Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 2 April 2018

See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives)

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: G.F. (2013-05-06). "Who really runs Misplaced Pages?". Make Use Of. Alexandra Thom (16 July 2013). "Writing Women Back Into History". Brooklyn Museum. Seth Stephans-Davidowitz (22 March 2014). "The Geography of Fame". The New York Times.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Sekou Franklin?

Hi. Could someone please take a look at this and let me know if you think Sekou Franklin is notable or not? If you look him up on Google News, he comes up a lot for his social justice activism, which is how I came to hear about him. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC to update NOTDIR to preempt GNG for lists of transportation service destinations

There is an RFC to update WP:NOTDIR to state that wikipedia does not include lists of transportation service destinations, even if the individual services pass WP:GNG. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for that, really. Passing GNG is doesn't guarantee inclusion, just allows for it. Articles that pass GNG, but fail other content policies, such as NOT, are still not acceptable. Seraphimblade 07:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Massive change to WP:CORP proposed

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#RfC: Adoption of the re-written NCORP guideline.

It is a massive proposal that, among other things, looks like it will remove Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines for sports teams and all schools (not just K–12 schools). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh... there isn't a lot that is new in the proposal... most of it simply reorganizes language that was already in the guideline. Of course, the reorganization might have unintended consequences, so more eyes would be helpful... but let's not panic about it. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete ORG. ORG is a gigantic pile of wholly unmeritorious incredibly extreme mega-deletionist garbage that is so far removed from the opinions of the vast majority of the community, and is so wantonly pointlessly gratuitously destructive, and is such completely bizarre absurd ludicrous logic defying nonsense throughout, that it should be subjected to the full force of WP:IAR whenever it is invoked as grounds for deletion, and then it should be demoted, deleted, oversighted and finally salted so that it can never come back to plague us again in any way, shape or form. (Slight caveat: I haven't looked at ORG for a while, but it never seems to improve). James500 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • All the rewrite did was codify what was already the standard practice at AfD. Now there is less room for WikiLawyering. Practice is policy, and thankfully we've finally updated ORG to be in line with what we were already doing, so AfD couldn't be WikiLawyered to death to save spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Best-selling book" as a notability criterion

How much weight should be given to notability claims regarding a subject writing a "best-selling book" (or BEING a "best-selling book"), given how the system is often manipulated? For example:

• This Wall Street Journal article, "Here's How You Buy Your Way Onto The New York Times Bestsellers List" details how writers can claim to be "NY Times best-selling author" by writing a check.

• This article on how a first-time writer and publisher got on -- and off -- the NY Times YA besetselling list. Despite the obvious manipulation being exposed, Lani Sarem still calls herself a best-selling writer.

• And then there's ResultSource: The company states "'We create campaigns that reach a specific goal, like: "On the bestsellers list," or "100,000 copies sold.'" For example, for a negotiated fee ResultSource will guarantee that a book becomes a bestseller. It does this through bulk book buying programs designed to manipulate the metrics used by Nielsen BookScan and the New York Times Best Seller list, among other strategies.

It seems to me merely appearing on a best-selling books list is essentially a meaningless assertion of notability. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. "Best-selling" is shallow-disguised prmotion speak. It verges to pseudo-objective meaninglessness. "Most sold", whether by number or price, for a defined time period, is objective, but the present-tense continuing "selling" infers current continuing sales and it almost certainly connected to a motivation to promote.

What is interesting to Misplaced Pages-notability is not facts, whether subjective or objective, but who is saying what. For any notability claim, Who is commenting? Are they reliable, reputable, independent? Are they commenting directly on the subject? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Doesn't really matter. The fundamental underpinning of notability guidelines is not "how significant or important are you?" but "has the world noticed you?" Those who are listed on the NYT Bestseller Lists gain the world's notice, regardless of how they got there ... the same way that musicians who got on the Billboard lists gained notice regardless of how many DJs got kickbacks, the same that politicians in notable posts gained notice regardless of the manipulations of local "machines." We don't use the NYT lists to judge the merit of a book, we use it to judge the book's notability, and a book is notable not because lots of people (allegedly) buy it in any given month, but because it's on that list. Ravenswing 03:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• I'd be very suspicious of a book claimed as "best-selling" that doesn't eventually have multiple in-depth published book reviews. And if it does have those reviews, they (and not the sales figures) are what provides notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Best sellers are notable. A best selling book is absolutely always notable. Provided that you understand that the expression "best seller" refers to a book that has actually achieved a sufficiently high degree of (real) sales, and not merely been included in a sham list or bought by its own author etc. The expression "best seller" has nothing at all to do with promotion. There are several objective scholarly definitions of "best seller" proposed by academics. These are based on, for example, achieving a particular absolute number of sales, achieving a certain proportion of total sales, or achieving a level of sales that is considered exceptionally large by the standards of the time and place where the sales are occurring. See, for example, Greenspan and Rose, Book History and Steinberg, Five Hundred Years of Printing. Misplaced Pages certainly does accept that a topic can be objectively notable in the absence of 'significant coverage'. That is why we have SNG. This is necessary for a number of reasons. For example, the reliable sources available to our editors have epic systematic bias against less recent history, poor countries, non-anglophone topics, and anything faintly intelligent. They also fail to provide adequate coverage of topics that are genuinely important. We also need a way of dealing with deletionist trolls at AfD who have no intention of looking for sources and who will refuse to accept that coverage is significant no matter how much is presented. Such deletionist trolls need to be silenced with objective precisely worded criteria that they cannot twist and wikilawyer. And of course GNG is in some respects seriously unsound. There is for example no justification for demanding secondary sources. Professional historians regard over reliance on secondary sources as a sign of serious incompetence. And the theory of primary, secondary and tertiary sources invented by historians has no application whatsoever to any discipline other than history, and the way GNG seeks to apply that theory to everything other than history is pure WP:RANDYism. (It doesn't help that most of our editors have no idea what a secondary source is, either). To be honest, our policies and guidelines contain quite a few ideas that are pure 'wikiality' and have nothing to do with real scholarship. You should not be suspicious of un reviewed best sellers. My sources tell me that "low brow" best selling books "frequently" receive zero book reviews of any kind (P N Furbank, "The Twentieth Century Best Seller", in Boris Ford (ed), The Pelican Guide to Literature, Penguin Books, 1961, volume 7 ("The Modern Age"), page 430.) I don't see any reason to assume this indicates anything wrong with the sales figures. It might simply mean that some book reviewers consider that sort of literature to be beneath them. Or it might mean that the sort of people who read that kind of literature do not read book reviews (this will certainly be true of at least some children's books as very young children do not read book reviews). A book that appears on a very prominent bestseller list such as the NYT will very likely be notable because appearing on that list will make it famous. That sort of coverage certainly counts towards GNG. How that coverage has been obtained is of no relevance to GNG. I think I should point out there are some problems with the article ResultSource. The link to WSJ article in the first footnote brings up a page that says that the WSJ article no longer exists or is currently unavailable. This makes it impossible to assess the accuracy of our article. James500 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Music is considered notable based on sales. Books should as well if you can find a source that no one has any reasonable doubt is credible. Dream Focus 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Music sales may be an indicator on a sub-notability guideline, but if sales figures are all there are, if there are no independent secondary sources that discuss the music, there is no sourceable prose and the music article should be merged to the artist or composer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I see now that WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG now have something above them saying it doesn't matter if it meets any of these requirements anymore, it still has to meet the GNG, and if it meets that then these things don't matter at all. Why not just erase them entirely then? Also they aren't sub-notability guidelines, but subject specific guidelines. Proof that you can be notable even without meeting the GNG since scientists who make notable discoveries don't always get press coverage like famous people do, and textbooks may only mention them in a single sentence, not know anything about their personal lives. Plus other educational content for this encyclopedia doesn't always meet the GNG. Of course many have argued for years that instead of thinking for ourselves, we should only have articles that the media decides to review for whatever reason, and ignore the subject specific guidelines entirely. Dream Focus 23:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Why not erase them entirely then? Because it is productive for editors to make the stub, and later for the stub to be merged to artist or composer. It is not trivial for the stub writer to know straight up that there is insufficient coverage for a standalone article, and the subguideline serves well in identifying topics that should be covered. People need to stop thinking that notability divides "keep" for "delete". It very often divides "keep as stand alone" from "merge to parent topic". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not Necessarily Being listed on a best-seller list does not constitute, on its own, "significant" coverage (the most important, yet most overlooked word in WP:GNG). Don't be lazy, go get those sources that show significant coverage! I'd also like to bring editors back to WP:NOTINHERITED: even if the book has significant coverage, the author needs significant coverage too for their article to survive a deletion discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTINHERITED is only an essay, and it is extremely problematic. Claiming that a book reviews do not contribute to the notability of their author (1) violates the guideline WP:AUTHOR and (2) is WP:SALAMI, because writing the book was part of the author's life, and the book itself is nothing more than the author's thoughts committed to paper. They are not really separate topics. This line of reasoning leads to absurd results such as: commentary on words a person speaks orally out of his mouth contributes to his notability, but if he writes them on a piece of paper, then the commentary is on the piece of paper. Utter nonsense. James500 (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• If someone claims to be a "best-selling" author without any evidence to back that up, I wouldn't count that as evidence of notability. However, I'm of the opinion that if a book makes it onto a major list (like the New York Times Bestseller list), that inherently makes the author notable. I think there's a bias on Misplaced Pages where some editors feel like people must "earn" a right to having a page, as opposed to focusing on whether there's been significant discussion about that person. Additionally, I don't think it's easy to get on these lists. Just because someone is selling a product that claims to turn any author into a best-seller doesn't mean their method actually works. And if someone was able to get themselves on and off the NYT best-seller list at will, that seems pretty notable on its own. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Misplaced Pages:Notability clearly states: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. If a group change a SSG to say the GNG doesn't count, and passing it doesn't count towards notability of an article, does that give them the right to just ignore what Misplaced Pages:Notability says? Dream Focus 23:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A subject-specific notability guideline can apply more stringent conditions that sources or other facets related to the GNG must meet in the field, as long as the basic premise of the GNG remains upheld. Tighter source requirements is a common aspect related to many topics, like MEDRS for example. --Masem (t) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) passed a new bit last month that says that while having a media source reviewing a company makes it notable, if a credible tech magazine decides instead of just writing about them to interview someone from the company to talk about it, then that doesn't count towards notability like it does for everything else. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Holvi is where the argument is at. Dream Focus 23:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Because WP is seen as a means of promotion by too many companies, those behind the NCORP guidelines had to be explicitly clear that certain type of sources - which may be fine for any other topic - is not sufficient for the notability related to companies. That's completely reasonable. --Masem (t) 23:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So do you want to change WP:NOTABILITY to say that? If it was a lesser media source they could bribe to interview them, they could also secretly pay them to publish an article about them, so it makes no sense to ignore one and not the other. Dream Focus 23:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and promotional aspects are not an issue for nearly any other topic area. --Masem (t) 00:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. A company makes a film or television show or whatever, they own a media outlet, they'll make them review it and favorably. Dream Focus 00:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Which then immediately fails the independance test for the GNG. --Masem (t) 00:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Then no excuse for CORP to say it can ignore the GNG then. Dream Focus 00:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it can; the type of publishing directed related to companies and organizations is far different from, say, that related to a TV. NCORP is completely in the right to be more exacting of sourcing that tries to limit sourcing that is principally promotional that plagues topics in that field. --Masem (t) 00:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone just ignore WP:NOTABILITY just because they believe a different guideline is superior? If you disagree with the rules, then form consensus to change them, don't ignore them. Dream Focus 00:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NCORP is not ignoring notability, it is simply saying "when you evaluate sources related to the GNG for a company or organization, make sure to watch out for these issues that result from companies simply trying to promote themselves rather than from independent, third-party reliable sources". It is 100% consistent with the GNG, and nothing needs to be changed. --Masem (t) 00:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In the AFD I mentioned an administrator has stated that the GNG doesn't matter, NCORP says something different concerning interviews, so they don't count towards notability. That is the issue here. Someone ignoring the GNG. Dream Focus 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no one saying the GNG doesn't matter, only that reading the GNG only without considering the sourcing aspects of NCORP is not sufficient. (Which does bring to mind that we should put some language at the GNG to advise editor to see details of specific sourcing requirements in certain fields that affect how to evaluate the GNG, ala MEDRS, SCIRS, and NCORP.) --Masem (t) 00:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni says: "Interviews explicitly do not count towards notability anymore." "You may not like the new standards, but this is the community consensus on what sourcing means for corporations. The GNG is not the relevant guideline". Which is why I came here to clarify things. Dream Focus 00:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is the guideline. Additionally, I would argue quite strongly that interviews never counted towards the GNG (they are by definition primary, which doesn't count in this guideline either), but ignoring that debate, as Masem has already pointed out, subject notability guidelines are free to be more stringent and supersede the GNG in terms of sourcing or inclusion requirements. NCORP was designed specifically with this intent and for this purpose. We might as well delete it if your view is held to be correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CORP gives stricter language that appears to be tighter than the GNG, although it is consistent with a strict reading of the GNG, in particular "significant coverage" and "independent". WP:PROF allows for coverage of academics that do not meet the GNG, largely due to sources not being independent. The other SNGs work as indicators for meeting the GNG, and of course, the GNG works as an indicator of passing AfD. WP:MEDRES is a very important resource for evaluating reliability for medical related sources, it doesn't invalidate the GNG, but helps in assessing what sources can be used, for the GNG, and for the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

PROF is also a de facto exclusionary guideline. We will 9/10 ignore the GNG if it is met but someone fails PROF, regardless of what the language of the actual guidelines says. The GNG is a rebuttable presumption of inclusion, and failure of PROF is generally held to rebut it for academics in most AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. If someone meets the GNG, but their part time academic career fails WP:PROF, ignore WP:PROF.

If someone who doesn't meet the GNG meets WP:PROF, their article stays.  If someone meeting the GNG (arguably), but is a corporation, they are suddenly required to meet WP:CORP regardless of WP:GNG.  For certain high level academics, WP:PROF provides an alternative inclusionary route.  For trading companies, WP:CORP is an exclusionary SNG that overrides the GNG.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO the interaction is a bit fuzzy / nuanced as much of Misplaced Pages is. It would be too big of a process to tidy it up logically on this question in the foreseeable future. IMO WP:GNG should carry more influence than SNG's in that fuzzy world because it's more central and based on broader input and broader consensus. The GNG "meet either" statement is huge in that balance, any messing with that would be a gigantic shift. But that rule aside, SNG's and this new clarification will inevitably also have influence.North8000 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

We typically read that to mean if it fails the GNG but passes the SNG, we keep it. We very rarely use it to mean the reverse if the SNG is intended to provide a stricter standard for inclusion than the GNG. That would be thwarting the will of the community in establishing those standards, and go against the basic concept of being a self-governing community that can make our own rules through consensus. This is just a guideline, we are free to make other guidelines that supersede it, and we do. NCORP has always been held to be the lens through which the GNG should be read for organizations. Now we've just made it actually have teeth. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Anything that passes the GNG has always been kept in deletion discussions. Of course it all depends on whatever random people show up to participate and the personal bias of the closing administrator, but usually GNG is enough. When the guidelines were first added, it was determined that not every notable thing would pass the GNG, so subject specific ones were created, and it has always said you had to pass one or the other, it never saying both or that one cancels out the other. If you believe otherwise then form a consensus to change the wording on WP:NOTABILITY. Dream Focus 03:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No. PROF and NFOOTY (as well as most of the sports guidelines) are read this way in most AfDs. Each SNG gets to define it's own relationship to the GNG. As has already been pointed out multiple times (including by me in the AfD), all NCORP does is define what the horribly ambiguous GNG means when it comes to corporations. A better way of phrasing it might be: It is impossible to fail NCORP and meet the GNG at the same time, as NCORP defines what the GNG means for organizations. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is patently incorrect to say that most sports guidelines are ready in such a manner. To the contrary, NSPORTS has clearly and consistently been held to be an inclusionary standards. An athlete can pass either NSPORTS or GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It probably depends on the specific sports guideline: I'm not overly involved in that area, so I couldn't give you an exact breakdown of it sport by sport. I've argued successfully against the GNG using NFOOTY, and seen others do it as well. The thing is that most of the time they are held up as indicators that the GNG will be met, but they can also be used as indicators that the coverage being met is simply routine (i.e. minor league or semi-professional players in Western countries are probably going to meet the GNG on face value, but will not meet the relevant sports guideline.) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually no, your assertion is wholly inaccurate. WP:NSPORT (which includes FOOTY and the rest) explicitly states that it is not an exclusionary standard: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). . . . Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be what it says, but a member of a small local club that doesn't meet the sports criteria but has a lot of local press is unlikely to be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not only what it says; it is also how it has been interpreted in countless AfD discussions. In your hypothetical, the analysis would be controlled by GNG, not the SNG, and would depend per GNG on whether there is "significant" coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: there's nothing in WP:NCORP that "invalidates" the GNG. It just helps to determine which sources help meet the independent, significant coverage aspect of GNG, when it comes to corporations and organisations. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• We have a notability guideline. The GNG is part of that guideline -- a general rubric to help application of the guideline in a practical way. SNGs simplify application to particular kinds of subjects, offering guidance regarding what's likely to be notable and/or how to apply the criteria in the notability guideline to a particular domain. There is an issue when an SNG is incompatible with the guidelines at WP:N, and when that SNG says it confers notability rather than indicates likelihood of notability. — Rhododendrites \\ 04:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed to some extent (we do have guidelines that are otherwise, like PROF). The point here though is, NCORP doesn't contradict the GNG. It simply says what it means, and follows it quite closely. The point I was making in the above AfD is that simply pointing to the GNG isn't useful, since it doesn't define itself that well. NCORP does a better job of fleshing it out, so something that fails NCORP is all but sure to fail the GNG, making a reference to the GNG not particularly pertinent when someone is citing NCORP in their analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It is true we have WP:PROF -- criteria promoted to a guideline and then, sometime later, rewritten based on the agreement of a handful of editors to proclaim itself "independent" of the GNG. This would fall under the "There is an issue when..." statement I made (i.e. such issues exist) :) — Rhododendrites \\ 04:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Will also note that it was after this change to WP:PROF that we had what I think is the largest discussion we've had about this subject at Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise, through which, as I understand it, there was a rough consensus that SNGs do not override the GNG, and that SNGs are more about specifying what kinds of sources count (similar to the new NCORP) and applying the GNG to particular domains. Not sure what happened from there, though. Regardless, this is all ancient history for Misplaced Pages. — Rhododendrites \\ 05:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • And we had a community-wide RfC in August that came to a different conclusion. I'm with DGG in that I generally believe in objective standards, and personally consider the GNG to not be useful at much to the point where I believe we have to have SNGs like NCORP to define what it means. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this comes down to recognizing that the GNG alone is only a presumption of notability, and in this way equivalent to all the other SNGs; these are stepping stones towards building out an article where we never have to question or presume its notable because it so many appropriate sources to not question it. You might be able to pass the GNG with a couple reasonable sources, but if you can never expand the article past a stub due to the lack of any other possible sources, then it doesn't met overall goal of notability and that could be deleted. In this manner, all the SNGs are right in line: PROF assumes a slightly looser requirement for presumption, NCORP has a stronger requirement for presumption (as to weed out self-serving articles for corps), etc. --Masem (t) 05:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• The role of a SNG is whatever we decide it is. We can decide whether it will be a substitute, an option, an extension, or a restriction.We can decide if a SNG must be met as well as the GNG,or whether it is an alternative, of whether it is the only guideline applicable. For the clearest example, the WP:PROF guideline is an alternative, the only guideline that applies to notability as n researcher or member of an acaemic faculty. The same person may be notable in other respects, but if they are notable as an academic, it can only be by WP:PROF. Ithink we jave come to agree that the same applies to WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICIAN. WP:ATHLETE is undetermined.--it is a n alternative, but it has never been consistently settled whether it is a restriction of the GNG in that field.

In the current situation, for WP;CORP, it is not an alternative guideline--it is a specification of just what is meant by the GNG in that area. This is very similar to what we have been doing all along--interpreting the requirements for a source being independent , substantial, and reliable more or less stringently in different fields. The new guideline says, in effect, that we will interpret it strictly in this field. In some other fields we tend to interpret in fairly loosely, especially government organizations. We ourselves make the rules, we ourselves make the interpretation. We can make whatever interpretations have consensus, whether formal as in a formal adopted guideline, or informal, as in practice at AFD.

We can even say that a notability guideline will not apply to inclusions of an article. That can be a restriction , as in the long-standing statement at WP:GNG that passing GNG does not necessarily mean that there must be a n article. but can be a section of an article if there is insufficient information to justify an article.It can be an extension, like the practice for secondary school recognized bu the last RfC, that there isno consensus to change the practice of accepting article on all verifiable secondary schools, and treating them as if they were notable.

"The rules we adopt are affected by circumstances. I could make an argument why we should adopt strict, of less strict rules for NCOPR. At present, I think we should adopt strict ones, in order to deal with a much more important problem than notability: promotionalism . Accepting advertising or disguised advertising is a danger to the basic principles of any encyclopedia: WP:V and WP:NPOV. We need to remove the temptation to violate them by removing the possibility of articles where they are most likely to violated, which is articles of relative unimportant commercial organizations. Rules should have a purpose, just as this one does. DGG ( talk ) 09:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

So mass delete any articles you decide are unimportant because you don't trust the current system of vetting reliable sources? What about articles for entertainment media? I think you have far more of a threat of promotionalism there than anywhere else. How do you decide which businesses or whatnot are a "relative unimportant commercial organization"? Holvi for instance was starting with 4 million dollars and "one guess is that Holvi was acquired for around or maybe less than $100 million." Dream Focus 12:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the driving force for the existence of SNG's is to re-calibrate GNG in fields where it is needed. The real fix is to create the missing two sentence definition of what they are striving for (vs. the current circular definition) improve GNG to accomplish it and auto-calibrate to the specialty areas, and then eliminate the SNG's. Since that ain't going to happen, the fuzzy interaction between GNG and SNG's needs to remain fuzzy, and it sort-of works. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@North8000 and Masem: since both of you have mentioned something similar to this (Masem more explicitly), I think we should go ahead and clarify it in the guideline. Adding a quick bit of text like Some subject areas have more clearly defined sourcing guidelines, and when those exist, they should be used to determine if the notability requirements are met. This is the current practice, and should help clarify things. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni has stated at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Holvi "There is an explicit presumption agains their use as they are trade publications, and NCORP assumes that they are not independent of the subject". Wired magazine and other reliable sources don't count because they are allegedly "trade publications", covering technology so if they cover an internet business it doesn't count towards notability. Why are general newspapers considered independent but not technology publications? Dream Focus 12:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • NCORP creates an explicit presumption against the use of trade publications, yes, because they simply repeat PR and interviews in most cases (as oddly enough, the source you are arguing for including confirms). General newspapers aren't in the business of brining in more money to the subjects they cover and giving them free advertising within the industry. That is the entire point of the trade press. Also, for the record, my issue with Wired is that it is an interview, not the trade press issue, which is distinct, as I wouldn't necessarily classify them as that. Wired in some cases can be reliable for notability, but a simple interview in it can't be under NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • So, what about reliable sources for video games? Some of them only cover games, so do they not count towards notability? What about a section of a newspaper dedicated to one trade only? Movie review section, book review section, technology review section? Is a newspaper considered superior because it has different trades covered together, along with a gossip section? Companies are always seeking coverage for their products even more so than themselves. Dream Focus 13:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I do think that in the specific case for Holvi, some of the works claimed to be trade publications are not really trade publications. Certainly not Wired - it's a general publication but related to the tech sector. Same with ZDNet. (ComputerWeekly, on the other hand is one such trade magazine). That's why newspapers are fine, as well as things like sports magazines, entertainment magazines, etc. Those latter ones cover a specific topic, but written for a general population readership. This is not to say that Holvi's sources still have problems. The Wired "interview" looks more like a standard questionaire they ask their chosen "Startup of the week" to fill out, there's no curation of those questions as I would expect with a proper interview. --Masem (t) 14:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, we are agreement: my issue with Wired was not that it was a trade pub (it isn't), but that it was a reprint of an interview with an executive, which NCORP lists as being excluded as primary. Dream Focus conflated that criticism with my criticism of some of the other sourcing as trade press (Computer Weekly definitely, VentureBeat and The Next Web also certainly are either in that category, or in the TechCrunch category.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • How is it a reprint? And why would an interview be less of a sign of notability than an article about them? Reliable source saw them notable enough to give them coverage, that all that matters. Dream Focus 14:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
            • Sorry, shouldn't have used reprint there: I was addressing both trade press and Wired in the same comment and mistyped, my mistake. Interviews are primary sources. Full stop. The should not count even under the most liberal reading of the GNG, but NCORP in particular explicitly names them as excluded (as I have pointed out to you I believe three times now). Interviews with company personnel cannot be used to establish notability for corporations as they fail the secondary sourcing requirement and the independence requirement. See Misplaced Pages:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Secondary_sources and WP:ORGIND. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
              • It doesn't matter what it says there. GNG still considers them fine for establishing notability, just not always trusted for referencing information in an article. And arguing nonstop doesn't change what WP:NOTABILITY says, as I have already clearly pointed out. GNG or SSG to confirm article notability, one does not cancel out the other. Dream Focus 15:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You have it in reverse: primary sourcing is fine for verifiability but not for notability: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.. That is directly from WP:GNG. Also, you are correct that arguing cannot change the relationship between NCORP and the GNG: you are in the minority here in thinking that NCORP doesn't matter. Just because you keep saying something, doesn't make it true. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Notability is not policy; it's a guideline. That's means WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and all the other creepy pages which keep repeating much the same idea. Because they are loosey-goosey guidelines rather than firm policies, they are open to interpretation. And even firm policies can be ignored; that's policy too. So arguing and agonising about this is really just advocacy and opinion per WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per WP:NOTLAW, it's the outcomes of the individual cases which matter. The wikilawyering is mostly a waste of time. Andrew D. (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Guidelines are guidelines. They document best practices, they can be changed, they are open to interpretation. Policies are of course stricter, but even they can be changed. What I'm hearing from some folks here is that an SNG cannot be changed unless GNG is also changed. I don't see that at all. Why does one guideline require two RfCs but others don't? Who made up this rule? We do need to remember policies here as well, particularly WP:NOT (which includes WP:SOAP). Anything contrary to WP:NOT is not notable. So if the article includes promotion, advertising, PR material, or marketing it can't be notable unless when that material is removed it would be notable. Sure WP:CORP interprets GNG for determining which sources count, but it also has to interpret WP:NOT. My feeling is that most of the supporters of the change in WP:CORP simply wanted to eliminate interpretations of GNG that contradict WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• NCORP was amended on the premise that there was a crisis afoot (i.e., that Misplaced Pages was being overrun by promotional content about companies and their products) and that current practice under GNG was insufficient to address it. It was developed, marketed and adopted as an exception to the general rule. Any effort now to use NCORP as a broad precedent to undermine the more general application of WP:GNG in areas beyond the purportedly "infected" area should be rejected. Cbl62 (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed 100%. NCORP explicitly only refers to the subjects covered, and if there are any other SNGs, those are relevant. It also excludes educational institutions, religions, and sports teams. On the flip side, we shouldn't have to redebate the RfC on every AfD because some people don't think that NCORP should have been adapted. As you said, the community knew what it was discussing when it was being discussed: attempts to undermine that consensus are equally as bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• In my view (and I admit this is only with hindsight) it would have been very much better to have created WP:NCORP as a policy (sic) page linked to from WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The rationale would be that WP is not a business/organisation directory except for some "exceptional" businesses and organisations and we would then be saying what was (or was not) exceptional. Perhaps this could still be done. (An analogy lies for dictionary definitions in how WP:DICDEF is referred to from WP:NOT#DICT.) This would make NCORP a policy and it would no longer be competing directly with WP:GNG. I don't even think the wording of NCORP would need changing that much, it would be placed on a firmer footing, and arguments about competing notability guidelines would be reduced. Thincat (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That would have not worked as NCORP is starting from directly quoting the GNG, and then setting the specific sourcing requirements for corporations. This would make the GNG seen as policy if NCORP was policy. That said, COI and using WP as an SEO/promotional platform are policy, so NCORP is specifically addressing where notability and promotion overlap in this topic area. --Masem (t) 17:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

    I thought about that but NCORP would no longer draw any authority from GNG it would merely have some similar criteria. Roughly speaking, the word "notability" would disappear to be replaced by "suitability for inclusion as a business". The emphasis would be less on sourcing and more on status. However, I agree that COI is a hekpful priority. Is there a written policy against SEO and promotion or do we just go against them? Thincat (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSPAM, we can delete for promotion even if something is notable. NCORP is meant to help deal with the less obvious cases of promotion and cases of native advertising by giving clear sourcing standards, because there are actually people who sell for pretty cheap source creation on freelancer websites with the intent of getting companies to pass Misplaced Pages's GNG. This establishes a standard by which to evaluate sources, and as noted above, was advertised to the community as such.The idea that there is some great tension here is more because we don't have a line noting that some subject areas have developed clearer guidelines is not correct in my view. The community consensus is pretty clear, even through this conversation: NCORP is intended to explain what the GNG means in a specific field, and in doing so, it raises the standard by setting out clear guidelines compared to loose ones. I don't see any tension, but as I noted above, all that is really required is a line noting what Masem noted in one of his first replies: guidelines like MEDRS and NCORP exist and must be taken into account when assessing notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Saying that explicitly would flat out say that any SNG can exclude any article the passes wp:GNG. A big upset to the fuzzy balance that we have now that usually works. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That was the purpose of the RfC, yes: to define the general notability guideline as it relates to companies and organizations. We don't simply ignore that consensus because the person who is likely the most inclusionist editor on the entire project decides they want to WikiLawyer out of following that guideline. All it does is further define the GNG in relation to a subject matter, which any SNG is free to do. Also worth noting is that this is nothing new: NCORP has always defined what the GNG's sourcing requirements mean. All the recent update did was make it so that the requirements were more well spelled out and adapted what is the mainstream consensus at most corporate AfDs in a guideline form: which is what guidelines are supposed to be. Practice is policy and the fact that we are having to have yet another discussion on this after the community has expressed that it wanted stronger sourcing standards for corporations is ridiculous (not your questions, but the thread in general.)TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The community did not discuss you being able to ignore the GNG. Start a discussion for that and see if you can find consensus. Far more people would notice and care to show up to comment on that then the ones who noticed and showed up for the CORP discussion. Dream Focus 18:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That conversation was clearly understood as a further defining of the GNG if you actually read it, and as everyone else here except you appears to understand. The community weighed in on it, Your WP:IDHT attitude is becoming disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, if the intent was so broad as you seem to say (to override wp:notability,) then such a discussion would have needed to have been at WP:notability , not at one of the many SNG's. I don't think that it was that. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

See? Others agree with me. TonyBallioni, you seem to be the one with a WP:IDHT attitude. You can't change the meaning of one page by editing a different one. Dream Focus 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NCORP already defined the GNG for corps. That was not a change. Even if it was, this was advertised on this talk page, on CENT, and at VPR and ran for at least 30 days. Winged Blades of Godric was the closer, so he can comment as to whether or not the discussion was understood as explaining how the GNG applied to corps. . TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding notability and the relationship to wp:not, sometimes the best plan is to write down what we know from common sense. If I were king, the meta-defintion of wp:notability would be something like "degree of real-world-notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia that is going to have less than 15 million articles." And the task of the notability guidelines would be to implement coverage-based criteria to fulfill this. That definition acknowledges that in addition to the outright exclusion by wp:not, that "degree of enclyclopedic-ness" gets weighed in the notability equation. That obscure species of frog with little secondary source coverage should get in; my son's school hockey team with tons of independent secondary source coverage should not. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Nothing about the change to NORG "invalidates" GNG. GNG clearly states that only sources "independent of the subject" count toward it, and primary sources like interviews are not independent of the subject. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Primary/secondary/tertiary are different measures than independent/dependent. --Masem (t) 22:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in this case. An interview essentially amounts to a source written by the interviewee, who is almost by definition someone involved in the organization under discussion. The only input from the "independent" interviewer is the choice of questions to ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The source typing questions, primary/secondary, and independent/non-independent, are independent questions. Interviews can be primary, or mixed primary/secondary, depending on the content and how used. An interview is never an independent source with respect to the interviewee. For interviews, just ignore the primary/secondary aspect, they need to be ignore for notability assessment due to failing independence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• The purpose of SNGs should be to tell us when a given subject is very, very likely to have sufficient material available about it to meet the GNG, even when those references aren't readily available. That doesn't mean interviews (they're not independent), it means reliable, independent, in depth source material from a variety of sources. When we lack that, we have nothing with which to write the article, so we shouldn't have it. GNG should always be a "floor". Subjects not passing it should not have separate articles. That doesn't mean they should be excluded altogether—it may be perfectly appropriate to write about the topic in a parent article, include it in a list, whatever you. But to have a standalone article about something, we need to have enough high-quality reference material to write a full article from. Seraphimblade 01:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• The initial question is broken, but the broken-answer to the broken-question is approximately "yes". Our policies and guidelines need to be viewed as a cohesive whole. It is perfectly appropriate for WP:NCORP to clarify that certain kinds of sources have little or no value when evaluating the Notability of a company. It is perfectly appropriate for WP:NPROF endorse additional grounds for Notability. It is perfectly appropriate for WP:MEDRS to clarify the reliability or usability of medical sources.
  We should apply all available guideline-reasoning where it is relevant to do so, and exclude any guideline-reasoning where it is invalid. If someone is an academic and a politician, we can ignore NPROF and independently establish Notability for being a politician. However I find it hard to picture a case where a corp could fail NCORP and while passing GNG for reasons unrelated to NCORP (except maybe NCRIME). So yes, NCORP is part of GNG and it should always inform evaluation of Notability when it is clearly relevant. Alsee (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is (and will be) yet another 'fruitless debate.Same faces, same arguments, same dead-lock....As to my opinion, practice is policy and the numerous AFDs that happen daily in different spheres, with a quite-predictable outcome, point to whether the SNG/GNG is upheld by the community, over the locus of the issue.For my personal view, I prefer SNGs (than GNG) but feel that many SNGs (barring NPROF, NCOPRP, NSPORTS) ought to be fundamentally re-written.~ Winged Blades 06:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Massive oppose to all deletionist SNG (1) A subject-specific notability guideline cannot apply more stringent conditions that sources or other facets related to the GNG must meet in the field. In view of the wording of N, such conditions would consititute an invalid local consensus. (2) Deletionism is harming this project. You can see this from WP:SIZE. Last year, despite the fact that probably more than 95% of notable topics are missing (mainly because of massive geographic and anglophone bias, recentism and bias against anything faintly intelligent) (I have done some back of an envelope calculations and, for example, estimate the number of notable people in the history of the world to be, IIRC as I haven't got the numbers in front of me now, in excess of 46 million (approximately 1 in two and a half thousand out of a total population of 108 billion), of whom, more than 43 million are dead, mostly long dead) we created on average 605 articles per day (it has gone back up to 667, but that is still worse than at any time before beginning of 2017). That was the worst level of article creation since the beginning of 2004. If that number keeps going down (and it might go back down again) and hits or gets close enough to zero, the project will collapse, because that would mean that all or most of the constructive useful editors have left because they have been bullied out by those deletionists who do nothing but smash up good content and make a nuisance out of themselves. The last thing we need now is more deletionism. So I say, keep the introduction to WP:N the way it is, and ignore any deletionist garbage SNGs. If anything GNG is already too restrictive (the idea that we need 'secondary' sources is pure fantasy that has nothing to do with real scholarship and is being peddled by people who do not know what they are talking about; likewise the very strange idea that there is something special about having more than one source). James500 (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• When you are editing the sort of topics that are only studied and taught at an advanced level at universities and such like, the main thing you notice is that the vast majority of topics in that field of scholarship that should have articles are redlinked or not even mentioned in the encyclopedia. There seem to be editors who do not realise this because they lack the education and are too complacent or too philistine to teach themselves. The rate of article creation should not have slowed down and deletionism is the culprit. James500 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• The hostility to 'trade' publications that has been expressed is disturbing, because some deletionists seem to think that it includes publications of a scholarly character and publications that have nothing to do with commerce. In the minds of some deletionists, any publication about something like particle physics read by, for example, a professor working at a university must be 'trade' because the professor has a job. Despite the fact that he isn't engaged in trade of any kind. 'Trade' has become a boo word that is levelled against any publication that isn't 'infotainment'. Because some deletionists seem to want Misplaced Pages to be a children's encyclopedia based on poor sources. James500 (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Most disturbing of all is the way notability harms our readers by preventing them from having access to accurate information that it might be useful for them to know (or forces them to go through paywalls, including by wasting their time by forcing them to spend hours (or longer) looking for a topic with Google when they could have it in seconds with a Misplaced Pages article (loss of man time is a cost). Notability creates increased poverty. And poverty causes premature death, disease and many other forms of misery. The economic effect of all these deletions of accurate verifiable content, and discouraging people from creating it in the first place, is presumably like burning down an entire city. Or possibly, worse. James500 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "It's useful" is not a valid argued towards keeping or deleting articles per WP:ATA, and we are particularly not here to provide readers information that otherwise requires them to bypass paywells; we'll incorporate that information where appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • That isn't what I was suggesting. I do not, for example, want to merge this project with Wikisource just because Wikisource's contents happen to be useful. What I was suggesting is that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Firstly, there is a massive hostility on the part of some editors towards merging content that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Secondly, there is a massive determination on the part of some editors to raise and raise and raise the 'notability bar' to the point where it excludes topics that are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Certain notability guidelines are not presently suitable for determining what is and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And when they are suitable, they are often ignored. A lot of the suitable encyclopedic content that is getting deleted happens to be stuff that you would expect to be useful to our readers and that prima facie must hurt our readers. And that is "A Bad Thing". James500 (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC) There is also a serious problem with content that ought to be transwikied to our sister projects not being transwikied at all. James500 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
      • With >5M articles, arguing that our notability guidelines are excluding content that would be in an encyclopedia is pretty much a non-starting argument, we're far broader than something like EB. The only reason that NCORP has had to be more specific on sources is that because we are an open encyclopedia, people with commercial interested has found ways to insert promotional material about their companies under "weaker" notability/sourcing guidelines, so we're being more restrictive to make sure that companies/etc. are being covered properly by independent sources. It may have more false positives, but at the same time, show me any other encyclopedia that covers companies with as much variety as we do. And as to merging, commercial/promotional content is very difficult to merge, even if there's valid merge topic (say, if we had a notable person and were looking to merge their startup company). And again, "useful to our readers" is a non-argument for notability , per WP:ATA. --Masem (t) 05:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Comparisons with Britannica are irrelevant. Britannica has commercial limitations that we don't. They pay their editors and they have to compete for sales and subscriptions. It is also far from the largest commercial source in terms of entries. Oxford Reference Online, XRefPlus and GaleNet have a much larger number of entries and do have millions of entries. If you were to take all the (reasonable quality) encyclopedias and similar works (broadly construed, including certain types of periodical articles and book chapters that look near enough to encyclopedia articles eg obituaries in the NYT and the Times) and edit them together in a way that removes all duplication of entries and information, it is quite obvious that they would have a much larger number of articles than us, judging by the number of topics included in other (good) encyclopedias that we don't have. (In fact, we are still missing many topics that have large whole books about them). I would not be remotely surprised if such a hypothetical work had significantly in excess of 100 million entries. That is closer to the correct standard of comparison. Another user once estimated that there were 400 million encyclopedic topics, though I am not familiar with the details of the calculation he performed. 5 million articles is not impressive. This encyclopedia is still bristling with huge numbers of redlinks to topics that obviously ought to be included but aren't. Even more are not mentioned at all. Misplaced Pages is a fairly good American TV guide (and even that has missing entries), but is seriously lacking in other areas. The notability guidelines contribute to this. And ATA is an essay. Certain parts of ATA are nonsense. Article II of the Wikimedia Foundation byelaws says that "useful information" is to be kept "in perpetuity" (potentially on one of our sister projects, but let's not complicate matters). The WMF own this website and what they say 'trumps' anything the community says. James500 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Article II says "useful information from its projects, not from everywhere in the world. It's saying that as long as the content we develop meets Article II, they will host it for free. It says nothing of being a repository of any useful content. So no, we are not overriding the WMF here. --Masem (t) 13:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Probably one of the top two variables where WP:GNG needs to calibrated is where the process is "worked" by someone/ some organization who would commercially benefit from inclusion. And so I think that shifting the fuzzy notability process a little by putting those new things in place in a SNG is a good thing. But overstating the results as characterizing the decision as flatly one to override GNG, or flatly saying that an SNG can override GNG IMO is going too far. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@James500: Could you stop making these BATTLEGROUND-esque comments? As of right now, the word "deletionist" appears on this page nine times, and all of them are just you attacking some unspecified editors you really, really don't seem to like (or making apparently-bogus assumptions about their motives) rather than addressing the content questions. Remarks like gigantic pile of wholly unmeritorious incredibly extreme mega-deletionist garbage, e ... need a way of dealing with deletionist trolls at AfD, uch deletionist trolls need to be silenced, Massive oppose to all deletionist SNG, all or most of the constructive useful editors have left because they have been bullied out by those deletionists who do nothing but smash up good content and make a nuisance out of themselves, ignore any deletionist garbage SNGs, some deletionists seem to think , n the minds of some deletionists and some deletionists seem to want Misplaced Pages to be a children's encyclopedia based on poor sources are clearly inappropriate, and are entirely unnecessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I would not have made any further comments on this page if an editor had not replied to my !vote. Three of those comments were actually about the guidelines. I cannot 'attack' WP:ORG or any other guideline because it is not a person. The rest of the comments were intended to refer to a type of behaviour or point of view that leads to content problems, not a group of people. I absolutely did not have any particular editor or editors in mind. I could apply the comments I made above to my own behaviour because in the past I made too many CSD nominations too freely. I don't hate anyone. But I will refrain from making comments about types of behaviour or points of view in order to make you happy. I apologise unreservedly if my comments appeared to anyone to refer to editors, as that was certainly not my intention. Clearly, I should have worded them far more carefully. I would very much like to completely disengage from this discussion, and not comment here again. James500 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press