Talk:Operation Mar Lewe
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Cordless Larry in topic Notability
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Notability
editThis article needs some references to reliable sources in order to meet the notability guidelines. The MOD sources aren't independent of the subject. A newspaper article or two would be great. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have clearly explained the specific notability issue that concerns you (regarding this article.) This clarity is needed for two reasons: 1) So it is easy to determine when the {{notability}} tag can be removed. 2) So it is easy to understand exactly what needs to be done to fix the notability issue with this article. I recommend that you remove the notability tag that you added until you have clearly explained the specific notability issue that concerns you. Notability is a difficult concept that is not objective WP:NOPE. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The specific issue is that the article subject needs to have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is the general Wikipedia notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I still do not believe you have articulated your concern clearly. Instead it appears that you have quoted wiki policy WP:GNG. Here is another quote from a wiki article that discusses notability WP:NOPE. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject." It would be helpful if you would put forward your notability argument by relating it specifically to the content and subject of this article. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NOPE is an essay and does not constitute a generally accepted guideline. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, but here goes. The topic of the article needs to be notable. In order to demonstrate its notability, we need to have references to significant coverage of the topic that is independent of the subject (i.e. the MOD references in the article don't count) and reliable (from a newspaper, for example). So if we find some coverage of the topic, we can reference that coverage and remove the tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like your concern is captured in the essay - WP:IS. I imagine that you would like a reliable source that is independent of the topic itself that would generally provide a neutral point of view (instead of MOD or NATO.) Perhaps an independent source tag would be appropriate. Except I don't believe wiki has an indepedent source tag. I still don't feel the {{notability}} tag is appropriate for this article, however, it is probably close enough. There are many articles on Wikipedia that have serious notability problems that are documented in the essay - WP:RFNN. My preference is to save the {{notability}} tag for these extreme cases and avoid tagging subjective notability cases (like this article.) Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's something that you'd need to take up at the policy level. In the meantime, it would be more effective if we were to look for sources rather than endlessly debating the appropriateness of the tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about finding sources. We have discussed this topic enough and time now is better spent finding sources. I appreciate the discussion. It helped clarify some concepts for me.I never really expected us to come to an agreement on the notability issue. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well that's something that you'd need to take up at the policy level. In the meantime, it would be more effective if we were to look for sources rather than endlessly debating the appropriateness of the tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- It seems like your concern is captured in the essay - WP:IS. I imagine that you would like a reliable source that is independent of the topic itself that would generally provide a neutral point of view (instead of MOD or NATO.) Perhaps an independent source tag would be appropriate. Except I don't believe wiki has an indepedent source tag. I still don't feel the {{notability}} tag is appropriate for this article, however, it is probably close enough. There are many articles on Wikipedia that have serious notability problems that are documented in the essay - WP:RFNN. My preference is to save the {{notability}} tag for these extreme cases and avoid tagging subjective notability cases (like this article.) Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NOPE is an essay and does not constitute a generally accepted guideline. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this, but here goes. The topic of the article needs to be notable. In order to demonstrate its notability, we need to have references to significant coverage of the topic that is independent of the subject (i.e. the MOD references in the article don't count) and reliable (from a newspaper, for example). So if we find some coverage of the topic, we can reference that coverage and remove the tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I still do not believe you have articulated your concern clearly. Instead it appears that you have quoted wiki policy WP:GNG. Here is another quote from a wiki article that discusses notability WP:NOPE. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whilst guidance on notability is useful, it is intended as a rule of thumb, and not the only consideration in a debate. Rather, the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject." It would be helpful if you would put forward your notability argument by relating it specifically to the content and subject of this article. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The specific issue is that the article subject needs to have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is the general Wikipedia notability guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have now added pretty much all I can find on this operation from newspapers using LexisNexis. I would like opinions on whether it can now be considered notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the article now clearly meets notability standards. The article now has what appears to be two reliable, independent secondary sources that happen to be professional newspapers in the U.K.: 1) The Sun, 2) The Evening Chronicle. The link to the Sun is accessble of from the internet but the link to The Evening Chronicle can not be accessed over the internet. It is always better to find more idependent sources, but these two seem more than adequate. In my opinion, one of the newspapers along with the MOD reference was probably good enough. I am quite impressed that you were able to find these two independent sources. I searched numerous times and I was not able to find anything. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts and the compliment. Having access to LexisNexis helps with finding the sources. It would be good to get a view on the topic's notability from someone not involved in editing the article, if anyone is watching. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)