 | A fact from Duan Yihe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 April 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Notability
edit- Notability is not automatic nor inherited. WP:NPOL includes pinpoint evidence with #3:
- "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."
- The Times online does not, that I can see, address the subject and the IOL source is a 404 dead link. Even if these were good sources the definition of significant coverage would certainly be questionalble with only one or two links. Otr500 (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Otr500: You're citing the wrong section of WP:NPOL, because he was not a "local official" or "unelected candidate for political office", but one of the "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", which guarantees notability. And significant coverage about him is easy to find, just use a website called Google: "Duan Yihe" (and even more if you search his Chinese name). -Zanhe (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- With all due respect you have made two egregious errors.
- 1)- There is NO automatic inclusion on Wikipedia. The entire concept of articles written from a neutral point of view, covered in the Five pillers, includes Wikipedia:Verifiability, and citing reliable sources. This is even more important when involving living people. Even with verifiable sources there still must be consensus. The path of articles being created with a lack of or without sourcing only degrades Wikipedia. Maintenance points out needed improvements and places them in a category. The tagging editor may return or let someone else hopefully fix the article.
- 2)- An editor does not have to search out solutions and not perform maintenance. That is the reasons for maintenance tags. A WP:BEFORE is important before nominating an article for AFD.
- This article actually had no references so my work has been fruitful and your involvement complimentary so it seems the process works. Otr500 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Egregious errors", are you kidding me? The article had two reliable sources. Sure the links had gone dead after 10 years, which is a common occurrence on the internet. But replacement sources are super easy to find (I've now added six, from the hundreds available online). You didn't even bother to do a simple Google search, yet would rather spend your effort arguing for your untenable position on the talk page. -Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am done arguing with a tree. I tagged the article and you fixed it. There is absolutely no automatic or inherited notability that is being pushed and I am under absolutely no mandate to fix every problem I see. "You" are wishing to make it seem (more than once) that should be my responsibility. If you have a problem with editors performing maintenance then take it up with the Wikipedia community. I do many "fixes" when I have time but if not I tag an article. The issue has been resolved and you can continue to advance automatic notability if you wish as well as trying to push some mandate that maintenance should be tossed but I am going to continue and you can keep going your way but can drop the stick on this issue. Thanks for fixing the article anyway and have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)