Talk:Kate Novak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Role-playing games      (Rated Stub-Class) Role-playing games Portal This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated Stub-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

[edit] Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template from Kate Novak, an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the template which was put there to address this problem. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:BIO and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the template immediately. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins - Happy to leave the notability template until more information can be found. I'm not too sure on the cease and desist order you are putting out since I have only reverted it once? Again once the notability of Azure Bonds is finalised will being the author also establish notability? --Stextc (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for respecting my edits. Unfortunately, more than one editor (and one vandal) have not accepted the rationale for the cleanup template being placed on this article, despite the fact that none of them have added any sources to support their POV. Hopefully reliable secondary sources will be added and the template removed when appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added an additional two sources: pen-paper.net, an RPG database, and MobyGames, a respected computer games database. I've also done a bit of cleanup on the article. Note that having written six books with ISBNs and cataloging in the Library of Congress should constitute notability. Snuppy 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding: the article can still use some fleshing out, but this should be a start.Snuppy 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Although addtional sources have been added to this article, they are not reliable secondary sources as defined by WP:BIO (note 5):

"Database sources...are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion"

I therefore conclude that the removal of the notability template is not warranted at this time, and request that the notability template be restored immediately until such time as reliable secondary sources are found which discuss the subject in detail. The restoration of the template will have the benefit of alerting other editors that secondary sources need to be added, and in the long term will be of benefit to the article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked this all over and agree that there is still a serious notability issue. The lightweight source are problematic and [1] and [2] are practically the same text. The first identifies itself as twenty years old. None of the sources on offer amount to reliable sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that, as you note, the first text identifies itself as twenty years old. Much of this author's work was created well before the widespread usage of the WWW, and thus much of her work was referenced in magazines that have not been digitized. Do you have any suggestions on how to note this and add it to the article? Snuppy 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's {{cite journal}} and some cousins listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Just saying that sources existed but not citing them in any explicit way would be a futile effort. I don't think this is quite what you meant but it does rather seem implied. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)