The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge with article then delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Service and rescues of Foresters Centenary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template with no option to use it in other articles, information can be added to Sheringham lifeboat Forester’s Centenary ON 786 The Banner talk 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep This template was created to add to the page Sheringham lifeboat Forester’s Centenary ON 786 which has been done. If you delete the template this carefully gathered information will be lost from the article. It is a vital part of the article. I can not see why you should have a problem with it?  stavros1  ♣  23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As is stated above: the information can be added to the article. So the information will not be lost, but moved to the article. The Banner talk 00:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  ReplyThank you for your response to my question, but you still have not explained why you want to have the template deleted. I have inserted this information into the article in this form to shorten the script required on the main page. It also is less complicated for less competent editors to contribute to the main article without destroying the format of the table, a situation which has occurred several times on other lifeboat articles with this type of table.  stavros1  ♣  07:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You just use the template in the wrong way. You van included all the information in the article itself. As stated on Help:Template: A template is a Wikipedia page created to be included in other pages. Templates usually contain repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. This is a template intended for just one page, so you are using it wrongly. The Banner talk 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep While reading this page I used this template along with the other templates on this page to navigate to other articles connectect to this subject matter. i.e. SS Eaglescliffe Hall and HMS Vortigern (D37) I think the template should be kept as I found it very useful. If articles are added to Wikipedia that have connections to this lifeboat I can see that it would become useful in helping readers to navigate from page to page. Nothing constructive comes from deleting the template.Cheeseladder (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - The template is used only in one article, with no expected use in other articles. As such it is really article content stuffed into a tempplate. The material should be added to the article. That the template was used to navigate to other articles is not relevant. One could navigate to other articles just as effectively if the material were directly in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete after substituion - Single use template. --Izno (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete after substitution - PC-XT (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:A Girl like Me (Rihanna album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Good Girl Gone Bad track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rated R (Rihanna album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Loud (Rihanna album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Talk That Talk track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Unapologetic track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The templates are useless, unnecessary and redundant to Template:Rihanna songs which already contains the relevant links for navigation. Till 22:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - They aren't useless, Till. Seriously, what is happening to you.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Excuse me? They are completely redundant to the songs template which has ALL the entries for one to navigate. Where's the logic in having a duplicate template? Till 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • TFD every template for every song album for every singer then.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not acceptable reasons to keep something. The templates are completely redundant to the better-designed Template:Rihanna songs which conveniently serves as the main form of nagivation for readers. Per Status's reasoning there is no logic in having these templates so long as the former is in existence because it has the same info. Till 23:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Yes it is, Till. If these are redundant, then so are the ones for everyone else. You are making issues out of nothing recently.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. They are totally useful for a use in the infobox. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, they are useless if the Template:Rihanna songs is in existence. Till 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. I have to agree. Template:Rihanna songs covers the same exact information.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment—((Loud (Rihanna album) track listing)) and ((Talk That Talk track listing)) may be useful since all or most of the tracks have articles. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The entries are still present in the songs template so the templates are redundant regardless. Per WP:TfD, a template should be deleted if it "is redundant to a better-designed template" which in this case is Template:Rihanna songs Till 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Delete—OK. This is redundant since Template:Rihanna songs also separates the song articles by album. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Per Till's discussion with Aaron. These plainly duplicate the function of the navbox. --Izno (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. As the author of most of these templates, what's the reason for I have not even been notified about even one? Anyway, I think they are useful for the infobox. VítoR™  • (D) 16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete as redundant, and per Template:Good Girld Gone Bad, Template:Loud, Template:Rated R, and Template:Music of the Sun track listing discussions. Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:UNDUE. Actually nominate all such extra tracklists for deletion wherever you can find. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all - They completely duplicate what is alredy in the songs navbox which organise based on albums and is overtemplating to a great degree. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all - The Wikilinks for the album tracks are already located in Rihanna's songs template. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all the articles the template is used on are about the song not the album. Having the info once is more than enough. #Sugababes album track listing below is a similar set of templates which was a unanimous delete.--Salix (talk): 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete--Salix (talk): 15:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Graveyard Shift (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN Nav box superfluous as there are no articles about albums or musicians. The Banner talk 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete—all there are are related articles. Very much unneeded. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - All the items that are directly related to the band aren't links because there are no articles. In other words, there is nowhere to navigate to. The only bluelinks are things that should be (and are) linked in the main article body. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep consensus is easy to gauge here with an overwhelming keep for the template. Of the options 1 and 2 have good support while 3 did not, some suggested prod would be a better route for some articles. Adding ((find)) also gained strong support. Salix (talk): 06:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Notability (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used on 56,000 pages. See Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Is it used efficiently? Is drive-by tagging making it over used? Should we delete it and have articles go though the CfD CSD, PROD or AfD processes instead? I know of a recent case where an editor was roundly chastised for bringing really old {notability} articles to AfD. It was a good call on the part of that editor to try and clear the backlog since some articles have had this template since September 2007! That is six and a half years! I know that some editors consider WP to be work in progress but it is high time to actually finish some stuff. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that I did not say I wanted it deleted. I listed it here for discussion. This is after all the Templates for discussion forum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it was the notice (The template below (Notability) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus) that made people think you want it deleted. ZappaOMati 00:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like that the notice has to be changed so it reads "discussion". Should TfD be changed to read "deletion" because more often than not that is what it is. But we are getting off topic... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have now tweaked the wording on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The story to date (sort of):

• No stomach for deletion of the template
• Notification of the article creator when the template is added has some is getting good support
• Would be good to clear the backlog
• Send tagged articles off to WP:AFC or user namespace

Some questions:

• Do we have a time lime on it before the article goes off to AfD?
• Should the articles go off to AfD for "discussion" instead of being tagged for notability?
• Should we merge it?
• Are there stats on how we are doing on clearing the backlog?

Stay tuned folks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot things:

• Stats can be found here. - It's a Fox! (What did I break) 15:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bot notification of article creator being worked on, should be done by next Monday It's a Fox! (What did I break) 17:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC) BRFA filed here. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 14:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep This template, when used properly, should indicate to an article's author (who should be informed of its placement) that the article does not properly assert the notability of the topic. I tend to use it in cases where the topic is likely notable, but that notability is not indicated in the article. It serves to point out a policy to new editors who may not have been previously aware of it. It also serves, as Alan's example points out, that sometimes this template can remain in place for long periods, and that such articles should be dealt with in some manner. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• snowball keep- blatant disruptive nomination -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong keep Not even a question that this template should be kept. Safiel (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Not an outright disruptive nomination, but clearly a useful and valuable template. I see it as the good faith, non-bitey alternative to taking a new article straight to PROD/AFD/CSD: it says 'OK, your article currently doesn't appear to comply with our inclusion guidelines, but I'm going to give you some time to do something about it'. The length of time that the template can stick around is a feature, not a bug. (That said, six and a half years is a bit long - any article that's been around that long has had more than enough time to meet our standards, and should either be taken to AFD or have the template removed.) Robofish (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another non-bitey way would be to send it off to AfC or to user namespace. We need to up our game somehow. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfC is a really interesting suggestion. Seriously. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not just Keep, but develop notability guideline pages for more topics (such as television episodes and other fiction), and expand the template to link to those guidelines. (e.g. ((Notability|music)) links to WP:Notability (music)) Like all our other backlogs, we need to find a way to clean them up faster. GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And make them all the notability guidelines more prescriptive? Agrre on cleaning up the backlag at a faster rate. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry - I don't understand your question. I'd also like to see the template expanded so it populates the subcategories of Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability (e.g. let ((Notability|music)) populate Category:Music articles with topics of unclear notability), in the hopes that interested editors could resolve articles within their area of expertise more quickly. GoingBatty (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add things sort of like "A song is notable if it has sold a trillion copies" "if if has won the galaxy's Platinum award". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now I understand, and agree that the existing notability guidelines can be improved. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 26. GoingBatty (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep—the template is useful for when the notability is questionable and may need discussion. It also encourages article development to meet WP:N standards. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - Used for questioned notability, and to help editors stumbling onto the page attempt to establish notability. ZappaOMati 00:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we use AfDs for that? I know AfDs are not for a instigating a clean up but we have to admit that often^{[citation needed]} it does acheive just that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, since AfD's normally last up to about a month or so, but since the tag can normally stay for longer, I think it gives editors more time to work on it than an AfD. ZappaOMati 04:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question is academic since we don't use AfDs for cleanup. Or maybe we should? Maybe it should be "Articles for discussion"?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like that is not a goer: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Rename_AFD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm confused. Alan, if you don't want to delete this template, what do you want to happen? --BDD (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. That is why I put it us for discussion. But it looks like something is coming out of it per your comment below. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Should we get WP:TWINKLE to notify the creator of the article when it adds the template? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a bad idea. --BDD (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Or a bot that tracks additions of the template to catch non-Twinkle users? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the notifying the creator, but don't like a bot to track additions of the template to catch non-Twinkle users because not all users use Twinkle to tag a article with questionable notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am confused here. A bot could track the addition of the templae by both Twinkle and non-Twinkle users. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep. Note to Alan Liefting -- if consensus is established for this (and I have the time, and Twinkle does it ) I may code a bot. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! A friendly note to an editor that an article has been tagged with {notability} is a good idea and a good job for a bot and/or Twinkle. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe just a bot to keep it simple. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bot will have the advantage of notifying about the ones already tagged. Some of the editors will still be around to work on them. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. This worked, some, for the entirely unsourced BLPs in 2010, we did get a fair bit of participation. It might be possible, I'd add, to provide lists and a bit of a kick to associated WikiProjects. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Doing... It's a Fox! (What did I break) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome! The addition of a Twinkle notification function was my first question when I saw this, but the bot makes good sense, thanks. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reluctant keep – It does appear to serve a purpose within the community of active Wikipedia editors—if only to highlight potentially marginal articles. But I suspect that casual readers of Wikipedia may simply find it an unnecessary distraction. Still, that is a common problem with a number of these notification templates, and is no reason to get rid of this one in particular. Praemonitus (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would be happier with it if there was a way of preventing readers form not seeing it. Like we do with hidden categories. In fact shall we simple turn it into a hidden category rather than the huge fanfare at the top of the page as it is currently? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strongly disagree. the giant flags in front of reader's eyes are one of the prime benefits to readers, a HUGE majority of whom seem to think that anything they see in Wikipedia is a FACT. The blatant banners help to increase the respectability of Wikipedia when we are clearly acknowledging that we are a Work In Progress, and not trying to present the appearance of something we are not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a reason to use other templates such as ((fact)) and the ones at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, and it is a reason to get rid of articles of questionable notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"...the giant flags in front of reader's eyes are one of the prime benefits to readers...": kindly prove that this statement is true. Otherwise you're just making a sweeping generalization based purely on personal fervor. I'd like to see facts and data, rather than supposition and wishful thinking. If readers do love it, then great; otherwise, different approaches may need to be considered. Praemonitus (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i did not say that "readers love it" - i said the very loud in your face reminders to readers that Wikipedia is a work in progress and most articles have not had any serious editorial oversight even from untrained volunteers is an important function of the banners.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Even though it may be misused, this template is relevant, how would we tag an article with notability problem? Editors need to know which problem they need to attack, notability is one of the pillars of maintenance. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• HELL NAW Outright keep. This template has been used to establish notability and establish that fact that notability is not sufficient. Instead of deleting the template let's try to remove some of these articles from the backlog, including removing the tag for clear cases of notability. Also I see that roughly 5,000 articles were tagged in February 2012, with a large majority of astrology related articles tagged by Avicennasis JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a reason for having some sort of condition on the template usage. Or some sort of warning for the creator of the articles if they are all by the same editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the large number of stub articles in that category on asteroids I think you mean astronomy rather than astrology. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep; if it's one of the most used templates it's at least in part because it's one of the most needed, so removing it will help no one. Frankly I'd be in favour of moving most maintenance templates to talk pages, but this is the last one I'd move. Hairhorn (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or hiding ones that are of no interest to readers? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some such as refimprove can work as a little "warning" to readers that the sourcing is insufficient and thus the information is less reliable. But I digress. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree but there are other templates for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Getting rid of it would just shift those 56,000 pages mostly into the CfD, PROD or AfD processes. I don't really see that as being any more efficient. Many of those pages would be notable if sourced and rewritten some by a set of fresh eyes. The notability templates serve as a way to flag articles so they can either be fix or then in turn sent to (most likely) AFD. Any AFD I have been involved in has had a hard enough time getting enough responses for any sort of good consensus to be reached. Most consist of the initial AFD and the article's creator (sometimes not even that). I have come to accept 2-3 responses as a good AFD, since there just aren't enough people out there spending time with it anyhow. Why would we put even more of a strain on that process and distract from other pages that should be considered for deletion as well. I would suggest that more specific notability templates are created. That way they can be more easily identified and fixed. There are much better ways to fix how innundated Wiki is with notability templates than to just trash the template all together. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it were to be deleted, and no one is suggesting that, the template could be deprecated so it can no longer be used and the articles currently with it will slowly be sorted out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - I resonate with WikiDan61 and others: It's important for new editors who create articles. Many assume (as I did) that a red link automatically warrants an article (i.e. proves notability). Also, whether or not they understand the exact notability guidelines, it is a good motivator to go out and find sources for the brand new article, especially for the editor who created it. I agree that all tags look kind of ugly, but this is one of the most useful templates on WP in my opinion. --MattMauler (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not about redlinks themselves, it is about existing articles. Besides, given the decline in editorship, it seems that redlinks or anything elese for that matter is attracting new editors to WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand this has little to do with red links. It was just an example illustrating that new editors often begin without any clear idea what makes an article notable. The first place they are exposed to the notability guideline is often this very template we're discussing. It should be kept. --MattMauler (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and WP:SNOW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - the issues here is that too many pages of questionable notability are creeping in. There used to be a WikiProject Notability which seems to be inactive. This should be revived to look at getting the 56000 down to a reasonable number Gbawden (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like an argument to have a harder line on deletions rather than the softly-softly approach we have at present. Put the onus on the article creator to establish notability. Why should everybody else have to do the hard yards for them? Aren't we busy enough as it is? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would be a stronger argument if we made the slightest attempt to inform new editors of our policies on referencing and sources, particularly with respect to biographies, before they created an article. But we do at best a (redacted) job of that, and there's no real effort being put into remaking Wikipedia's interface to new users to change that --j⚛e decker^talk 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, there are lots of systemic problems on WP, one of them being newbies adding articles to a highly complex and bureaucratic website. Maybe the useful newbies need some sort of formalised training? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I don't believe they've intended to do this, the WMF and developers have essentially precluded this. The couple year project to try and improve the article creation workflow still doesn't enforce this, and the Foundation would resist any attempt to require training prior to article creation. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we should actually have formal training but I do want to improve the skills of out regular editors and I don't really want instruction creep and I don't want to have a perceived or actual barrier to editing. Sigh... All these competing demands. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, this.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep the AfD policy is seven days - for newish but interesting (at least to the author) projects just getting off the ground such as SaypU this may be too short - how about an resurrection archive and a bot to cold-store 'articles not notable or not viewed in previous year'?

• Keep. Certainly, there are problems with editors who put drive-by tags on articles and think they have done their bit, rather than taking any action about the issues involved. However, that problem will not be solved by getting rid of this template. I actually find that this template serves a useful purpose, because if I see an article tagged for notability with a date quite a while ago, then I look into it to see whether the subject is notable, and this can lead either to an article on a notable subject being improved or an article on a non-notable subject being deleted. It is very unfortunate that there are not more editors who do this, which would make the template even more effective, and reduce the backlog. However, the fact that not enough editors take constructive action, rather than just ignoring the template, is not a reason for taking away the option. As for the suggestion of making it invisible, that would throw the bay out with the bathwater, because editors would never notice that an article was tagged, so they would never do anything about it. (And it is totally unrealistic to imagine that the purpose would be served by checking Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Most of us never check that category, and most of us still wouldn't if the template were invisible.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as a useful template that keeps AfD from being overused. Wikipedia would be poorer without it. --Auric talk 11:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Either an article is notable or it is not. There is no grey area. AfD for anything someone thinks isn't notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The idea that there's no grey area is just silly. For one thing, "I haven't found sources, but there might be some, particularly with subjects most likely sourced in Urdu or Thai." is a case all too common to my experience. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I agree that there is a grey area and that is what we can and do sort out at AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Again, either an article is notable or it is not. Great that there might be sources in Urdu or Thai. But at the creation of the article, it should meet the general notability guide. If it doesn't, delete it. With, of course, the proviso of re-creating it if/when sources to indiciate notability are found. Are you seriously saying that it's OK to have a non-notable article on here for an indefinite period, but slap it with a tag? Black and white. No grey. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Lugnuts: Nope, that's not what I'm saying. If an article clearly doesn't meet GNG, sure, send it to AfD. It's my experience dealing with a lot of articles "at the margin" is that it's often fairly difficult to tell which side of the margin an article is on. Well, not difficult, simply time-consuming. Which is why it took 18 months of concerted effort by a number of editors to even stick a single verifiable source on roughly 60,000 articles in the WP:URBLP/WP:URBLPR days, a task far easier than actually deciding on notability for each. I'm often sympathetic to the idea that "if the article doesn't demonstrate notability, kick it" point of view. But that comes along with a recognition of what that implies. We have new editors. We'd like to keep them. We insist on letting them create new articles. (WP:ACTRIAL). We insist on doing absolutely nothing to inform those new editors of what will be required before letting them do so. ([1]). And then we delete those articles, and editors leave (citation needed, but you've seen the graphs as well as I have.) So ... we're kinda screwed if we do and screwed if we don't. I'll be a lot more likely to be enthusiastic about tough standards when I see effective attempts made to actually educate new users, and moreover, more editors willing to simply roll up their sleeves and start working on that backlog, one article at a time. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oh, you mean it is notable or it should go to AfD? None of this mucking about with a notability tag? Yes, I agree. In fact, I do take a hard line on notability and I am often chastised for bringing articles to AfD that are kept. And yes, deletion is not permanent, although many editors seem to think that it is. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess (and again, I need to remember that I've spent a lot of time "right at the margin") I feel that the place for the notability tag is the place where you're simply not sure. Trying to clear out 56,000 entirely unsourced BLPs had me a lot more concerned about hoaxes, slander and basic verifiability than about notability. And it was during that effort that I made the only significant use of this tag I've made. But I do think we need to do something to clear out that pile, and you're starting a great discussion on how we might do that. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea that there is no "grey area" is nonsense. Obviously there are occasions when I am sure a subject is notable, and occasions when I am sure it isn't, but equally obviously there are occasions when I am not sure. To claim there are no such doubtful occasions is ridiculous. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep. This nomination is crazy. We get hundreds of articles on non-notable topics every day, and many admins are loath to speedy them. We need to bring them to the attention of other editors either to show notability or send the article to AfD. Lugnets above neglects the fact that a subject can be notable, but the article has been written in a manner which doesn't actually include the reasons for notability. Tags are for attracting editors to improve the article, and do not "shame" the article or any other such nonsense. People who think that typically have article ownership issues. Yworo (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tags are for attracting editors to improve the article". How many articles in the last month have you edited to improve them that have this tag on it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I frequently look for sources and improve the article if I can find them, prod or nom the article for deletion if I can't. One example from February is Aaron Schwartz. Sometimes I tag them as non-notable myself, then come back when I have more time to investigate. Many articles which appear to be non-notable simply lack the sources needed to show that they are notable. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non--notable topics should be speedied, PRODed or AFDed - not tagged and left to hang around for years. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and note the POINT. I wouldn't have a problem, however, with having this transmute automatically into an AfD at 5 years. Practically speaking, most of the articles in the 5-year bucket can still be sourced to the low bar that is GNG. Most of those articles would survive AfD, but they would get eyeballs. AfD isn't for article improvement, and yet, sometimes, it works that way. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have to say, I think this 'convert automatically to AFD after 5 years' idea is a good one, and would solve the issue of these tags sticking around for ever. The only problem is, introducing it now would overwhelm AFD with a sudden deluge of >5-year-old articles. Perhaps if it were introduced gradually, or existing old articles were given a further fixed time period to improve before being sent to AFD... regardless, this idea is worth thinking about. Robofish (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I suppose I'd also accept redirect to ((unsourced)), ((BLP refimprove)), etc. as appropriate. Perhaps the latter could be modified to include a parameter which changes the wording slightly to note that the sourcing shortfall is sufficient to have left the article short of evidencing GNG. (Obviously, better wording required, but a lot of notability tags really do boil down to "not enough good sources in the article.) --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I like it, I think it should stay. ẈỄ'ḸḼ ṪḜḀṘ ỶƠṴṜ ṠǾṸḶ ḀṖẤṘṮ... Ǐ Đŏ Ñőť Ŗëșρθ₦ḏ Ẁ€ḷḹ Тό Ḉṟḭṭịḉḯṧṃ 14:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT does not add anything to the discussion. Why do you like it. I know it is a judgement call but how do you arrive at that judgement? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Prayer and reflection. Does that answer your question? :) ẈỄ'ḸḼ ṪḜḀṘ ỶƠṴṜ ṠǾṸḶ ḀṖẤṘṮ... Ǐ Đŏ Ñőť Ŗëșρθ₦ḏ Ẁ€ḷḹ Тό Ḉṟḭṭịḉḯṧṃ 07:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - per Praemonitus Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as is That Wikipedia has a shortage of editors who are willing to clean up stuff doesn't mean we should discard cleanup tags. Drive-by tagging for notability is a far better idea than mass deletion or just leaving crap in unremarked. Ray^Talk 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is actually no suggestion of discarding the template. This is a discussion about it. I am not necessarily suggesting that we do it but what is wrong with mass deletion? Deletion is not permanent. Another option is the dreaded Instruction Creep for template usage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does a shortage of editors mean we should get rid of the less notable stuff? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, didn't you suggest deleting the template, right up there in the nomination? Why else are we having this discussion? Article deletion is pretty well permanent, for the vast majority of content-adding editors. Nor does AfD have the capacity to handle a mass insertion of nominations right now, even if it were a good idea. Drive-by tagging is far preferable to deleting everything we don't have the capacity to verify right now, or to leaving stuff of dubious notability and reliability unmarked. I view the backlogs on the improvement tags as the least bad of the various alternatives. Ray^Talk 20:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not suggested deleting the template. I want to discuss it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keepas a useful template. Att3847 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But how is it useful? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that there is something of a TLDR situation in this discussion, but if you look carefully you will see several points where that question is answered. See, for just one example, my first post. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had the same thought myself which is why I have put up a summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm rethinking this one. Actually, I think I was thinking about this template earlier yesterday, before the nomination. It's a pretty half-assed template, isn't it? Lugnuts has a point. If you think the article isn't notable, take it to AfD; if you don't, don't. Gray area only exists because, to paraphrase a comment on a current WP:RFA, people treat deletion like a shooting gallery. When you nominate an article for deletion unsuccessfully, you can feel like a failure. You want to bat 1.000 (or keep a clean sheet, if you'd like). If we could somehow remove that stigma, I think we could safely delete this template. But I won't go so far as to advocate for that right now. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. This template is for fence sitters and drive by taggers (but I use it myself!!). An article is notable or we may not be sure. If we are not sure it should be "discussed" at AFD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree entirely. I spend plenty of time at AFD so my record remains pretty close to consensus just by sheer numbers - like 80%+ across 250 since November! (if I was there that much and consistently way outside consensus there'd be something seriously wrong). The occasional withdrawal/SNOW or against-consensus vote doesn't bother me. But for editors there less often, a "failed" AFD can feel like a kick in the guts (witness the number of AFD non-regulars who will fight to the death when consensus is against them). I think it encourages a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and anything we can do to give editors a few more options before AFD (including a more advanced notability-tagging system) is worth considering. Stalwart111 02:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My AfD stats are pretty shabby. So do you thing it should be "Articles for discussion"? It is a perennial proposal apparently. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Rename_AFD. If may fix the battleground mentality and we would be able to get rid of the notability backlog and make the template redundant. Sounds good to me? A short term AFD tag is much better than a long term notability tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that has its merits but I'm not really excited about it. I think a lot of new users end up at AFD - if we refer to it as Articles for Discussion then some new editors might misunderstand the purpose of that forum. I'm just concerned the uninitiated might land there expecting chat-chat-chat and then bam! - deleted article. I mean, you'd hope not... but let's be realistic. We'd end up with lots of, "I didn't know that's what might happen!" DRV and ANI threads I think. There are obvious answers to those concerns but I just don't think it's worth it. I do, however, think a better and more informative build-up to AFD is very worthwhile - CSD (with notification), ((notability)) (with notification), PROD (with notification) and then finally AFD (with notification). Though there are variations to that order, obviously. I see notability-tagging as an integral part of that process and it doesn't make sense to me that it comes without notification for the article creator. I also think there would be merit in a tool that lists articles that have been notability-tagged for certain lengths of time (unless one exists and I've missed it) to encourage action. Though an experienced editor recently got crowd-trouted for mass-nominating a stack of long-((notability))-tagged articles for deletion. Should see her AFD record. Stalwart111 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. While the backlog is huge, the intended use of the template is a good idea. While AfD should be used for non-notable articles, AfD places the burden of WP:BEFORE on the nominator. This template can be, on the other hand, used if the tagger cannot clearly determine notability from the article text itself, but is unsure if the subject is notable itself. Granted, this may in many cases amount to drive-by tagging, but the existence of drive-by tagging shouldn't be a reason to get rid of potentially useful tags.  — daranz [ t ] 21:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, for all the many sensible reasons articulated above. -- The Anome (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, a useful template in a number of cases as mentioned above. I personally use it to give other editors as much as a year to establish notability and improve references before I take (non-spam) articles to Afd. Dialectric (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Obvious keep. The very first sentence of the discussion explains why. RNealK (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But that is just the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad populum. Like Penn and Teller (well Penn anyway) have said "And "Candle in the Wind" by Sir Elton John is the bestselling song of all time. Popular sure doesn't mean right." -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, obviously, but endorse discussion on the basis that such things should be discussed regularly and that doing so strengthens the collegial nature of editing around here. Is it used improperly? Undoubtedly. Is that a reason to delete it? No, a point the nominator acknowledges, I think. This probably would have found a more natural home (as a discussion) at something like WP:VPP where all related issues could be addressed, but there's some novelty in shaking things up and this has already received a lot of attention, as it should. I think it would help if notability tags were accompanied by talk page notes for the editor who created the article (like CSD/PROD/AFD) - that way they are specifically notified that the article needs work. I know if a stub I created was tagged that way it would prompt a little editing drive from me and I suspect others would be the same. Stalwart111 02:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - It is a good half-step between leaving an article that begs for better notability demonstration, and a full AFD. If one sees an article that they acknowledge is weak in its notability but feel the topic is likely notable with proper care and attention, this is the process to use. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – Just because someone hasn't got around to nominating it for deletion doesn't mean this shouldn't exist. Its purpose is to encourage people to establish it as notable or delete it if not. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete or (more practically given consensus:) substantially rewrite. Perhaps the reason why it's on 56,000 articles is because the template does not say what an editor should do if he or she disagrees with the template and thinks that the subject is notable and that there is sufficient evidence of notability in the article as it is currently written. I went through one month of these tags once (2006 June or so?) and either added sources, removed the tag, or AfD'd each article. In most cases the articles received a drive-by tag from an editor who never contributed to the article or to the talk page explaining the problems or brought the article to AfD and subsequent users improved the article but did not remove the tag -- if people who disagree with the tag are reluctant to remove it then there is something wrong with its phrasing. But really if an article has notability problems then it should be brought to AfD after the problems have been discussed with the content creators or the tag should disappear after a certain amount of time (3 months?); otherwise it's rude to the content creators to imply a major problem with an article but never bring it to a "jury" to clear it. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I think a bot informing the creator that a tag has been applied, with a link to the relevant section of WP:NOTABILITY would be hugely useful. I also think it could be useful for an automated message to go to the tagger if the notability tag is still on after a certain amount of time, e.g. 1 year. I have been doing this manually, and many taggers have then nominated for deletion, or removed the tag because they feel the issue's now been resolved. Many have appreciated the message and acted on it, many haven't responded and one felt the message implied that I was saying the tagger had a responsibility to resolve the problem. Hopefully, careful wording on the bot's message would clear up the last point. As many of these tags were over 5 years old, often the tagger and the creator had both given up on editing Wikipedia, but if a message had been sent earlier, they would have had the option of looking at the article again, if they so chose.

The oldest entries on CAT:NN, those over 5 years, I think should be specifically looked at by editors, but many of them do turn out to be notable with some work - but the only successful way I've found of resolving this issue was to take long-term tagged articles, where I couldn't improve them myself as a non-specialist using Google, to AfD. This was much-criticised, both because there were some examples where I had missed something quite obvious, and because some people felt that it was overloading AfD. Both are valid points. I don't know how we can encourage other editors to help clear the backlog, but I think of all tags, this is the most important one to look at and resolve. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep fills the gap between delete and ref tags. Useful and important for keeping pressure on under-referenced article. Widefox; talk 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: A useful way to flag up lack of apparent notability, without the "Before" work needed to take it to AfD: "This has no reliable sources or external links indicating notability, but I haven't the time/inclination/suject knowledge to search for such sources myself today". Strongly support automatic notification to the editor who created the article (but what happens if that editor then just removes the "notability" tag?). As for the backlog ... perhaps more publicity needed to attract more editors to have a crack at reviewing long-tagged NN articles (something in The Signpost?). (Hmm, I might have a look as a change from stub-sorting some time). PamD 14:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor removal of the tag shouldn't bother us too much. That can happen with PROD and CSD already. A bot notification would just be further documentation, though, if the editor is acting in bad faith, or at least stalling. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor removal of the tag in good faith is fine per WP:BRD. Other ways to attract more users to the page include:

1. Add the appropriate Wikiproject template(s) to the talk page, without the class/importance fields populated.
2. Add the appropriate stub template(s) (if needed).
3. Add the appropriate parameter to the Notability tag (e.g. ((Notability|music))). GoingBatty (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete get rid of it, to be quite frank it's a bloody nuisance. We can do better than this. ẈỄ'ḸḼ ṪḜḀṘ ỶƠṴṜ ṠǾṸḶ ḀṖẤṘṮ... Ǐ Đŏ Ñőť Ŗëșρθ₦ḏ Ẁ€ḷḹ Тό Ḉṟḭṭịḉḯṧṃ 17:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC) User was blocked indef for block/ban evading.Reply[reply]

• Well, it took you a little over 24 hours to go from your 'keep' comment above to 'strong delete'. :/ Care to explain what prompted that change of mind? Robofish (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Research and deliberation. Does that answer your question? :) ẈỄ'ḸḼ ṪḜḀṘ ỶƠṴṜ ṠǾṸḶ ḀṖẤṘṮ... Ǐ Đŏ Ñőť Ŗëșρθ₦ḏ Ẁ€ḷḹ Тό Ḉṟḭṭịḉḯṧṃ 07:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neither option. I don't understand why this discussion needs to be so binary? Keep or delete? I think Alan_Liefting makes an extremely valid point here. There are over 56,000+ articles on Wikipedia with contested notability. Some of those articles were tagged as questionably notable years ago. There needs to be a process to deal with the tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia in a more efficient manner than we are currently dealing with them today. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the need to deal with things more efficiently. To this end I set up the WP:BACKLOG page. As for the polarised discussion, I tried to make it clear that it is just that. It seems that TfD is all to often seen as a deletion venue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete It just junks up the top of the page. Never once has anyone ever seen that and decided to change anything. Just a waste of time, and an unnecessary eyesore. People who don't get their way in an AFD, or just don't like something, tag it with this all the time. Dream Focus 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Can we create a bot that procedurally noms the oldest articles with this template for deletion? It would need to be limited to a couple a day so it doesn't overload AfD. At least it would be a start. Ryan Vesey 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If not, listing AfDs is pretty easy with Twinkle. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly technically possible, yes. How many per day, do you think? I'm seeing a current AfD processing rate of about 70-90 per day, and we're certainly hurting at times for more participation, so I wouldn't want to double that, but I could likely support a number up to 20-25/day, and my preference would probably be in the range of 10-15. (Edited to add: Note, of course, that even at 25/day, and no new tags, it'd take 8 years to clear the backlog.) --j⚛e decker^talk 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking less, more like 5. Basically, I wouldn't want it to have a noticeable effect. It would only be a drop in the bucket as far as the total backlog was concerned, but we'd fix almost 2,000 articles a year. It's likely that a lot could be closed quickly as cases where the tag should be removed, but it would need to be made clear that WP:BEFORE doesn't apply and there can't be an WP:SK#2 votes. Ryan Vesey 19:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eight years!!! Goodness gracious me!!! We have got to jolly well do something about this wretched problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This of course raises the issue of editor attrition and a freely editable encyclopaedia. There are simple solutions to the problem... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strongest possible keep: News flash: there are way more than 56K articles where notability isn't fully established. There are pages that should be nuked, but haven't for whatever reason. These need the tag. And getting a no-consensus vote in an AfD doesn't resolve issues of not establishing notability in an article. pbp 21:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an article passed though AfD as no consensus it is a failure of our notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep If a template is being used on 56,000 pages then it's obviously being used efficiently. Same with AllRovi, which was discussed earlier. Why delete a template when it's been used so much before? MTG1989 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Lol, if it's so efficient why is it on 56,000 pages???? NE Ent 23:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete! Kill! Die, die, die! All it does is transform an article with sketchy notability to an article with sketchy notability with an ugly tag on top of it. An editor coming upon an article with borderline notability should either add references or Afd, not stick a stupid tag on top and pretend they did something useful. NE Ent 23:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, this notification is getting obsolete and must be removed. Hansen Sebastian 22:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• OK--I tried to close this as a keep per WP:SNOW but was unsuccessful. If anyone can take care of this by proxy that would be fine with me. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hello. Did you really? Well, join the club. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Observation – Of the articles I've randomly encountered that possess this tag, they generally appear to fall into two camps: (1) the subject actually lacks suitable sources; (2) the person posting the tag made no effort to address the issue. What I'd really like is a means to affirm case number 1 by setting a flag of some type; possibly by adding a confirmation flag (or multiple flags) to the template. Those articles that are affirmed as case 1 are possibly good candidates for the AfD process. In case number 2, another template would probably be more appropriate. Thus perhaps such a confirmation flag can be a multiple option case statement. Praemonitus (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• comment notability is the most controversial aspects of wikipedia. It should be reformed for sure, but deleting something that is so entrenched in wikiwarfare is like the pope converting to islam. 82.14.248.35 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hello. I am afraid I disagree. If this template is deleted, the wiki-warfare simply ends. In an unrelated, if a Pope is converted to Islam (or any other religion), another Pope is selected and nothing changes; although I expect the newspapers will have a field-day similar to this discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Articles that are possibly not notable should be tagged to warn others that they need the attention, what someone needs to do is go through the 56k articles and delete the ones tha thave had the tag for the longest times and/or remove the tag for articles that have been improved. Deletion is not a solution for cleanup. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. It makes no sense. AFD or leave alone. I just had a new article tagged like this. How can I get rid of the tag? Should I cut it and then do we edit war about it...if my cutting is not accepted? Should I send my own creation to AFD to clear the tag (if so why not have the creator just start an AFD or PROD or SD?) Leave the article defaced like that forever? (BTW, the people who tag like this don't bother using the article talk page for discussion of nuances...if we really wanted that...hint hint. they just tag.)TCO (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Update your article to ensure it establishes the proper notability, then remove the tag. If someone thinks there's still an issue, they should initiate a discussion on the the talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We really really need a section break for convenience[edit]

• Keep per Praemonitus at 01:21, 27 February 2013 and TRPOD's subsequent comment: it's good both for telling editors that articles should be checked out and for warning readers that they should consider distrusting the article. Deletion wouldn't be good because it would get rid of these abilities; thanks to the nom for clarifying that he's not necessarily in favor of deletion. As well, I support the idea of adding the "find sources" links. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Snowy keep. Useful, backlog needs to be reviewed, not deleted. Move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep but backlog does need to be filtered, and the ability to find the pages tagged in a centralized list with the date of the tag's addition. Captain Gamma (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - many have suggested AfD as an alternative, but "lacks reliable sources" as an AfD reason usually results in a vote of "keep" on the rationale that "someone could theoretically find sources". --???
• Keep. The "drive-by" nature of this template is precisely what is useful about it to me. I don't send anything to AfD unless I am absolutely convinced that it needs to be deleted. That's because submitting an AfD is a pain in the neck, if you do it conscientiously including notifying the article's frequent editors and relevant Wikipedia projects. Using this template allows you to quickly raise the issue of notability in cases where a PROD isn't appropriate and an AfD isn't necessarily warranted. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Keep: This template is highly useful for those times when PROD or AfD would be downright unwarranted. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy keep. These kinds of TfD's look WP:POINTy, you should avoid them and instead use WP:RFC at the template Talk page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, and move the discussion on the path forward to Template talk:Notability, so we can remove the "The template below (Notability) is being considered for possible deletion" message that appears on every page that contains ((Notability)). GoingBatty (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Snowy keep: What I usually do is also add a section to the article's Talk page which includes Wikilinks to the relevant notability guidelines plus specific advice on how to fix things. Often this prompts the article's supporters to act. Newbie's don't always know what is wrong or how to fix it. The template should encourage advice being left on the Talk page. HairyWombat 19:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way forward[edit]

While there is not on outright consensus at this stage it looks like we will be keeping the template. As a result of this discussion a few things have arisen:

1. Have a bot notify the article creator for past and future additions of the template (this is being worked an at present)
2. Warn the editor if the template is about to be added without the appropriate notability guideline parameter (org, bio, books, film etc) and a new parameter of "reason". The ((cleanup)) template has this sort of funtionality.
3. The oldest ones should be trickled through to AfD, AFC or user namespace (somehow)

Use the section above for generic !voting and below for the proposals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion/vote

• Support all as nominator. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support all with a limit for item 3 of no more than 25 articles per day. (A smaller limit is fine and preferred, that's just the point at which my support for that option drops.) --j⚛e decker^talk 21:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1, Semi-support 2, Neutral on 3 I like the first option. Same with option 2 except a reason parameter I think isn't necessary just but the appropriate guideline (books, music, org etc) parameter should be fine. I'm not sure about 3, it will take forever if we have just a small portion go through everyday and if we have a large portion it would overwhelm AFD. Why should we send it to AFC? I don't know how sending it to a user namespace would work either. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strongly support all - with the proviso that #3 is a human-prompted-by-bot system rather than an automatic bot-nominator (but I don't think that is what is being suggested, right?). A good tweak to a much-used system. Stalwart111 22:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support all, though I'm not sure what would be a reasonable rate of 'trickle-through' to AFD for 3. 25 a day seems like a lot to me, maybe more like 10 a day? Honestly though, it depends on how quickly we can deal with them. It was possible to clear the unreferenced BLP backlog relatively quickly, but assessing an article's notability is a more difficult task than just finding a reference, so dealing with this one will be necessarily slower. In the longer term, I'd support putting a time limit on ((notability)), so any article tagged with it is automatically send to AFD after (say) one year - but we'd have to clear the backlog first. Robofish (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strongly support all, and well done, Alan, for starting this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strongly support all, thanks Alan for starting this discussion. Ryan Vesey 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support but reword to balance. I think that if the process will lead to AfD then, like PROD, CSD, etc. there should be an explanation of what a person should do if he or she feels that the tag is inappropriate and the article is fine as is (remove it? have a contest button?). Many of the articles with the tag (probably 70% in my experience) should go to AfD, but about 30% that I review I see and think, what was the tagger thinking? I know that I can remove the tags, but I don't know that everyone knows that.
• Support the Bot notification, although in the case of SPA-created articles, I doubt it'd do much good. As for the second idea, isn't it redundant with the current Twinkle options? Oppose the AfD concept. We do have PROD for a reason. Only send the declined PRODs to AfD, please - we're having a distressingly high number of relists compared to when I joined Wikipedia back in '08, and I suspect this is a sign that AfD is pretty much at capacity. Ray^Talk 21:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support this very sensible idea. However this backlog is only a symptom of a much bigger problem, drive-by tagging. Whether it's malice, boredom, or a desire to drive up their edit counts there are too many 'editors' who merely jump from article to article placing tags and never follow-up or try to remedy the problem. As editors we've become immune to them, if they are on a page that we care about, we may address them if valid but often just remove them because there is no merit to them. Unfortunately, as this backlog shows many remain in place and WE ignore them BUT what about the millions of folks that only use Wikipedia as a resource, they go to a page they are curious about, see this tag that invalidates what they are reading and are turned off to the who thing. Tagging without legitimate attempts to address issues needs to be stymied. J04n(talk page) 12:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hear, hear! when i'm doing backlog tasks, I give great weight to whether the tagger has edited the article in any way before or discussed it on the talk page at all. If not, I read the article myself and decide if I agree (in which case I PROD or AfD if I can't find sources quickly) or delete the tag if I don't. I figure, why give more weight to the opinion of one person reading the article possibly for 30 seconds than to the editors who took hours of their life to create the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support 1 & 2, semi-support 3 where I would prefer a trickle-through to PROD rather than AfD, possibly with a reviewable overall report on current cases as was done with the BLPPROD exercise. If the article is re-created and an editor believes it still has notability issues, then it can be taken through to AfD as a contended PROD for wider discussion. AllyD (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose – The proposals as written are vague and subject to interpretation. The language should be properly reworded for clarity before any of these are adopted. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 & 2 as is - Oppose 3 as is - These cleanup tags are just that, cleanup, and arguably AFD is not the right answer. Being tagged should not be a path to automatic AFD listing, though I would support a path that puts such articles after several years (eg, perhaps 5 years, such that this year we can talk about those tagged in 2008) into an admin queue to review and then put to an AFD only if it clearly fails. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 and 2; no opinion on 3. I'm happy to change Twinkle as required; please post at WT:TW to request anything. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 and 2, unsure about 3—I agree that the first two points would be a great help, but with number three, it's really moving a backlog of ((notability))-tagged articles to an AFD backlog. An administrator queue may work, but uncontroversial deletions could be done without extensive review. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 and 2, 'Oppose 3 Deletion may not be right for some of these articles, but easing the editing process is worthwhile. Captain Gamma (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support three proposals Seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to both fix the problem, and put a system in place such that it cannot happen again. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 & 2 as obvious improvements, though they will need to be discussed at WP:VP or elsewhere if challenged-this is a page for discussing templates, not changing WP procedures. No. 3 is already available within the discretion of any editor. I emphasise the word discretion. We have a good procedure for uncontroversial deletion already: WP:PROD, which deletes about 5,000 aticles a year. I remind anyone who wants to do it automatically that it is against deletion policy to nominate for deletion without considering other alternatives,and I do not know how this can be done without individual judgment. It is not strictly required to look for sources before deletion, but it's highly recommended. Of course the problem will not be solved--about one-third of the articles submitted are clearly unsuitable and get quickly removed, but the rest will continue to need individual screening. Given that we do not agree on the interpretation of the guidelines at WP:N, as any AfD log will make evident, the decision in many cases will be a matter of community judgment DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose All - Procedural. Nominating the template for deletion is not an appropriate way to force a discussion on the specifics of the template. Nominator apparently had no intention of deleting the template, and made no attempt to discuss the issues on Template talk:Notability first.Dialectric (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I do believe the name of this page is templates for discussion, not templates for deletion.... --Izno (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, what Izno said. No one, pretty much, would ever notice if the raison d'etre and future of this massively [over]used template were only discussed on its own talk page, which isn't watched by anyone but template geeks like me. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support 1 & 3 (moving to PROD first, as suggested by DGG), oppose 2 - I don't see how the editing interface will know whether a particular parameter is needed, and it's not obvious that a reason is always needed. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support all They all seem helpful in clarifying the article's issue and allowing people to understand what the problem is. Greengreengreenred 06:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (edit conflict)Support 1, Oppose 2, Semi-support 3: Option 1 will help clear out the backlog. I don't see option 2 having any use at all. Option 3 is a good idea, but I am afraid it will flood AfD. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support all 3. Deletion doesn't have to be "right" for all articles tagged with this for a long time; it is the job of processes like CSD, PROD and AFD to determine whether an article should be deleted, and why. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 & 2, Oppose 3 - The first two should improve the usability and bring attention to the article, but I don't like procedural AfD nominations, per User:Masem's logic and would also prefer an admin nominating queue. Some articles have questionable notability because of WP:OFFLINE, which can make it hard for casual editors to add sources, even if they want to. I don't have a problem with cleanup notices on articles; I think that they help readers as well as editors, and perhaps attract new editors. —Ost (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support 1 and 3, unsure on 2. A nudge is fine, but a requirement is not, given that many articles won't fit into any of the established subtemplates. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add ((find)) to template for ease of checking notability[edit]

Proposal to make it easier to determine notability by doing the following.

1. Add ((find sources)) to the bottom of this template in small print the same way it is used on the ((AFC submission)) template.
2. Have a bot add a ((find sources notice)) to the talk pages of articles that have this template.

This will make it much more easy to determine notability by simply clicking the news and book search links rather than having to hunt around manually. 64.40.54.87 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion/!vote

• Support as proposer. 64.40.54.87 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- actually, every WP article should have this.  :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support—in fact, I've wondered why this isn't integrated into ((Talk header)). —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I don't see why not, they have it on AfD nominations too. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I don't see why not either, and it would make the tag more specific, which only increases the ease of fixing the article for the next editor. Captain Gamma (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support since apparently it wont get deleted. Shii (tock) 02:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Simply seems like a good idea to me. Greengreengreenred 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, excellent idea. Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, very helpful. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: This is a great idea. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral – Does item #1 replace some of the current wording? I'm not in favor of further fattening up the current template. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all --Salix (talk): 14:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Baltic Finns image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Baltic peoples image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Celts image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Germanic peoples image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Italic peoples image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Slavic peoples image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Semitic image array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all as unused. It appears the intent was to use it similar to ((Semitic image array)). I'm actually not convinced that Semitic image array is a good idea either. It is only used once in the article and would proably be better served by creating a single image file that is a collage of the desired images. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've a mind to TFD the semitic image array template for a) being single use and b) because it doesn't portray the culture whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Is this array (and the others) meant to portray culture or people..? CsDix (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  added, since it too is unused. Frietjes (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Do you think it would be wise to TfD the image array template you created also? I'm not a particular fan of it, but you would know better whether it should be (being the creator...). --Izno (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just wondering if editors of the accompanying "X peoples" articles might appreciate the code for these arrays (or whatever might replace them) being kept away from the article text..? CsDix (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's nothing fancy about these. The template simply populates ((image array)) with selected images. It's now gone, but when used in Semitic peoples, I though it looked horrible, but that's just my opinion. ( see [2])-- Whpq (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all --Salix (talk): 14:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Change (Sugababes album) track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taller in More Ways track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sweet 7 track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These album templates for the Sugababes should be deleted because they are redundant to Template:Sugababes songs which already contains the relevant entries necessary for navigation. Simply put, they are no longer being used. Till 09:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete—they seem excessive when the navigation box sufficiently takes care of the links. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete overly specific, and redundant as described above. Dialectric (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as redundant to the songs navbox. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.