Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Being named after

[edit]

I'd like to add something about when and whether being named after helps with notability. People (things) that have streets named after them, species named after them, topographical landmarks, that are patrons of schools or other institutions... do we have any common outcomes here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any. I would presume that when a street is named after someone, there would be some coverage even if hard to find, but I would not take the street name itself as proof of notability, just a sign that someone needs to try harder with local/regional sources. MarioGom (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. School notability is mentioned there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies

[edit]

Can we add a note that embassies are not inherently auto-notable? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you in spirit, but this really isn't the place for that. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 Errr, isn't this the page for listing such stuff? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay which merely observes and summarizes common outcomes. The place for statements such as yours would be in the notability guidelines. Specifically, one of the specialty guidelines referenced/linked at WP:Notability Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not clear what you are saying. It seems to me to be fairly clear that a "common outcome" of an AfD on an Embassy is !delete JMWt (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think we have consensus to add this here then? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any statistics about the number of embassies nominated for deletion and the results of those AfDs? The Banner talk 16:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School outcomes: School districts being notable under GEOLAND

[edit]

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump/policy#School districts and GEOLAND that was kind of kickstarted by me being confused about what's said here about school districts being within the purview of GEOLAND. I figured I'd link it here for future reference if anyone thinks it's useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post and your work in this area. IMO your post which started that discussion was more of a "let's discussion this" than a clear proposal and so the close really didn't decide anything. IMO n:geo specifically excludes abstract mere "lines on a map" from presumed notability under ngeo. The complexity arises from them being three different types of entities:
  1. An abstract set of "lines on a map"
  2. An organization / governmental body and all of the organizations (e.g. schools) within it
  3. A set of physical facilities (schools and the HQ)
I don't have a preferred answer but we must acknowledge those complexities.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfC below the initial discussion about whether or not school districts should be required to meet GNG. A surprising amount of people thought what I was asking was unclear. Anyways, wouldn't that give the close some weight? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To do grumpy, I think it has something to do with the silly idea - advocated by a number of people - that schools are always notable and therefore school districts too. The Banner talk 12:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's pretty clear cut that that they have been found to not be inherently notable. I think that my quibble with the OP is with the wording which makes it sound like we are setting the guideline here rather than observing the AFD results. With a simple change to "have not been found to be inherently notable" I would support it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the close at the RfC, I didn't quite have the same takeaway from that conversation. I agree that school districts are not inherently notable but the actual discussion wasn't closed in a way that reflects that outcome? You could always seek further clarification with the closing admin or further input at the Village Pump. The reason I asked these questions was because the actual preexisting consensus seemed unclear given the lack of AfDs on school districts and what is said at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (note that I have changed the target so you don't have to scroll up for school district). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensuses" means that there was no decision. IMO there was not even any clear question. The closer added some personal thoughts which were fine thoughts but the close was not a place for them. In any case this essay merely observes common outcomes and should not have any wording that implies that the essay is defining the guidelines. Or in this case, for mis-stating the SNG. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edits on Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. That RFC was specifically about schools. Not school districts or education in general. The Banner talk 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that if someone types in school outcomes their thought process might be more broad (e.g. school districts, post secondary schools, etc) so the broader target seemed like a sensical change to me. That said, I don't particularly care enough to argue about it and since I'm the one who'd need consensus to change the status quo, fair enough. Maybe we should have a generalized education shortcut that would fulfill the same purpose? Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC has no value on anything else then schools. The Banner talk 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a lot of time being confused about this, but as far as I can tell the 2017 RfC is where people got the idea that school districts are some sort of SNG (even if they aren't an official SNG). It was viewed as some sort of compromise by the !voters in my 2023 RfC about the 2017 RfC, even if I don't entirely get how they came to that conclusion.
Taking another look at the 2017 RfC, districts are discussed a few times, but not in a way that'd really have to do with the consensus on the notability of secondary schools (I also notice that the close mentions schooloutcomes as the shortcut to use for this, so I've come to the conclusion that my bold change to that was definitely a bad idea). Since you've been involved in these arguments for much longer than I have, do you know the origin of the rationale that school districts should be presumed notable that is currently on this page? I keep going in circles trying to understand this, given that my RfC seems to the only discussion that's ever existed about it. There's the additional aspect of GEOLAND but I can't find the consensus for that either and it seems to contradict what's actually written at that shortcut. So again, everything keeps going in circles. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the history behind that RfC? Look that up and you will get your answers (and a headache). In summery: An american school is notable even when no sources are available/exist; non-american schools have to satisfy WP:GNG. There is a massive USA-bias on what means that going after (american) school districts will be a massive, massive battle. The Banner talk 21:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The current wording is out of place here and has problems. This really isn't the place to state interpretations (or in this case mis-interpretations) of guidelines. It's a place to summarize common outcomes. But I do agree with the end result of the current wording and that it probably summarizes actual outcomes. NEAR presumptive notability. I don't agree that geoland or geoland alone gives it this status. A school district (although I can only speak for the USA) is many things at once....a set of lines on a map, a large governmental organization and a set of many facilities/schools. It's also (as the old RFC advises) a good place to have sections covering individual schools particularly when they don't have a separate article. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest people

[edit]

Wwew345t (talk · contribs) deleted this text: ===Oldest people=== * Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of [[oldest people]].

I have asked them to provide examples on their talkpage. Posting here to enable wider discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far I see no evidence but get the idea that the editor has an axe to grind. So, without evidence and discussion there is no reason to remove this. The Banner talk 01:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tekla Juniewicz Inah Canabarro Lucas Edie Ceccarelli Elizabeth Francis and Ethel Caterham have all been created after that was added and none of them have been deleted most of these have survived afd so I simply thought that it doesn't make sense to include that when every instance in the last 2 years has been to sustain the article Wwew345t (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6 pages in the last year being kept seems more then enough to me to say it's not a commen outcome Wwew345t (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have forgotten to include Charlotte Kretschmann in my examples Wwew345t (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an AfD-result is "common" does not make it a rule set in stone. Deviations are possible, usually based on other arguments then being the oldest. The Banner talk 10:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Common outcomes note was likely a result of the purge longevity articles in 2018/19, many of which are listed here. As for the above examples:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekla Juniewicz Kept (barely) on the basis of passing having sufficient coverage to pass GNG, not by merely being the oldest (specifically mentioned as the reason for a keep vote by WimePocy.
  • Inah Canabarro Lucas created by a subsequently indeffed user. Redirected to List of Brazilian supercentenarians on the basis of minimal coverage. Reverted by Wwew345t using the same argument as above (only). No increase in sources since that time.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Ceccarelli No consensus. Apart from MeToo votes from SPAs, uninvolved editors who voted to keep did so on the basis of coverage as noted by N1THMusic "not all supercentenarians need articles and we need to avoid fancruft within wikipedia but this is clearly an exception...there is abundant information from reliable sources about her life beyond what is mentioned in various lists".
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Francis Kept on the basis of coverage, as noted by a number of non-SPA editors. As noted by Significa liberdade "Regardless of whether we believe someone should be notable based on their longevity, Francis has received significant coverage".
  • Ethel Caterham Created as a redirect on 17 October 2022, 10 months after becoming the oldest in the UK. Not created as an article until 11 April 2024, with almost all non-primary sources being at least 18 months old at that time.
  • Charlotte Kretschmann Would probably pass Afd on sourcing, although really its fails WP:NOPAGE.

DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its ther because of a series of common outcomes... 6 to 5 years ago all my examples were all After that can you come up with any examples in the last 2 years of a page getting delted? Wwew345t (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cant call it a commen outcome when it hasnt happned in 5 years Wwew345t (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even back then almost all of those were the same 4 people repeating the same argument over and over whenever someone came on and presented a halfway decent argument the page was kept Wwew345t (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any content related arguments? And it would be useful when you can provide a list of 50-100 AfDs directly related to this theme so we can judge its validity and come to a new decision. The Banner talk 22:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just provided some... at the time of the addition it was the norm my argument is that it's notthe case because every afd in the last 2-3 years have been the exact opposite of "deleted' Wwew345t (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (species)

[edit]

An RfC to adopt a subject-specific notability guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. C F A 💬 05:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition in common outcomes for religious organizations

[edit]

Hello all. Not sure what the correct approach is for this request (should it be set up as a request for comment? please advise) but I'd like to propose adding the following text to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Religious_organizations as a second bullet between the current two bullets:

  • Middle judicatories (for example, dioceses) of churches in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran traditions are also almost always treated as notable and kept, provided there is reliable source evidence of their existence and they represent more than a handful of affiliated congregations or places of worship.

This would document a longstanding and consistent practice of keeping articles about dioceses. I reviewed past AfDs and articles about dioceses are almost always kept (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Santiago and All Chile, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK, Europe and Africa Malankara Orthodox Diocese, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kochi Orthodox Diocese, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Catholic Archeparchy of Istanbul, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of Bungoma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Island). The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax. "Keep" definitely appears to be a default in these discussion, and it would be less cumbersome to refer in future discussions to a "common outcomes" precedent rather than gathering up all the previous examples.

Pinging still-active editors in these AfDs on these subjects for perspective on this proposal: @Atlantic306: @Peterkingiron: @Mccapra @Necrothesp: @Wikimandia: @StAnselm: @AusLondonder: @Chetsford: @KTC: would love to get your input on this proposed addition to this page. Obviously I welcome feedback from other editors as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

almost always treated as notable do you mean "are presumed to be notable". We don't treat things as if they are notable. Polygnotus (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although I wonder if the language "presumed" treads too far into policy? I interpret this page as descriptive, not prescriptive, but if "presumed" is better here fine by me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert, but I would use something like:
  • Middle judicatories (for example, dioceses) of churches in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran traditions are usually kept, provided they are mentioned in reliable sources and they represent more than a handful of affiliated congregations or places of worship.
Changed my mind. Polygnotus (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. Thanks for the suggestion! Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would not apply to Southern Diocese anyway, which has eight churches, very few members and very little reliable secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Diocese, anglicanmainstream.org and anglican.ink are blogs, telegraph.co.uk does not write about the church itself but about an alleged crime (you could in theory use it to claim that the crime was notable, but not the church), and it would be weird to use the Lancanshire Post article to claim its notable because the article is about how non-notable it is Demolition is justified through the current state of the building not being fit for use and no longer used by the local community. so you'd only have an article on christiantoday.com which is way too meager to make something notable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed notable" is SNG language. I see no reason not to use it here. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an SNG, that is one good reason. See WP:NCHURCH. Polygnotus (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to question your motivation for starting this discussion. It is obviously related to the AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Diocese and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Diocese for individual dioceses of a minor, fringe church and your attempt to use this essay as circular reasoning for why those articles should be kept, despite completely failing WP:ORGCRIT. WP:ORGSIG makes clear that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" - yet despite this most of your keep argument is that other, genuinely notable dioceses of major religious groups have been kept at AfDs and that diocese pages have "almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing". This is completely at odds with our consensus-endorsed policy for the notability of organisations. The days of "inherent notability" for all kinds of subjects from radio stations to Olympians are gone. AusLondonder (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that you WP:AGF in examining my motivation. I do not necessarily expect a consensus to emerge here before your AfDs are closed. Seeing your AfDs -- which I believe you made in good faith, noting that the common outcomes for dioceses do not strictly align with WP:ORGCRIT -- did suggest to me that it might be worth memorializing the common outcomes seen over the past 17 years at AfD on this page, rather than users needing to refer generally to prior practices or individually link each closed discussion. The goal is to make it easier for editors to refer to past outcomes rather than having to re-argue long-established precedents, and the language I'm proposing does not refer to "inherent notability" but just documents the very common outcome. (Finally, if had a motivation to affect the outcomes of your AfDs, why would I ping you in the first place? I have pinged editors on both sides of these deletion debates because I am making a good-faith effort to reach an effective memorialization of common outcomes.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be true, keeping articles because similar articles were kept in the past because similar articles were kept in the past because similar articles were kept in the past etc. is a scary concept. They should just show their notability according to the proper notability guidelines. The Banner talk 17:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand and agree with the concept of an SNG? Because that's what we're discussing here. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do. But I have also seen the battle around school-notability where WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was used as a keep-argument, even when schools were clearly not notable. That is why I find circular arguments scary. Dioceses and titular dioceses (as an example of the group of organisations) should just adhere to WP:ORG. The Banner talk 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely not. WP:ORG is anti-business biased and itself a much higher bar than the GNG. Worse, it has proponents that want to make it exclusive, such that GNG compliance isn't adequate for anything covered by the SNG. Notability is not a policy for a reason, but it seems like few editors remember that. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:NORG, "Individual religious organizations (whether called congregations, synods, synagogues, temples, churches, etc.) must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both." So GNG is an option if NORG isn't met. A diocese is another form of a synod (and it would be silly to say that a church/denomination may meet GNG, that an individual congregation may meet GNG, but that a middle judicatory must meet NORG). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. As long as they have to satisfy a notability rule and not re deemed notable because of the history of keeping them. The Banner talk 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not proposing a separate SNG. This is the wrong place for that. I am proposing to add a line of descriptive text that summarizes the most common AfD outcome for this kind of article subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that I have seen Common Outcomes being misused as SNG. The Banner talk 13:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's not because it's circular, it's because under Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works other factors are taken into to consideration and Ncorp if implemented rigorously would be too rigorous for schools.North8000 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO another one of the reasons for the practice of letting a less rigorous GNG compliance pass on school districts and diocese's is because they have a geo component, and also because they can be an upmerge destination for individual schools and churches. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about middle judicatories (for example, dioceses) of churches in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran traditions are usually kept, provided they are mentioned in reliable sources and they represent more than a handful of affiliated congregations or places of worship.
Any additional perspective on whether to include this under the common outcomes for religious topics? Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there has been enough feedback and a pretty good consensus (plus given that this is just an observational essay, albeit an important one) that unless there are objections or suggested changes in the next day or two, that you should just slightly-boldly put it in. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seeing no additional comments I've added the text to the page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes&oldid=1243658189"