Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD

Requested move 30 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clearly no consensus for this whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD → Wikipedia:Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD – This essay has very general advice which isn't specific to any particular WikiProject. -- Netoholic @ 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. This essay and other essays in this section were made by Women in Red members for Women in Red members and other enthusiasts of our work. As this essay is in our project space, we can make changes to it as we see fit. In mid-May, Victuallers and I (we are the co-founders of Women in Red) will be using this material to create Women in Red-branded videos as part of our commitment to continue with the work that was shortlisted by ITU/UN Women for the 2016 GEM-TECH award in the category, "Apply Technology for Women’s Empowerment and Digital Inclusion". --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, adding definition of "our work", which can also be referred to as the scope of Women in Red: creating new articles about women, especially but not limited to their biographies; their works, such as the paintings they painted, the books they published, the conferences they convened; and their issues, such as women's health, women's suffrage, and so forth. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This is about the clearest admission of WP:Ownership of content I've ever seen. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone object to you *copying* the text to the other location? From what I can see, this is much more about you coming in and proposing to disrupt the structure of a WikiProject, and from what I can see against the express will of the project's active participants, by moving a resource they have created for use within their project elsewhere. I don't think anyone would object to you creating a more general version in another location. And yes, I find the proximity to the conflict worrying, as well. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose As Rosie says these guides were written for project members. Anyone who finds them helpful can "watchlist" them. (Comment: Can the proposer explain the timeline of this falling on the heels of a conflict with one of our founders?) SusunW (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose *Oppose It's in WikiProject space and should stay there. Anyone can find a link to the essay here so it's already accessible to everyone anyway. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of the advice may be more generally useful, but significant parts of it are rather project-specific. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose For reasons mentioned above. This is WIR resource and should remain so. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not appropriate. Please refer to WikiProject Council Guide - Advice pages. WikiProjects are designed for inclusion of project-specific guidelines/essays to help editors of any specific project. All projects have these. If you have an objection to that, then your objection is on the structure of WikiProjects. Please direct your concerns to WikiProject Council. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the move since WikiProjects should have the autonomy to decide for themselves which resources to offer their members in a specific form, but definitely encouraging the user who proposed the move to create the new page they are proposing directly, and to feel free to use the generally-applicable parts of the contents of the page in question to get a head-start. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There is currently a WP:ANI discussion on whether Netoholic is or is not apparently specifically targeting some WiR-related articles on academics. Whilst it may be a compliment to the authors that an editor wants to make project-related content and advice more widely available, there is a suspicion that this is not the reason for this proposed move, nor is it by any stretch of the imagination the right way to go about it. Needs a trout. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

SNGs

The advice in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD#Secondary notability guides is bad - particularly in regards to academics. Most WikiNotable academics do not pass GNG. They do however pass the WP:NPROF SNG - this is true for men and women. For most academics, those who do not have press coverage, NPROF is usually much easier to meet. In other bio areas it is less important strictly policy wise, but meeting a SNG's presumed notability can sway AfDs for borderline GNG cases.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I also found that section less helpful than the advice elsewhere in the page. It seems rather divorced from the week-to-week reality of deletion debates about academics. There, the SNG is a friend: it is easier to meet WP:PROF than WP:GNG when there is a relative dearth of biographical material available. The concerns about h-index and g-index are already reflected in WP:PROF: Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account, etc. And, in practice, even the people who care a lot about citation rates tend to normalize their standards depending on the field that the article subject works in. The advice also, to my eye, mixes up the question of who is wiki-notable with the question of what content belongs in an article for a person who is wiki-notable. Plenty of material can go into an article even if it isn't directly geared to establishing wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if what is written there on bias is correct today (and I am skeptical on the name change claim - yes a big issue for sourcing women generally - but academics typically stick to one professional name when publishing) - but even if academia is biased - checking if the bio subject is/was a namd chair (or fellow of an esteemed society) and running a gScholar search on their name(s) are almost trivially easy for an editor to do. This doesn't "save" every academic - but it is often very low hanging fruit for notability. NAUTHOR is a bit harder to evaluate - but also easier than GNG to meet (for authors of multiple books).Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I can recall a few AfD's where we had to search under multiple names to get a full picture of the subject's publication record (e.g., Ruth Currie-McDaniel published under two different names). But this isn't a major obstacle, just another thing to check. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Another error, I think, in the section is that it isn't "Secondary notability guides" - but "Subject-specific notability guidelines". Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ownership

This essay refers to "your article" 17 times (+ a few other instances in different langauge). This is WP:OWNership - which is verboten by policy. There is no mine or yours outside of userspace - only ours.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

All of those instances read, to me, like convenient abbreviations for "an article you have written", which is how the essay begins. Is it a violation of policy to speak of "your edits", "your recent changes" or "your contributions"? XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Your edits to our article" you mean? Seems fine. Outside of AfC rejection (in draft or userspace) there is no need to be possessive. It is our article. I will also note that the advice presented is generally applicable regardless of whether the reader happens to be the first editor to one of our articles or not.Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with XOR'easter, and think the objection is nutty. The essay is advice about what a person who has written or drafted an article (presumably, more or less single-handedly) should do if it runs into trouble; calling such a thing "your article" is completely reasonable, as is all of the advice offered. Nothing here is in conflict with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia or with WP:OWN in particular. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)