Talk:List of McMaster University people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey everyone, this is the updated list of McMaster people that I have compiled. Some are already on this page.

YCCHAN 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Added to list, some corrections made. YCCHAN 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of people on the list

User:GreenJoe has removed an entire lot of people by just stating they are "non-notable". That is only his opinion and not others. He did not discuss or allow other users to contribute/verify and just removed the names. Clearly, this page need sources and will be added over time. Wikipedia policy of having good faith should be exercised here.

I think he has some issues with similar pages of Canadian Universities. Obviously he would revert back to "his version" in no time. This obsessive behavior is not suited in Wikipedia. 219.77.171.34 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They're non-notable because they don't have Wikipedia articles, and the persons who added them failed to cite sources proving they are notable. The onus is on the person who adds them to verify notability and prove it to everyone else. GJ (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia where everyone contributes to articles. Removing them all won't solve the problem because nobody would know they ever existed. Just because whoever created this page has not provided references for every single person mentioned, it does not mean it should be removed. You said they are non notable just because they don't have Wikipedia articles. Well they will be notable when people start an article!!
Also, Wikipedia is not on a deadline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DEADLINE. See WP:NOEFFORT 203.218.213.127 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The onus is on the person adding the names in to cite sources and prove they are notable. Otherwise they can be removed. End of story. Don't start an argument with me, I'll find others to back me up. GJ (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In this situation where you add a name that results in a redlink (even after searching for alternative names), you have a choice. You either write the article and demonstrate there that the person is notable, or you demonstrate notability in a reference, and wait for someone else to write the article. If you do not do that, how are we know that the redlink is not about a student who flunked out last year and has no notability whatsoever? --Bduke (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait let me understand your statement Bduke. Are you in support for keeping the list or want it to be removed?
I thought I was clear. I am opposed to lists of this kind having redlinks unless there is a reference cited that clearly asserts notability. It would help of course if the reason for notability is given by the name as it was for several of the people being removed here, and that point established by the reference. E.g Joe Blogs, Member of Parliment, followed by ref that establishes that Joe was a M of P. We have to verify what we write. There can also be living person issues. So for this issue, for the items that the edit war is about, either write an article on them that gives notability or add a citation that asserts notablity. Just leaving a redlink with no cite is not acceptable. --Bduke (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Answer me this. What about the criteria of having good faith? And the fact Wikipedia is based on numerous people's contributions. Waiting for the person who created this page (i.e one person) to verify the links one by one will take a lot of time. Removing the list cannot possibly make things better. How will people know these people even existed? Sometimes common sense supersedes policy. 203.218.213.127 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The information is still in the history. It is not lost. The policy is clear. Notability has been challenged by the items being removed. To put them back it has to be verified that the people are McMaster people and that they are notable. Please read the policies. I agree with GJ and so it seems does Kmsiever below. I'm leaving this discussion now. It was only on my watch list because of my involvement with one of the notable people on this list and his article. --Bduke (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
User:GreenJoe apparently reverts to his own edit version just because he has a different point of view. I have valid reasoning why it should be kept but he just says its up to the person who started this page. This fundamentally opposes the contributing factor of wikipedia! Also I don't need to be threaten when you say "find other people to back me up". I'm more than welcome to listen to other people's POV. I also think there are many people who think differently than you do. The discussion is not the end. 203.218.213.127 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And I have valid reasoning for why it should remain out of the list. GJ (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Which makes no difference because I have my own reasoning. Don't pass judgment on others. Wait and see what other people have to say. Also bringing other people you know to "back you up" will just make the decision skewed. 203.218.213.127 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said. If a person is listed, the person should have a Wikipedia article, or the editor adding the person should provide a source. Either one establishes notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. See WP:NOT#DIR and WP:SAL#Lists of people for more information.--Kmsiever (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)