Talk:World Federation of the Deaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Notability and forthcoming events

User:KoshVorlon, you have twice added tags suggesting you believe this article is non-notable, and have twice removed content about a forthcoming event. Let's discuss it. Firstly, in reference to the forthcoming event, you've referred to the "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" guideline. I think you misunderstand the guideline, which refers to articles about future events. This is not an article about the 16th WFD congress - it about the WFD, and simply states that the year and host city of the next congress have been confirmed (it was voted on at the last congress). This piece of information is as useful, relevant, and verifiable as the dates and places of previous congresses.

Secondly, if you suggest that the WFD is not notable enough to warrant an article, then state why. Nominate the article for deletion even! Slapping on a "not notable" tag is not helpful. I suspect your concern is actually about sources, which is fair enough, and is why I didn't remove the "sources needed" tag. But as you read in my edit summary, a search on google scholar reveals over 400 references to "world federation of the deaf" in academic journals and publications. The organisation has been referenced in countless media sources, not to mention publications of the UN, UNESCO, the ILO and WHO, with which it has consultative status. ntennis 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reponding to ntennis
Ntennis,

In reverse order, yes I did place a "notability" tag on this article so that the author would improve the article. I feel that's better than nominating an article for deletion with no warning. You're correct I noted it such because the only reference is a self-reference which is not acceptable under guidelines. It is also the responsibility of the author to show notabilty. For example, if I write an article about Kurzweil Keyboards, as the author , I must show in the article that's it's notable, even though anyone could do a search on that and find multiple references that would more than meet that requirement. In fact, it would be incorrect for me to write that article with no references and then retract any "Notability" tag placed on it and state something like "DO a google search on it, it's notable".

The future event removed was per policy WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Item #1 states:
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Predicted line-ups of sporting teams on a week-by-week basis or in future events are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate.

Since there is a question about the notability of the organization, the event is also questioned in regard to notability.
FYI - I have several friends in the deaf community - so I didn't tag this lightly ! I did retag the page and remove the event in question, however, until there's some resolution, I will not touch the page again. Thanks ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to respond without simply repeating my comments above; I feel that they already address your concerns. The fact that the last WFD congress voted for Durban to be the host city for the next congress is not speculation; it's hard data. Yes, it needs a reference, as does the rest of the article. You say you placed the notability tag so that "the author would improve the article". To me, this is a misuse of the tag, which should be added to articles whose topic does not warrant an article at all. Or do you honestly believe that the global peak body of Deaf people is not notable enough? Articles on wikipedia do not have a single author - you're an author too! Perhaps you could find some sources? In the meantime, a "sources needed" tag is surely adequate. ntennis 04:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responding again '

Per WP:V

[edit] Burden of evidence Policy shortcut: WP:PROVEIT For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the {fact} template, a section with {unreferencedsection}, or the article with {refimprove} or {unreferenced}. Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leave a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article page.[2]

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living persons. As Jimmy Wales has put it:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. < br />

Per WP:V the burden of proof lies with the author who first made the claim, not I. As stands, the article still doesn't show notability nor does it have references per this guideline. I still haven't tagged it but may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)