Comments on: Notability for deletion. http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/ arrogant pontification Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:59:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Sean Whitton http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-154 Sean Whitton Sun, 01 Jul 2007 10:11:46 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-154 I bet we could write a bot to do such a deletion log check. At this point, I run away as a terrible coder. I bet we could write a bot to do such a deletion log check.

At this point, I run away as a terrible coder.

]]> By: David Gerard » Blog Archive » {{spoiler}} Jesus dies … False ending! He comes back! {{endspoiler}} http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-83 David Gerard » Blog Archive » {{spoiler}} Jesus dies … False ending! He comes back! {{endspoiler}} Thu, 17 May 2007 10:29:47 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-83 [...] David Gerard arrogant pontification « Notability for deletion. [...] [...] David Gerard arrogant pontification « Notability for deletion. [...]

]]> By: David Gerard http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-80 David Gerard Mon, 14 May 2007 11:41:05 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-80 Sage - I went through [[Special:Log/Delete]] and counted entries over 24 hours. Those 6000 deletions were across all namespaces. There were 11,870 pages across all namespaces created within those 24 hours that had survived. The number I <i>don't</i> have is deletions just within main article space. Getting this number presently requires someone going through the deletion log, counting ... them ... all ... by ... hand. Millosh -that sounds extremely useful as an approach, actually. Sage - I went through [[Special:Log/Delete]] and counted entries over 24 hours. Those 6000 deletions were across all namespaces. There were 11,870 pages across all namespaces created within those 24 hours that had survived.

The number I don’t have is deletions just within main article space. Getting this number presently requires someone going through the deletion log, counting … them … all … by … hand.

Millosh -that sounds extremely useful as an approach, actually.

]]> By: David Gerard http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-79 David Gerard Sun, 13 May 2007 17:50:22 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-79 John - It's mostly not a problem with bios; those are largely taken care of with WP:BLP, as noted. It's a problem with <i>everything else</i>, and the <i>ridiculously</i> subjective notability guidelines. So you're not able to start on constructing a basis for "notability" that's less susceptible to bitter argument? John - It’s mostly not a problem with bios; those are largely taken care of with WP:BLP, as noted. It’s a problem with everything else, and the ridiculously subjective notability guidelines.

So you’re not able to start on constructing a basis for “notability” that’s less susceptible to bitter argument?

]]> By: millosh http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-77 millosh Sun, 13 May 2007 12:49:34 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-77 Notability on Wikipedia is bias (actually, it is elitist shit) and it should be removed. The only thing about which Wikipedian community should talk is relevancy of sources. While I was active on Serbian Wikipedia we tried to implement a rule which would remove a question of "notability". Here is the short version of the rules and explanations (some of the rules are : - Encyclopedia (Wikipedia) is not about truth, notability etc., but about verifiability. - Encyclopedia may make decision about notability of some papre, but not about notability of human being. - You need to give at least two independent and relevant sources and three informations about something if you want to make an article about that thing on Wikipedia. - "Independent" means that it doesn't belong to the person (or person's small group) which is related to the thing. - "Relevant sources" are such -- about we didn't decided (yet) that they are non-relevant. - Three informations (I described "informations" in Serbian with the word near to adjective "confrontative"; "three confrontative informations"; but this is not the exact meaning in English...) means (1) not three times sources for one information; (2) not three informations which may be implied from only one; i.e. "London is in UK, in Englang, on the Great Britain island... is only one information which may be implied from only one: geographical coordinates (because geographical coordinates of UK, England and GB are include coordinates of London). - Those rules are dealing only about *making an article*. Any blog or other non-independent sources are welcome as Wikipedia sources from the point when the article is made. And for those who are afraid about putting a big number of articles about porno actors: If you want to change something, please, do it with your culture, not with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just describing your culture. Notability on Wikipedia is bias (actually, it is elitist shit) and it should be removed. The only thing about which Wikipedian community should talk is relevancy of sources.

While I was active on Serbian Wikipedia we tried to implement a rule which would remove a question of “notability”.

Here is the short version of the rules and explanations (some of the rules are :

- Encyclopedia (Wikipedia) is not about truth, notability etc., but about verifiability.

- Encyclopedia may make decision about notability of some papre, but not about notability of human being.

- You need to give at least two independent and relevant sources and three informations about something if you want to make an article about that thing on Wikipedia.

- “Independent” means that it doesn’t belong to the person (or person’s small group) which is related to the thing.

- “Relevant sources” are such — about we didn’t decided (yet) that they are non-relevant.

- Three informations (I described “informations” in Serbian with the word near to adjective “confrontative”; “three confrontative informations”; but this is not the exact meaning in English…) means (1) not three times sources for one information; (2) not three informations which may be implied from only one; i.e. “London is in UK, in Englang, on the Great Britain island… is only one information which may be implied from only one: geographical coordinates (because geographical coordinates of UK, England and GB are include coordinates of London).

- Those rules are dealing only about *making an article*. Any blog or other non-independent sources are welcome as Wikipedia sources from the point when the article is made.

And for those who are afraid about putting a big number of articles about porno actors: If you want to change something, please, do it with your culture, not with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just describing your culture.

]]> By: Stephen Bain http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-75 Stephen Bain Sun, 13 May 2007 05:24:13 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-75 I've given this assignment a go, see here for my attempt: http://thoughtsfordeletion.blogspot.com/2007/05/threshold-question.html I’ve given this assignment a go, see here for my attempt:

http://thoughtsfordeletion.blogspot.com/2007/05/threshold-question.html

]]> By: John Schmidt http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-74 John Schmidt Sun, 13 May 2007 04:46:24 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-74 By "deleting notability", you make Wikipedia even more subject to bias. There are millions of people with biographical Google hits; that does not mean they should have a biographical page in Wikipedia. The simple rule for notability in deciding if there should be a Wikipedia biography page is if there are multiple existing professionally produced biographical sources for someone. If you like biographies about non-notable people, why not start a new wiki and call it "encyclopedia of non-notable people"? By “deleting notability”, you make Wikipedia even more subject to bias. There are millions of people with biographical Google hits; that does not mean they should have a biographical page in Wikipedia. The simple rule for notability in deciding if there should be a Wikipedia biography page is if there are multiple existing professionally produced biographical sources for someone. If you like biographies about non-notable people, why not start a new wiki and call it “encyclopedia of non-notable people”?

]]> By: Sage http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-73 Sage Sun, 13 May 2007 01:16:49 +0000 http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/05/13/notability-for-deletion/#comment-73 Where does "6,000 deletions per day" come from? Is that including images and talk pages? By my estimates a few months ago, article deletion rate was less than half that, and at least up through January, there was almost never more than 2,500 deletion actions in a single day, including deleted revisions. Where does “6,000 deletions per day” come from? Is that including images and talk pages? By my estimates a few months ago, article deletion rate was less than half that, and at least up through January, there was almost never more than 2,500 deletion actions in a single day, including deleted revisions.

]]>