Talk:National Network to End Domestic Violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creation

I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia and created this page because the NNEDV was mentioned in another article (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Donna_Edwards) and I was curious about it. As a user of Wikipedia I find short articles about things that may only require short articles, with maybe a couple of links, often very helpful. Donna Edwards was co-founder of this organization and has just won the Democratic primary to run to be a Representative in the U.S. Congress. I have no connection to either her, or NNEDV but think both are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.--Another-sailor (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

In Wikipedia, "notability" has a specific meaning, more than the ordinary usage of the word. Per WP:notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability requires objective evidence, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.

To oversimplify, Wikipedia judges the importance of a subject by the number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines. So the way to verify notability is to provide references to reliable sources. I also recommend that you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations_and_companies).

But don't worry about the Notability message on the article. At this stage it is just a warning. There is nothing underway that would lead to the article being deleted. There may come a point when, if the article does not have references to demonstrate notability, an editor will recommend that it be deleted. But that is not likely to be soon. In the meantime, the more references you can add, the better. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself "warned" then. Please post a link to an article that shows how to judge notability by providing the number of mentions of the subject in a newspaper or magazine or a link to the policy that says that Fox News is not notable. I have read Wikipedia's policy on notability and have not noticed anywhere a count of the "number of mentions of the subject in newspapers or magazines" in an article or that Fox News is not considered a reliable source. I do consider myself "warned" of everything every time I am on Wikipedia. I hope one day to be part of the group welcoming the world to edit by giving out "warnings." That's my big dream. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I did try a warning, but it was not near as much fun as noticing on a user's page what nice work they had done. I realize this is not the Wiki way, so maybe I won't be editing here. I will give "warnings" another try though, as they seem to be important. I'm not worried about the article being deleted. I am concerned about how little information there was and how poorly written it was. I assume the other writers were appropriately warned away, though. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Warning" may not be the best word. It is more to request and encourage editors to go find good sources. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to find them yourself, I'm feeling threatened that the article may be "considered for redirection, merging or ultimately deletion," and still warned by the tag and my failure to do well contributing to Wikipedia. In fact, just delete it. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did say "to oversimplify". What the guideline says is: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." FOX News is a reliable source but in this case it was repeating a press release from NNEDV itself. The Notability guideline "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including ... press releases." Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous person who made the above comments and did not remove the “notability” tag. I had read the guidelines but appreciate your explanation Sbowers3. The anonymous user’s comments are argumentative to the point where I wonder if it wasn’t just an attempt to stir up trouble, but I do wonder if insisting that all articles be confined to things being discussed in “secondary sources” should be applied in the same way to short articles as it is to long ones. They are after all “guidelines”. Maybe there should be an article on "Advocate Groups for Violence against Women", and NNEDV could be a couple of paragraphs. Until then I think it is a useful page. --Another-sailor (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)