User talk:RobLa/USC News
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Extraordinary Writ in topic January 2023
 | This is the discussion page (the "Talk:" page) for the page named "Draft:USC News". Please use this page to discuss the topic described in the corresponding page in the main namespace (i.e. the "Draft:USC News" page here on English Wikipedia), or visit Help:Talk to learn more about talk pages. |
January 2023
edit| | The comments below dated before 10:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC) are copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RobLa&curid=40477&oldid=1135050387 |
An article you recently created, USC News, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Thanks. Silikonz💬 03:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, User:Silikonz. I really don't care enough about Draft:USC News much more time thinking about topic before it gets arbitrarily deleted from Draft: namespace (though I may copy it to "User:RobLa/USC News" so that I have a copy in two years when I might care more). My stub for Mt St Helens was good enough to get the ball rolling twenty years ago, and I was hoping that Draft:USC News] would see the same effect when it was in the main namespace. However, User:Extraordinary Writ was pretty swift to move it to Draft: space, so it seems pretty unlikely that anyone who cares about USC News will ever see it. The thing I've found so powerful about Wikipedia is "Cunningham's law"; and I've frequently been pleased to see others improve my work in the main namespace. However, the Draft: namespace doesn't seem to work like any good wiki I've been on. I highly doubt that anyone from USC or most of the rest of the world will notice it in the Draft: namespace (please correct me if I'm wrong). Should Wikipedia editors keep citing the website (like we've done dozens if not hundreds of times before), and force people to do their own research on the website to understand the source? I hope not... -- RobLa (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the record, RobLa, Silikonz moved the article to draftspace, not me: all I did was some minor cleanup work. As for your message, I certainly sympathize, but I suppose it was inevitable that once Wikipedia became the #1 result for most search queries, its minimum standards for sourcing, notability, etc. would have to rise, and that certainly comes with both pros and cons. (This is my favorite explanation.) You can indeed copy the draft to User:RobLa/USC News if you like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification/correction, User:Extraordinary Writ. I see that now, per <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=USC_News>. I thought it was you because I initially just saw your username in the deletion log. Regardless, I don't think that a stub article from a twenty-year editor that has only been in place for a few hours needs to be as quickly disposed of, especially given just how often "USC News" is cited on this website. If there's any extra templates and prose necessary to make a "proper" (e.g. "Template:California-university-stub"), I'd appreciate learning more. However, the swift move into Draft: namespace seemed hasty and counterproductive, and the lack of an article seems like a disservice to readers interested in the articles for which USC News provides source material. -- RobLa (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I get it, and there are plenty of people out there who would agree you. You can move the draft back to mainspace if you want, although I wouldn't recommend it unless you can find some good independent sources about USC News first: otherwise it'd probably be nominated for deletion, which isn't exactly an enjoyable experience. Good night. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification/correction, User:Extraordinary Writ. I see that now, per <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=USC_News>. I thought it was you because I initially just saw your username in the deletion log. Regardless, I don't think that a stub article from a twenty-year editor that has only been in place for a few hours needs to be as quickly disposed of, especially given just how often "USC News" is cited on this website. If there's any extra templates and prose necessary to make a "proper" (e.g. "Template:California-university-stub"), I'd appreciate learning more. However, the swift move into Draft: namespace seemed hasty and counterproductive, and the lack of an article seems like a disservice to readers interested in the articles for which USC News provides source material. -- RobLa (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just for the record, RobLa, Silikonz moved the article to draftspace, not me: all I did was some minor cleanup work. As for your message, I certainly sympathize, but I suppose it was inevitable that once Wikipedia became the #1 result for most search queries, its minimum standards for sourcing, notability, etc. would have to rise, and that certainly comes with both pros and cons. (This is my favorite explanation.) You can indeed copy the draft to User:RobLa/USC News if you like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)