Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Are all astronauts notable?

Would all astronauts/cosmonauts be considered notable regardless of whether they've actually been in space or not? Anton Shkaplerov and Oleg Skripochka for example.. no flights, nothing exceptional about them except for the fact that they are cosmonauts.. still worthy of encyclopedia articles? -- œ^™ 12:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. Unless they've been to space there shouldn't be any automatic notability for astronauts. Now if the media has covered them in some way then they might satisfy notability on their own. I know in north america it seems the astronauts get press every time they go up so any questions of notability are gone for them. I don't think simply being selected as an astronaut is enough to claim notability.--Crossmr (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think applying the WP:GNG is sufficient here. I agree there's not enough of a case for them to be inherently notable (the notion applies to very few classes of things anyway). --Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Michael S. Heiser

Dr. Michael S. Heiser has a personal self-published website called "SitchinIsWrong.com". This Heiser uses Zecharia Sitchin's own name in order to descredit Sitchin, and some editors have used Heiser's website as a "neutral" (non-POV) source for editing the Zecharia Sitchin article, stating that this Heiser is an exception with regards to WP:SPS. This Heiser may have a good debunking business, and he may be right in some of his asserations, but he is not notable enough so that his self-published site would be used as a source, especially when he is using another person's name to promote himself and his business. Third party sources should be found. That's my view on the matter.

The discussion is taking place here: Talk:Zecharia_Sitchin#Using_SitchinIsWrong.com_as_a_source

Other opinions in this matter are welcome. John Hyams (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The above editor has also started a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Zecharia_Sitchin. Looks like WP:Forum shopping to me. I doubt that anyone considers it neutral, my opinion, from reading what else John Hyams has said, is that he believes that you can only use neutral sources in cases like this, a misunderstanding of NPOV. WP:Fringe also applies to this article and covers the use of this website. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I don't see a problem in doing so, as long as the same issue relates to more than one noticeboard. Another editor (not me) opened a case on the Fringe Theories noticeboard in order to attract editors to the Sitchin article, and that is fine by me. John Hyams (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is a Wikipedia:LIVE issue, which applies to both noticeboards, and both people (Heiser and Sitchin). John Hyams (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if it "relates to more than one notice board," you don't post it in two places at once. Since this was first posted to BLPN further discussion should take place there. At best, you should've simply posted here to draw attention to the discussion already ongoing at BLPN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The rules for the use of self-published sources are explicitly stated at WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." That's the last paragraph of the section and the only portion that applies to BLPs. Note the use of the word "never". Yworo (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Network TwentyOne

This article has been listed on AfD on the ground of lack of "notability" despite using more than a dozen independent RS/V sources and the existence of a number of other RS sources including a journal case study. Unfortunately the AfD has attracted little interest outside involved editors. A list of all wholly independent 3rd party references found so far (some incidental) is here. The latest argument is that many of the sources don't count towards notability because they're foreign lanugage. Additional input would be appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That AfD is a mess. Other language sources are perfectly capable of establishing notability, but you're hanging your hat on sources which are not good. The manila standard. Read it, not significant coverage. Its simply a blurb in an entertainment section. Those are often paid ads. Reliable sources need to be independent and also don't include things like press releases. I notice the blazesports linked reference is a press release. Reliable, but can't be used to establish notability. The muskegon chronicle is trivial coverage. A couple of sentences and it only gets mentioned in conjunction with amway. This is not an article about Network 21. Reporters without borders is a similarly trivial source. A single sentence mention and that is it. Reliable sources != sources that can establish notability. Many of these sources are great to cite individual facts, flush out histories, etc. but for the few sources I've waded through so far. They're not remotely significant coverage. The philippines news article is also in the classified section. Those are for pay ads, not actual stories. All of those news media sources are either trivial mentions or not actual sources (like the paid classified "story"). About the only thing there that has any chance is the African source. If you have a scan of that as you say, please post it.--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't think notability "hangs" on the Manila Standard article at all, or indeed any of the rest you cite except perhaps the Daily Sun article. "notability" is I think covered by the book Empire of Freedom with some 10 to 15 pages of coverage, The Christian Businessman with a cover story on the founder and the launch of his business internationally and Network of Caring, a published case study in an Indonesian Journal, another two pages in an Indonesian book covering a Network 21 "technique" and significant Polish news coverage. People seem to be ignoring all of these because they're not english or easily accessible on the 'net. There's also the World Vision coverage, which I posted to get commentary on whether it was RS or not, to no response.[1] Why don't you consider any of them to bear on notability? Also, wouldn't publishing a scan of the Daily Sun article be a copyright violation? --Insider201283 (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Polish documentary itself, Welcome to Life talks about the organization and clearly speaks to notability. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately I don't have full access to those sources so I can't speak to their content. I can say that of the sources that I do have access to so far I haven't seen remotely any notability. These are the sources you've used in your big list of reliable sources on the AfD, and I'm not seeing much out of them.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A link to the abstract of the case study is provided[2]. I've been unsuccessful so far at getting a copy of the actual paper, but given Network 21 is in the title it's clearly topical. Empire of Freedom is also available online in Russian [3]. Even if you don't read russian a simple PDF search of "Network 21" finds 13 separate mentions, which should give a hint of substantial coverage. The Christian Businessman article is available on AmwayWiki [4] and while it doesn't mention N21 by name, it does talk about Network of Caring and also quite a bit about the expansion of N21 founders Jim Dornan's Amway business internationally with his business partners. Taken in conjunction with Empire of Freedon and other sources this is clearly referencing Network 21 and should be considered under WP:NOTOR. I'll look at putting the Daily Sun article on AmwayWiki, which a little more ... ah.. flexible on copyright :). Here it is, on one of N21's philanthropic projects --Insider201283 (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't as compelling as I thought. Somehow I got the impression it would be a much bigger article directly about Network21.--Crossmr (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely about an N21 philanthropic project, and philanthropy is a large part of what N21 does. I suspect a large swathe of Wikipedia would have to get deleted if the standards getting put on notability for this article are followed elsewhere :-) --Insider201283 (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability for an ancestor?

An ancestor of mine, John Henry Raap, was an entrepeneur and businessman in Chicago in the late 19th century. I found a one-page writeup on him in an album of Chicagoans thought to be worth writing about at the time so that's something. He may not have been a major figure in Chicago, but he was important enough that I was also able to find a full page writeup of his murder in the microfilmed copies of the Chicago Tribune at Harold Washington Library (I made a transcription years ago). I know that notability is not temporary, so having mostly older sources in theory shouldn't be a problem, but are these enough sources on their own to establish notability? If not, what else should I be looking for? I found what I think is a homicide report, and of course there are cemetery records, census, and other things to verify facts with. I found something online mentioned in a book, about his mansion which still exists as a landmark. I'm not sure what this is, but it looks like notes on the Chicago city directory, and I have more transcriptions that I've personally taken over the years to back that up. I found several possible mentions in the newspaper (but I can't read anything in Google News). I also found a few more odds and ends using Google Books that I have no idea what to do with: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (I guess he was in court pretty often!)

So I guess the question is, would it be wise to write an article about this man? I have more information about him from a genealogical perspective than I do a business perspective, but that's because of how I've researched him so far. Obviously, I don't have enough material to do my whole family tree or anything, and as far as I know he's the only ancestor of mine who might even be remotely notable enough to consider doing such a thing with. I imagine if I found most of those tidbits online just randomly searching, there must be some more information out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the main reference you provided above certainly qualifies as a reliable secondary source independent of the subject, passing the primary criterion of WP:BIO. Go right ahead! I think a century's distance is more than sufficient for there to be no conflict of interest worth speaking of. Ray^Talk 02:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) I don't doubt my own ability to avoid COI issues, as I'm interested in presenting things as they actually were. Some things I've read about him suggest that maybe he was not such a nice guy, but I'd rather stick with the verfiable facts than make any value judgements based on other people's opinions about him. :)

Now the question is, since as I say, I know more about him from a genealogical perspective than anything else, how much of that knowledge is OK to use? Obviously, names and birthdates of kids, and marriage dates of spouses should be absolutely OK. Also the fact that at least two of his sons worked for him, and apparently carried on his business after his death, should be OK to mention as well. Three of his children died as infants, which I assume would be OK to note very briefly. Spouses of his children, death dates of his children, other occupations - not sure which if any of those items are worth mentioning, for example. I'm sure that great-grandchildren (most of whom are dead) are pretty much out of the question to even mention (I'm not aware of any wiki-notable descendents, incluing myself), but what about grandchildren: names, number of, anything? I'm not sure that's even necessary, but just asking all the same. :) For perspective on how many generations removed, my great-grandfather was his grandson. BOZ (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that you can't source to a reliable source is okay to use. While you may have researched things and you said you had notes, etc. any info you put in the article needs to come from a reliable source and you are not one. If you write a section on his business it is worth mentioning that his children took over the business, but remember the article is about him, not the family. Who they married, when they died, etc would be largely irrelevant to the article. Wikipedia is not a family tree (unless that family tree is very notable like the Royal Family).--Crossmr (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I understand all of that, and figured it was implied... BOZ (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Browser

I'd like some input on the notability of the subject. Please use the talk page of the article to keep the conversation in one place. Thanks! --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Magazine notability

The general notability criteria don't really work for magazines as very few magazines have articles written about the magazine itself. Therefore, there needs to be some other criteria which can be used to assess whether a magazine is notable enough for an article to be written about it. I've considered length of publication as a magazine in print and still going for 10 years or more is notable enough just for that), notable works or authors which have written in it (stories, articles, etc.), notable artists who have done work for the magazines, subscription/readership base (is there a threshold for number of readers before that makes a magazine notable? 10,000 readers per issue? 100,000 readers? somewhere in between?), and so on, but I'm having a hard time nailing down exactly what those criteria might be.

There are obviously magazines which are notable, but there doesn't seem to be any specific criteria which can help narrow things down and determine if Magazine A or Magazine B might meet the notability criteria. This goes for academic journals, too, though those can be determined most often by how respected they are (or how often they are cited) in their fields. For a fiction magazine, however, that won't really work, as people don't generally cite fiction magazine stories (they may if there are reviews in the magazine, but not all of them contain reviews).

Any ideas on a good basic set of notability requirements for magazines and journals (maybe include newspapers and call it a "notability guideline for periodicals")? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wince*. You could look at circulation. You could look at PageRank. You could look at revenues. What you really want is an "impact factor" for popular culture, but ordinary magazine articles do not come with citations. If I had to try, I'd go for a multi-pronged approach, covrering some combination of the above, much like wp:prof currently does. Throw together a draft, and we could try to hammer out wording? Ray^Talk 23:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. You (and anyone else) are welcome to come and help hammer it out here: Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sublime with Rome Tour

I believe that this page Sublime with Rome Tour does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and should be shortened and merged with Sublime with Rome. TuckerResearch (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't meet the gudlines of notability? It has references for some of the information that's mentioned in that article. Alex (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about this tour that hasn't been said in the band's mainpage. Merely having sources does not make a thing notable. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Concert_tours:

Concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.

To have a tour page for an unsigned, album-less band whose only claim to fame is that two members were in Sublime smacks of overkill. There are no tour pages for Creedence Clearwater Revisited. There aren't even any tour pages for the original Sublime. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else want to chime in on this? TuckerResearch (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Concern over prod removals

I'm concerned over some of the activities of User:Inniverse removing prod tags. For instance, he or she recently removed the tag from Cintecele Diavolui, with the edit summary "remove prod, notable artist, add ref". The "ref" in question that was added was a link to a search result of Allmusic.com, which established that indeed such an artist exists, but not that the artist is notable. Indeed, I'm having trouble seeing at all how this particular band passes WP:BAND.

At any rate, if this were an isolated incident, I would not be so concerned. But the editor in question seems to be systematically removing prod tags from articles whose subjects are pretty clearly non-notable, and adding rather equally dubious-looking references. Could someone else please look into this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Inniverse (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kunaluver

Please take a look at the edits by this user. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

They could probably mostly be speedied as providing little real content. They might be real but the user hasn't really provided anything besides editorial opinion on them and a very small cast list, and no sources. There is no evidence of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations

Over the past week or so, I've been broadening my editing into including articles regarding U.S. television stations and I've noticed a trend toward including the compilation of long lists of non-notable past employees of the stations. These lists also include former employees who already actually have existing referenced articles in the encyclopedia, their inclusion in the lists make sense to me in terms of "notability". However, I'm very dubious of the notion of compiling (in some cases) extensive unreferenced lists of people, who in some cases are no longer even employed in the television industry or who have moved on to other stations. I've been taken to task by another editor for reducing this type of list in a couple of articles to only those listed individuals who have at least at minimum established their notability by having a preexisting bio article in the encyclopedia.[13][14]. In my opinion, in addition to what I consider a problem with verifiability and notability, this sort of thing smacks of promotion and to me clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm wondering, if perhaps I could get some guidance on this issue from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most lists have the standard that they only include notable entries, and notdirectory would apply here.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Archbishops

I am currently working on User:Lear's Fool/Matthew Beovich, User:Lear's Fool/Andrew Killian and User:Lear's Fool/Robert Spence (bishop) who were all Catholic Archbishops of the Archdiocese of Adelaide, and I would be interested in creating articles for all of the Archbishops of Adelaide (listed here). Each of the Archbishops and Bishops of Adelaide have an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB, online here), and are also covered in depth in an offline, two-volume history of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide by Margaret M. Press, which was published by the Archdiocese itself in 1991. Now I know most of the Bishops and Archbishops have received significant coverage in sources other than the ADB and the history by Press, but I would like to hear some opinions on whether the following three things taken together with nothing else would indicate sufficient notability for inclusion:

1. Having been an Archbishop.
2. Having coverage in a history published by the Archdiocese itself.
3. Having an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography.

Thoughts?  -- Lear's Fool 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Having been an archbishop is irrelevant; they are not inherently notable.

The other two sources would probably be accepted because the subjects were dead at the time of publication (and therefore, e.g., Andrew Killian did not publish them himself, even if his former organization did). If that's all that we have, though, it's kind of a weak showing. My belief is that an AFD would involve a lot of "weak keep" types of statements. (But surely there are other sources? For example, there should be a good-sized newspaper article about each bishop's appointment and death.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my sort of thinking. Both Killian and Spence have additional sources, and I imagine the others would, but the problem is finding them. One would assume that a modern Archbishop would receive no less coverage than one from the nineteenth century, the difference is that it's easier to find and demonstrate the existence of these sources when they're recent enough to show up on Google or Factiva. I suppose I'll do it on a case-by-case basis then. Thanks for your thoughts.  -- Lear's Fool 11:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new article on Cuban author Mirta Yáñez

From: Sara E. Cooper Associate Professor of Spanish and Multicultural & Gender Studies Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures California State University, Chico

As a scholar of Cuban women writers and culture, I would like to develop an article on the Cuban author Mirta Yáñez (very well known in her country). She has published more than 30 books, most of them in Cuba. I believe she is a highly notable subject for an article, much more so than a couple of the authors included in the Cuban women writers category. Please look over the following information and let me know if anyone disagrees.

I have published the following on her in print media: •"Irreverent Humor in Post-Revolutionary Cuban Fiction: The Case of Mirta Yáñez." Cuban Studies Volume 37 (2006): 33-55. •“Cuban Women Writers 1959-present.” World Literature in Spanish: An Encyclopedia. (3 Volumes) Eds. Maureen Ihrie and Salvador Oropesa. Greenwood Press est. 2010.

In addition, here is a list prepared in 2006 of articles that mention or focus on her: "Prólogo" a Las visitas, José Antonio Portuondo, ob cit. "Visita al poeta", (entrevista y nota crítica), Miriam Rodríguez Betancourt, en periódico "Despegue", julio de 1970, no.1, La Habana. "Dos por dos en segundo", (comentario crítico sobre Las visitas), en revista "Vida Universitaria", jul-ago 1970, año XXI, no.220, La Habana. "Diálogo para un análisis", (entrevista y valoración crítica sobre Las Visitas), Lina de Feria, en mensuario "El Caimán Barbudo", oct. 1971, II época, no.50, La Habana. "Literatura en "La Edad de Oro", (comentario sobre el premio a la novela Serafín y...), Gerardo Mosquera, en revista "Verde Olivo",12 de junio de 1977, año XVIII, no.24, La Habana. "Premios", (comentario a Todos los negros...), Eva Baró, en revista "Verde Olivo", 12 de junio de 1977, año XVIII, no.24, La Habana. "Relatos de lo cotidiano", (comentario a Todos los negros...), Basilia Papastamatiu, en periódico "Juventud Rebelde", 1977, La Habana. "En el camino de la cultura", (entrevista), Alicia Berdasco, en revista "Mujeres", mayo 1977, año 17, no.5, La Habana. "Todos, todos tomamos café", (reseña crítica sobre Todos los negros...), Ezequiel Vieta, en "La Gaceta de Cuba, sept. 1977, no.160, La Habana. "Todos los negros tomamos café", (reseña), Rigoberto Paredes, en periódico "Tiempo Cultural", 14 de junio de 1977, Honduras. "Mirta Yáñez en sus cuentos", (comentario crítico), José Rivero García, en revista "Revolución y Cultura", mayo 1978, no.69, La Habana. "Todos los negros tomamos café", (reseña), Miriam Rodríguez Betancourt, en revista "Universidad de La Habana", jul-dic 1978, no.209, La Habana. "Juntos, pero no revueltos", (comentario a Serafín y...), Joel Franz Rosell, en mensuario "El Caimán Barbudo", jun. 1979, La Habana. "144 páginas de oro", (reseña sobre Serafín y ...), María del Carmen Víctori, en revista "Revolución y Cultura, mayo 1979, no.81, La Habana. "Qué escribe ahora", (entrevista), en revista "Revolución y Cultura", mayo 1979, no.81, La Habana. "Los edificadores del mañana", (nota crítica sobre Todos los negros...), Ariel Muniz Cabral, en revista "Plural", 1979, México. "Para que lean los niños", (comentario a Serafín y...), Basilia Papastamatiu, en periódico "Juventud Rebelde", 1979, La Habana. "Serafín y su aventura con los caballitos", (reseña), Carlos Espinosa, en revista "Universidad de La Habana", abril 1979 -dic. 1980, no.211, La Habana. Sobre acusados y testigos, (entrevista), Agenor Martí, Ed. Letras Cubanas, 1980. La Habana. "La Habana es una ciudad bien grande", (reseña), Mercedes Santos Moray, en periódico "Trabajadores", 11 de febrero de 1981, año XI, no.35, La Habana. "De grandes y pequeñas cosas" (comentario sobre La Habana es...), Alejandro G. Acosta, en revista "Revolución y Cultura", marzo 1981, no.103, La Habana. "El escritor en Cuba es un trabajador más", (entrevista), en periódico "Frontera", 23 de octubre de 1981, Mérida, Venezuela. "Essere donna scrittrice a Cuba, vent'anni dopo la rivoluzione",(comentario), Valeria Manca, en "L'Unité", jul. 1981, Roma, Italia. "Prólogo" a Cuando salí de La Habana..., Roberto López Moreno, ob cit. "La hora de los mameyes", (comentario), Alejandro Acosta, en semanario "Cartelera", 14 al 20 de julio de 1983, no.72, La Habana. "Entrevista", en revista "Opina", sept. 1983, no.51, La Habana. Quiénes escriben en Cuba, (entrevista), Jorge L. Bernard y Juan A. Pola, Ed. Letras Cubanas, La Habana, 1982. "Una familia de caballitos y sus aventuras", (reseña), Alga Marina Elizagaray, en periódico "Cartelera", 17 al 23 de noviembre de 1983, La Habana. "Ficción y decisión", (reseña crítica sobre La hora de los mameyes), Saúl Ibargoyen Yslas, en diario "Excelsior", 28 de noviembre de 1983, México. "La hora de Mirta Yáñez", (artículo sobre La hora...), Waldo González López, en revista "Revolución y Cultura", oct. 1983, no.133-134, La Habana. "Mirta Yáñez, amor, ciudad y poesía", (entrevista), Maricel Rodríguez y Luis Planas, en revista "Alma Mater", jun. 1984, no.259, La Habana. "Ser escritora es sólo una faceta de ser persona", (entrevista y selección de textos), Alberto Rodríguez Carucci, en revista "Tahona", jul-ago 1984, año 4, no.5 y no.6, Mérida, Venezuela. "Acápite" en Kuba, die neue Welt des Literatur in der Karibik,(ensayo sobre literatura cubana), Martin Franzbach, Ed. Verlag, Alemania, 1984. "La hora de los mameyes y Mirta Yáñez", (entrevista), en periódico "Ahora", 25 de febrero de 1985, año XIX, no.45, Holguín. La literatura cubana, brasa que quema al fuego, (entrevista), Luz Elena Zabala y Manuel Cofiño, Ed. Gráficas, Colombia, 1985. "La novela romántica latinoamericana", (reseña crítica sobre La novela...), Anil Dhingra, en revista "Papeles de la India", vol. VIII, no.3, Nueva Delhi, India. "Sólo se aceptan visitantes de la imaginación", (reseña crítica), Efraín Rodríguez, en revista "Revolución y Cultura", sept. 1987, no.9, La Habana. "El viaje interior de Mirta", (reseña crítica), Jesús Vega, en mensuario "El Caimán Barbudo", año 21, edición 237, 1987, La Habana. "Reivindicar el término poetisa: Mirta Yáñez", (crónica), Perla Schwartz, en periódico "La Jornada", 10 de julio de 1987, año III, no.1011, México. "El vigor de la poesía cubana en la mujer: Mirta Yáñez", (entrevista), Pablo Espinosa, en periódico "La Jornada", 22 de julio de 1987, año III, no.1023, México. "Aventuras y ansiedades de una poeta cubana", (reseña crítica),Juan Medina Figueredo, en diario "El carabobeño", julio de 1987, Valencia. "Jóvenes novelistas responden", (entrevista), Madeline Cámara, en revista "Revolución y Cultura", oct. 1988, no.10, La Habana. "La hora de las reflexiones", (entrevista), en Diálogos al pie de la letra, Madeline Cámara, Ed. Letras Cubanas, 1988, La Habana. "Con la mirada de la fantasía y...de la realidad", (entrevista), Francisco Rodríguez Cruz, en periódico "Trabajadores", jueves 1 de junio de 1989, La Habana. "El diablo son los cuentos", (comentario crítico), Fernando Rodríguez Sosa, en periódico "Juventud Rebelde", martes 18 de abril de 1989, La Habana. "Las cosas de Mirta", (reseña crítica), Lourdes Pasalodos, en mensuario "El Caimán Barbudo", año 23, edición 261, 1989, La Habana. "Mirta Yáñez: sacar lágrimas con la mejor de las sonrisas", (comentario crítico), Leonardo Padura, en revista "Revolución y Cultura", ago 1989, no.8, La Habana. “Los demonios del humor", (reseña crítica), Madeline Cámara, en semanario "Cartelera", 7 al 13 de diciembre de 1989, no.406, año 8, La Habana. "Mirta Yáñez en el camino de la vida", (comentario crítico), Mercedes Santos Moray, en mensuario "La Gaceta de Cuba", febrero de 1990, La Habana. "Jeder braucht ein Laster", (entrevista), Armgard Junker, en "Ila", Zeitschrift der Informationsstelle Lateinamerika, no.149, Okt 1991, Alemania. Caribbean Women Novelist, An annoted Critical Bibliography, (Referencias bibliográficas sobre MY), Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert ang Olga Torres-Seda, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1993. "Que siempre esté incompleta la poesía de Jiribilla", (comentario), Pedro Péglez González, en periódico "Trabajadores", 30 de octubre de 1995, La Habana. "Estatuas de sal Cuentistas cubanas contemporáneas, Nota s/f en "Textos y pretextos", revista "Unión, año IX, no.26, ene-mar 1997, La Habana. "Las nuevas estatuas de sal", (reseña crítica), Olga Connor, en "El Nuevo Herald", domingo 19 de enero de 1997, Miami. "El sabor de la sal", (artículo), Zaida Capote; "Después de la mirada" (artículo), Víctor Fowler, (sobre Estatuas de sal), en mensuario "La Gaceta de Cuba", año 35, no.2 mar-abril de 1995, La Habana. A Place in the Sun Women Writers in Twentieth-Century CUBA, Catherine Davies, Zed Books Ltd London & New Jersey, 1997. “Escritoras cubanas: Mirta Yañez”, Susanna Regazzoni, en”Studi di letteratura ispano-americana, Bulzoni Editore, Italia, 1997. “Rumba senza palme ne carezze”, Susanna Regazzoni, en “Ressegna Iberistica”, no. 60, giuigno 1997, Venezia. “El incompleto desorden creativo de Mirta Yañez”, en Síntomas, de Alberto Garrandés, Ed. Union, 1999. “Mirta Yañez, una mujer y los retoques del tiempo”, (entrevista) de Mairym Cruz Bernal, en “Palique”, 5 de febrero de 1999, San Juan. "Kubako literaturak ikuspegi asko ditu", (entrevista), en "Begia", 2000, País Vasco, España. "Acordes de la posmodernidad cubana: la obra reflexiva de Mirta Yáñez", prólogo de Susana Montero a Cubanas a capítulo, Ed. Oriente, 2000. "Humor und Menschlichkeit", (entrevista) de Mechthild Blumberg, en "Nachtichten Literatur", oktober-dezember 2001, no.71 Alemania. "Mirta Yáñez", (entrevista) de Cristina Liberal, en Mugalari, Pais vasco, marzo 2001. "Humor irreverente en la ficción cubana: el caso de Mirta Yáñez", ponencia de la dra. Sara Cooper para IV Coloquio "En el jardín...", Dulce María Loynaz y la escritura femenina en Iberoamérica y el Caribe, diciembre 2002. Die kubanische Frau, (entrevista y ensayo) de Katrin Kollenz, Fire and Appel, Frankfurt, 2003 "Un solo bosque negro", reseña de Marta Rojas, en "Granma", La Habana, 3 de marzo del 2004. “Inéditos de Mirtha Yáñez en vías de publicación”, reseña de Marta Rojas, en “Granma”, La Habana, sept 2005. “Los libros de la crítica”, comentario de Sigfredo Ariel, en “EL tintero”, La Habana, 1 de octubre de 2006, no. 20 “Falsos documentos, de Mirta Yáñez: Un premio justo a la literatura”, artículo de Teresa Blanco, en “La letra del escriba”, octubre 2006, no. 54. “No son falsos estos documentos”, reseña de Cira Romero, en “El tintero”, La Habana, 26 de noviembre de 2006, no. 22. “Extraordinarios documentos”, reseña de Marilyn Bobes, en “La Gaceta”, La Habana, nov-dic 2006, no. 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara E. Cooper (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 August 2010

That looks like plenty of sources to me. I think you should be able to just click on Mirta Yáñez here and WP:BOLDly start the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Lee Ohanian

I came across the Lee E. Ohanian page while looking at the Herbert Hoover page, where he was credited with blaming the Great Depression almost entirely on Hoover's policies, despite this being a very uncommon view in the field of Economics. I was surprised that he was even mentioned in Hoover's page if his view was generally dismissed by his field. His biographic article was previously slated for speedy deletion, but another user, I think the creator of the page, deleted the tag without really making a good argument for notability. Personally, I don't think he meets the criteria for academics -- possibly for 1 or 4 (highly cited in his field, or had a large impact on academia), but I doubt it. I, personally, am thinking speedy deletion, but as the tag was removed once before, I thought I'd run it by here. --Belleiseult (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you've got a good case here. First, as a procedural matter, if a speedy has been declined in the past, you should probably consider WP:PRODding it or taking it to WP:AFD instead of trying to get a speedy deletion. Second, being dismissed in his field is irrelevant: we care about who's being written about, even if the sources write nothing but criticism and blame. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Route 11 Yard Crawl

Before I start an article, I need to know if it is notable enough. It is called the "Route 11 Yard Crawl", a 50 mile long continous yard sale (similar to the 127 Corridor Sale, but smaller) from Stephens City, Virginia to New Market, Virginia. The Yard Crawl has local notability, with write ups in local government sites, county government sites, newspapers in Harrisonburg and Winchester (both in Virginia) and the local TV station, TV3 Winchester. It is also mentioned on the State of Virginia website (the Virginia is for Lovers site) based in Richmond. But that Richmond mention is as far as we get outside of the Shenandoah Valley. Would that be notable enough for a page of its own, since the 127 Corridor Sale has a page, or is it still too small to be notable just yet? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

With no coverage outside Virginia, I suggest writing a solid paragraph at Yard sale#Special community sales, rather than a separate article entirely about the one event. Alternatively, it might be possible to write a section about this event in U.S. Route 11 in Virginia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, will do. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Are my References Notable?

Looking for feedback as to whether or not my References are notable, and if you think the article has an overall notability problem. Thanks in advance!

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Kristigaylord/Pharos_Systems

Kristigaylord (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the citations, I think that your sources have probably reached the minimum standard described at WP:CORP for notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tilly Bagshawe

Tilly Bagshawe, a chick lit author with 4 books doesn't appear to have any press articles that I can find and doesn't appear to meet notability, hence I've tagged it. Could someone with more experience than me advise? Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Worldcat link currently in the article (4823 library holdings) is a good sign of significance. Even more is the google news archives search [15]. The article could use a good bit of referencing, but notability does not seem to be a problem here. Ray^Talk 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. JRPG (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

La Cudera

I don't think La Cudera is very notable at all. Does it fail WP:SIGCOV? Thanks JeremyMcClean (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for Matsuri Productions. Is that very notable at all? JeremyMcClean (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Urthona (the band) suitability?

Would it be suitable to make an entry for the UK underground psychedelic band Urthona? We've had three lps released in the past two years, various reviews(such as http://freq.powweb.com/freq_wp/?p=631) and been played on BBC Radio 6 (www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tgd8d#synopsis). This enquiry is prompted by a play on BBC Radio 6 over the weekend, and the playlist section of the BBC website links to band's Wikipedia entries for biographies, rather than band's website (therefore there's no biography on the BBC website). Would it be approrpiate to include details for Urthona on Wikipedia? Thanks for your input/advice. Robbobjimrollup (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You may find WP:BAND helpful, and a safe procedure would be to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, very usefulRobbobjimrollup (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cigarette brands

I tagged this section with the "cleanup-spam" template, as well as proposing the speedy deletion of some articles (using "db-g11") whose only purpose seems to be to make known the existence of certain brand names. I'm also troubled by the title "Selected Cigarette Brands", as it leads one to wonder who selected these brands, and why. In my opinion, the entries I tagged have no encyclopaedic content whatsoever. A certain admin removed the tags with very little explanation, so I'm bringing this issue here to glean some guidance on how to proceed.

I'm not some rabid anti-smoking activist (in fact, I am a smoker), and I appreciate that Mr. Goodman is no tobacco company shill, but we disagree on the interpretation of this guideline. Rather than getting into a pointless edit war/Wikipissing contest, I'll leave it to my fellow 'pedians to recommend a sensible course of action. I've put diffs, revisions, etc. on my talk page, so as not to clog up this page. All informed input is appreciated. Thanks. HuntClubJoe (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion applies to whole pages, not merely text in a single section.

A list of cigarette brands is probably a reasonable thing for Wikipedia to have. A reader interested in the marketing of tobacco, for example, might want to find information about many different brands.

About how brands were chosen for the list, you could check the page's history. The advice on this page, although directed towards full-page lists, might be useful to you in figuring out how such lists should be formed. Usually, if the section says something like "Selected X" or "Representative X", then the editors are trying to signal "Please don't spam absolutely every possible X on to this page!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability of small airlines

cross-posted from WT:CORP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of the large number of articles and afds relating to small airlines and the tendency of certain users to attempt to invent criteria out of thin air in the middle of an AFD, several attempts have been made to establish a sub-guideline of CORP for airlines. None of them arrived at any consensus and so it seems CORP will continue to serve as the primary guide for these types of articles. I didn't know if there was some sort of central repository of sub-guidelines but the result of the latest attempt is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability and at one of the previous discussions is at Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska. If anybody asks here if there is a separate guideline for airlines, you can tell them there is not at this time and CORP and or WP:N will have to suffice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Shortwave Numbers Station UVB-76

There is an article on shortwave numbers station UVB-76 which is having severe difficulties being sourced properly. Nearly the only available sources are Internet newsletters by shortwave radio enthusiasts as well as an occasional Geocities website and forum posts. I think this reflects a lack of notability. The notability template is constantly deleted from the article whenever I add it. The article also has a current discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, mostly because reliable sources cannot be found. Throughout the talk page, editors say that if we throw out a source, we won't have an article. I think the matter is clear. Comments? Geogene (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for the subject returns 3.2 million results. This subject does no appear to be a flash in the pan. Is your suspicion that the subject is a hoax and therefore does not warrant inclusion? As long as the page is not being used primarily for original research and instead collates information from reliable sources I think that it merits inclusion. Rmosler | ● 11:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability of the term/concept "Homosexual Transsexual"

On the talk pages of the article Autogynephilia it is being argued that the term Homosexual transsexual is not notable. In short the anon that claims that this subject is not notable and says"

"It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy,WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). " I think it is notable. I have cited for the anon several articles in peer reviewed journals WP:RS's in which the term/concept homosexual transsexual is used independently of autogynephilia. It takes no original research to see this. The sources either use the term homosexual transsexual and define it as a male who lives as a woman and is sexually attracted to men, or they use the term andorphilic transsexual and define it as a male who lives as a woman and is sexually attracted to men. Last but not least notability is not temporary, and this term/concept was considered notable enough to merit it's own article in Wikipedia for the last four years [[16]]

Am I and everyone who wrote on this subject since 2006 wrong? Is this anon right that the subject is not notable? --Hfarmer (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Arizona Fishing Lakes

I've come across a lot of Arizona Fishing Lakes, which I'm not certain about notability. Are geographical features inherently notable? They all have the same external links to Arizona Fishing government sites, most of which don't reference the specific lake, tips for fishing and lists of conveniences. Annoyingly they're also full of contradictions about the lake levels. I'm tempted to AFD the lot per WP:NOTTRAVEL (and WP:NOTAMANUAL on the "fishing techniques)), but I thought I'd come here for a second opinion before I do. It's pretty much everything in Category:Lakes of Apache County, Arizona, and could be extended to much of Category: Lakes of Arizona, but an example of my issues is Concho Lake I guess the other option is to cut out the unencylopedic information, and bring all the articles down to stub level. -- WORMMЯOW  10:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading some of the information, I'm starting to worry this might be a lot of Copyvios from "Arizona Fishin' Holes".... -- WORMMЯOW  10:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many who believe that geographical features are inherently notable, that said, if they're being copied from elsewhere they should be stubbed and the copyright text blanked.--Crossmr (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Crossmr, that's pretty much what I was thinking. I'll go through and pull out the info that looks possibly copyvio'd, as it's also non-encylopedic. -- WORMMЯOW  11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Does being a hall of fame inductee qualify as indicating notability?

For those of you who may not be aware of it, there is a Purina Animal Hall of Fame, whose website can be found here, which includes brief biographies of all of the animals who have been inducted. I'm guessing, although it is only a guess, that each of the animals inducted almost certainly was the subject of some sort of local media story as well. Anyway, would induction into this hall of fame be an indication of notability of the animal? John Carter (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say "not necessarily". Purina could have a specific interest in finding "animal stories" (regardless of wider notice perhaps). I'd want to be sure that these stories gained wider significant coverage, although inclusion in this Hall of fame would certainly be part of that coverage. Also note WP:NOT - "yet another animal saves person" story might just be a routine news item. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real doubt that what might be the largest manufacturer of pet food in the world probably does have a bit of an interest in finding incidents of pets behaving valiantly, actually. And I certainly wasn't thinking of using the inclusion as a blanket justification for creating separate articles on each of them - certainly several of the "stories" could be included in an article or other content on the hall itself, particularly the shorter, less-developed pieces. But I think it might be the case that in several cases the people who create such articles do so based on a local story, which might often face deletion. Knowing whether this might be one basis for keeping such articles at least temporarily (holding open the possibility of merger later if they stay comparatively undeveloped) might be useful in such instances. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Freedom Association.

Could you advise whether the above article, which I have recently edited, meets notability criteria? The solitary independent reference is primarily about the North Korean football team and merely mentions the subject as an aside. All other references are either dead links and/or very closely associated with the subject. It may have been notable in the past but I certainly can't find any useful references to it. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is a WikiProject allowed to override a Notability policy?

Is a WikiProject (or a task force inside a project) allowed to modify the interpertation of a Notability guideline? I ask because I speedied a created article for the A7 reason, yet shortly thereafter the CSD was removed citing this policy. To my understanding it is inappropriate for a author of an article to remove a speedy template without placing a hangon tag and explaning reasons for keeping. It is also my understanding that specific exemptions to the notability guidelines are supposed to be with said guidelines, yet I cannot find any specific exemptions to the web policy. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that no group of editors, including those in a WikiProject, can choose local rules in an attempt to avoid policies, and yes, I suspect that the author of that article should not have removed the speedy. However, a quick look at their edit summary and the linked WikiProject make me think that this is one of those times when it's best to accept that the other editor did the right thing since it appears the speedy was not applicable: the WikiProject is explaining the CSD rules, not evading them. I am not confident that a MUD game that operated from 1994 to 1996 satisfies notability, but it looks as if an AfD is needed to test that. I avoid AfDs for bands and games – life is too short. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about pink-dyed cat

Do the rest of you think Oi Kitty here would qualify as notable enough for an article? John Carter (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One-time events aren't really good subjects for articles. It might be better handled as an entry on the List of Internet phenomena, or perhaps in an article on Pet grooming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Service Network for Children of Inmates

Is an article on The Service Network for Children of Inmates notable? It has been mentioned in news articles. Ragomez (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Does "mentioned" mean that it gets a sentence or two, or are there whole news articles entirely dedicated to this organization? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most of the news stories are about the trips they make to prisons so that children can visit their parents. There is one article in The Miami Herald on them (http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/12/21/1393634/kids-reunited-with-jailed-family.html#none). Also, there was a news story about them on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122217021), and a TV news story about them (http://cbs4.com/local/fathers.day.dad.2.1753087.html). Would this be enough to make them a notable topic? Ragomez (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's probably enough.

It's important to build the web to prevent WP:Orphaned articles, and I thought that an article about children of prisoners (as a general subject) might be a good place to link this article to. However, I couldn't find any such article. Perhaps you'll have other ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability and nobility

In the recent past an admin denied speedy deletion of an article that didn't mention why a Romanian guy should be notable on the grounds that, being a noble (albeit a dubious one, considering Romania legally abolished all nobility titles), he inherited the notability of his ancestors. I consider this argument flawed, and I want the community's opinion about the matter. Note that this is not specifically about the article I mentioned, but about the general principle. I thought all men are equal before WP, and only personal notability warrants them a WP article, but maybe I'm misunderstanding WP. Thanks for your comments.Anonimu (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there was once a failed proposal for a notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (royalty). When it was marked as rejected, it seems that the prevailing opinion was that each case should go by WP:BIO, which I guess would mean no automatic "inherited" notability. But the way I read it, the rejected text would still not have included a case like this one in its concept of "inherited" notability. I guess the rejection of the speedy was still procedurally correct, because the nobility connection might qualify as a "claim to" notability, albeit a spurious one, thus barring an A7 speedy. Suggest putting it up at AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "notability by nobility" is that while the community in general doesn't seem to agree with it, it seems to hold in practice because relevant AfDs tend to become overrun by nobility freaks. In one case it turned out impossible to delete an article about a little boy who died before he even started to talk, and who we only know about because his mother wrote about him in her letters 200 years ago. This was blown up into a huge article about the titles he theoretically held and who he might have married if he had lived longer. (See Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois and its history and AfD.) Hans Adler 11:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, even in such a case, if the dynastic significance of the boy and his early death had been an object of significant outside coverage yada yada, a case for notability could have been made (but I'm not seeing it in that case, and the AfD at least ended with a merge recommendation). In the case Anonimu mentions (Jean Aristide Constantin Georges Caradja), there's not even that. It's essentially completely unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the merge recommendation is that it is being actively opposed by editors who think a line in an online Gotha is an entitlement to an entire article. But the merge proposal is not getting any third-party attention any more, so I have implemented the merge. There is still a lot of similar articles left, though, because one editor has specialised on them. Hans Adler 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken it to AfD now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Widespread Notability issue

The other day one of the pages on my watchlist Matthew Vaughn was vandalised and reverted by another editor. The Vandal (an IP) attempted to replace a genuine individual from the article with Jordan Long's name. Taking a look at Jordan's Article it quickly became clear he has little if any notability and an AFD may reasonable. However following links from his page I also noticed that nearly all pages connected with the Dutch Elm Conservatoire suffer from notability issues with only Renton Skinner having reasonable notability and even then only for his work on Shooting Stars.

This is compounded with all of these articles having significant COI issues with several editors (not just one editor) connected to the material having written many of them and other accounts that look like Sockpuppets making further edits down the line.

I've previously asked a reliable editor to take a look at the article but he hasn't come back to me and I'm concerned that this issue may need addressed. I wondered if you could take a look and give me an honest opinion of whether anything needs done here the list of affected articles I've discovered so far is:

• Jordan_Long
• Dutch Elm Conservatoire
• Rufus_Jones_(comedian)
• Rufus_Jones_(actor)
• Jim_Field_Smith
• Stephen_Evans_(actor)
• She's Out of My League
• Renton_Skinner - as I said probably notable but needs rewritten.
• The_Benders
• Marlon_Brando's_Corset
• Idiotlamp_Productions
• Petra_Massey
• Spymonkey - possibly notable
• Emma_Cunniffe
• Ben_Willbond
• James_Rawlings
• Alexander_Kirk
• Colin_Hoult - possibly salvageable article

there's also a long list of potential COI, sockpuppet editors but I'd rather address the notability of these articles first particularly since most of them have links to their Agent in the external links section.

That's all I've got so far, though spending more time on this may reveal the problem to be even wider than this. So any feedback appreciated. Stuart.Jamieson (talk|contribs) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Variable-limit logistic curves

(I'm not sure I'm supposed to be here. I'm thinking of writing an article about the following.)

The standard logistic curves are well covered, but this does not exhaust the category. In particular, the Malthusian (with a linearly increasing limit), and the Technagog (with an exponential limit slower than the growth rate of the logistic) are not discussed, but are both historically and topically important. At least one person has complained to me that Wikipedia doesn't know about these.

Notability is admittedly low. The reference list I have so far assembled is:

See also: Logistic curve, Growth curves, Gompertz curve

References: Ahlburg, DA (1995) ‘Simple versus complex models: evaluation, accuracy and combining’ Mathematical Population Studies 5(#3): 281-290. MacIntyre, F (2005) ‘The Maltho-Marxian Hypothesis “Economics Controls Population”: A Test and a Projection’ Population Review 44(#2): 24-49. Malthus, TR (1890) Malthus on Population, reproduced from the last (6th) edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population ... (1798-1826), with an introduction by G. T. Bettany (Ward, Lock & Co., London). Howland, WE (1961) Letter. Science 133: 939. Pearl, R & LJ Reed (1920) ‘On the rate of growth of the population of the United States since 1870 and its mathematical representation’ Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 6: 275-288. Pearl, R & LJ Reed (1930) ‘The Logistic Curve and the Census Count of 1930’ Science 72: 399–401. Pearl, R, LJ Reed & JF Kish (1940) ‘The logistic curve and the Census count of 1940’ Science 92: 486-488. Verhulst, PF (1845) ‘Recherches mathematiques sur la loi d’accroissement de la population’ Nouv. Mem. Acad. Roy. Soc. Belle-lettr. Bruxelles 18: 1-38.

Might this meet Wikipedia's standards? Ferren (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If the topic is not addressed, and if it is not fringe material (i.e. not rejected by mainstream academics), and assuming the sources are reliable, then I would say the topic warrants an article. Others may think the material should be briefly mentioned in part of some other article; if that view prevailed, your article would be turned into a redirect to the main article. If unsure, the best thing would be to find similar articles and look on their talk pages for WikiProjects. Pick one WikiProject that looks closest to the topic, and post on its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin Duerr

I'm not sure if the subject of this article is notable. The format of the article feels like WP:SPIP. Of the three sources given, two seem questionable and the third is not actually about the subject. Furthermore, notability tags are added by editors and then removed without discussion by anonymous edits coming from the same general IP range. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr Mike's Math Games for Kids

Dr Mike's Math Games for Kids is a website - the url is www.dr-mikes-math-games-for-kids.com. According to Wikipedia's notability criteria for websites,

"web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"

with some exceptions meant to exclude certain types of trivial self-promotion.

The website has been featured in the following media :

The Malay Mail, 1st December, 2009

The Post, 4th September, 2010

Curtin FM, 21st September, 2010

Copies of the relevant articles/interviews may be found here.

My question - is this sufficient to make Dr Mike's Math Games for Kids notable by Wikipedia's standards? mike40033 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As you are no doubt aware this is a borderline case. In my personal opinion the site satisfies the criteria described in WP:WEB, and WP:GNG – although in both cases not by a comfortable margin. I am personally less convinced that such an article is of much benefit to the encyclopedia, but I have bookmarked the site and may (irrationally) change my mind after having tried some of the games with my little daughter. :) Hans Adler 09:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just on the off-chance that you are not aware of it, see WP:COI. Hans Adler 09:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm well aware of Conflict of interest, though I haven't (yet) read WP:COI. I'm trying to tread carefully here :-) mike40033 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-97

Article already created but needs review. Some background:

• Armed Aerial Scout is the army's latest iteration of it's OH-58 Kiowa replacement program. Numerous attempts to procure a replacement have been unsuccessful.

• Armed Aerial Scout is proposed but not rubberstamped yet. A Request for Information was submitted in January. This allows the military to get up to speed with contractors capabilities in addition to the army's shortfalls and requirements so the army can submit realistic requirements. This would be followed by a Request for Proposals if the program is approved if the army ever gets around to it. Usually 5-6 designs are submitted by various contractors after the request. 3 to 5 will then get research contracts after a lengthy analysis.

• Prototypes aren't developed until several years later though contractors can use their own funds to develop demonstrators. Contractors are downselected in this phase culminating in an eventual contract award to one contractor.

• Sikorsky will submit it's S-97 design if the Request for Proposals is ever released. The status of the Armed Aerial Scout is unknown and the program may be hibernating. Sikorsky has two technology demonstrators using their own funds but since work has not begun it is too early for an article.

If article is not notable it should be incubated and merged to Armed Aerial Scout which is barely notable as it hasn't been determined if the military will even pursue this program. Marcus Qwertyus 23:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability for a filmmaker?

The question is whether Ron Peck is notable enough to be written about? Ron Peck first came to public notice with NIGHTHAWKS (1978), a film which dramatised the double-life of a man who works as a dutiful schoolteacher by day and wanders the demi-world of gay bars and clubs by night, the two worlds finally colliding when his pupils discover he is gay. The film, an official entry at Cannes, was hailed as “a landmark film” by the Los Angeles Times and has just been reissued in 2009 in UK cinemas and on DVD by the British Film Institute. Prior to that, he made a number of documentaries and has returned to the expanded documentary essay form several times since, with EDWARD HOPPER, about the American painter, STRIP JACK NAKED, an experimental film about growing up in 70s and 80s London, and most notably the epic FIGHTERS, described as “the finest film ever made on professional boxing” (Sunday Times). With the features EMPIRE STATE and REAL MONEY, he explored the criminal world of East London, but in CROSS-CHANNEL he tells a story that moves out of England into France and the projects on which he is currently working, set in Russia and Ukraine, continue his interest in exploring a wider world beyond the borders of his own country. Fiercely independent, his films have often been seen as controversial - in subject-matter, attitude and style. He is known particularly for his work with young non-professionals, his improvisatory method and his uncompromising vision. There are a number of articles about him and his films in the internet. Here are a few: http://www.list.co.uk/article/17156-profile-ron-peck/ http://www.400blows.co.uk/inter_peck.shtml http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-04-15/ron-peck-rt-interview.html http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews16/nighthawks.htm www.bfi.org.uk/about/media/releases/20090409_nighthawks.pdf Mosep 12 Aug 2010

Well, it looks like you got the source material.. and it seems to meet WP:CREATIVE.. I'd say go for it! -- œ^™ 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

substituted phenethylamines, substituted amphetamines, substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines

NB: I wrote the article first about "substituted phenethylamines" but then found there were articles for amphetamines and methylenedioxyphenethylamines. The argument works just as well except the details will differ a little (e.g. while LSD has the phenethyamine and amphetamine moieties within it doesn't have the methylenedioxyphenethylamine moiety, I don't believe the subject warrants its own article. You can find the terminology used in scientific literature, in a few articles, but the definition of a "substituted phenethylamine" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. For example, in Alex Shulgin's Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved, his criteria for inclusion is based on the synthetic process used to make a drug and on his intent to explore derivations of the phenethylamine moiety. The same is true of patents that refer to a "substituted phenethylamine" because their use of the term depends on their intentions. I can find scientific research articles pointing out that, for example, opioids (including heroin) contain the phenethylamine moiety and thus could be considered a "substituted phenethylamine." Similarly, LSD even contains the phenethylamine moiety embedded in it. I think there might be a distorted perception of the notability of the topic due to Shulgin's book. If Shulgin's book is what gives "substituted phenethylamines" any sort of notability then the list of them should be limited to what's found in Shulgin's book.
US patent 20070148622, titled "Substituted phenethylamines with serotoninergic and/or norepinephrinergic activity" includes a devinition of what a "substituted phenethylamine" is that is very different than the image on the substituted phenethylamines page. Underneath the image the caption states that the formula is the "basis of all substituted phenethylamines") but this contradicts other sources (for example, the patent I mention above considers venlafaxine (Effexor) to be a "substituted phenethylamine") While the wiki article on venlafaxine calls it a "phenethylamine," venlafaxine is not mentioned on the list of substituted phenethylamines. Now, maybe one could make an argument that "substituted phenethylamines" are notable due to Shulgin's book, but I also see that there are entries for "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines." This is just ridiculous because there is a lot of overlap between these groups: the difference between phenethylamine and amphetamine is only ONE methyl group. We could easily come up with an arbitrarily large number of "substituted (whatevers)" and end up listing most of the same chemicals over and over in these groups. We could even come up with a "substituted (chemical)" entry for every known chemical, which also wouldn't be sensible. One last point I'd like to make is that even though you can find the term "phenethylamine" being used in scientific literature to discuss various structurally related compounds, how the term is used or defined also depends on the subject matter of the article and who the article is written for (biologists may define a "phenethylamine" in a paper one way while a medicinal chemist may define the term another way. The term is largely subjective and doesn't refer to anything with an "official" defnition. It's largely a term of convenience because the phenethylamine moiety is quite ubiquitous.AlkaloidMan (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan

Notable??-labeled article

Someone is questioning the notability of Masreliez’s theorem. I consider enough ref:s now gathered, and wonder if I can just delete the label or if there is a process before it can be removed? Kurtan (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope no process, just go ahead and remove it. -- œ^™ 03:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for individual tv episodes

I'm uncertain what determines whether a TV show should have articles for its individual episodes. I was thinking of starting work on the episodes of Charmed. I know that some shows, such as Star Trek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Lost have an article for each episode. Since Charmed ran for 8 seasons, there is certainly a lot of information that could go in these articles. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that, unless said TV show was very popular indeed, that episodes should be described together in a common article, not broken out into separate articles. Star Trek (Original and its spinoffs), Buffy, Lost and a very few other TV shows have met that criteria. Most other TV shows, including Charmed, have not. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just get the content into the Wikipedia. The community can decide if it should be one article, one article per season, or one article per episode. Unless you have material that exceeds the typical size of a large article, start with one article. patsw (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Shahrzad Mir-Gholikhan

Press TV has brought up the case of Shahrzad Mir-Gholikhan.

Ref: http://payvand.com/news/09/mar/1120.html

Is she notable yet? Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ONEEVENT and draw your own conclusion. patsw (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

IranGov has been signaling that she'll be spy-swapped for hiker hostages, but I suppose we can wait to pounce on the page when state.gov mentions the deal. Hcobb (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson

This article is a type of news report and verges on tabloid journalism, disguised as reporting a notable internet libel case, the case is of minor importance and uses Wikipedia as a battleground between Wolk and a couple of bloggers. The article is also biased and contains untrue statements made by bloggers who have been trying to discredit Wolk on the internet and attack his reputation, for example “When Reason wrote about the lawsuit, Wolk threatened to sue Reason.” this has no 3rd party source. This article does not deserve a page on Wikipedia because it is a form of soap boxing and propaganda to influence people against Wolk, the proper format for that is a blog or tabloid which already exists on this subject. Finally this article is about a lawyer who sued a blogger and lost because of a 1 year statute of limitation law in Pennsylvania – how is that notable? LEW (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look at this? The article cites multiple secondary reliable sources. If it's inappropriate for Wikipedia, please nominate for deletion. Boo the puppy (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson. Anyone interested in this subject should be aware of this recent lawsuit, where Wolk has requested IP addresses. As a defendant in the case you are writing about, and as a defendant in another case where Arthur Wolk has accused me of "inciting" people to write about the case, I request that you please do not write about this case without Arthur Wolk's permission. I make this request so that Arthur Wolk knows that if you write about this case, you do so against my wishes, and that I cannot be held legally responsible for anything you write. My apologies for this message. THF (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerrysena/NABCEP

A user has prepared an article on the NABCEP, which is currently living at User:Jerrysena/NABCEP. As soon as they introduced the article into main space, it was deleted as a copyright violation, as the material is copied directly from http://www.nabcep.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/Central-CIH-7.30.10-rev2.01.pdf. Since the article would need a total re-write, I was hoping to get some second opinions on the notability of the organisation before they undertake the work of re-writing the article. Any comments on the notability of this organisation are welcome. There are additional discussions on my user page here and here --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not investigated the issue, but I don't think there is any notability clause which would make this organization notable without satisfying WP:GNG, so someone needs to find some sources (I don't think there are any in the article) which show that the topic is notable. Also, if User:Jerrysena/NABCEP is a copyvio, it should be blanked. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Chief

I started gathering sources to write an article (what would be my first) on Kevin Chief. He came to my attention as a candidate for the House of Commons of Canada, though I suspect that this alone is not notable. On the other hand, he's been involved in several community organizations in his hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba, is the coordinator (and possibly co-founder...?) of the University of Winnipeg's Innovative Learning Centre, and is the recipient of at least two awards in recognition of his community service, including one from the Premier of Manitoba. Is that enough? I just don't want to waste my time on writing an article on a subject that is deemed "not notable". So I guess the condensed question is, "Apart from his candidacy, is this guy notable?" Any input or pointers for this newbie are most welcome. Thanks.HuntClubJoe (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but going by WP:POLITICIAN and the information you gave above I would have to say no, not notable. But give it a try anyway in your userspace and let the people at WP:FEEDBACK take a look at it. If anything it'll give you good practice in article writing. -- œ^™ 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The basis for the potential article would mainly be Mr. Chief's life outside of politics, but I appreciate the input, as well as the pointer to WP:FEEDBACK. If anyone can enlighten me as to other relevant notability guidelines, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. HuntClubJoe (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

AlisonKnott (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Chester Little Theatre

Hello,

I am new and looking for some help. I would like to include an article about Chester Little Theatre (UK) and the resident theatre club, but I'm unsure if I'd be allowed to under notability rules? The other theatre in Chester, the Gateway, has it's own article, so I think that's a good sign. but I wanted to check?

I look forward to your responses.

Alison

Just follow the General notability guidelines. If the subject meets those criteria it may be included. -- œ^™ 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability of USGS hydrologic subregions and accounting units?

... As if anyone other than a foul-mouthed and frustrating IP sock user will really know? He has created tons of articles/categories pertaining to information that doesn't follow our organization here on Wikipedia for geography topics, and doesn't realize he has to stop, and is completely messing up categorization pertaining to the western United States specifically the Great Basin. Articles - Walker River Basin, Little Smoky-Newark Watershed, Hot Creek-Railroad Watershed, Dry Creek Watershed, Searchlight Triple Divide Point, Categories - Lahontan regions, Oregon closed basin, Humboldt River Basin, Great Salt Lake regions, Tulare-Buena Vista region, Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region, Central Nevada Desert Basins, Sevier Basin, Black Rock region, Carson River Basin, Honey-Eagle Watershed, Truckee basin, Great Basin section, Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed, Mono-Owens region, Categories named after valleys, Lower Colorado-Lake Mead… Plus he is obviously socking. User:Hike796 and User:Mmcannis are the same person, though a CheckUser determined they had different IPs... obviously this guy has more than one computer/network at home... plus a ton of IP anons, like 71.219.172.174, 71.219.169.105, 138.210.143.117, 174.49.240.98, 174.60.128.241, ... and this person refuses to engage in CIVIL discussions, instead preferring to ignore questions and then blurt out a long string of gibberish arguments evidently intended to offend people and not solve anything... Shannon^talk _contribs 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you reported this to WP:ANI? -- œ^™ 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but I have an odd feeling that I should be taking it here... None of the users defending my stand are sure if this stuff is notable or not. Shannon^talk _contribs 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability is about the suitability of a topic for Wikipedia, not how articles are organized, what they contain etc. If you have specific topics you want to ask "is this topic suitable for an article?" then ask here (naming the articles and your concerns or evidence). If you have concerns over disruptive editing, failure to listen to other users or socking as other accounts or IPs, then ANI's your place for the disruption and SPI for any investigation or checking of socks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)