Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Inherent notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Any good-faith requests for userfication can be handled in the future at the talk page of the essay. It is clear that consensus to delete it outright does not exist. Xoloz (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Inherent notability

This is either a rejected proposal or a user essay. It has been written almost entirely by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and has been marked as "rejected" by multiple users. Since the author disagrees that it's a rejected proposal, it belongs in user space. Chaz Beckett 00:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Userfy. Per my reasoning above. Chaz Beckett 00:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the creator, its an essay. Since when do we delete essays, or even reject essays? They are after all, just essays. See Category:Wikipedia_essays --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not proposing that it be deleted, just moved out Wikipedia namespace and into your userspace. Per Category:Wikipedia_essays: "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author." Wikipedia:Inherent notability was written almost entirely by you and is very rarely (if ever) referenced. Similar essays, such as User:Uncle G/On notability are in userspace. Chaz Beckett 02:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Userfy (as above) as an opinion primarily of the author. GracenotesT § 16:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - While this page is the author's personal opinion, it (in my experience) does effectively reflect the current community consensus. Articles on settlements, large standing bodies of water or other geographic features of local importance, for instance, almost always survive AfD, despite the absence of secondary sources. I have no opinion as to whether this page should be userfied or maintained as a projectspace essay, but I think it's useful to keep the page around. WaltonOne 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep It state on the page This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.--Look opinions are NOT "fact", and say them(or typing them) do not make them so-- lets work to come to a Consensus "Inherent notability"--That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Userfy and delete. This is a personal essay of the type that belong in userspace. Essays only belong in the main Wikipedia namespace if they have widespread (though presumably not consensual or they would be guidelines) support. I know that current practice doesn't closely track this, but we might as well start here. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is perfectly acceptable to write an essay in the Wikipedia space rather than in the user space. Writing it in the Wikipedia space means the user allows other editors to edit it as an essay. There is nothing in policy or guidance which states essays have to be in user space. There is nothing in this essay which makes it a user essay. Hiding T 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This an essay written 99% by one user and contains nothing more than this user's personal views on a subject. Therefore it belongs in user space. As it states in: "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author." A much more accepted and referenced essay on this subject, User:Uncle G/On notability, is in user space and does a grea job of explaining why the concept of inherent notability is fundamentally flawed. There's nothing wrong a user writing an essay expressing their opinion, but it doesn't belong in project space without some evidence that it's accepted by the community. It doesn't have to reach the level of a guideline, but this one is referenced only by its author. Chaz Beckett 18:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have begun a rewrite to make the essay more of use to Wikipedians. Hiding T 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this essay seems to have quite a few editors. Inherent notability is a long-running debate and even if you don't agree with it an essay can still be useful to explain the issue. --W.marsh 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not certain it will go anywhere, but I say we give it a chance. As it is, it's a valid Wikipedia essay.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since editors other than the author have begun revising it, so it is no longer the opinion of only one person. –Pomte 08:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to the fact that the single-editor issue has been addressed, the essay itself covers an issue that comes up constantly regarding the inherent notability of categories of articles for cities, highways and national politicians (where there is broad consensus of inherent notability) and other categories where such consensus has not been reached. This essay can be a productive means to address this issue and should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We have a long tradition of hosting essays in Wikipedia-space. This is clearly an essay. --Tony Sidaway 16:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as essay. It raises some reasonable points and serves as a useful reference. I don't see any connection between disagreement over rejected status and ineligibility for placement in project-space. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.