| Revision as of 19:08, 29 May 2009 editEPresslerHenderson (talk | contribs)34 edits Asking for advice on removing a "general notability guideline" tag. | Revision as of 19:17, 29 May 2009 edit undoSkomorokh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,990 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{helpme}} | {{helpme}} | ||
| An article I watch and have started trying to develop into a decent wiki article (Dale Rogers Training Center) has been flagged with the "general notability guideline" tag (even though it existed for over a year and was never tagged as such up until now). My question: what exactly would make it appropriate for me to remove this tag? Most tags have obvious fixes, but there is quite a lot of subjectivity to this one. After reading Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies), I feel like there are enough articles on the subject/organization to qualify it as "notable," but I can also see some people arguing against it because there aren't many national/international articles. | An article I watch and have started trying to develop into a decent wiki article (Dale Rogers Training Center) has been flagged with the "general notability guideline" tag (even though it existed for over a year and was never tagged as such up until now). My question: what exactly would make it appropriate for me to remove this tag? Most tags have obvious fixes, but there is quite a lot of subjectivity to this one. After reading Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies), I feel like there are enough articles on the subject/organization to qualify it as "notable," but I can also see some people arguing against it because there aren't many national/international articles. | ||
| :The only references in the article at the moment that would contribute to meeting the general notability guideline are those to '']''. Unfortunately, there are no links to online copies of these articles so it is difficult for editors to judge whether or not they constitute "]" – they could be very brief, or puff pieces, for example. So, if you have access to the articles, and are convinced that they meet the requirements, you could leave a note on the talkpage (]) and then remove the tag. Alternatively, you could find new sources which are available online and add those to the article. Hope this helps, ] 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:17, 29 May 2009
 | I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}} |
An article I watch and have started trying to develop into a decent wiki article (Dale Rogers Training Center) has been flagged with the "general notability guideline" tag (even though it existed for over a year and was never tagged as such up until now). My question: what exactly would make it appropriate for me to remove this tag? Most tags have obvious fixes, but there is quite a lot of subjectivity to this one. After reading Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies), I feel like there are enough articles on the subject/organization to qualify it as "notable," but I can also see some people arguing against it because there aren't many national/international articles.
- The only references in the article at the moment that would contribute to meeting the general notability guideline are those to The Oklahoman. Unfortunately, there are no links to online copies of these articles so it is difficult for editors to judge whether or not they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – they could be very brief, or puff pieces, for example. So, if you have access to the articles, and are convinced that they meet the requirements, you could leave a note on the talkpage (Talk:Dale Rogers Training Center) and then remove the tag. Alternatively, you could find new sources which are available online and add those to the article. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)