Talk:Phi Sigma Alpha/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikipedia:Notability

To be a notable member of Phi Sigma Alpha, someone must be 1) notable and 2) a member.

Tom Cruise should not be included. Though he is notable, he is not a member of Phi Sigma Alpha. If you believe he is a member, please provide a reliable source.

José Victor Oliver Ledesma should not be included. Though he is a member, he is not notable. If you feel he is notable, please write the article first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the notable members from the list unilaterally. If you believe they should be deleted please discuss here or I will have to ask an admin to protect the page. El Johnson (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for finally coming to the talk page. If you believe the individuals are notable, please write the article first. With the exception of complete lists (i.e. listing the mayors of a particular town), the most widely used criterion for such lists is blue link notability. Individuals with stable articles are included, those without such articles are not. So, for example, List of University of Pennsylvania people is not a list of people associate with Penn that various editors feel are notable, it is a list of blue-link notables.

If you feel this article should use some other sourced, objective criteria, you will need to build a consensus here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers as an example (not all of the names have articles). I can find many more lists as examples if you want. Not having a Wikipedia article is not an indication of non-notability. Since Wikipedia is continuously growing and expanding, new subjects and types of articles get included all the time. To suggest that a particular person in the list is non-notable because his article does not exist would stunt the growth of Wikipedia, and do more harm than good. My intention is that all of them will have article eventually, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, I believe since that time I have come to learn what qualifies as Notability for Wikipedia and what does not. Thank you for your contributions and observations. El Johnson (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What would you suggest as sourced, objective selection criteria? :All lists must have sourced, objective selection criteria. Otherwise, this is an indiscriminate list of some members of a fraternity, which is not in any way encyclopedic. Blue-link notable, along with WP:WTAF is common and objective.

(Yes, there are other articles. Some of them are nearly perfect. Others are beyond salvage and should be deleted. That some articles violate our policies and guidelines is not a reason to repeat that mistake in other articles.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes Eljohnson15, we have been over this. This list, as with all lists on Wikipedia, must have sourced, objective criteria. The only commonly used option we can use here is blue-link notability, as I have been suggesting.

If you believe some other criteria should be used, please suggest them. "Will be blue-links as soon as I get around to creating them" is not a sourced, objective criterion.

Your preferred list has been removed by Drmies, Kbabej and me, making the shorter list the apparent consensus. As such, it is your burden to establish a consensus to the contrary. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Eljohnson15, please stop editing against consensus and convention. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not having a Wikipedia article is not an indication of non-notability. Since Wikipedia is continuously growing and expanding, new subjects and types of articles get included all the time. To suggest that a particular person in the list is non-notable because his article does not exist would stunt the growth of Wikipedia, and do more harm than good. Your imposition in this list is the actions that goes against consensus and convention. El Johnson (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people

As a compromise I can: provide a citation to establish notability to the persons in the list that don't have an article El Johnson (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Stop talking about "compromise" until you apologize for templating my talk page. You're the edit warrior, Mr. Five Times Since 30 October. User:SummerPhDv2.0, if you ever feel inclined to report this to WP:ANEW I'll be happy to support. In the meantime, El Johnson, stop preaching about things you don't know very much about. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To all the parties involved, my personal opinion on this subject is the following: A member of Phi Sigma Alpha could be notable and added to the list even of they do not have an article yet. There are hundreds of people in the world who are notable and do not have an article in Wikipedia. I suggest that if a person is notable, his/her name be added followed with an explanation of the the person's notability and a reliable verifiable source. Then maybe someone may be inspired to contribute and write an article about the subjects in question.

This issue should not escalate into a war between well intended editors and placing a "template" in some ones "talk" page during the discussion of an issue is not a good idea. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: With the exception of (perhaps) Kbabej, I believe you have all bumped into me before, so if you have seen my edits you probably know I am a stickler for citations that show notability. That said, I agree with Tony that you do not need an article to be notable in a list within an article. (This is not to say people should be allowed in the list who are clearly non-notable by any standard.)

I'd note that, going by WP:P&G, the reference to the WP:PG Guideline above ("please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people ") would carry lots more weight that the written-by-any-editor essay at WP:WTAF. ElJohnson: the template at Drmies wasn't a good idea as Drmies probably felt, among others, that you were taking the edit war to his doorstep and, as it can be seen, he shut down to everything including a "compromise". But, Drmies, IMO an equally bad idea would be humiliating ElJohnson into an apology. I don't think anyone should be brought before the 3RR court either; senior editors (everyone here is one) should had already learned that edit warring is a no win-win situation; The 3RR policy, IMO, is a tool created to deal with newbies that don't know better. Instead of 3RR, et.al., I would suggest a cooling off period during which, ideally, those who removed blocks of content just because they have no WP article, in a show of communal good faith effort, can actually contribute by validating some of the people in ElJohnson's list and, during which, folks like ElJohnson can come to terms with the fact that perhaps not everyone in his preferred list may, in fact, be that notable (at least not yet). For example, I happen to know that Guillermo A. Baralt is a highly respected historian with close to 100 books under his belt, yet he has no WP article. I believe there can be no argument Baralt is --with or without an existing article-- notable enough for the list. On the other hand, people like Hector R. Cuprill might need further research for inclusion. (I haven't checked the others, just that those 2 stood out because I happen to know of them). What do you all think? Mercy11 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've run across this "a citation to establish their notability" idea previously. I can provide citations from reliable sources that mention my niece. She's 15 and, so far, not at all notable. So let's suppose I add her, with citations to "People from (location)" or some similar list. You look at the article and decide to give it the onceover to verify that everyone on the list is notable. After weeding through perhaps 50 cites for a dozen non-notable people added by someone with a burning need to add names to the list (ahem), you remove the dozen. Editor X returns and restores some of them and adds a few others. Time to check all of them again. If you run across any you removed previously, time to discuss them and work toward a consensus on each. Or not. Meanwhile, new names are added and removed. Repeat until the end of time in thousands of articles, constantly hammering out on an ad hoc basis whether that local paper's coverage of a 5th grade play and photos of a Girl Scouts event are enough.

In an alternative universe, blue-link notability is the criterion. I establish a stub article for my niece and add her to the list. The stub fails at AfD. The blue link turns red and is removed. I reestablish the stub. It's speedied. Unless/until my niece becomes notable, she's not on the list. Meanwhile, anyone I create a stub for who is actually notable has a place for sources and information to accumulate and grow into an actual article.

This article is a backwater. No one is looking at the list to find articles to create. I simply is not happening. Vague inclusion criteria like "a citation to establish their notability" are an invitation for people to add their senior year roommate whose notability hinges on that one time he made a bong out of a Pyrex measuring cup, duct tape and some surgical tubing, but has a citation for answering questions when a cub reporter called about the charity dance-a-thon.

Long story short: Please explain an objective measure for "a citation to establish their notability" and how it is in any way superior to the shortest of stubs. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• What is so difficult to understand? We who contribute to Wikipedia must follow the guide lines and rules of notability which have been established. If your 15 year niece met the notability requirements which are established by Wikipedia then she would deserve an article. Just because a person is mentioned in the media does not make the person notable, however if a person meets the following criteria: Wikipedia:Notability then he or she can be added to whatever list, including the Phi Sigma Alpha. As long as a verifiable reliable source is included which proofs that the person complies with the standards established in the Wikipedia notability criteria. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The proposal here is to include redlinks with "a citation to establish their notability". The policy you are pointing to, Marine 69-71, requires multiple independent reliable sources providing substantial coverage. If you do not have sources to meet WP:N, don't add them here with "a citation". If you do have the sources, stubs likethis, this, this and this are far more productive, as the original poster seems to now accept. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear; I do not agree with your point of view at all. In fact you have never provided any argument to back it up other than the fact the you and other editors ganged up on me and thereby established so called "consensus". You accused me and threatened me of an edit-war, when you and the others where the ones that where undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part. The only reason that neither of you violated the "three-revert rule" is because there were so many of you. In fact you were all reverting so automatically that you even deleted entries that I had already provided that they had an article. The fact that some of them have articles now is not because I agree with you, its that I care more about content in Wikipedia more than in proving a point. And just to be clear, nobody has proposed to include redlinks as you allege. El Johnson (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eljohnson15:, the statement you made above ("As a compromise I can <<WHAT GOES HERE ??? >> to the persons in the list that don't have an article I will provide a citation to establish their notability") seems to be missing a word or more. Can you re-write it (either here or at its initial location will be fine) so I can understand what you were trying to say without my making any assumptions? Also, @SummerPhDv2.0:, the 4 links you provided above ("...stubs like this, this, this and this are...") seem to provide evidence that ElJonhson is making a good faith effort to find some common ground with your thinking. But I see his good faith efforts aren't limited to those 4 articles from yesterday. I am referring, for example, to the case from a now full 1 month ago (21:28, 6 November 2018‎, to be exact) when, after you stated (on 17:56, 5 November 2018, HERE) that José Victor Oliver Ledesma shouldn't be included, ElJohnson, in what I read as a gesture of WP:WTAF and teamwork, quickly moved, just hours later (on 21:28, 6 November 2018‎ to be exact) to execute on WP:WTAF and wrote the article for Ledesma HERE. It seems to me that, other that getting furious because of the edit warring, ElJohnson has taken the high road on every instance. To be a win-win for everyone, consensus, like compromise, needs to involve all parties in an equal show of WP:AGF. I, too, find it very tempting to just fire the "Undo-o-matic" button than to deal with the reality that this project is a community-based effort, requiring a meeting of the minds to make progress. Your attempt to discussion HERE is to be commended. That said, it further seems to me ElJohnson has taken every necessary step to participate in the discussion and even towards providing evidence of WP:N for each of his additions --especially now that his work is under the scope by so many of us fellow editors-- whether by writing the article/stub first or by providing, for those not blue-linked, one or more inline cites that can, at least in his judgement, point to why the listed person is notable. However, bringing out the big guns and asking for the creation of articles/stubs for every case, and pointing to "multiple independent reliable sources providing substantial coverage" as a prerequisite to be listed in that (rather obscure) section of the article when the issue here is not a discussion about either (a) the notability of the subject of an article nor (b) the notability of people listed in a "standalone list article" then, like Tony, I too think a member of the society could be notable and added to the list even of they do not have an article yet, so long as his name is added followed with an explanation of the the person's notability and a reliable verifiable source. Hopefully you will think what I am providing here is some food for thought, but ultimately real action will benefit us all. Don't you agree? Mercy11 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)