Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Are small town commissioners inherently notable?

Dade City, Pasco County, Florida, is a small town. There are five city commissioners, one of whom is Eunice M. Penix. None of the others, not even the mayor, is in Wikipedia. Are all small town commissioners notable? If not, is this entry appropriate? Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would hae said the mayor of a ton (small or big) is notable...but if hes not here, then the commissioner certainly isnt. What are his tasks, btw? That may help in determining notability?Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mario Rabinowitz

I would appreciate opinions from a few more editors, about Mario Rabinowitz. This appears to have started as an autobiography (edited by several sockpuppets and IP addresses), and has been recently cleaned up by myself and a couple other editors.

Rabinowitz is an academic with a long list of papers to his name, but I can't verify from free sources whether he is highly cited enough to be clearly notable on that count. --Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability is based on how much is written about him, not how much is written by him, and I'm seeing zero evidence of that in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Theyre all single sources...id nom it for deletion.

As a note, Stuartyeates' comment (though id add mentions instead of just written) should partially answer mine below.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mick Fabar, businessman, Guinness Record holder, Green Building pioneer

Hi, I'm writing to see if I can write an article about my employer Mick Fabar who is a living Australian businessman, builder, green philanthropist, and notable personality. He was born in the Central Western town of Orange in NSW Australia in 1976, and still resides there now.

I'm yet to create a draft, and this will be my first article. I feel there is enough about him that would qualify him notability-wise, I thought I would consult the experts before I started writing though.

Reasons why Mick Fabar is notable.

Business: He is the owner of two construction businesses - Mick Fabar Constructions and Green Homes Australia. Both are highly regarded in the building industry, and well documented in the Australian media, but Green Homes Australia in particular has been covered extensively, and been the recipient of numerous national awards for energy efficiency and green innovation.

World Records: Mick was a promising Rugby League junior until a knee injury sustained during an NRL trial ended his career. Following this he turned to boxing where he fought in numerous bouts which received media coverage and represented Australia as a professional. Mick currently holds 3 world records and has broken 7 in total. His current records include the most punches thrown in 60 seconds (545) as well as the world record for most left hand jabs in a minute (302) and the most punches on a speed-ball (448). These all received wide media coverage.

Controversy: In 2006 he was arrested and charged with intimidating an ex-employee. The court proceedings lasted over three years, during which time Mick was placed in a maximum security prison for 7 days over an alleged incident. Finally in 2009 the 21 charges were dismissed after it was found that his victim had conspired with her partner at the time (a local police officer)to fabricate the evidence needed to convict Fabar. The controversy was extensively covered in the Australian press on a national scale.

Green Philanthropy: Mick's second business (Green Homes Australia) was driven by the growing need for energy efficient homes and construction. Orange is an ideal case study for a green home, with freezing temperatures in winter, and scorching heat in summer. Homes built by Fabar under Green Homes Australia achieve a minimum 40% improvement on efficiency and have been awarded for this on numerous occasions. Mick has written an eBook, a builders guide, and other publications to help the wider community learn how to be more efficient in the home which have been published in 30 countries around the world. He has also created a Green Home Rating tool that assesses the sustainability of a person’s dwelling, and provides recommendations on how to improve their efficiency. This Green Home Rating tool has been implemented in-branch by the National Australia Bank (NAB) as a benefit to their regional customers with a view to roll out to the entire country.

Charity: Mick has been a board member of Ronald McDonald House for over 5 years now, and has helped them raise funding throughout this time. Most recently he has been asked to build the new Ronald McDonald House in Orange NSW.

Cars: Mick has built and completed a number of "Hot Rods" winning awards on a national and international level. Most recently he has been in collaboration with Bond University Queensland to build the worlds first "Green Hot Rod". A project due to be completed later this year.

All of the above can be confirmed via credible sources, and as mentioned there are numerous articles about Mick and his life's achievements. Having been a reader of Wikipedia for a number of years I'm sure he has the notability to warrant an article, but would appreciate opinions as well as advice on how to do this correctly.

Thanks, Dave.

Where are the sources to back it up? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

External notability: National Register of Historic Places

I came across a wikipedia article which gave a list of places in this state which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The names of all of the places (in the article) were clickies to non-existent pages. So I created a page for one of these places. And now I'm being told that the place is not notable.

Is being on a list such as the National Register of Historic Places sufficient notability? I can think of other various forms of public recognition of people and places. For example, a person could receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom or some other prestigious award but otherwise be unknown in terms of the secondary sources that wikipedia requires. It seems to me that being on a prestigious list is in itself sufficient criteria to be notable. Whether or not the National Register of Historic Places is in that lofty position is unclear to me.

Are there an articles that cover this kind of external notability?

As a side note, other wikis that I work with use empty-page clickies to show that an article author desires sub-pages to be created. Wikipedia is more complex than that. I think empty-page clickies should be discouraged or even automatically removed unless editors allow for that psychology in their decision making. It is discouraging to attempt to build an article that was "asked for" only to have it shot down Yipper (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• By "clickies", I am guessing you mean red links. Red links are encouraged, we want them, so we know what articles need to be added. I notice you haven't edited at all since 2004. Much has changed since then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right! I never really got over the learning curve in 2004. And not sure I'm doing any better this time. Yipper (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sticking your dick in the crazy / Sex with mad people / etc

As some of us know from bitter experience, sex with nutters is fucking brilliant, but then they go psycho and you regret it.

Anyway, this is a HUGE phenomena. There are shitloads of sources about the phenomena - have a google.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced the sources are brilliant. And maybe the topic just isn't all that notable anyway.

Serious conflicting thoughts so I'm taking it here. Also, compared to some people I know I'm hardly sexually succesful, I know people who've banged literally thousands. So I'm not sure it ought to be writing the entire thing - but I can give it a go! Thought anyway? Egg Centric 23:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

there is a way to say things, sexual or otherwise and this seems to indicate nonsense. Sources have to be reliable too. I doubt a porn blog mentions this even (or maybe to that EXTENT). Talk it to WikiProject Pornography or wp: sexLihaas (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ravindranath Nayak Sujeer

Ravindranath Nayak Sujeer (Born July 12, 1988), an social entrepreneur who enabled the power of attorney with an autumn of the world's ethnic sources leading to the creation of an extra brigadoon and courage-full environment. He is the founder of Ravs Corp, India Pvt Ltd.

Prior to founding Ravs Corp, Mr. Nayak was working with Reuters India News agency, as an Content Analyst for Investment banking sector in Bangalore. Previously, he pursued an master's in Business from the university of Nitte. After which, he felt to raise the action on track with the internalization of reality, bring the thought process to its end result oriented Tycoon.

He has a specialized himself in editing, an author, article column writing, financial service sector coverage, fast moving consumer good predictions, preparing research for the betterment of accepted project. Apart from this, his other interest includes poetry, guitars, lyricist and a music creator specializing in psychedelic rock, alternative rock, progressive and dark psy 6th string verticals.

He has also authored an fortnight E-Magzine on Finance namely, E-Finsight, had been a column writer for India’s leading newspaper Deccan Herald, written successful articles for the same and other regional circulations.

Mr. Nayak has also released his first album in Bangalore, India on July 12, 2011. The album is named after his specialization "Investment Rockstar". He has also created a bunch of advertisements for various brands like Godrej.

References

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/51884/ipl-2012.html http://investmentrockstar.webs.com/bio.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bYAJ0EOcF4 https://www.colleaguefinder.com/EmployeeProfile.htm?employeeId=0150498

Response

There is no question on anythign asked. But ill go out on a limb and say this is certainly not notable. youtube and colleaguefindr dont add up to RS soruces and deccan herald being the only mention is now only a local source.Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC) ==

I would say the article you've written needs a fair bit of work, and you need to be very careful about conflicts of interest and advertising - but as far as notability is concerned I think you've done a great job at establishing that Deborah Berke has it. waggers (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Notability. You have new messages at Waggers's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How do I proceed? Is this an official acceptance of notability, and if so, what kind of work is needed? Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

3M India

As a subsidiary of 3M, which is also run differently to all the other subsidiaries, 3M India should be notable. Further, according to the above, would the MD be notable enough? The above calls for national/international sources, which is met.Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Synapse, Oberlin College's science publication

The Synapse is the name of Oberlin College's science magazine established in 2011. Although not yet nearly as established as the Daily Illini, for instance, does it qualify for its own page. The page will of course grow with the development and additional publications of the magazine. The website, which is under construction, can be found here.

Flawrenc (talk)

Howdy, Flawrenc. I watched quite a few articles about new publications fail to survive an article for deletion discussion. I looked at the web site. A separate article isn't appropriate. Objections, in Wikipedia jargon, would be WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, among others. For now, I recommend you edit the Oberlin College article, specifically the Publications and media section, to include information about The Synapse. Take care, DocTree (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Asfar lake

Asfar lake is a lake located in eastern Saudi Arabia. It has been the subject of a few environmental studies. Its birds have also made the news.

Would this geographic feature be considered notable enough for its own article?VR _talk 00:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the comment above it would need internatiotional RS sources (whch the freelibrary is dubious), but the first seems okey. I would think it is worth the effort...how big is the lake and what is exceptional about it (ie- what notable birds...making sure its not an orphan aricle)? hopefully its not a pond.Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an Al Asfar lake article 'is worth the effort'. Most articles on a geographical feature will survive an Articles for Deletion discussion if notability is questioned. My Goggle search located proposed studies [1] related to the lake, some controversy about its use as a source for drinking water and for agriculture versus its preservation due to ecological concerns and concerns about polution. I found Saudi government requests for proposal to "rehabilitate" the lake. Based on my quick look, Al Asfar lake appears to be a notable geographical feature that is at least somewhat significant to the ecology of two continents. DocTree (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Mother Fukker's

Mother Fukker's was a brand name of snack foods. I believe it was based in Pennsylvania and had its heyday in the 1970s and 1980s, but I could be wrong as that's strictly from faint memory. Google doesn't turn up much of anything. I'm pretty certain that in the pre-Internet age, it has been mentioned by whatever media outlets might have had the balls to print such a name in their pages. I figure this is a tough one, since the name alone would likely preclude widespread mention.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well you would need at least some RS sources to mention its worth. Though i too would suspect the name may have generated controversy enoughLihaas (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

All I can think of was a mention in the "True Facts" section of National Lampoon. In one issue, the editor of "True Facts" offered a list of what NOT to submit, because he was tired of repeated submissions of such. Out of that list, all I can remember was "cartons of homo milk" and "packages of Mother Fukker's nuts." I very much doubt that any library near me keeps copies of National Lampoon issues amongst its collections, and if I have any issues of the magazine anymore, they've been buried in a box in storage for years. Therefore, I'm afraid that I'm not of help inasfar as non-web verification.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A Satyanarayana Shastri

Discover Lasting Happiness

Born on June 2, 1925 Prof A Satyanarayana Shastri left his Annamaya Kosa on January 16, 1940 in Bangalore. After his BSc in 1943 from Central College and MSc from Dharwar, he served Vijaya Collega as a lecturer and later as a Professor for 18 years in the Department of Chemistry. He is survived by his wife, three sons and four daughters. He has been the philosopher and guide to Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana and became the Chief Adviser of the Deemed University Vivekananda Yoga Mahavidyapeetham of VYTASA. He was also the president of Advaita Samsodhana Pratisthana chaired by Sri Arun Kumar.

Exploring Upanishads with a brilliant intellect and top scientist’s vision, Prof. Shastri became an intense sadhak par excellence initially to solve his own tensions and anxieties. His masterly exposition of Yoga Vasistha was fascinating to all his listeners.

His teachings on message of Upanishads and the concept of Dharma centred around Sukha Duhkha Pariksa embellished with practical examples of day to day problems of modern life, enchanted thousands of listeners. He provided vision to top scientists, engineers and doctors, transforming their lives towards inner search of silencing the mind for bliss.

His inner revelations in sadhana are condensed in the following proclamations repeated in all his: ‘Sukha is silence and deeper the prasamana, greater the happiness. Slowing of thoughts and expansion of mind are the key components of all yoga sadhana’. Energy Model was his discovery to explain the above feelings. Published: Yooga Sudha Vol XX No.3 March 2004

Speeches

A General Survey of Spiritual Study

• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 1
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 2
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 3
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 4
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 5
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 6
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 7
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 8
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 9
• A General Survey of Spiritual Study Part 10

Response

Firstly, this is not a place to post an article to create, thats what AFC is for. At any rate, a bunch of youtube videos are guaranteed not to make this chap notable. There are self-help gurus all over.Lihaas (talk) 10:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

TAR1 gene

Hi there, I am new to editing Wikipedia. I am considering making a page for a gene that I am working on called TAR1, found on chromosome XII, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. TAR1 is unique for it is a protein coding gene that runs anti-sense to a non-coding, structural RNA (the 25s rRNA). There is a modest scientific literature for this gene, which is hypothesized to be an evolutionary response to mitigate the drive of selfish, dysfunctional (hypersuppresive) mitochondria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauropterygia (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds notable but i would ask what RS sources are there to indicate the research into (and to indicate the statement is not OR). Since your working on it, and to maintain AGF, I would also ask you to read about WP:COI so someone doesnt accuse you of popularising your personal paper. (for self-interest alone)Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

John DePetro

I'm not sure I'm doing this right, since this is the first article I've nomed for deletion. I marked the article for possible deletion and here's why:

The subject is a minor individual, and the article is full of excessive detail, so excessive and irrelevant and puffy that I suspect it was written by the subject or someone associated with him. Trudyjh (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your nomination. It would also be fitting that you give the person a COI flag. Oxfordwang (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced with a couple of ELs to local sources, i think its totally delete worthy. Start a deletion disscusionLihaas (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't actually nominate them for deletion; you just tagged them for notability. Thousands of articles have this tag, and some linger for years. However, it's one way of giving people a chance to improve the article before actually nominating it for deletion. --KarlB (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I actually nominate this for deletion? I grubbed around and could not find out how. What is "giving the person a COI flag"? Thanks. Trudyjh (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

notablelity

What does notabilty have to do with theTrusted website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.8.180 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please re-word that since the current question does not make sense?--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

notablelity

Why is notabilty important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.230.8.180 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason it that we would be flooded with articles if we did not have that standard.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yellow dress of Reese Witherspoon

The subject of this article is mentioned in passing in a few sources but there's nothing that can be said to be substantial coverage. In my opinion the article is ripe for deletion but I'd like to get some second opinions before nominating it as it seems there's a handful of editors who are quite protective of this article for some reason. waggers (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Dr. Blofeld and I are the only two editors to have made substantial contributions to it, and a handful is more than one and less than six, I am mildly insulted that you would suggest that I would have ownership issues with it, as my only contributions were to expand, add sources, and remove a PROD tag that I didn't think applied any more. But I digress, as that's not what we're here for I suppose. Fact of the matter is two years after it was worn, InStyle wrote a paragraph about it in the 100 best dresses of the decade (where it earned the spot of number twelve), and five years after the dress was worn, an article in the New York Times included a paragraph about it. Given my limited knowledge of dresses (or how to get women out of them for that matter), I thought that with my additions the article stood well enough to not be deleted as "uncontroversial" (as that is what PROD is for). But what do I know, I may have ownership issues...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all the editors involved have ownership issues - I was mainly thinking of the message at the top of User talk:Dr. Blofeld. I don't think one mention in a list and a solitary paragraph five years later cuts it as "substantial coverage" per the guideline. I can see this information sitting happily within other Wikipedia articles or lists, but the dress itself doesn't meet the notability criteria as far as I can see. But like you I'm no expert in this subject matter so perhaps there's some substantial coverage in a reliable source that I'm missing. waggers (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a great example of an article topic needs to be nominated for merger, not deletion. Not sure which article it should be merged into (there are several good targets), but it would be better placed if discussed within another article. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While a good suggestion, I don't know what the target would be, I wouldn't want to see an article about Dresses at the XX Golden Globes, lest we turn into Us Weeklypedia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be a broader 2007 in fashion article. waggers (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo, Waggers... Excellent suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'd question whether some of these red-carpet gowns actually do represent contemporary fashion. Perhaps Red carpet fashion in 2007 is more appropriate. Mabalu (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea, broader, more encompassing (i.e. Golden Globes, Oscars, etc.) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. So where do we go from here? Is the next step to start {{merge}} tagging the relevant articles? waggers (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we really want a run of articles for red carpet fashion by year? Maybe by decade would be better to start with - say, Red carpet fashion in the 2000s/1990s/2010s. I also feel that these pages would see a lot of bumph added into them, so would need quite active monitoring and moderation, with all individual dresses needing to show reason for their ongoing noteworthiness. Otherwise it could become a long list of what EVERY person on a red carpet that year wore, and that would be overwhelming. Mabalu (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Feedback please? I know what I said above on 18 May 2012, but after working on this: User:Mabalu/Red carpet fashion in the 2000s I'm beginning to wonder if it wouldn't be better to have an article generally about the concept of "red carpet fashion" with the header and separate articles for each year (ie, Red carpet fashion in 2000, Red carpet fashion in 2001, despite what I said above. The ref list section alone is getting quite out of hand, even though I am trying to keep to overviews and not going into excess detail except about dresses that received more than the usual amount of coverage... Would really appreciate people's thoughts on this. Apologies if this is the wrong page, but I thought the discussion was relevant. Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent piece of work and would encourage you to move that into article space. My view on this matter is pretty simple: Yellow dress of Reese Witherspoon doesn't merit an article of its own. I'm open as to what we replace it with, but the status quo needs to be changed. I think [[Red carpet fashion in the [decade]]] probably is the best approach, as it allows the use of WP:SUMMARY STYLE to create articles on individual years or individual dresses should they merit it. WaggersTALK 08:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I have created Red carpet fashion as a general overview, and done a couple of trial articles for 2000 and 2002. I was thinking of creating a template for red carpet fashion to replace the Academy Awards template too, which I have trialled here: User:Mabalu/Red carpet fashion template - although I want to create a few more "Red carpet fashion in (year)" articles before going live so it's not a total sea of redlinks. Mabalu (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Club Chess in Greece... (again)

After the last time I asked for my opinions in this subject failed to produce any replies, I'm asking again.

Do you believe club chess in Greece is considered a notable enough subject? --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 21:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1. what does "club chess" mean?

2. do you ahve any RS sources that mention this (And not just primary sources)Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Club chess is like any team sport: teams of different players face each other.

Numerous sources exist, but of course it all depends on the prestige of the competition. For example, the A' Division Championship which ended today is heavily sourced on many different chess sites. Lesser competitions have fewer sources. --Rigas • Talk • Deeds • 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability Policies and Guidelines

• Notice - There are ongoing AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Czech Americans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish Americans where the issue of WP:NOTDIR and possible application to other Guidelines is under discussion. Additional community discussion is requested. Disclaimer: I am the editor who submitted these AfDs. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS or not?

I want to write an article about "Keep 32," which is the name of a chemical developed over the past seven years that is purported to be able to kill Streptococcus mutans in about 60 seconds and thus has the potential to reduce the formation of cavities (if the claims end up being true this could very well revolutionize dentistry). The problem is that the main coverage is from the last few days, though the coverage is substantial. Currently the researchers are attempting to get funding for human trails. Is it too early to write about this? Sædon^talk 05:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the sources. If it's being extensively discussed in peer-reviewed publications, go for it. However, if your depending on reports from the popular or popular scientific press that are problaby just rehashes of promotional material or hype, then it's too soon. Be very wary of scientists who run to the popular press to publicise their ideas. We learned a lot form Pons and Fleischman. And, as always, be wary of sensationalistic claims like "revolutionize the practice of dentistry". There are a lot of one-day-wonders and flashes-in-the-pan in this type of research. For a good example, read the last paragraph of the Huffington Post article on your compound: [[2]]. I'd wait until an actual product is released for sale and becomes notable, or until enough is published in the peer-reviewed literature about the product than just primary reports from the discoverers. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DV. I'm going to try and get in contact with the researchers to get the chemical name and find out whether they've published anything before I write the article of course. I was asking here mostly because the article would be based on primary literature in regards to the chemical, and news sites with recent coverage to demonstrate notability. As an aside, when I run across a science article on the huffington post I generally quickly click a link to somewhere else, hypertension and all :). Sædon^talk 07:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols

Tried twice to delete this as I don't believe it can be established as notable. I would like an expert opinion on what to do if possible. LF (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark_Erelli

Hi, I'm new but have been editing a little bit under an IP for a couple of years, though sporatically. I've found this article in the title after working on another one. Well, I like to practice researching and learning new things, and Wikipedia is great for that, so I finally created an account. :) Anyways, I found this 'board' after looking for some type template to add to the Mark Erelli article that could help draw attention, but it seemed a lot more involved and complicated so I thought I'd take it here for fear of doing the wrong thing..like "nominating it for deletion" ACK! I don't feel comfortable going that far, and don't really have a lot of time to work Wikipedia in that capactiy. Just little edits, adding refs, etc. I did read the requirements for BLP, but it didn't really help, so not sure if this person is notable or not. I did do a search of his name with Google, but what comes up are mainly self-published links, such as Facebook, MySpace, AllMusic, YouTube, etcs and only local references. Although I didn't go past the first page, and don't have time to really look so here I am, and here he is. I would like any feedback about this and any other issue anyone may find with any edits I've made so far. Thank you. RupJana (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Red links justified because notability is undetermined?

The article List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey is mostly red links. WP:REDNOT recommends against linking to topics that are unlikely to be created but because we cannot determine which are notable and which are not, some editors think the links are justified because articles may be added for them some day even though it's understood that there are many that will never have an article. I welcome comments. Jojalozzo 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew Chuk

This article has had three deletion discussions (see first, second and third) all resulting in a keep decision - however I feel that due to the proximity of the discussions to events taking place in the article, reviewing the article now, four years on, may be a good option.

It appears that Chuk's election at the end of 2006, and the broader Wikipedia article on him, is less notable than claimed in the deletion discussions - and a redirect to the relevant section of the NUS page would suffice. The most relevant area for the article to meet notability is WP:POLITICIAN.

A similar case occurred with the article on Felix Eldridge - kept after a deletion discussion in 2006, before being deleted following a 2010 discussion.

Australian Matt (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncreated (yet) notability question

As a preemptive war, i recently met someone who has traveled across multiple continents climbing mountains as an "explorer", was featured in NJmagazine, and was wondering if hed be notable enough (yet) for WP. Hes also started a biz recently and has more details on his personal website (apparently not updated as yet sine hes just got back some less than 2 weeks ago from a long trip (family whathaveyou, i imagine)). But speaking at Rotary Club and Verizon (notable enough for WP...and not some student group at a community college), in addition to the other feats (mountain climbing and motivational speaker), could make him notable as an explorer? It shouldnt be too hard to make it more than a stub of an article.Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say "not yet". What you need are published sources that have commented on his explorations in some detail. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldnt the NJ magaine count? (i added that after the original comment)

Also found something else + would thiscount too?Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase... the reason I say "not yet" as opposed to "not notable" is that, so far, the sources that comment upon him and his explorations are all very local in scope (as were the speaking engagements). What I think you need are sources with a more national/international scope. Blueboar (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okey, thx.

Just came back to comment that the article wont be an orphanLihaas (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

national source?Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As an explorer, what notable things has he "discovered?" Just having gone somewhere does not equate the title "explorer." It needs to be WP:NOTE. In the Army I travelled all over, but that did not entitle me to claim notability. Being something is one thing, but being Noteworthy for your contributions becomes a matter discovery, fame, or notoriety. Ren99 (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

Hello. I'm creating a new article (userspace draft currently) and I met a question, hopefully someone can answer. The article is about a free, online web service created by an organization. Here is the question:

1. Does it violates copyright if I upload a screenshot of a website? (Not official screenshot given by the web service, just a mere screenshot I captured with my software)

Thanks!Greek Fellows (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Schuf Fetterolf

I deleted the article on this as it was a copyright violation. The subject is an international industrial valve design and manufacture company established over 100 years ago, which owns a number of patents. On that basis it sounds notable, but a quick Google search didn't bring up much other than primary sources. WaggersTALK 08:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a solution (restoring the article or retaining part of it) under your consideration? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

Phillip Witcomb, painter

Recently a painter, Phillip Witcomb, came and setup an Autobiography for himself, which was subsequently deleted. (User:The Modern Master) After looking at what he posted and said about the process of having his stuff speedy deleted, I looked at his website and offered to him that if he could establish notability that I'd write his autobiography page. I've been in contact with him and now I want to verify that notability can be established with what I can probably get verified. Under WP:ARTIST #4.d it states that having his work on permanent display in notable galleries/museums is sufficient. He has work on permanent display in KD Fine art gallery which is part of Watts Gallery (Picture of him in-front of the painting at the gallery is on his homepage's front right now http://www.art-36.com/ ). He's also getting a permanent display of his work setup at "one of the biggest and oldest galleries" in Palma, Majorca later this year. I donno what he can confirm about it before the event, or if that can be stated yet since it hasn't happened yet but that would be a second gallery.

Would meeting WP:ARTIST 4.d be sufficient for notability for an artist? — raekyt 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The Watts Gallery is apparently in the middle of revamping their website, they told him in a couple weeks they'll have the new version up that will have him featured on it. So that would be a verifiable source. — raekyt 13:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• In answer to your question: If Phillip Witcomb met the criteria described under WP:ARTIST #4-D, then that would at least be a start for a possible Wikipedia article discussing him. However, the artist in question does not meet said criteria. WP:ARTIST (Creative professionals) #4-D clearly states, "[The person's work] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." I have the words "permanent" and "several notable" in italics as the claims that his work is on permanent display in several notable galleries needs to be qualified and substantiated. And these claims need to be made through reliable, secondary sources in order to establish the subject's "Wikipedia notability". Witcomb's own website is self-serving and subsequently cannot be used as reliable sourcing and referencing material for his own article. You could use his site for a possible "external link", but that would be about the only use for it. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be anything more on Witcomb outside of his own website. I performed a Google search of his name and I used Google Books and absolutely nothing came up regarding him at all, except for his own website. In my opinion, the artist in question does not have enough (none, actually) reliable, third-party coverage or sources to be deemed notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if the Watts Gallery is planning on mentioning him on their website sometime in the future, I highly doubt that that will be enough coverage to create an article about Witcomb. I will not pretend that I know anything about the notability of the artist or the art galleries that his work is allegedly suppose to be displayed in, but make certain that those galleries do fall under the Wikipedia criteria for such. I'll let you investigate that more. Also, it states "several galleries", and by my count, you have two (2) galleries listed. Personally, I wouldn't consider two galleries to fall under the "several" category. And lastly, if Witcomb created his own Wikipedia page, then he was in direct violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and that was the main reason -besides the fact that there is no reliable, third-party coverage on him- that his article was deleted. I mean, Wikipedia isn't Facebook. We can't just have everyone making their own pages all willy-nilly like. So, I suggest you ask yourself these two questions: 1.) What is my relationship to Phillip Witcomb? And 2.) What do I hope to gain by creating an article about him? If your motive is solely for the creation of an article... Great! Good luck with that then. However, just make sure that there is no conflict of interest on your part as well in wanting to create this article for him. I hope this has been helpful and happy editing!!! Agent Orange 77 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To add there was obvious issues with his creation of the pages, but I didn't see it as malicious but just ignorance of the policies and practices of wikipedia, he showed genuine interest in what he did wrong and tried to work with people. So that's one reason why I offered to help. — raekyt 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about him until I saw the deletions, and after looking up his website I offered to help if he could show notability. The galleries are not online verifiable yet, the Watts Gallery will have information about his painting in the permanent collection on their website soon, and a primary source that it is in their permanent collection would be enough for that right? It doesn't require any discussion or analysis, it's either in their collection or not, and primary can verify that right? There is a second gallery with a permanent works of his opening up soon, but he hasn't released details yet since it's not been published by the gallery, but that will be available when that happens. — raekyt 18:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I don't think that the Watts Gallery by itself mentioning the artist in question is a reliable enough source to help establish notability for Wikipedia inclusion. And it's even more difficult to say when at this point it appears that such a mention is based solely upon heresay and speculation that you've received directly from the subject himself. (I did read the correspondence between the two of you on your talk page). It would be more beneficial to your cause if the subject were discussed in reliable, third-party art or painting publications. This is what you need to be looking for, even though (based on my search for him) it seems like you'll be hard-pressed to find anything. His work at this point and from what I understand you to be saying is allegedly on permanent display in one gallery and maybe on future permanent display in another. However, and again according to you, neither of those galleries have yet to mention his displays on their respective websites. So, why don't you at least wait and see what comes up (if anything) as regarding those possible inclusions to those galleries websites. Then, maybe -and that's a big maybe- you'll have something a little more substantial to begin an article with. You would probably be looking more at a "stub class" initially and then perhaps if more information comes to light regarding the subject, you can flesh out a more comprehensive article. And regardless of the subject's motives behind the creating of his own article, it was still a conflict of interest. However, it is good to hear that he is willing to learn from his mistakes. Please, allow me to offer just a little advice to you here though: Beware of someone who is an artist with the screen name of "The Modern Master". It sounds like perhaps this person might be somewhat egomaniacal in nature and would love nothing more than to self-promote. With that said though, I will allow him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. So again, just wait and see what (and if) those galleries ever say about Witcomb and his displays. If you try to create an article before then, it will most likely just be deleted. Anyways, that is the best advice that I can offer you. Feel free to do with it what you will. Agent Orange 77 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I had no intention of creating the article until AFTER enough sources exist to verify notability, and even then it would be made on my userspace until I have other peoples assurance it's good enough to add as an article. The Watts Gallery is confirmable if you was to visit, he told me that they told him they're in the mist of a website upgrade thats why its not updated on their website and it should be on there in a few weeks to confirm it. The other gallery in Palma, Majorca, he stated he would be flying there in a couple weeks to finalize the opening, so I'm going under the assumption that nothing about it will be released until then, since it's still in the future. As for his username, he does use that on his website as a title, which is a bit dubious and is obviously not something I'd use in the article. I've been around long enough and done this enough to know what phrases to avoid and to make sure everything like that would be attributable. I understand your point of view with a secondary source for some things, but the WP:ARTIST 4d seems to indicate primary would be fine since it's merely asking for it being in the permanent display, a secondary wouldn't be necessary to confirm that if the museum/gallery states it is in their permanent collection on their website/publications. I'm taking this very slowly and am in no hurry to create the article, and it doesn't seem like he is either now that I explained how things work. He seems quite ok with waiting as long as we need to get all the sourcing in order before we proceed. — raekyt 20:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And again, the WP:ARTIST #4-D that you keep referring to states as a prerequisite for notability, "The person's work is represented within [...] several notable galleries or museums". Two galleries is not several. Ten galleries would be several. Twenty-five would definitely be several, but not two. Two is only a couple, not several. I'm not an expert on the exact numerical definition of "several', but if I were a betting man, I know it would be more than two. Also, remember that the notability of the galleries in question needs to be established by reliable, third-party sources. I'm just trying to help you fully understand the semantics of WP:ARTIST #4-D. However, it seems like you're going to do what you're going to do, regardless of the advice that's been offered you. I'm not exactly sure why you came to this noticeboard, except for you wanting someone to give you the green-light across the board to create this article. And I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening. I am only one person though, so maybe someone else will see this differently and give you the "all clear" that you are seeking. So, good luck with all of this. This will be the last reply from me on this matter though as I can see that I'm not giving you the answers that you want and I now just feel like I'm talking in circles. I am glad to see that you would at least be waiting on more quantifiable and qualifiable sources before starting this article and that you would be working on it through your userpage. Again though, I just don't think those two galleries mentioning him on their respective websites is going to be substantial enough evidence to establish the subject's notability. Hopefully, he gets the more substantial coverage that you need in order to make a more comprehensive article. Please, consider my advice. Again, I really am just trying to help you. I wish you all the best. Agent Orange 77 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Having read WP:ARTIST #4-D, I concur with Agent Orange 77, I don't see how he comes anywhere near meeting the notability requirements.Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• One picture in a gallery (for sale I think, not permanent) is not notable. Clearly the criteria implies multiple, permanent curatorial acquisitions. I see no purpose for an article at this time other than commercial promotion of Witcomb's work. Jojalozzo 17:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Kids Are Scientists Too

Kids Are Scientists Too! (KAST) is a maryland non-profit organization with the goal of getting elementary-schoolers interested in science. It's been mentioned in the local newspaper [3] and has multiple branches. So would an article about this organization be ok? Also I am a former member of this group, so would be be a conflict of interest if I were to be the original author?

If KAST has only been mentioned in local papers, it may not be considered notable enough (yet) for an entire article devoted to it (see our WP:ORG guideline for more on what is and is not considered notable where organizations are concerned). As an alternative, you might consider working in a mention of it in an existing article on a related topic (you will have to search around to see if there is an existing article in which would be appropriate to mention it in... I don't know the topic area well enough to advise you on that.) Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)