even notable in their own borough, this article suggests name recognition is between 16-28%, frankly I'd be amazed it is that high. It would certainly drop significantly towards 0% outside of their own borough. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be amazed if name recognition for GLA members is anywhere near 16-28%. Do you know of any survey that has that information? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, my instinct here would be to defer to the judgement of the people most familiar with the topic as to how to define notability vs. non-notability — precedent statements are just guideline summaries of how AFD discussions have tended to go in the past, not binding statements of invariable policy. They can always evolve and change as AFD treatment of the topic evolves. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely. However, an apparent system of rules is likely to be treated as binding, even though that isn't the intent, whereas a more general description of the result of past discussions tends to encourage people to use their judgement. For this reason, I think we need to be careful about refining too much. Jakew (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but I think the problem here is that the article is suggesting a precedent where none exists, that London councillors are notable with nothing else. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not suggesting a precedent that doesn't exist — it's just suggesting a precedent that some people legitimately feel should be reviewed and/or revised. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Which of the following seems more accurate?
  • "Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping all councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"
  • "Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has favoured keeping some councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London"
Jakew (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be awkward and say neither! I think the problem is with the word 'councillor', since few places actually use the term (in SF they are Supervisors, in Chigago they are Aldermen) and the one place they are used the precedent seems to be that they need something else to gain notability. The first is definitely inaccurate (a London councillor was deleted yesterday), the second implies that being a councillor can be notable, but doesn't explain the extra hurdles. I still prefer using a more neutral phrasing like "members of city-wide bodies" - not elegant, but it avoids confusion caused by different political systems. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried a wording change which, I hope, reflects the general consensus of this discussion:

Similarly, city councillors are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors.

Please feel free to edit mercilessly if the wording isn't quite right, but it's an effort. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm way way way too new at this to dare edit directly - boldly, mercilessly or otherwise. I would suggest, however, that the second sentence is unnecessary since the reference to 'citywide government' excludes London Borough councillors. Also thank-you for raising this issue on one of my AfD discussions, I've learnt a lot through the process - about Wikipedia and local government elsewhere. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If there's one thing I've learned about Wikipedia policy and guideline statements, it's that sometimes we need to specifically spell out certain things even if we consider them blindingly obvious — trust me, without that qualification, somebody will eventually cite the precedent in favour of a borough councillor somewhere in the world. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A good point, and given that, ignore my previous suggestion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomical Bodies

I was arguing if HD179949 should be proposed for deletion per WP:N but couldn't find a policy for that. When is a star/planet notable? Don't say every star is notable because there are many. Like 1022. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised at what is considered by consensus to be notable. A minor pass Willow Creek Pass (Montana) was overwhelmingly considered to be notable, though the written policies and guidelines didn't clearly indicate that situation. I have now updated the Outcomes to show that, so at least there is something in writing.
It is quite likely that there has been similar previous discussions regarding stars but nobody has put the findings on Outcomes. It would be worth putting it up on AfD to see the reaction if nobody here gives a better answer. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a more comprehensive article at HD 179949. --Iamunknown 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to Student Union deletion outcomes

Current Language: "University or college student unions tend to survive AfD, although not always."

Proposed Language: "UK and Canadian University or college student unions tend to survive AfD, but American student governments tend not to survive AFD without significant secondary coverage"

Why? American student governments tend to fail AFD. UK and Canadian student unions do very different things, so they tend to pass. Out of 16 AFDs on US Student Governments that I have been able find, only 2 have passed AFD without a Delete, No Consensus, or Merge. Looking back at the record (Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Deletion)

12 Deleted in AFDs: 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7, 8,9,10,11,12

2 Merged from AFD: 1,2
2 No consensus: 1,2
3 Keep: 1,2, 3

Thoughts?--Flunkerton (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe the proposed change is correct. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe your data is correct since you're pretty much relisting/reformulating AfD outcomes from WP:UNI/D, but to get a better picture, someone needs to dig deeper and find AfD results from before we started logging them on WP:UNI/D (which was maybe a month or so ago max). I have voted in AfDs of NN student unions and other orgs before, but you are essentially correct. I was the vice president of my university's student government and American SUs do operate differently, but notability is the key. We really shouldn't begin generalizing these AfDs. I still believe the case-by-case basis evaluation of notability is the best way to determine whether the AfD should result in keep/merge/delete/nc. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, and I think that the language shows that notability must be established. I think the current language might lend itself to some specious arguments that I have seen in some AFDS: like this or this or this or this or this or this and in trying to establish blanket student government notabily. So, I think the new language gives a more accurate picture of the reality of AFDs on US student governments.
      • As far as digging deeper to find more old AFDs, I tried. A few weeks ago I did search through a bunch of old AFDs trying to find more student governments. I searched for things in the wikipediaspace with "Associated Students" "Student Association" "Student Government" and "Student Union," and I add the ones I found to the WP:UNI/D archive. So, there are more out there, but I couldn't find them.User:SevernSevern aka --Flunkerton (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, personally, I don't think there's a problem with the current language. Here's the reason why. I agree with what you're saying (and if you look at those AfDs, you'd find my respective comments on each one of those AfDs) What you're proposing is basically to counter one person's (previously) somewhat relentless push to make SUs all inherently notable. I think the current process has carried its course properly and that WikiProject proposal is most likely not going to go through. The current language on individual notability establishment is, in my honest opinion, the fairest and most transparent way for any article, student organization, student government, student union, etc to have their own article. But hey, I'm always open to suggestions. Why don't you draft what you think should be the proper wording? (because or else we'd be talking theoretic future wording that no one knows what it's going to entail...lolz) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New language for this section?
"The notability of student unions may vary between different counties and different universities. A case-by-case demonstration of notability for each student union should be the prime determining factor in each AfD"

[edit] Television series

I've just added a statement about nationally broadcast TV series being notable, because I've seen it claimed in AfDs often enough that I've started using it myself. As far as I've seen, as an argument it's always carried the day, and yet it wasn't documented anywhere. I notice above that it's been brought up more than once -- so silence consent, being bold, et cet. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)