User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/February 2009

Thank you!

For catching this, yikes! Lol! -- Banjeboi 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs! I actually had to read through it a few times! At first I thought it might just be me not making sense of it due to lack of sleep. Then I thought it was vandalism (indeed, the first two diffs I checked on the history page were the anon's and the redlinked user's :-p), and finally I decided to check yours, and saw it was a simple mix-up. Good cleanup though guy. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fr. Chico Monteiro

Is there some reason for deleting his name from the "List of People from Goa"? --Dommartin99 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the article was deleted per this AfD. Lists like that tend to include only notable people, and as the person was determined as not notable in the AfD, I removed him from the list. If lists of people were intended to include every person, regardless of notability, then our (for example) List of Chinese people would go on forever. In short, lists of people should generally only include people notable enough to have an article. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If having an article in Wikipedia is generally the criteria for making it in the 'List of People', what's the notability exception for those who don't have an article but are yet in the list?--Dommartin99 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't looked at each of them, and I don't really have the time to judge each of them on an individual basis. I just saw the redlink in the See also section of Fourth Geneva Convention, and saw that it was a deleted article, so I removed it. Disambiguation pages, see also sections, and "list/s of" pages are usually used in order to help the reader find articles that may interest them. Redlinks can sometimes be used on these pages, but only if there's a possibility that there will be an article on that topic (For example if a person clearly passed WP:BIO, but simply hadn't had an article created on them yet). Given how there was an article on Fr. Chico Monteiro, but it was deleted as not notable, this is usually an indication that the person won't suddenly gain enough notability for inclusion.

Again, I haven't looked at specific examples on the List of people from Goa, but if I saw that there were other now-deleted articles in the list, I would not hesitate to remove those either. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you fully understood or answered my question. However, thank you for clarifying the reason for deleting Fr. Chico Monteiro’s name from the List of People from Goa.

The notability test for List of People, it appears, is far less stringent than for an article, and just about anybody can insert anybody, since in most instances no verifiable links or references are appended to the entries. In Fr. Chico’s instance, an article that I had created of him had indeed passed the notability test and was in Wikipedia for several years until, a COI issue involving an article created on me by another entity – further compounded by one administrator/editor’s erroneous assumptions – triggered its deletion. {Note: There was a link to Fr. Chico Monteiro on my website, providing complete access to all articles about Fr. Chico and his case, all of which had appeared in newspapers and magazines. Of these articles, a mere two were by my pen).

The State of India vs. Fr. Chico Monteiro case was one of historical significance, in which the Geneva Convention itself was put to the test and on trial. Portugal found it worthy enough to appoint Queen Elizabeth’s counsel to represent Fr. Chico. TIME magazine also found the circumstances of the case notable enough to report it. Wikipedia editors/administrators are entitled to see things differently and that’s their prerogative. That's to be understood and accepted.

Thanks again for responding.--Dommartin99 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I follow your point. All I'm saying is, I started by removing a redlink from the See also section in the Fourth Geneva Convention article (because See also sections are not supposed to contain redlinks). Out of curiosity, I then looked at the redlink in question and saw that it had been deleted by consensus at an AfD. I then looked at the links for the article and saw that it was linked from the List of people from Goa. I then removed it from that list, as having it there did not aid readers in navigating to an article.

I did not take part in the AfD, and I have no opinion on the notability of the person in question. If the article was recreated, I would still have no opinion on the notability of the person, and would again not take part in any potential AfD. In general, I have no interest in deletion discussions unless it's an article I have been involved in editing. I just like to do minor cleanup work, and removing redlinks from a See also section fits that bill.

If you disagree with the outcome of the AfD, coming to me will be of no help. I am not an admin, and would have no power to reverse the decision of the AfD. What you would need to do is go to deletion review and make your case there. If you have any more questions or need assistance (either with this or with anything in the future), feel free to ask, but please be aware that I have no opinion on the notability of the person himself, nor of whether there should or shouldn't be an article about him. Thanks, Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)