Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AfD result

FYI, an article was article created containing only this material. The AfD resulted in only 2 opinions to merge the information and one anonymous vote to keep. --Dual Freq 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, certain editors are at war with the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which state:

"Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: 'never heard of this', 'an interesting article', 'topic deserves attention', 'not famous enough', 'very important issue', 'popular', 'I like it', 'only of interest to [some group]', etc.

"General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy."

A poll of editors such as the referenced AfD represents purely "[s]ubjective evaluations", and raising it here is an effort to inject the judgment of individual editors directly into the determination of notability. The paragraph at issue contains material that professional journalists and multiple editors have determined to be notable, and which they subsequently published in newspapers with broad circulation. Rush Limbaugh himself repeatedly discussed the matter during his radio program. It is their judgment that determines notability, not that of individual editors. Kpedsea 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply passing on that the material was deleted, but not merged, after the discussion at the above linked AfD. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." and "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Based on the outcome of the AfD, there apparently was a consensus to delete that article, but not a merge the material in question. --Dual Freq 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active?

Is this RfM active or can we close it and go about our business? --ElKevbo 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the material referred to seems to still be missing from the article, despite a lack of any decision being made in this mediation to do so. Lurker ^oi! 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• How is this mediation supposed to work? I'm not a party to this mediation, but I took an interest because the subject matter came up in an AfD discussion a couple of months ago. But most processes on Wikipedia take a much shorter time than this mediation has taken. --Metropolitan90 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)