Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance/Archive 1

Background

This page was created on November 20, 2013 and immediately linked to from the relevant sections of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

See discussions regarding speedy-deletion criteria A7, A9 and A11 in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion and its archives in or around November 2013 for the discussions that led up to this essay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

While I think this guide is useful, it has a contradiction that needs to be reconciled. The second paragraph states "Significance is not notability." The last paragraph poses a test "assuming this [claim] were true, would this cause a person to be notable?"

I think it would be very helpful to include several examples of significant claims; unambiguously insignificant claims; and significant, but incredible claims. - MrX 21:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I re-worded to say that significance is a lower standard than notability. That should be more clear. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thing: WP:significance redirects to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SIGNIFICANCE redirects to WP:Credible claim of significance. Both the lowercase and uppercase versions should redirect to the same target, otherwise we will have many confused editors. - MrX 21:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect (lowercase one) fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does the claim of significance belong?

Within the article's text? In the lead paragraph? On the talk page? I have only created two articles, and one was about an album called Pink World. Early in the creation process, there was certainly a time when this album's article would not have passed notability requirements, and perhaps even not have had a claim of significance, as the article was under construction over several days. In fact, it appears a previous article about the album was deleted 5 years ago, and I think it might have been speedy-deleted for this very reason - no page for the artist and no claim of significance for the album. (Both issues are now resolved.) I just want to know how to protect a work in progress from speedy deletion by making a proper claim of significance. (Also, outside the scope of this page, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction: Is it possible to see an article that has been deleted so I don't have to duplicate work that was already done before, and to get a better idea of why the original was deleted so I can avoid the same mistakes? Thanks!) Dcs002 (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dcs002: Sorry for the slow response here. The claim of significance can be anywhere in the article, and it doesn't take much. For an album, simply stating that it was produced by a notable musician is enough to demonstrate significance. The best way to protect a work in progress is to work on it in draft space or on a user page, where none of the article deletion criteria apply. As far as seeing the deleted article, you would have to ask an administrator to do it for you (not me), and in a few cases, such as attack pages, they won't. If a page has been wrongly deleted, post about it at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is real Person Pinakihom (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why has the page Hollinwood fc been deleted?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Why has the page Hollinwood fc been deleted? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What is a credible claim of significance?

Agree that there's a serious problem with the term "credible claim of significance" or at least the way it is interpreted. I've seen two misuses (that this essay addresses, but as an essay it doesn't solve the issue very well) - the credible one (when it's certainly credible, just not supported by sources) and the significance v. notability. Most significantly, I've discussed this with editors when I've seen a misuse of A7 and I hear the phrase "credible claim of notability" invoked many times as their rationale. I don't know the best solution, as it seems to be a pretty blatant misreading of policy or a misunderstanding of why "significance" was chosen instead of notability. I would support advancing this page beyond an essay (right now it's an essay linked to a policy, perhaps to a guideline) at the minimum regarding that issue.

There's also a bit of scope creep in A7 in general (have seen educational institutions and concepts tagged under A7) though I think that's a bit out-of-scope itself for this discussion. Just something that might be worth discussing later. Appable (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll add User:DGG and User:Kudpung Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I have usually interpreted a credible claim as meaning "a reason why a good faith editor who understands the nature of Wikipedia might think the subject sufficiently significant for an article" The imprecise part of it then becomes just what is meant by "who understands the nature of WP" DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Well, a subject can be significant but not notable which would mean it probably shouldn't get an article, but it's important enough that it shouldn't be removed by speedy deletion as it could be more open, broad notability. Appable (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

that's exactly what I meant. Someone might plausibly think that being elected mayor of a small town might be a reason for coverage in an encyclopedia ; it isn't so regarded here but that's one of our details, not a fundamental policy, so it should be discussed at AfD. Nobody might reasonably thing that being a valedictorian in the high school is a reason for being in an encyclopedia , so it should be a speedy. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusion about CCS is not a new thing; I daresay most editors that touch A7 (myself included) need it explained to them once. That could maybe be a symptom of a (long standing) gap in the instructions, even if the information is all there. But what seems more concerning and seems to be a new thing (and I haven't done any objective analysis on this) is editors fighting with the explanation. In my experience before I had only really seen that in WP:CIR cases where the editor shouldn't have been touching speedy (or possibly WP in general) at all, but more recently it seems to be at least somewhat experienced editors. Maybe this is attributable to a corporate loss of memory of the role of speedy deletion in general as a shortcut process when no good-faith concerns against deletion are plausible? VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged, but I'm having difficulty understanding what the issue is. Anyone arguing that lack of notability meets the criteria for A7 doesn't understand the narrow scope of of CSD. Page patrollers sometimes stretch the interpretation of CSD, and some admin are complicit in allowing it, but that doesn't change the original intent.

To answer the OP's question by way of example, if someone creates an article about a company, stating that the company was founded in 1960, employs 15,000 employees, and has offices in Germany, Brazil and Canada, then I would consider that a credible claim of significance. It is possible that the company is not notable, but the claims hint that it is potentially notable. Contrariwise, if someone creates an article about a company, stating that the company was founded in 2014, employs 15 employees, and has several international locations, then I would consider that to be an insignificant claim, although it is possible that the company is notable.

There's no way that we would could create unambiguous rules to take human judgement or subjectiveness out of the equation. Common sense and common practice play a large part in how this works. Common practice can be understood by observing what other (experienced) page patrollers do and noting which articles are actually speedy deleted by patrolling admins. - MrX 19:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with both examples. I would also agree that we must understand there will always be erroneous nominations--the burden of making the right decision falls on the deleting admin. There have in the past been a few who simply delete everything tagged; I'm not going to say that such is never the case here, but it's not anywhere near as bad as it was 5 or 6 years ago. The best check on this is encouraging the more active use of Deletion Review -- and more attention there. Unfortunately, people in the outside world think we should be always making consistent and logical decisions--all of us here know that this is never going to be the case with a system like ours', but it will inevitably disappoint people. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a specific proposal here? This area is clearly one that requires some judgement and occasionally the nominator and the Admin differ in the judgement. I recently dealt with a page about a high school student who claimed to be a runner and photographer. He came in 35,580 (or some thing) in a half marathon and his photography is on perminant exhibition in a west New York private residence. The article was well written and made him sound important, but there was not credible claim of significance. I was shocked it was not Admin deleted.

Here is another one I pulled out at random of the list up for speedy "Ben10blader is a YouTube channel that posts primarily Rocket League videos.". This is likely a true statement but is slam dunk fail of the test.

I've also spent significant time wringing my hands over A7, and I appreciate being pinged here. There are two main issues I've observed with the application of A7. First and foremost, I frequently see articles speedied because the claim of significance is unsourced, meaning that it is not credible. This is a misreading of the policy - credible in this context has nothing to do with verifiability, as is made very clear at WP:A7. I think the use of credible in this way is misleading, and I have argued at some length in the past that changing the word to plausible would avoid some of the confusion. Second, as VQuakr noted, people take claim of significance to mean claim of notability. If there is no claim to satisfy a notability guideline, the article is often speedied, even if there are claims of significance not touching on our guidelines. I am less sure of an appropriate remedy here, although I like Ranze's suggestion of "statement indicating more research might establish notability". Finally, if there is anyone skeptical of whether this is really a pressing issue, since admins surely have the good judgment to decline erroneous A7 tags, I'd like to assure them that improper A7 deletion is a real problem. Here is an album of a few improper A7 speedies I compiled last summer. I should note that the admins that made these deletions are among the most prolific speedy deleters - if they are messing up, the problem is very real and very deep. A2soup (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've also seen admins think A7 is about sources, so I think you're right in that this problem runs very deep. I would also support a change in wording to "plausible" for that reason. Adam9007 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hypothesis: That some editors mistake the reasoning that other editors are using when they tag an article for A7 deletion, assuming that they're conflating significance with notability.

Scenario:

• X creates an article.
• Y flags it for speedy deletion under criterion A7.
• X contests the deletion on the article's Talk page, asking "Why are you deleting my article?"
• Y explains that Wikipedia has a notability policy and that article topics have to meet general notability guidelines or alternate guidelines provided for specific areas.
• Z, who understands A7 well, sees this and assumes that X is confusing notability for significance.
• W, a newer editor, sees this and does become an editor who tags articles for A7 without properly understanding it.
• Z later comes upon W tagging articles improperly for deletion, and is justified in wanting to correct W, but lacks insight into where W got W's ideas about how A7 deletion works.

What's really going on here:

• Before tagging the article, Y, being conscientious, checked on his own whether the topic is notable (in which case it shouldn't be deleted under A7 or, through any path, for a lack of notability) or shows signs of possibly being notable (in which case deletion should be pursued, if at all, through AFD).
• Y tags the article for A7 deletion only upon having concluded that there is no credible claim of significance and that the article's topic is highly unlikely to qualify as notable.
• It is extremely unlikely that X is intending to ask, "Why are you deleting my article through the speedy deletion process instead of taking it through a discussion?" X probably has no conception of the distinction.
• In addition, Y believes that explaining to X how to make an article that doesn't qualify to be here stand up under A7 will only drag the matter out pointlessly, benefiting neither X nor Wikipedia.
• Y, therefore, doesn't confuse X by answering this unasked question, focusing instead on the bottom line: the article doesn't qualify for inclusion because the topic isn't notable.
• Z and W, seeing Y explain the situation to X in terms of notability, both misjudge Y's underlying understanding of the procedure.

Your thoughts? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think some people use speedy as a shortcut to Wikipedia:Snowball clause deletion, or get confused between them. Of course, there are many people who simply misunderstand A7. Adam9007 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Largo Plazo has put it well. There's absolutely no point in telling someone new how to pass A7. The standard to be passed is notability, and that is the thing that allows survival. A7 is a shortcut to remove the worst of the crap. It is not a lack of references - but conversely, a presence of good references can be an indication of significance or even notability. The fact that a soldier hasn't got stripes on his shirt sleeves doesn't mean he isn't a sergeant - he could have put an old shirt on to do a messy job. But if you see stripes (i.e. something to refer to...), he's likely to be a sergeant. (Please, no arguing that he could be a corporal, or a general, or wearing a stolen shirt. I'm making an analogy, not writing a law in Parliament.) Things must be credible. A 14 year old billionaire can be very quickly checked - if the whole first page of ghits for his name is Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, look at page 2. If you get the same, he ain't no billionaire. An assertion of significance, but not credible by any reasonable standard. That's an extreme example - it gets harder as things become more probable. Different experience in life, different knowledge - they play a part. I see no harm in using AfD to sort out 'could be, mightn't be' cases. Until we get Articles for Discussion set up either as well as or instead of (looks up but can't see any flying pigs...). There is also a need for some sort of training for new taggers (and don't look at me - at the moment, I've not got the time, being rather busy IRL). At least we need admins to politely explain why they declined to delete something, and for tagging reviewers who aren't admins to politely explain why they removed a tag. And we need the people whose tag has been removed to politely explain why it should go back on. No 'because I say so' sort of stuff. (Still can't see any flying pigs...) That's my lot for today - off to bed. Peridon (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, more improper A7 deletions are based on a lack of verifiability than a lack of notability. So your scenario, while plausible, only explains part of the problem. Also, see my post above about very veteran admins making clear A7 mistakes. This part of the problem is also not explained by your scenario. A2soup (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: I think a lot of people confuse credibility with verifiability. Credibility here is a lot more along the lines of plausibility. To mirror the significance/notability wording; plausibility is a lower standard than verifiability. I think many people believe the claim must be true to be credible. This is not the case; a claim can be false and still be credible. In fact, this essay says "A claim of significance need not be self-evidently true, but should not be blatantly false." I believe that if a claim needs research to disprove it, it's not blatantly false and is therefore credible. As for A7'ing articles for lack of sources, I see a few of the examples in your album were deleted by RHaworth:. I've also seen him tag articles A7 for lack of sources. I asked him about it once and he said explicitly it's about lack of sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz came along and removed the tag, and he dropped it (if I recall correctly, the article claimed its subject had won some big awards). And I've just seen Shootingstar111: make both this and the significance/notability mistakes at Éditions des archives contemporaines, so I'm pinging him too. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• One of the problems of Wikipedia is that thee is a notion that everything could and should (note well the modals) be categorised to such a granular level that most things can be automated and rule out the need for human intelligence and common sense. There is even a current application on Meta, proposed by a WMF staffer, for a grant to develop a bot to automate NPP. I can't think of anything more short-sighted. We all know that there has been a critical issue with NPP for years which is all due to there being no formal requirement for experience or training for the patrollers.

What is automatic, however, is the symptomatic assumption that such problems can be cured by endless discussions like this thread by a handful of people who already know what they are talking about but can't agree on something that, like A7, must always be left to the discretion of New Page Patrollers and the admins who do the physical deletion. What we need are people who can be taught (and who are prepared to learn) more about how to broadly interpret the guidelines with sufficient cognition that AfD, DELREV, and discussions like this become the exception rather than the rule. If the people at the far less important AfC need qualifications, then NPP, which not only is not a sideline or a pastime for the superficially interested, but is in fact the single most crucial function of all on Wikipedia, then it's high time that only competent people were allowed to do it. I think DGG comes closest to explaining our notability guidelines (which BTW he does exceptionally well everywhere else too). I can't see much wrong with this essay and perhaps it should be integrated into WP:NPP which is, sadly still a wall of instructions rather than the anchor page of a well supported project section of this important function. Perhaps Σ and WereSpielChequers) could also weigh in at this juncture. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, tinking with the wording of the guideline at this point is probably not a good idea; those of us who work on are thoroughly accustomed to working and explaining the current wording, and a change can have unintended effects, and lead to confusion. Ig we really can find a better rule that would be good, but this has worked reasonably well for at least 5 years in its stable form. Examples might seem useful, but they can not be exhaustive, and they will as well cause confusion. What we need is attention by the most experienced editors, to guide the newcomers doing this work. (And what we also need is more attention at AfD, which is where such things are settled, but where there still is often not enough participants for a good decision.)

But the one thing which would help most at this point is for more admins to be willing to to review their decisions, and in doubtful cases to restore and send to AfD. A discussion there has the advantage of being much more definitive. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Some time recently (I can't find the discussion now, I think it was at WT:CSD), you said you were working on creating an NPP training, and some people in that discussion brought up the possibility of a NPP user right. I suggested that the NPP privilege could be bundled with rollback to ensure a strong corps of NPPers right after implementation, and also because the qualifications for rollback seem about right for the proposed NPP user right. In any case, where are you on those ideas now? Still planning to set up NPP training? Ideas for how it would work and how we could ensure it was carried out? A2soup (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• There have long been problems with how WP:CSD#A7 is applied, and have been ever since the first version, which applied only to bands, was created. The intent has always been that "significance" meant something different and lesser than "notability" because properly assessing notability is not a job for one or two editors alone. In Largoplazo's nicely written nd quite plausible scenario above, Editor Y is making two serious errors. Y is using the speed deletion process to achieve the result that Y expects will come out of an AfD, and Y is assuming that no other editor would find evidence of notability that Y missed. But no one editor is perfect at finding such evidence, and such a conclusion is undesirably arrogant. Y is also in violation of Process is Important, if one can be said to violate an essay. By short cutting the correct process, Y denies the chance for the process to turn up evidence that Y does not know of, and denies the chance that the AfD discussion would itself help educate the editor X, or at least allow X to feel that s/he had a proper chance to defend the article. This may lead to feelings of frustration and disillusionment on the part of X, and may amount to a violation of WP:BITE (that depends in significant part on the quality of Y's explanations to X). Z should have rebuked Y, and removed the speed tag or perhaps even called for the undeletion of the article. But all too often editors or admins in the place of Z fail to do this. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm misreading your analysis, but it seems to me that you're ruling out the use of A7 under any circumstances. WP:BITE exists, but WP:CSD A7 also exists. We can't both have A7 and follow an interpretation of WP:BITE that precludes the application of A7. Either we conclude that A7 use is not inherently a WP:BITE violation, or else we establish a consensus to eliminate A7.

You wrote that "Y is using the speed deletion process to achieve the result that Y expects will come out of an AfD, and Y is assuming that no other editor would find evidence of notability that Y missed. But no one editor is perfect at finding such evidence, and such a conclusion is undesirably arrogant." Again, I'm having trouble with your analysis, because this, to me, reads, "A7 exists but it's arrogant to use it".

Help me out? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No Largoplazo thart isn't what I meant. I apologize for being unclear. I am saying that A7 exists, which means that the community has decided that when its intentionally quite narrow requirements are fulfilled that it supersedes WP:BITE, but only then. In your scenario above it appears that X's article in fact has a claim of significance, but that claim isn't backed by sources and so fails to establish notability. Therefore Y should not have tagged for speed deletion, but instead have used PROD or AfD, or talk page discussion and/or maintenance tagging first perhaps. Moreover, Y did a search which failed to find any sources to support the claim of significance. Y concluded that this search was comprehensive enough that it proved that no such sources existed, and the topic could never be notable, and that therefore an AfD would be a waste of time. That was the arrogant part, Y assumed that no other editor could or would find any source that Y had not found. All too often at an AfD some editor finds a source that the nominator had failed to find which establishs or helps to establish notability. One should never assume that one's own searching is so much better then that of the entire rest of the community. In short A7 exists and can and should be used when an article pretty clearly fulfills it by having not even a claim of significance. But when there is an unproved and unsourced claim, a claim that may well be false (but is not a clear hoax, it might be true) we need more that one or two sets of eyes. That is when A7 should not be used. That is my view and i think that is the current overall consensus. DES ^(talk) 17:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Largoplazo, if you really meant above that X's article not only did not contain sources to establish notability, but did not even make a plausible claim of significance, then Y was correct to tag, and was not arrogant, but when explaining his or her actions to X, Y should probably have mentioned both the missing claim of significance, leading to speedy deletion, and the apparent lack of notability, leading to the conclusion that a rewrite would be fruitless, as it could not manufacture sources, even if it included a claim of significance. DES ^(talk) 17:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, dear. The second bullet point under "What's really going on here" reads "Y tags the article for A7 deletion only upon having concluded that there is no credible claim of significance". I'm afraid that any part of your analysis that flows from your understanding that "In your scenario above it appears that X's article in fact has a claim of significance" is a digression from my scenario. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Occasionally even the most assiduous editor will fail to spot a credible claim of significance, or find something incredible because it is unusual to the point of leaving them incredulous. Hopefully those who do this often will either recalibrate their judgement of such things or find something less contentious to do. Unfortunately some do a lot of newbie biting in the process. I have declined scores of speedies in my time, sometimes people are happy to learn more about speedy deletion, sometimes they miss the point and assert that it will probably be deleted at AFD and occasionally they can tell me something that explain why that particular claim is not credible. Unless and until we make tagging other people's work for deletion a user right that can only be achieved by passing a computer based training module I foresee continued problems in this area. But you could encourage people who've made mistakes in patrolling to read some of the guides. ϢereSpielChequers 16:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people will never admit to being wrong and insist they're right, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have encountered such editors in the past. Adam9007 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Important points list split

More specific descriptions of this list would be useful. For example the first 4 seem to be about what significance DOESN'T need to be while the last 2 are vague ideas of what it is.

More elaboration on what it is seems needed here. It is still very vague about that. Far as I can tell from this page 'significant' means:

• there is a statement about it which would persuade AfD commentators to keep it
• statement indicating more research might establish notability

The first is completely subjective, people-based. I'm looking for an objective definition. So what does it mean, potentially-notable? Ranze (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ranze: There's a hell of a lot of confusion over this. Most people think the claim must be ultra-specific, even though it doesn't say that anywhere. I think you're right in that it does mean potentially notable, but a lot of people think A7/A9 means no credible claim of notability, not just significance. I had a bit of hoo-ha about this back in November, and more recently. A lot of people hold articles against notability standards with regards to A7, even though its standard is lower. I was even told, in essence, that it's not what it actually says, it's what people think it says that counts, and that's what we must go by even if it directly contradicts what it actually does say! Load of tosh if you ask me. As I said, a lot of people think A7 and A9 are about notability. It's as if a certain number of wrongs somehow make a right, and the previous right is now wrong, and those who continue to get it right deserve punishment, because they are wrong! It would really help if there was an official list of what constitutes a credible claim of significance and what doesn't. The closest is WP:A7M, but people actually say I should ignore that because it's an essay!

Pinging relevant editors: @Appable: @VQuakr: @MelanieN: @Peridon: @Largoplazo: @Bazj: @MrX: @Jytdog: @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: @A2soup: @Ritchie333: Adam9007 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC) @Kudpung: VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging more relevant editors (I think): @Legacypac and SwisterTwister: after this point the discussion no longer focused on the bulleted list in the essay, so i have introduced a different section header. DES ^(talk) 16:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@VQuakr: and @DESiegel: thank you for expanding the conversation, glad to know I'm not alone in being confused about this. Would the below section be the appropriate place to continue replying about it? Ranze (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, unless you specifically want to discuss the issue of how or if the list of "important points" should be split up or recast, then the section below is probably the place. DES ^(talk) 02:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The taxonomy of significance

It can be so complicated to judge what is and isn't a claim of significance. Check out the following:

1. X is a stovepipe factory in Mexico.
2. X is the oldest stovepipe factory in Mexico.
3. X is the second oldest stovepipe factory in Mexico.
4. X is the fifth oldest stovepipe factory in Mexico.
5. X is the forty-seventh oldest stovepipe factory in Mexico.
6. X is the oldest stovepipe factory in Chiapas state, Mexico.
7. X is the second oldest stovepipe factory in Chiapas state, Mexico.
8. X is the only stovepipe factory in Chiapas state, Mexico.
9. X is the oldest stovepipe factory in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico.
10. X is the second oldest stovepipe factory in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico.
11. X is the only stovepipe factory in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico.
12. X is the only stovepipe factor (on some particular square block in Palenque).
13. X is the only woman-owned stovepipe factory in Mexico.
14. X is the only union labor, woman-owned stovepipe factory in Mexico.
15. X is the only union labor, woman-owned stovepipe factory in Mexico with a profit sharing plan.
16. X is the only woman-owned stovepipe factory in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico.

Sentence 1 isn't at all a claim of significance. Sentence 2 probably is. Sentences 3, 4, and 5 are successively less so; by the time we get to 3 or 4 or 5, can we say that it really isn't a claim of significance? Sentence 12 has an "only", but the domain is restricted to an area where there's probably no reason to expect there to exist any stovepipe factories at all, so if there is one, is it significant to note that it's the only one? If not, is 11 significant? 8? How about 15? Is it trying a little too hard to make X look like it stands out from any of 1,000 other stovepipe factories?

Food for thought. Is this worth addressing on the project page? —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Returning to this page for another discussion, I realize I'd forgotten about this post of mine. I'm genuinely surprised to see that no one picked up on it. I find it quintessential to at least some disagreements among editors as to what "credible claim of significance" means. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• They are all claims of significance. If an enterprise is a factory then this suggests that it is operating at some scale, rather than being a cottage industry or lone craftsman. For a business to operate at scale suggests that it has multiple employees. To be dedicated to production of a specialised item like stove pipes, suggests that it is operating at a national level. The exact details may not be enough to assure notability but the general nature of the topic should be enough to prevent tagging as a speedy and deletion without further consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• They cannot all be claims of significance, unless you hold that rules are created without any intention that they should ever actually apply to any real circumstance. A7 tells us that an article about a company can be deleted if it contains no credible claim of significance. Therefore, A7 anticipates that an article about a company can contain no credible claim of significance. Therefore, the mere identification of an article's topic as a company is not itself a claim of significance. If it were, then A7 would be giving guidance about a situation that inherently doesn't exist, which would be foolish. Therefore, that can't be what A7 intends. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• A company is not the same as a factory. Companies may be just a single person. A factory, by its nature, is larger than a one-man operation, and so saying that something is a factory is a credible claim of significance. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• A factory can have five people working there. Might a factory have 5,000 workers? Sure. But what you suspect might be true given what an article claims is not a claim made in the article!

Besides that, your sense of what is significant appears to overlap heavily with what I consider mundane. Places of work have employees and customers. They make goods or perform services. Artists have buyers and arrange to have their works included in exhibits. Musicians and actors perform on stages and people see them. There's nothing remarkable about any of this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether something is mundane or not. WP:MILL is neither policy nor guideline; it's just another essay. The essence of notability is whether something is likely to have sources or not. Human settlements are mundane – we all live in one – but are all regarded as acceptable. Insect species are mundane – there are hundreds of thousands of types of beetle – but we'll take them all. Politcians, professors and pro-sportsmen are fairly mundane – only ~1% of them really stand out – but we take them all. So, if you're looking for something special about a topic, you're not doing it right. The question should be whether it's plausibly big enough to have some press coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do I need to define "mundane" now? I mean, these things are so bloody ordinary that they I have no reason in the world to suspect that reliable sources have paid any attention to them, thought "Ooh! Ooh! I must write about this!" And that includes the factory where five people in a peasant community beat together aluminum sheets to make stovepipes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Fresh example

Here's a fresh example of someone getting A7 wrong. The edit summary is "None of this suggests a notable article" while WP:A7 clearly states "If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines." I don't normally have much to do with speedies myself but happened to read the BBC news item myself today and checked whether we had an article. When I found that we did, I put it on my watchlist and then noticed when it was speedied.

Making an egregious mistake of this sort should have consequences. In the spirit of making the punishment fit the crime, the patroller might be topic-banned from NPP until they have themselves created a new page which is not immediately tagged. The patroller in this case has created some articles previously such as Collège André-Grasset but there still seems to be room for improvement. Andrew D. (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The sixth "important point" about significance reads "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance." I can interpret "None of this suggests a notable article" to mean "I see no statement here that plausibly indicates that if I do any research, there is a reasonable chance that I will find sources that demonstrate notability". In other words, I don't see that it differs semantically from "I see no credible claim of significance." I see no grounds for indicting the editor for his edit summary. Granted, he didn't explicitly address the fifth "important point", but I don't see that he was a horrible bastard ruining Wikipedia by confusing notability with significance and deserving to be chained to the wall and fed nothing but gruel. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly evident that additional research could plausibly indicate additional research would show notability, given that BBC considered it interesting enough to write about. Frankly, I think if there's ever a subject which has a reliable source discussing it in detail it can't meet A7, that indicates there's a decent chance there's more out there. Perhaps not easily available online, or even online at all – but it's likely something's there.

I disagree with topic-banning patrollers from NPP though I would endorse additional checks on NPP patrols under A7 and other contentious speedy deletions as well as additional requirements for NPP access (perhaps even to the extent of requiring a RfP). Appable (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sentence in the article, "She is the founder of the Mentari Human Trafficking Survivor Empowerment Program," and figuring some people would interpret that as a credible claim of significance. I wouldn't automatically interpret it as such. I would ask, "If someone wrote an article about Mentari Human Trafficking Survivor Empowerment Program, would I look at that and conclude that there was no indication of the organization's significance? Maybe it's an organization of size 1 person within which she's encapsulated her humanitarian efforts. (I'm exaggerating, but I'm making a point.) To say that someone founded an organization, to my mind, isn't a credible claim of significance unless there's, a priori, reason to think that the organization is significant. Otherwise, every musician who creates his own "label", every 15-year-old software enthusiast who creates his own "company" around the unremarkable game apps he's been creating, and every writer who's written a book and had it published by a vanity press has a credible claim of significance, and I just don't buy that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Largoplazo doesn't seem to have created an article for about five years. That article didn't start out as much and so perhaps Largoplazo needs a refresher too. I don't get the impression that Largoplazo is interpreting A7 correctly either and they seem too bitey. NPP badly needs patrollers who have some facility in writing articles themselves so that they can help the newbies and not just bite them. But it doesn't seem to be set up to encourage this. Andrew D. (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Going off-topic slightly, but as we're talking about WP:BITE, I'll point out an example of an extremely hasty A7 tag (less than 1 minute!), which he outright denied was too hasty. That's another problem I've encountered lately, as if there weren't enough problems with A7 already. Adam9007 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Because within that minute, I was able to conduct a web search and establish that the company itself is not even a month old, that their website was registered under the same individual as authored the article (which their own testimony corroborated three minutes later on the talk page), that the company has no established notability under WP:CORP as there is a complete absence of coverage in secondary sources, and that the article had no credible claim of significance. While improvements have been made in the last several hours since its creation, Anamacdesign still does not contain a credible claim of significance. Were such a claim readily able to be made, I would have added one following the web search. However, the topic appeared to me obviously insignificant with likely promotional intent. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007:There is no consensus to wait at least 10 minutes before tagging, as you incorrectly asserted on User talk:Erick Shepherd. 10 minutes is an arbitrary amount of time used by some patrollers. It has never gained widespread support.- MrX 00:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CSD footnote 6 implies otherwise. Adam9007 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A careful reading of FN #6 will show that specifically A1s and A3s should not tagged immediately, and that 10 minutes "is suggested as good practice". People need to use common sense when patrolling, and when patrolling the patrollers: In some cases, 10 minutes is too short a time if edits are actively being made; in other cases (as shown above), 1 minute is sufficient to do a web search and determine that someone is merely promoting their brand new shiny start up company. - MrX 00:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Then why does the uw-hasty template say it also applies to A7? Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Because whoever created the template thought it should? Templates don't drive policy.- MrX 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: It was WP:BOLDLY added without discussion several months ago. "Per the existing logic" is not the same as "as explained on the policy page".- MrX 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's okay to tag articles for speedy deletion mere seconds after creation, WP:BITEing the newcomer in the process, not even giving them a chance? Adam9007 (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Usually no, but obvious vandalism, attack articles, copyvios, and blatant spam, yes. Your comments leave me wondering if you have ever patrolled new pages, and seen the sock puppets, autobiographers, mix tape promoters, and trolls, some of whom should be bitten.- MrX 01:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do NPP and on my above comment, I meant good faith newcomers. Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• A refresher on what? A refresher on agreeing that your conception of "significance" is correct and mine isn't? A refresher on replacing my sense as to whether what an article says does or doesn't suggest a reasonable possibility that it might meet notability with your sense as to the same thing? As for the "bitey" part, I try not to be, OK? WP:AGF. I've been here a hell of a long time, I've rescued articles tagged for deletion by others, and I've fixed up a share of articles, whether or not that's been my primary occupation here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the OP's example is not an "egregious mistake". It's a mild error in judgement, and one that, in my experience, if rare for SwisterTwister. Also, why would we want to punish people who are earnestly helping create a great encyclopedia, which includes sorting through the constant influx of garbage created by new users trying to promote someone or something? - MrX 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example of an admin getting A7 wrong. If admins don't understand it, what hope do we have? Adam9007 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Being an executive of a company is not a credible claim of significance. A person does not inherit significance from the company that they work for.- MrX 00:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Here we go with this WP:INHERIT nonsense again. I did not say anything was inherited. The company is notable. Being a high ranking officer of such a company surely is significant? WP:A7M says so too. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's an essay, which means it represents the views of a few people. My experience has been that patrollers and reviewing admins largely regard being an executive in a notable company as insignificant. Even CEOs. - MrX 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my point; we need some sort of official policy as to what does and what doesn't constitute a credible claim of significance. Otherwise this "luck of the draw" will keep going on forever. Adam9007 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we do need something (a guideline) along the lines of WP:A7M. But it needs broader community input and consensus, which unfortunately is difficult, because there are so many divergent opinions among Wikipedia users.- MrX 01:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd support making WP:A7M a guideline. Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I notice that most of the criteria in A7M seem to depend on notability. A7 itself doesn't by its definition, but A7M brings notability into consideration. And there we have the problem. Is the company that Bert works for notable? Has it got an article here that wasn't created by the same author within the same week? If it has, then possibly it is. If it hasn't, do we use a similar process to A9 and count it out, or do a background check? If admins are not allowed to use notability as a criterion at A7, how are they (or any other user - tag removal is not only for admins) supposed to use it as a criterion for assessing a subject not even on Wikipedia - the company that Bert is CEO of? A7M is a bit like the theory that life wasn't created on Earth - it arrived here as spores from space (see 'Fred Hoyle' et al). It merely puts the problem away one step. The article on Bert has no obvious claim to fame other than being CEO of BloggsCo. If CEO is automatically significant when the company is notable, we face the question of BloggsCo. No article. Using the A9 principle, bye bye Bert. Without that, BloggsCo has to be assessed. Otherwise, Lil Herbert (CEO of LH Music) gets regarded as significant when he hasn't even dropped one mixtape.... Peridon (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

To Adam - you may not have said 'inherited', but that's the term used on WP for claiming notability (or significance) from association with another entity's notability (or significance). The secretaries who type up the Presidential announcements do not inherit notability from working in the White House or for taking orders direct from Mr Prez. Peridon (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Peridon: Maybe not, but the example I gave also says he's the "Chief Strategy Officer", which strongly implies a senior position, and the company is notable. There's a fair chance that investigation of that claim will bring up something that helps to establish notability (if it exists), so that's a CCS. Adam9007 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The lack of clear guidelines means that most discussions in this topic rapidly divide along lines of those who've drunk the Kool-Aid and those who have not. Already the discussion has descended from discussing the A7 issues to an abandonment of WP:AGF and discussing the editors in terms of WP:CIR, "making the punishment fit the crime", and "Here is an example of an admin getting A7 wrong." I have an ingrained view that discussions which shift from the edit to the editor didn't have much of a solid base to start with.

There seem to be a number of issues here which need to be resolved - preferably by RfCs so that we don't keep coming over the same ground, rehashing the same arguments.

1. Notability can't be inherited. Some editors have objected to the same argument being applied to Significance. So, can significance be inherited?
2. Should User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes be accepted as a guideline?
3. Should user essays be linked from WP: shortcuts? Despite the bold disclaimer at WP:SHORT that "The existence of a shortcut does not imply or prove that the linked page is a policy or guideline" the fact is that someone clicking on WP:A7M finds themselves at a user essay which appears to bear the seal of approval of a WP: link. Guidelines should be in WP:space where any editor can discuss/contribute, not in user space with an implicit claim of ownership over a chunk of policy.

   In short, move the essay to WP:A7M as an agreed guideline or delete the shortcut.

4. Twinkle/Huggle/STiki need to reflect the agreed policy/guidelines in their on-screen wording.
5. Does the addition of A7 to {{uw-hasty}} actually reflect "the existing logic"?

I think that covers the issues raised so far. Any more? Bazj (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an easy area. As long as we have areas of ambiguity we are going to have different interpretations of them. There are two things that I believe would be fairly uncontentious and very helpful. First find a way to at least semi automate the restriction on applying A1 and A3 in the first few minutes. Perhaps Twinkle could be changed to detect brand new articles and grey those options out with the comment "not available in the first few minutes". Second we need a way for taggers to communicate when they tag whether or not they have done a search for sources. There have been several occasions when I've declined an A7 tag only to be told that the claim ceases to be credible if you research it. Of course one could argue that such cases tend to be hoaxes or are best handled by AFD. But there are some where a quick search shows that the claim may be true, but not significant. If Twinkle had an extra A7 option "claim was not significant when I researched" then we would have a neat way to differentiate between articles that assert non-notability to the point that no research is necessary "Next big thing on the Nether Wallop grunge scene, hope to hold our first rehearsal next month if we can recruit a drummer" and those that assert a claim that the tagger needed to check to know were either not credible or not significant. ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• RfC on the user essays question at WT:Shortcut#RfC: To deprecate WP: shortcuts to user essays. Bazj (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed with a WP:SNOW consensus against deprecation. Caveat lector. Bazj (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Related discussion about adding A7 to {{Uw-hasty}} → here.- MrX 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• RfC on inheriting significance is below. Bazj (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Another example

A big discussion here:

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Doesn.27t_it_annoy_you.3F

Having a notable co-founder isn't a CCS apparently. Despite a search about it turning up tons of stuff, plenty of secondary reliable sources. I think they're confusing significance with notability. Why don't they get it? Adam9007 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Can SIGNIFICANCE be inherited?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can significance be inherited? Notability can't be inherited. Some editors have objected to the same argument being applied to significance. Bazj (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We usually say that notability isn't inherited, but this isn't strictly true. For example WP:NMUSIC says that a performer who has been a member of two different notable bands/ensembles is therefore notable, and a band that includes or has included two or more notable performers is therefore notable. That sounds like pretty pure inheritance of notability, but it is in a guideline that has had consensus for years. I think there are other cases among the SNGs. DES ^(talk) 02:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes

• Yes. The OP links the essay WP:ATA as if it were gospel (it isn't) rather than a collection of very astute points (it is). A credible claim of significance (CCS) is part of a speedy deletion criterion, not the quite different deletion discussion process. The thought process behind the CCS is that if there is something, anything, that could indicate that further investigation could result in discovery of sources meeting WP:GNG, then the speedy should not apply. This is in line with our system of reserving speedy deletion for unambiguous cases to reduce the base load on AfD. "CEO at a notable company" absolutely is a CCS, because it provides an inkling that the person could plausibly meet WP:BASIC - ie, a search for sources is justified. More investigation is warranted, so not a candidate for A7. @MrX: I see you have expressed a differing opinion above; I would like to hear more explanation of it if you wouldn't mind - particularly in the context of the underlying reasons why we use CSD as opposed to other deletion processes. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes but not completely inherited. Being in a prolific position at a notable company or a company that's been reasonably covered in the news absolutely indicates that there may be secondary sources that discuss it further. It means nothing for establishing notability, of course. However, the reason I say that it's not completely inherited is that working in a low-level position at a notable company is not really a credible claim of significance (if you work for an Apple store, you're working for an obviously notable company but that doesn't distinguish you at all from the giant workforce in the retail industry at all). Agree with VQuakr that we should not worry about ATA. Speedy deletion is a bypass and an exception to the normal consensus-based deletion discussions on Wikipedia. The only reason we actually have CSD is because we've decided (by consensus) that in certain unambiguous cases where an article would certainly be deleted by consensus, it's acceptable to bypass that process. Extending the scope of it by invoking policies related to deletion discussion is, in my opinion, not at all what was decided by consensus when speedy deletions were implemented. Appable (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• yes But really it isn't a matter of inheritance, but that being more or less closely associated with something or someone significant is itself often significant. Remember, the real point is that any claim that plausibly indicates that research might reveal notability is a claim of significance. While not all CEOs of small but notable companies are themselves notable, a sufficient number are that a statement that a person is a CEO of a notable company should be treated as a claim of significance. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Difficult to say EDIT: this is pretty much what DESiegel said, so yes. I believe the claims listed at WP:A7M are credible claims of significance by themselves, not because of inheritance. For example, winning a notable award is significant, because the award is notable. That means the award is likely to have significant secondary coverage, and investigation of that claim therefore has a reasonable chance of finding something that establishes notability. The winners of that award are likely to be covered. I think it's a coincidence that many of the claims listed there are linked to something notable, but they're significant themselves. I think that's what gives the impression of "inherited" significance from something notable. Also remember that the award is notable, not just significant. Adam9007 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with your overall point but worth mentioning that the standard for credible claim of significance according to this essay is "reasonable chance" for determining notability rather than "likely". I think that's worth clarifying since likely is difficult to determine while reasonable chance is much more broad. If the award is just significant it obviously doesn't apply - I think most people commenting here would agree significance is not inherited from significance, but significance is inherited from notability (because strong connections to a notable subject indicates that there may be at least some additional research that could allow the subject to meet WP:GNG. Appable (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, although the questions show a disturbing lack of understanding of what significance is. An executive of any notable company passes the significance test. A musician who recorded any notable single or album passes the test. Any elected official at the large city or province/state level automatically passes. Any plausible claim to have ever led any country at any time in history meets the test. The fact that someone is even asking the question shows we have a long way to go in getting people to understand this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes it can be, but that does not mean it always is. CEOs of major companies clearly inherit significance, sales executives of major companies don't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

No

• No it can't. Bazj (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. Why do you think it cannot be inherited? VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone think a washer-up to be significant because he/she does it in the White House rather than someone who does it in the Red Lion pub? Peridon (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think several editors here are falling into a trap of quoting an oft cited essay section (NOTINHERITED) without thinking about the underlying reasons. "He is a custodian at the white house" is not a CCS because it is implausible that they are notable for reasons related to this statement. "He is the CEO of XX publicly traded company" is a CCS because CEOs sometimes get secondary coverage. If we want to say that the "significance" is not inherited from the notable subject mentioned in the statement in either case that's fine and technically true, but we have a problem if then editors don't follow those two examples to different conclusions due to the underlying reasons. VQuakr (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Generally, No, in some cases, yes. - For example, a rule that a biography subject who is an executive of a notable company meets the significance criteria is not useful. A CFO of a small, but notable company, would be unlikely to pass WP:ANYBIO, whereas the CFO of Apple would. The same could be said for musicians and record labels; companies and their clients; events and their sponsors; websites and their owners; sports teams and their stadia; and so on. In my opinion, and I know others share this view, a claim of significance should be somewhat explicit, and not Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.- MrX 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• To me, "unlikely" seems like a very poor criterion to determine whether an article should bypass an actual consensus-based, or at least PROD-based approach. While there may not be enough coverage to justify keeping an article about the CFO of that company, it absolutely would make far more sense to either PROD it as either no sources, trivial sources, or just not meeting a biography notability policy. Just "unlikely" to me indicates that there's a chance, and therefore there should be time for the author to attempt to show how it should be included in Wikipedia — speedy deletion bypasses that entirely. The question to determine a speedy deletion, to me, isn't "will it likely pass an AfD" or "is it probable that it could be notable" or anything like that. Appable (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
• Significance ≠ notability. A CEO or CFO of any notable company passes the significance test, automatically. Such an article is never speedy-deletable. Significance has nothing to do with passing any of the notability criteria, biography, general, or otherwise. Similarly, any musician that has recorded an album with Bob Dylan passes the significance test, since real discussion is needed to see if this person is notable and such a person would never be speedy-deletable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• On the whole, I believe no, but there could be exceptions (as per MrX above). In the case of 'awards', there are a lot of 'awards' that are very notable. Take the Purple Heart for an example. Quite a few notable people have been awarded the Purple Heart - but they would have been notable without it. The great majority of the awardees are not notable by WP standards - but the award is. In the case of unspecified awards ("Fred received an award for his playing of the trumpet"), I don't see that there is a credible claim to significance. On a side thought - perhaps the 'credible' should be taken to apply to the significance rather than to the claim. I might well believe that Fred had been given an award, but not that the award is credibly significant as a lead up to notability. When talking to new article writers, I only mention significance as being something lacking in their deleted (or about to be...) effort. I talk about notability as there is absolutely no point in telling someone how to pass A7. For long term survival, they need to pass notability. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• It's true that most award-winners of notable awards will be notable themselves regardless of the award, though I think (and maybe you aren't contesting this at all) if someone wins a specified and notable award, then there's automatically a credible claim of significance unless it's extremely clear that that person could not have won that award (e.g. Fred is an 5-year-old who won the Purple Heart Award). Appable (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the discussion is going the wrong way. CCS is not notability, it is just meant to eliminate the option of CSD for any given article. Once that is determined, one can gauge notability in a deletion discussion or otherwise. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for that comment, focus. A person who even remotely understood what significance is about would not even bother to ask the question. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not !voting because I do see what it is supposed to clarify. Let us imagine that a stub appears "X is CEO of BigCorp" and is speedy-tagged as no CCS, where BigCorp is notable on its own. Well, either X could plausibly be the CEO of BigCorp, in which case the sentence is a CCS; or the claim is not plausible in which case we do not care whether it would bring significance since it is not a CCS because not credible. If the claim was instead "X is the director of UnnotableSubdirection of BigCorp", then there is no notability or significance to inherit from.

If the proposal is to treat "X (had something to do with) (something notable)" as a CCS as a blanket policy, then I strongly oppose. But it looks ridiculous.

And I do not get the point about NMUSIC. Steve Jobs is notable because of Apple, but that is not "inherited notability" in the meaning that he passively waited around until he bumped into something notable that spilled over him. Of course interactions can get you notable; the whole GNG is basically saying you can "inherit" notability from reputable newspapers.

Could someone provide a case that this RfC would clarify? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tigraan: It depends on what X had to do with (something notable). CEO is most certainly a CCS, because that in itself would give a reasonable chance of notability. A7 is not whether a subject actually is notable or not. This RfC is supposed to clarify whether things like being a CEO of (something notable) is a CCS, because a lot of people cite WP:NOTINHERITED as the reason why it isn't. The problem with that argument is that it doesn't apply to A7 (because A7 isn't about notability), and a lot of people misunderstand A7 and think it's about notability, or fail to understand that significance is a lower standard. Adam9007 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand there is a difference between speedy (significance) and notability. But if CCS = any claim that if true could give a reasonable chance of notability, then WP:NOTINHERITED applies as well: if the claim would fail under "inherited", then it is not a CCS. Hence my question: do you have an example of a specific case that would be clarified by this RfC? (in my eyes being CEO of BigCorp is a CCS no matter which way this RfC goes)

If the question is really "is being CEO of a company with its own article a CCS", it should be worded like that, but I assume it has a larger aim. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. My impression of what this RfC is attempting to address is that if there is a demonstrable and significant (significant by itself, not inherited) relation to a notable entity, does it have a CCS? But at that point, I think most people would agree - the question is how significant of a relation do they have to have to a notable entity or entities? That was also what was addressed in "The Taxonomy of Significance". Appable (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint about stereotyping

In the line " A blatant hoax, or a claim so improbable that no one but a conspiracy theorist would believe it" I find to be quite offensive as a conspiracy theorist myself (given that there have been a number of conspiracies proven to be true, such as in the case of Edward Snowden's exposure of mass surveillance), and reeks strongly of stereotyping/ad hominem. I would ask you, would you put any other named group in there? Christians? Women? Ethnicities? So why conspiracy theorists, what have we ever done to Wikipedia? Besides point out the often reported corporate paid-for editing of articles (another conspiracy, but I guess that must be a hoax too).

The next time Jimmy Wales asks for a donation, I will be unable to send it because, obviously, being a conspiracy theorist, my bank account and money are both hoaxes that only myself as a conspiracy theorist could ever believe in, and my believing in his need for finances must also mean it's a hoax because apparently it's impossible for a conspiracy theorist to ever be right or to believe in anything plausible because you know us far too well, we clearly all believe space aliens shot JFK (and not say have differing ideas, EG the CIA who recently admitted to omitting information from the Warren commission over the JFK shooting). I suppose with laws like SOPA we should all just buy into what the government says (it's not like the Nazis ever existed). I guess Wikipedia has never disputed the views of government before.

If you don't mind now, I need to go put on my tin foil hat, insist aliens are everywhere, prep my bunker with enough weapons to make the Terminator cry, refrain from editing Wikipedia (because Wikipedia has just revealed to me everything I believed in, including intrusive government surveillance, was a lie) and set up an oregone generator to keep the Reptilians at bay because that's exactly how every conspiracy theorist thinks ever and isn't at all an overhyped discrediting stereotype (homework assignment: where did the term "conspiracy theorist" originate?). It's not like any other group of people in existence ("no one but a conspiracy theorist would believe") has had ludicrous beliefs in anything, I'm sure those heart sacrificing bunch of Mayans were totally reasonable, along with the witch hunt trials, KKK or the basis of the Vietnam war.

Now I got to go, as I need to figure out if this response and this page are something only a conspiracy theorist would believe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.193.130 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• 80, we are all volunteers, and the text is there cause some random dude on the internet thought it was a good way to explain it. Jimbo has nothing to do with it, as he is not really active in managing the site anymore. If you don't like the choice of words, please provide an alternative here, or, what the hell, be bold, hit that edit button at the top of the page, and change it. That's how things work around here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Will some conspiracy theories ultimately turn out correct? Of course some will, but remember we are building a tertiary source. Conspiracy theories, even my pet ones, don't belong here as anything but conspiracy theories unless and until they have been confirmed in reliable sources. Unfortunately some people coming here want to build the Tertiary Source before the Secondary sources exist, and fans of conspiracy stories are more wont to make that mistake than others. ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"fans of conspiracy stories are more wont to make that mistake than others." Might I be ironic enough to say 'citation needed'? In this case, I more often see it deployed against corporate 'advertising style' pages on Wikipedia (indeed, it's how I found it). "If you don't like the choice of words, please provide an alternative here, or, what the hell, be bold, hit that edit button at the top of the page, and change it." I will attempt to provide a more neutral version. Excuse my terrible reply formatting, I don't have as much experience with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.193.130 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed" - I will not be able to make the edit. My proposed change is: "A blatant hoax, or a claim so improbable that no one but a person of unsound mind would believe it, is not a plausible claim of significance." - this should be sufficient enough to distinguish unreasonable claims (EG ones that lack evidence) from reasonable claims, without particularly targeting a given group. You could alternatively have: "A blatant hoax, or a claim so improbable that no reasonable person would believe it." I just saw a giant green circus clown hovering outside my door - no-one reasonable would believe that (at least not without proof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.193.130 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I got around to it, eventually. Oiyarbepsy (talk)

RfC: Should this essay become a guideline?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This essay is linked to from policy, and many people (myself included) refer to it to determine whether something is a credible claim of significance. An official guideline of what constitutes one is badly needed (the above RfC is, to my knowledge, the only official consensus about what does constitute one). In addition to this, we need one that's more broad. This essay has been cited umpteen times recently in discussions about A7, and it seems to represent a very widespread viewpoint. Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (Neutral on issue) Oppose primarily because of my disagreement with this statement: A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, much less by inline citations to reliable sources. In my opinion, if I cannot find sources for the claim, I do not regard it as "Credible". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Lemongirl942 In that case, you don't understand this page at all, nor do you in the slightest understand the speedy delete criteria that go with it. A very bad reason to oppose. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I understand what this page is about and what A7 is, but I was simply stating my view. My personal opinion about A7 is that claims should be verifiable in order to be credible. However I respect the current consensus that verifiability is not required for a CCS. I am fine with how it is described at WP:A7 - a bit ambiguous but also leaves a bit of room for interpretation. And I like the flexibility. My problem with this essay is that it sets the bar way too low for what is a CCS. The way I interpret, it says that only blatant hoaxes and "claim so improbable that no one of sound mind would believe it" are not CCS, and everything else is. I'm not sure if I can agree with that. That said, I have removed my "oppose" since I do not intend to jeopardise the chances of this becoming a guideline. I understand very well that some editors have been on the receiving end of brickbats for removing speedy deletion tags; this was due to a difference in opinion about CCS between the tagging editor and the removing editor. This guideline would probably help both parties to establish a clear bar of what is CCS. I do not wish to actively oppose it. But philosophically, I cannot support setting such a low bar either. I'm neutral I guess then. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree with Oiyarbepsy. Credible in this context means plausible, not verifiable. In fact, A7 explicitly states the claim does not need to be cited. Adam9007 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I think, in fact, we've stumbled across an inherent ambiguity in "even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source". My reading is that the article need not cite a source. If however a reviewer goes looking for a source, and no source can be found, is the claim still credible? On this reading, the claim is not credible and A7 is a viable rationale. for (;;) (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
          • In my experience most speedy deletion tags don't involve searching for sources. If Notability is sufficiently in question that it is worth such a search then A7 is unlikely to apply. If you'd expect that there would be a source where you searched and that the article is a hoax then {{db-hoax}} would apply. If it is a subject area where the sources are likely to be offline then a simple Google search may not help you. If it is one of those boundary areas where a search gives you a pretty good idea that it would fail AFD then I'd suggest Prod with a clear rationale saying where you searched. ϢereSpielChequers 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Question: Adam9007, In March I cited this essay (under my previous username Bazj) on your talk page, and you objected to its explanation of significance in terms of notability. What's changed your mind? for (;;) (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @For (;;): I'm not sure what you mean. This essay doesn't talk about notability. If that's what you think, then you're misreading it. Significance means the possibility of notability, not notability itself. Adam9007 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with all 6 points on the essay.,at least in general , but they are not sufficient. The way I interpret it is that it must be a statement that would lead a reasonable person who had some understanding of a modern general encyclopedia l to think that it might rationally be covered. It has to meet the general principles of coverage that a person would expect from any modern general encyclopedia -- it does not necessarily have to be something that would follow our specific rules, which we cannot expect outsiders to know about.

For example:

1. a submission about someone who has done nothing special , presumably be a person who thinks WP is something like Facebook, is not a rational claim of significance
   1. for example, if the person is plays on his school's football team, or is a beginning student at an art school
2. an entry for a routine retail local retail business is not a rational claim of significance, because everyone can be expected to understand that an encyclopedia is not a directory
3. an entry for a community reading group in a town--nobody could rationally think that's encyclopedic
4. an announcement for a country fair -- but a state fair would be a credible claim

and there are some other points: that something is sourced to local sources does not necessarily show a claim to significance; that something might be important someday is not a claim to significance; that someone has intrinsic musical talent or intellectual merit such that they will someday be famous is not a claim to significance.

DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• While its a useful essay for helping people get an idea of how A7 works, in my opinion it gets too caught up in specifics. The way I look at it, there is no point in having an AfD discussion if there isn't even an explanation or indication about why the person is important. If there is enough to have a meaningful discussion at AfD, even if it would be unlikely to result in a keep, we should have that discussion instead of speedy deleting. More generally though, I raising this to a guideline would result in additional, unproductive rule layering. It serves its purpose better as advice. Monty₈₄₅ 23:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support If you read WP:PG, the point of a Guideline is that it has community consensus, whereas an essay has only some support. I see no reason why this can't be promoted, given that it provides necessary and general guidance. We need some policy on the matter, or there will be no end to squabbles over interpretation. The "we haven't needed one yet" argument fails, because it cannot ensure consistency. This might need a bit of editing, but it seems pretty good to me. Tamwin (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. My biggest issue is with the goal-shifting between "credible" in the A7 text and "not blatantly false" here. I think that, if a CSD reviewer does enough online research to become reasonably convinced that the claim is false, or has subject-specific expertise enough to know the claim to be false, then it should not count as a credible claim, even if its falseness is not blatant (which I would take as meaning, clearly false even to a non-expert with no additional research needed). I also think that CSD reviewers should be expected either to do a little research, or to leave for others the task of doing that research, in cases where the claim is neither obviously credible nor obviously not credible. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Credible in this context means plausible. As in, is it plausible that the claim could help establish notability if it's true? By "help establish", I mean investigation of the claim, such as a Google search. No searching should be necessary to determine if a claim if credible or not; credible doesn't mean verifiable. If it's obviously false, then it's not plausible that the claim could help establish notability, because it certainly won't. Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You say "obviously false" as if that's a binary claim: either it is or it isn't. But some claims are obviously false to people who have some level of expertise and not obviously false to non-experts, and some claims are obviously false post-Google but not pre-Google. I don't think we want to calibrate "credible" to mean something the average tabloid-reader might believe. Also, this has nothing to do with whether "the claim could help establish notability if it's true", it's only about whether it's actually true (or at least plausibly true). If an article on a French toddler says she was elected president of the US, then that's not a credible claim of significance even though it would certainly establish notability if true. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: "Also, this has nothing to do with whether "the claim could help establish notability if it's true"". It has everything to do with that. If it's not obviously false pre-Google, then it's not obviously false as it needed a search to disprove it. It does not matter if the claim cannot be verified. A French toddler being US President is obviously false, and therefore not credible. Adam9007 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You're just making my opposition stronger. Here's a more concrete example. Suppose we have an article that claims that its subject won some international prize. That's a claim of significance, although depending on the prize might not enough to pass AfD. But suppose also that the CSD reviewer gets suspicious (perhaps because of a {{hoax}} tag), looks up the prize results (they're all online), and the winner was actually someone else. Suddenly, that claim becomes a lot less credible. I think that in this circumstance it should be acceptable to treat the claim as not credible, even though its truth or falsity might not be something all CSD reviewers could be expected to know.. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

But if it's not obviously false, it's credible even if it is false. Again credibility does not mean verifiability. Such an article would still be subject to deletion as a hoax or for failing WP:V, but not A7, as winning such a prize is a plausible and credible claim of significance. Adam9007 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You are still talking as if there is an absolute standard for whether something is credible or not credible, independent of who it is credible to. This is wrong and any attempt at policy based on this is wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment From what I understand, this essay seems to say "a claim of significance is credible, even if it is false". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lemongirl942: A claim does not need to be true to be credible. Credible in this context means plausible, not verifiable. Adam9007 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've boldly changed it to be clearer that hoaxes have their own speedy deletion criteria. Remember submitting an article that doesn't meet our notability criteria is almost always a goodfaith mistake, submitting hoaxes is a badfaith issue and should be treated as such. It helps to use different CSD criteria over this. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Quite the opposite, this essay ought to be userfied. I came here to ask if this is a mis-reading of this essay. If not, is there consensus to change this essay or shall I go to WP:RM#CM? Not only is this essay opposed to WP:INHERIT, it creates a dangerously low bar for WP:A7 which I don't think was intended. Wikipedians are welcome to their opinions but I think this essay is too far outside consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• This essay is a little vague/incomplete to be a guideline. The problem area is over significance. In some areas this is quite easy - compete in the Olympics you are notable. Compete for your high school - not notable. But Professors are tricky, some are notable others aren't and AFD is the appropriate place to decide. ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not userfied (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance → User:Ego White Tray/Credible claim of significance – As the above RfC indicates, there isn't widespread support for this essay. It contradicts WP:INHERIT which is a more widely-accepted essay and it creates a really low bar for preventing CSD noms. Leaving this essay in the Wikipedia space creates a false veneer of community approval. Ego White Tray created this essay two and a half years ago and this should probably be userfied. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Essays don't need approval per WP:ESSAY (that's really the point of essays, it's why they aren't guidelines) and this one has had multiple editors. Ego White Tray has made just two edits to this page, and as noted in the opening edit summary it was based on the opinions of two other users. It's perfectly fine where it is. PC78 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• STRONG Oppose An essay of this importance has no business being in someones userspace. Leave it where it is. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Essays are a great way for various editors to discuss interpretation of policy from different viewpoints, however this one only muddies the waters. Depending how you read it, you can conclude "anything which is not blatantly preposterous is a priori credible" or "this protects good-faith notability claims which should be easily verifiable with some research". Now we'd need a pair of essays from inclusionist and deletionist viewpoints to interpret the essay… which doesn't help reach a decision when evaluating the merits of a CSD A7 or similar tag. Particularly as the essay is prominently linked from the A7/A9/A11 definitions, so you'd expect some concrete help here! Either clarify this essay considerably or kick it to user space. — JFG ^talk 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as I've seen so many good pages being deleted or tagged with non-notability tags that, in many if not most cases, are perfectly fine within their fields of endeavor. Why this is allowed here is above my pay-grade, but "significance" is needed as a buffer to notability-tags. For instance, anyone who has stepped onto a major-league baseball field in America and has gotten their name into the line-up, even for one game or one inning, is deemed article-worthy here. They are certainly not notable, but they are significant in terms of being recognized as a professional in a field of endeavor which includes one and all. Too many non-notable tags are being put on good pages, and this essay, if taken to heart by those taggers, would lessen the widespread removal of encyclopedic topics and pages. Randy Kryn 15:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the bar for A7 should be low. The premise for the move request that the essay contradicts WP:INHERIT is not correct, but seems to be a common misunderstanding. WP:INHERIT belongs to the consensus driven part of the deletion process that deals with determining notability. The speedy deletion process is not concerned about determining notability. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Not just per the above RfC, but as Sam Sailor has already stated, the reasoning is flawed. This essay does not contradict WP:NOTINHERITED, and even if it did, so what? They're essays; they're allowed to contradict each other. Besides, there is consensus that significance can be "inherited" in certain circumstances. Adam9007 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why has CupcakKe's page been deleted?

I've noticed that the primary reason for deletion is lack of significance, but this is not true. She is an artist who has created music that is relevant not only to me but many people on the internet. And if she is relevant she should have a page, especially considering that she has been mentioned by other credible and culturally significant sources, most notable the Rolling Stone magazine. ClaraDiaz (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ClaraDiaz: This is not the right place. You need to contact the deleting administrator. Adam9007 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ClaraDiaz: Besides which, Cupcakke exists. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)