291:
99:
158:
130:
485:. It which surprised me to find that they both failed and I cannot find a discussion after, since definitely the argument is used often (and often successfully) in AfDs for at least the past decade or so. My sense is that consensus has changed on this since 2007 and that borderline-notable people who request deletion often get their wishes respected -- in fact such an outcome is discussed in
489:: "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion" but even there it's just a wave at a guideline rather than a given rule. All in all, it doesn't seem to be fixed enough nor have enough consensus to go (either way) on this page.
222:
144:
258:
449:
valid reason for deletion? This feels different from "I don't like it" or "They don't like it", but I can't point to a place where this sentiment is addressed. I've seen deletion discussions where the subject didn't want the article to exist but the article was kept anyway (because notable). I know
574:
Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is
672:
Even if a subject is notable enough to have its own article, it can still be better to discuss it as one part of an article covering a broader scope. Readers often benefit when related information is organized into a single, more comprehensive resource instead of being split between several smaller
492:
As far as groups go: I think that the BLP article stating that it's a "case-by-case basis" whether BLP can apply to a group stands here. If the article were about two sisters (who, say, own a marginally notable store or have a marginally notable band) and they both wrote in asking for the article
269:
540:– only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.
551:". I think in order to give a sense of what a detailed argument would be, we need to get concrete with a hypothetical detail from a hypothetical article rather than leaving it in the miasma of generalities that we are suggesting people avoid. --
719:
matter. (That the guideline emphasizes that outside coverage is necessary is obvious; but if that were the only point of the guideline, it would be entirely redundant.) To say a subject "does not win" is not an invalid argument in that context.
39:
397:
392:
385:
380:
375:
368:
363:
358:
351:
346:
341:
334:
329:
324:
317:
312:
307:
235:
766:
202:
591:
feels incomplete to me. It's true that not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable, but it's also true that it sometimes makes more sense to have a single article on
517:
I decided to be bold and changed the example of a good
Original Research argument in the "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" (VAGUEWAVE) section. Before it was (emphasis added)
24:
467:
482:
776:
74:
165:
445:
Has there ever been consideration for inclusion of the argument, "We'd rather not have an article on us" or "I'd rather not have an article on me" as an
212:
80:
544:
I did not feel that this was a great example of a "more detailed summary" as much as the definition of what "original research" is. Changed to "
771:
174:
478:
20:
69:
584:
135:
110:
522:
60:
751:
732:
697:
661:
560:
506:
143:
264:
178:
430:
413:
537:
526:
231:
463:
409:
116:
497:
and the request came from its president, that does not sound like anything BLP should get involved with. --
599:, which includes information about the manufacturer, than to have multiple separate articles on the notable
667:
657:
708:
50:
455:
65:
257:
556:
502:
459:
728:
494:
712:
670:
et al. seem the proximate P&Gs. I think it's very clear we can distil what is said there into
486:
170:
747:
689:
415:
673:
articles—with each potentially being less effective at providing necessary context in isolation.
626:
An article about the notable product plus another article about the not-so-notable manufacturer
454:
which allows some leeway for a person to ask us not to host an article on them (sometimes) but
653:
629:
An article about the notable person plus another article about the not-so-notable organization
46:
411:
290:
549:: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation
451:
576:
552:
498:
173:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
546:
531:
739:
724:
677:
Hopefully that's a start, and not overly clunky as to have to rewrite it from scratch.
760:
743:
679:
616:
671:
573:
580:
458:
suggests that this same courtesy does not extend to groups, esp large groups.
221:
157:
129:
723:
This is not the only statement in this essay that is similarly problematic.
493:
to be deleted, that sounds to me like BLP would apply. If it's about the
595:, which mostly says that it manufactures blue-green widgets, or about
473:
I was looking for the rules on this and at first all I could find were
711:
in this essay contradicts the recommended considerations in the
169:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
416:
284:
252:
92:
15:
615:(version 4 being non-notable), plus yet another article for
220:
440:
767:
High-impact WikiProject
Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
534:: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources
481:(proposing it as a type of speedy deletion) and in
529:", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "
715:guideline, which notes that winning major events
652:I don't think this is clear. What do you think?
109:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
424:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
592:
612:
608:
604:
600:
238:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
596:
575:itself notable. For example, just because
124:
25:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
777:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
742:, try fixing it, see if anyone objects.
644:A single article about a notable person
637:A single article about the manufacturer
441:"We'd rather not have an article on us"?
193:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
126:
579:was a founding member of a particular
434:when more than 4 sections are present.
587:does not make that AFT local notable.
479:Knowledge (XXG):BLP courtesy deletion
7:
98:
96:
115:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
267:on 22 October 2008. The result of
187:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays
177:. For a listing of essays see the
166:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays
14:
513:Change Example of OR in VAGUEWAVE
428:may be automatically archived by
163:This page is within the scope of
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
289:
256:
156:
142:
128:
97:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
772:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays
585:American Federation of Teachers
752:16:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
733:03:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
483:Notability (people) Archive 5
477:proposals from 17 years ago:
37:Put new text under old text.
553:Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert
521:Rather than merely writing "
499:Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert
263:This page was nominated for
207:This page has been rated as
698:05:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
662:04:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
190:Template:WikiProject Essays
793:
704:Didnotwin contrasts nsport
561:20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
507:20:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
690:
228:
206:
151:
123:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
468:09:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
450:there is the concept of
633:but it's good to have:
622:What we don't want is:
619:, the founder and CEO.
431:Lowercase sigmabot III
232:automatically assessed
225:
213:project's impact scale
171:Knowledge (XXG) essays
70:avoid personal attacks
525:", or "Does not meet
230:The above rating was
224:
641:its notable products
593:Bob's Business, Inc.
536:" or "Does not meet
613:Blue-green widget 5
609:Blue-green widget 3
605:Blue-green widget 2
601:Blue-green widget 1
495:United Auto Workers
648:their organization
597:Blue-green widgets
226:
111:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
559:
547:Original research
532:Original research
523:Original research
505:
438:
437:
403:
402:
281:
280:
251:
250:
247:
246:
243:
242:
239:
91:
90:
61:Assume good faith
38:
784:
696:
694:
688:
684:
674:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
588:
566:Merging articles
555:
538:WP:Verifiability
527:WP:Verifiability
501:
433:
417:
304:
303:
293:
285:
260:
253:
229:
195:
194:
191:
188:
185:
160:
153:
152:
147:
146:
145:
140:
132:
125:
102:
101:
100:
93:
16:
792:
791:
787:
786:
785:
783:
782:
781:
757:
756:
706:
686:
680:
678:
577:Albert Einstein
568:
515:
460:A loose necktie
443:
429:
418:
412:
298:
192:
189:
186:
183:
182:
179:essay directory
141:
138:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
790:
788:
780:
779:
774:
769:
759:
758:
755:
754:
705:
702:
701:
700:
675:
650:
649:
642:
631:
630:
627:
567:
564:
542:
541:
514:
511:
510:
509:
490:
442:
439:
436:
435:
423:
420:
419:
414:
410:
408:
405:
404:
401:
400:
395:
389:
388:
383:
378:
372:
371:
366:
361:
355:
354:
349:
344:
338:
337:
332:
327:
321:
320:
315:
310:
300:
299:
294:
288:
279:
278:
270:the discussion
261:
249:
248:
245:
244:
241:
240:
227:
217:
216:
205:
199:
198:
196:
161:
149:
148:
133:
121:
120:
114:
103:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
789:
778:
775:
773:
770:
768:
765:
764:
762:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
721:
718:
714:
710:
703:
699:
695:
693:
685:
683:
676:
669:
668:WP:PAGEDECIDE
666:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
647:
643:
640:
636:
635:
634:
628:
625:
624:
623:
620:
618:
589:
586:
582:
578:
571:
565:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
548:
539:
535:
533:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
491:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
448:
432:
427:
422:
421:
407:
406:
399:
396:
394:
391:
390:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
373:
370:
367:
365:
362:
360:
357:
356:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
339:
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
323:
322:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
305:
302:
301:
297:
292:
287:
286:
283:
276:
272:
271:
266:
262:
259:
255:
254:
237:
233:
223:
219:
218:
214:
210:
204:
201:
200:
197:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
162:
159:
155:
154:
150:
137:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
112:
108:
104:
95:
94:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
722:
716:
709:WP:DIDNOTWIN
707:
691:
681:
654:WhatamIdoing
651:
645:
638:
632:
621:
590:
572:
569:
545:
543:
530:
516:
474:
446:
444:
425:
295:
282:
274:
268:
208:
164:
117:WikiProjects
107:project page
106:
19:This is the
581:local union
456:WP:BLPGROUP
275:Speedy keep
209:High-impact
139:High‑impact
761:Categories
398:Archive 17
393:Archive 16
386:Archive 15
381:Archive 14
376:Archive 13
369:Archive 12
364:Archive 11
359:Archive 10
175:discussion
740:SamuelRiv
725:SamuelRiv
713:WP:NSPORT
487:WP:BLPDEL
352:Archive 9
347:Archive 8
342:Archive 7
335:Archive 6
330:Archive 5
325:Archive 4
318:Archive 3
313:Archive 2
308:Archive 1
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
744:Valereee
682:Remsense
296:Archives
265:deletion
51:get help
583:of the
426:90 days
211:on the
611:, and
570:This:
557:(talk)
503:(talk)
475:failed
452:WP:BLP
234:using
184:Essays
136:Essays
113:scale.
105:This
79:Seek
27:page.
748:talk
729:talk
717:does
658:talk
464:talk
273:was
236:data
203:High
68:and
646:and
639:and
617:Bob
763::
750:)
731:)
687:‥
660:)
607:,
603:,
466:)
447:in
49:;
746:(
738:@
727:(
692:论
656:(
462:(
277:.
215:.
181:.
119::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
