Wikipedia talk:Bare notability

Comments

Regarding this plainly erroneous edit: "I don't like it" has never been a valid rationale for deleting any content. Nor is it logically consistent to remove this content but leave the 'be cautious about creation' stuff at the top of the essay. If one goes, both must go, because they are equivalent. James500 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, which removed the following text: "Editors should, instead, generally be cautious about nominating for deletion topics that seem to be on the borderline of notability, as such nominations are likely to be particularly controversial, to end in failure, and take up a disproportionate amount of the community's time that would be better spent dealing with more straightforward cases."

(1) It is not true that any article can be nominated for deletion. Nominating an article on a notable topic for deletion, on grounds that it is not notable, violates the notability guidelines. Nominating an article for deletion for an invalid reason is disruptive. (2) The content which has been removed from this essay did not argue that topics that seem to be on the borderline of notability (hereinafter 'borderline articles') cannot be nominated for deletion. It only argued that editors should generally (not always) be cautious (not altogether refrain) about nominating such topics for deletion which is not the same thing. (3) The statement that borderline articles should be (automatically) nominated for deletion is not consensus. It is just the personal opinion of the editor who removed that content, which others may not share. I think that borderline articles should not normally be nominated. (4) As far as I can see, the only grounds on which this content can be removed is if it clearly contradicts a policy or guideline. As it only advises editors to be cautious about certain nominations, and not altogether refrain from them, it can't contradict any policy or guideline relating to deletion, as none of them purport to place editors under a positive obligation to make any nomination. The only thing it could even arguably contradict, that I can think of, is WP:BOLD, but even that tells us to refrain from being reckless, and one could argue that the un-cautious nomination of borderline articles is reckless. If, for the sake of argument, the removed content does contradict BOLD, then so does the entire content at the top of the article advising us to be cautious about creating articles on topics that are just barely notable, and should have been removed at the same time, instead of selectively removing the parts one personally does not like. (5) The statement that borderline "nominations are likely to be particularly controversial, to end in failure, and take up a disproportionate amount of the community's time" (relative to their importance) is a simple self-evident fact, the truth of which cannot be disputed. There are no conceivable legitimate grounds for removing that, and it should not have been removed. (6) The removed content did not precisely define "borderline of notability" but if it was taken to refer to the level of coverage that generally produces a "no consensus" result at AfD, then editors are forbidden to make such nominations because that is disruptive. (7) At this time, there is no consensus for the removal of that content. James500 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I support the status quo on this article, ie. without the inclusionist propaganda. Reyk _YO! 07:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So the deletionist propaganda still present is acceptable? "Inclusionist propaganda", or any other form of "I don't like it" is not a valid argument for removal. Can you point to a policy or guideline that the removed content violates?

WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. Since WP:STATUSQUO only applies, in its own terms, in the interim period during which consensus has not been reached, it is not an argument for permanently excluding or including any content. The present version of WP:Bare notability is the result of a very recent removal of long standing stable text. That is not the status quo. The status quo is the preceding version. James500 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

many editors have asked you to be concise. Remember over a lifetime all those extra keystrokes are a mental, physical and financial burden. Let's see if you can be concise in the next reply. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

As your comments are entirely off topic, I am not allowed to answer the substance of them on this talk page, as off topic comments are forbidden by our policies and guidelines. James500 (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

not off topic . and I'll know you'll just reply to this. I only think if those keystrokes were spent on article improvement. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, could someone please explain what the word "it" in the restored sentence refers to, as it is not remotely clear from the context. What may be tested? James500 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I think it is worth pointing out that WP:NPOV does not apply to the project namespace, so "complete pov" is an inherently invalid rationale for removing text from an essay in the project space. Frankly, there was nothing wrong the passage removed. James500 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Weasel word

This essay nicely proves the point that notability is a weasel term on Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:MurderByDeadcopy: I agree. The essay tries to make out that there is some class of topics that satisfy the notability guidelines, but are somehow not notable enough to have articles. The way the essay is being systematically edited by LibStar to make it more deletionist is rather concerning. James500 (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove merge request

I removed the "Merge with Wikipedia:Semi-notability" template as an old discussion that may not be appropriate. Otr500 (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Really? It seems like a reasonable enough merge to me. I reinstated the tag. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

PrussianOwl: Really?[!]. The "Merge" request template is not a banner for a permanent non-discussion. There is a proper procedure for requesting a merge that typically involves a discussion that includes what to merge and where. There is a merge request back-log of around 3,500 articles. The merge request templates were added a few days short of 10 months ago with no Merge discussion (added section) such as now.

The "non-discussion" was considered stale so I delisted it as a procedural maintenance move. If you feel the articles need to be merged and would be uncontroversial (10 months with no opposition) then you could simply make a bold merge. Short of that an actual "Merge" section and discussion would actually be more appropriate. Otr500 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After two separate listings over several months this is uncontested. Although involved, this is more of a "procedural close" for a bold move so I do not feel the need for an Admin formal closing or just leaving the discussion open. The result of this discussion was "Merge". (non-admin closure) Otr500 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed for a merge between this article and Wikipedia:Semi-notability. Otr500 (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Support merge from Semi-notability into this page. I don't quite see how the two are different enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

John M Wolfson: Twelve days have passed. I have since decided that you are correct. Otr500 (talk)

• Support merge: Per Nom. The idea of "bare notability" and "semi-notability" are close enough they can be covered under the same article. I would have thought "semi-notability" a better name but it can be handled with "also known as" in bold. Otr500 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.