| abstract
| - This article is deos not meet the WP:GNG should be deleted or merged with Batman. It gives WP:Undue weight to this trivial subject finaly being a work of fiction cannot be resonabley WP:V. Finaly this page creates too much overhead in patrol work. OrenBochman 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
* Holy obsessive fixations, Batman! Get out the fanboy repellent!! That is to say, delete, obviously. I'm sure a few elements can be merged with the main article but, honestly it feels like someone must have planted this just to give us poor souls haunting AfD a little laugh! Snow (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
* Per WP:BELONG, this is a purely personal point-of-view. Warden (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete: not encyclopaedic; subject does not warrant a separate article from Batman. Richard75 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
* Per WP:UNENCYC, this is an empty argument. Warden (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* I will elaborate: it is not notable. To qualify as notable the topic must have significant coverage in independent sources. In the words of Wikipedia:Notability, " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail (my emphasis), so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." If this article has had to be cobbled together by collecting a single fact from each source -- the sources only touching upon the subject in a sentence or two (this is debated by other editors below) -- then it is original research and thus does not satisfy the notability requirement. It does not matter how popular the subject is, how important it is within the context of the Batman comics and films, how verifiable it is, or how many editors want to keep it. Richard75 (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Now you're changing your story. And your new line of argument is not supported by the facts as multiple sources have been presented which provide significant coverage of the topic. Warden (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* It looks like the same argument to me, but whatever: if the first time I made it it was "an empty argument" then I am entitled to improve on it or change it. I will address your second point below. Richard75 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep WP:BEFORE fail. Batman's utility belt has been around for 70+ years. You think there would be some critical commentary on its place within the fictional DC universe? Me too: 1, 2, 3. But wait, there's more! Batman's utility belt is such a well-known pop culture icon, there are multiple references that compare real-world items to it: 4, 5, 6. This is why best practices are to check Google first before nominating an article for deletion: to a non-fan, it might seem trivial, and impossible that it would meet GNG. However, the only really reliable test is to actually look for sources, which clearly had not been done here. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment: Well, sources are sufficient to establish verifiability but do not necessarily satisfy notability through sheer numbers. To me, this is clearly a kind of POV fork being used to supply undue weight to a minor part of the franchise mythos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 June 2012
* The first two sources in the external links above only mention the batbelt in one or two sentences, in one instance merely listing some articles contained in the belt -- neither goes into any detail, and one is a list of miscellaneous bat-things. The third does not mention the bat belt at all, but it refers to a book about superheroes so I assume the link is meant to tell us that the book mentions it -- I don't know what it says as it is not cited in the article, so the link is not helpful, but if someone can either quote the passage here or better still, put it in the article, then we can judge whether it is a significant source which fulfills the notability guidelines. Sources 4 to 6 are single-sentence humorous references to Batman's utility belt in articles which are not about that subject and do not discuss it at all, which certainly is not enough to establish notability. Richard75 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* If you're not seeing the detailed discussion of Batman's utility belt in the third source, then your argument is excusable, even if baseless--Google Books does apparently limit content displayed depending on where the editor is, and I see a multi-page discussion of what is on the belt, how it's used over time, etc. On the other hand, as I've said below, these are not an exhaustive list, but an indication what five minutes with Google Books can produce. Those who want the article deleted need to not only impeach all of these sources, but also demonstrate that other such sources aren't likely to exist. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep if this is a vandalism magnet that hurts patrollers, it indicates it is popular with our readers. Protection is the sort of thing to help with vandalism rather than deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
* Pppularity does not equate to notability. Richard75 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep per Jclemens. A notable topic, and in my view, there is too much material for merger to be a good option here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Holy keep Batman! As a pop-culture icon with several reliable sources that discuss it in detail, it's notable enough for an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Per the suggestions given below, I would also recommend a move to Utility belt, and be rewritten in such a way that it would be about the utility belt in general in fiction and in real life, not just about Batman. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Snow Keep per Jclemens. Also look at [1], [2], [3]. Cavarrone (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep The topic is covered in detail in numerous sources such as The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes; Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon; The Science of Superheroes; &c. The topic therefore satisfies WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep: Pretty important pbp 15:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Comment: I've checked all of the links supplied above and contain only passing references to the utility belt, usually a single sentence long and usually for the sole purpose of supplying a simile to some multi-use device. In fact, most of them spend much more time on other elements of Batman's gadgetry (body armor, bat-a-rangs, ect.) that do not (and should not) have their own article. Also, though two of them are full-on books and decent sources, most of the others are questionable as valid Wikipedia sources. As for the sources on the article itself, all but one come from informal fansites and community projects which disqualify them as valid sources. Regardless, there's plenty to establish WP:Verifiability, but not so much WP:Notability. I can find a thousand pop culture references to Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own page! Snow (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* The separate page is port-wine stain which is illustrated with a large picture of Gorbachev. That's somewhat generic as he's not the only person to have such a thing. For a better analogy see sonic screwdriver; list of James Bond gadgets; Excalibur; &c. And I disagree with you about the quality of sources. The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes is quite satisfactory as a source and has pages about the utility belt. Works such as The Essential Batman Encyclopedia and Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon have plenty too. Warden (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Neither of those is a source for the article. Richard75 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Going to answer this in a hurry. Don't take the curtness to be dismissiveness. Port-wine stain is not about Gorbachev's iteration, it simply uses his for illustrative purposes. Not a relevant analogy. See WP:POV fork, WP:Notability, and item 9 of this section of "What Wikipedia is not". I'd argue Sonic screwdriver shouldn't be it's own article, the list of James Bond gadgets is pushing it and Excalibur, a nearly-thousand year-old legend with deep culture significance well out-classes the notability of all three other examples. Regardless, the notability for this article seems lacking, whatever is going on in those cases. Snow (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Pretty impressive example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - jc37 02:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, how exactly? WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to situations where an editor advocates for the removal of content on the basis of subjective dislike (for example, in the case of a person who objects to content on the grounds that it offends their religious sensibilities). I made a valid argument on the basis of policies that I outlined in detail. Perhaps you should review those policies (and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, ironically) and then respond to my argument on the merits of the facts. Snow (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Because you're making comments which are subjective and not based upon the sources. You don't feel that one is as good as another. That's called WP:OR among other things. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's still IDONTLIKEIT just the same. As for reading WP:AADD, I may have read it once or twice already... But please feel free to help enlighten me to how you feel I am misunderstanding you. - jc37 05:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) This is not the place to go into it in depth, but there's a huge difference between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and simply strongly favoring a delete; WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns solely cases where an argument is made that has no relevant policy support. It has nothing to do with how strongly the editor is opposed to the content staying or how many different arguments they site against it. It is completely dependent on whether the arguments they cite are based in simple personal preference (i.e. "I don't think we should give these jerks any more free publicity!") or if they are based on the content failing to meet policy guidelines ("This page contains only contentious material that has never been sourced, despite repeated challenges). So no, it's not at all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And my opinion on the sources is no more or less subjective than yours or any other editor's. AfD's (and indeed virtually all deliberation on content on Wikipedia) always require us to make personal judgements on the quality of sources, but we have to contextualize those perceived deficiencies in relevance to policy in order for it to be meaningful to the discussion. Now, if you're claiming I misrepresented the sources in some way, please be more specific? For that matter, how can anything I've said here be construed as original research? Snow (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep. Famed.— Racconish Tk 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep - easily verifiable as noted above. - jc37 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
* The issue is not verifiability but notability. Richard75 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* SNOW Keep as suitable spinout of parent topic and easily sourcable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
* Proposal: I submit that policy leaves us only one approach. We have to remove all content from the article that does not have an appropriate source -- which would be the vast majority as almost all of the sources come from community-fan site and thus are inappropriate. Contributors to the article (and willing proponents of the "keep" option) should then be allowed a decent amount of time to secure new (and appropriate) sources for these details and reintroduce what they can. The resulting version of the page should then be re-assessed to see if the resulting content is best kept as a separate article or merged with Batman. Snow (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Wrong queu. This discussion is about notability for a stand-alone artcicle on a topic arguable as an iconic fictional element of a long-running fiction series... comic books, television, film... Discussions about a possible merge belong on the article's talk page, and can take place there if this is ultimately kept through a consensus of editors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* AfD guidelines clearly designate that merger is an acceptable position to advocate here, and this approach is used in many cases to save content from a nominated article that would otherwise be deleted part and parcel. Snow (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Yes, This approach is used in many cases to save content from a nominated article that would otherwise be deleted part and parcel, but in this case I see an overwhelming consensus in keeping the article as it is. Probably it's time to stop beating this dead horse . Cavarrone (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Except AfD's are not a vote. They are not decided by how many people support a given argument, but rather the content of the competing arguments -- otherwise there would be no need to assign an administrator to make the final call, we could simply use a vote mechanism. Consensus is important to the process, but in the role of fleshing out the pros and cons of the different proposed solutions. But by no means is the popular view guaranteed to prevail. Snow (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* (ec) - And once merged, it will likely be spun out again per WP:SS. I'm always amazed by editors who look at a technical function of the wiki (the concept of "pages") and subjectively think this information "deserves" a page, and this information should only be listed as part of another page. That's only a question of style and presentation. Once we've hung our hats on WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR, the rest is just WP:BHTT nonsense imnsho... - jc37 05:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Considering the numerous notable policy pages which explicitly concern themselves with this issue and the many years of debate that went into forming those standards, it's clear that the community at large does not agree and that determining which content is worthy of its own article (as an independent but related issue to whether the content should be included in the first place) is considered important to the quality, organization, and tone of the project.Snow (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep Ample coverage found proving it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Against any delete/merge/redirect now or later. Dream Focus 08:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Snow Keep per everybody. Obviously notable. CallawayRox (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* That's not an argument, just a vote -- this process does not work by voting. And invoking Wikipedia:Snowball clause (I know you are not the first to do so, this is to everyone who did) is not really applicable here -- that is really for people who have failed to understand or apply the relevant policy / procedure, and it does not address the arguments raised above in favour of deletion, which are not wholly unreasonable or unmeritorious. Richard75 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* The belt is an iconic accessory of a notable superhero. It's right up there with the Bat-ears, Bat-symbol and Bat-cape. CallawayRox (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Still not an argument. Notability is not inherited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete as sources fail WP:GNG in that the coverage is exclusively trivial and is reduced to one-sentence mentions, the result being a massive plot-dump devoid of any real world analysis. Contributors here should keep in mind that "notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity".Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* You probably have not checked the book sources suggested by Warden. They are definitely more than trivial mentions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Indeed. notability is dependent upon sources being available, whether used in the article or not. Concerns toward the article's current state apear to be addressable through regular editing, even were such to not happen immediately. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* I have checked Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon, it's literally a one-sentence mention. The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes and The Science of Superheroes appear to be nothing more than mere mentions in plot summaries and descriptions without analytical or evaluative claims. The article's current state being entirely due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, regular editing cannot fix it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Nothing more than mere mentions? Not reilly... The Science of Superheroes covers the belt for several pages (from 37 to 43), The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes covers it from page 41 to 44. Cavarrone (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* When said pages are filled with variations of "the following items are contained in Batman's utility belt" and enumarations and descriptions of said items, yes, that's mere mentions, not "analytic or evaluative claims".Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Disagree, ie The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes covers in details the history of the belt, its making and development during the comic's history. And it is pretty obvious that an "utility belt" history/analysis is full of references to the different items it contains, as the presence of its various items is why it is notable and important, in and out of the comics. Cavarrone (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Compiling primary data (ie publication dates associated with plot points) =/= analysis. References =/= analysis.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* As this is your point... The comics are primary sources. A book that, "one step removed from an event", relies with them to offer a detailed history of the subject, though its making and development =/= original research.Cavarrone (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Primary data without analysis =/= analysis.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* There's plenty of analysis. For example, Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon discusses the topic in the context of establishing the claims for original authorship. The Science of Superheroes has pages analysing the technical feasibility of the various gadgets in the belt. Your claim that such material is primary is false. Warden (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* But neither of those is really the type of analysis we're going for here. With regard to the first example, I'm not sure if you meant the belt was discussed in terms of establishing Batman's authorship or its own. If the former, then it's very useful information but clearly is best placed in Batman, but if the latter, it's a case of putting the cart before the horse (and circular logic); authorship can't really be a relevant issue if the topic has not independently established its notability already. As to the second example, people speculate all the time about the technical feasibility of fictional phenomena, regardless of how notable the topic is. The fact that there are people who care deeply enough about Batman to do this about any random element of the franchise is unsurprising but does nothing to establish notability as per our needs here. What we're really looking for here is sources that comment on how the subject has had real world impact. So, for example, if a band had named themselves "The Utility Belts" (hey, it could happen, there's The Seatbelts!) or if some idiot "vigilante" had constructed himself a home made utility belt and then made the news when he plunged to his death while using it. The examples don't have to be that prominent, but that's the basic idea - the subject needs to have had significant real-world cultural or practical implications (in-and-of-themselves and not inherited from their parent subject) in order to justify the article under notability. Snow (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* No, if a band called themselves the Utility Belts then that's just pop trivia and we're not much interested in that. But if you want to be an idiot and construct your own belt then several of these sources tell how to do just that. The topic is covered from all sorts of angles by numerous sources. If you're only interested in particular types of coverage then that's just your personal POV and so carries no weight. The bottom line here is that these sources are detailed, independent and reliable and that's all we need to satisfy the WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* I don't think you understand the distinction being made, because its not a personal one and has nothing to do with POV. The fact that a source exists that speculates on the real-world viability of the fictional subject does not establish notability (unless that source itself has had significant cultural impact). The examples I provided were not by any means meant to be exhaustive or ideal in nature. What sets these (hypothetical) examples apart from the actual sources that have been located so far is that they would establish real world context that would prove the utility belt has had some kind of cultural or practical impact outside of just appearing inside the Batman comics. Snow (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* We don't require further sources to establish the impact of sources because that would lead us to an infinite regress - see What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. We just require sources period and we have them in abundance. Those sources were written, edited and published professionally and so demonstrate that the noteworthiness of the topic has been recognised by the real world. Your opinion is POV because it has no such support. Warden (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* "We just require sources period"; not at all true. Snow (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. Warden (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Cute response (honestly), but the only reason I was so brief is that I did not see how the statement requires further elaboration. The statement that any published source which comments at length on a subject matter is sufficient to establish notability is simply untrue, as per the very policy you cited (WP:GNG) and multiple others. AfD are just one of several examples of situations where the community can evaluate whether sources speak enough to the notability of a subject to justify content. Also your GEB reference is not relevant since I never suggested an approach that would involve that kind of upward recursion; I did not say (nor did I mean to imply) that the source was an unacceptable one (in terms of meeting Wikipedia's blanket standards), but rather that one person's opining on the technical feasibility of the utility belt did no constitute real-world significance. The whole bit about the book being famous in it's own right (which in retrospect I should have foreseen as confusing to some, was a hypothetical argument that if the source had lead to further cultural exposure for the belt, then establishing notability would be more viable. But no, the fact that a fictional technology has been discussed at length with regard to actual physics, pragmatics, ect. (even in a published source) does not really establish its non-fictional notability at large sufficiently to meet our needs here. But in any event, while we sit here bouncing this point back and forth and turning this thread into an actual infinite regress, the fact that Masem has proposed a solution bellow that may prove quite viable is being ignored. Perhaps we should all redirect our energies into exploring that option rather than butting heads over a point that may prove moot anyway. Fall in line or I'll be forced to get out my banana! :) (that's probably not going to come off right to non Monty Python fans...) Snow (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Well, with regard to The Science of Superheroes (the only one of the two I could confirm) those pages are not really concerned with the utility belt specifically, though they do contain a few references. But the more relevant point is that none of those references necessarily speak to notability. The fact that somebody cared enough about the subject matter to chronicle the fictional history of the utility belt (even in a published source) does not really establish the subject's real-world cultural or practical significance. Snow (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I don't see any "discussion" of authorship in Batman Unmasked, but just a one-sentence mention. The word "discussion" implies at least lengthier coverage and confrontation of point of views, or at least the gathering of a multiplicity of voices goign in the same direction. As I said, this doesn't exist in Batman Unmasked, there's just an inconsequential one-sentence mention, and Warden should either admit he's not telling the truth about sources, or reproduce here the discussion he's refering to and prove it's not a one-sentence mention.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* IMHO (I see this point appears to be quite subjective) this real-world significance is demonstrated by the sources provided by JClements and by others. Cavarrone (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
* Not really, those are mostly one-sentence references with no context outside the mention of the belt's existence. Snow (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* There's pages and pages of coverage in the sources. Please don't misrepresent them. Warden (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
* Not in the specific sources we were discussing. Please don't misrepresent me. Snow (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* I'm sorry if you were under the impression that those are the only sources that exist. Those six sources represent about 5 minutes' work on my part, using only the tools linked at the top of the page, without any herculean effort. I probably looked at 8-10 sources total to come up with those six, which are offered just as examples of the copious amounts of independent, non-trivial, reliable source commentary which exists for this topic... and I didn't even try obvious variant text searches: each of those uses "Batman's utility belt" as a quoted phrase. Those familiar with Googling know how limiting such phrasing can be. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Jclemes, you should know by now that sources for notability should be non-trivial. Have the honesty to admlit all the sources you have provided are trivial one-sentence mention and stop makling false claims.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* Please review the source I labeled "3" in detail, and let me know whether 1) you missed reading the rest of the discussion in that source or 2) you have an incredibly high view of what constitutes "non trivial". Your tone is overly and inappropriately aggressive, and I expect your future communications to be more collegial. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Please don't take it personally Jclemes, it was not a comment upon your editorial or discussion approach, I was simply responding to a specific statement made about what those particular sources which I found to be in error. It was not intended as a judgement of all potential sources or of you in any way. Snow (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
* When I find a bunch of sources, that's an indication that there are almost certainly more out there. It's not my--or anyone's--job to prove notability, but rather my efforts demonstrate, on balance of probabilities, that there's enough likelihood that there are sources to establish notability. The arguments against the specific six that I picked out of the first two pages of Google results miss the mark: even if these particular six don't amount to two independent, non-trivial, reliable source mentions (they do), then there are still plenty more where that came from. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* I'm sorry I don't know how to be more clear about this: I was addressing a very specific claim made about very specific sources. That claim, if it needs clarity, being that they were ideal for establishing notability, when in fact they were the weakest examples put forward yet, being little more than mere mentions of the subject's existence (yes I understand you didn't apply rigorous standards to these selections, but that doesn't change the fact that the claim was wrong). For the record, nobody asked you to prove anything in this thread. As regards your probability argument, that is complete speculation and you are patently wrong when you forward that it is sufficient to prove the case for notability. The facts are that the current article lacks acceptable sources which establish its notability and as such it is a candidate for deletion under well-established policy. The AfD process allows for the opportunity to secure such sources or find alternate solutions, but more than vague prognostication is needed: we can't just assume the appropriate sources exists because of a subjective assessment like "I'm pretty sure the odds are with us that they exist". If you're a proponent for the keep you're welcome to search for sources that resolve the issue, though of course you are not required to - you may also just make your policy opinion known and leave it at that. But you can't make inherently subjective (and thus flawed) statistical arguments that are based on presumptions that have no empirical validity and expect them to count for much. Snow (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* WP:BEFORE establishes that those who wish to assert a topic's non-notability are expected to demonstrate, through appropriate searches, that sources are not likely to exist. All I've done is demonstrated that that was not done, and noted that in my initial post. Those arguing for deletion have failed to say "But those are all trivial sources AND the only sources that exist!" Even if the first part were true, which it is not, the second part is required to demonstrate that the topic should not be kept. That is why you are not winning over editors: because your interpretation of policy is flawed, and the result you're looking for defies common sense. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* You're selectively quoting that section to create the impression of a burden of proof upon those who think the article should be removed that does not actually exist anywhere in policy; quite the contrary WP:Notability clearly states that the article has to be established in this regard in order to be kept. A misstep in the nomination process (and there's no proof that the NOM didn't check for sources and simply found non that were appropriate in his view) does not change the facts as they are: the article still lacks viable sources which establish it's notability. It's that simple. No we do not have to scour the sum total of human knowledge to be sure they don't exist and no we don't have to take your impression that they are likely to exist as granted. We can wait and appropriate amount of time for someone to find viable sources -- at the end of which time this AfD will probably close with the article deleted if no one has -- or we can find another resolution entirely. And for the record, I'm not trying to win anyone over; AfD's are not popularity contests nor are they even straight up and down votes. I'm simply stating my opinion on the policy as it applies here. The mod who closes the discussion will decide which arguments are most in keeping with policy. Consensus in the AfD process is more useful for feeling out the issue and finding non-controversial resolutions, where possible. Discussion for just such a possible solution is taking place bellow, if you care to participate. Snow (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* Your opinion on the policy is not congruent with the community's consensus in general or in specific. As far as selectively quoting things, you're overlooking the WP:NRVE part of WP:N "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." The admin who closes the discussion will, absent some cosmic reversal or flood of last-minute opinions, note that the consensus is that the sourcing that exists is appropriate for the standalone article to be kept. The single most important factor for editor longevity on Wikipedia is the ability to live with consensus not going their way. Of course, if you spent the 5 minutes that I did on finding sources rather than complaining about the ones identified to date, you could have demonstrated notability to your own satisfaction. The fact that you have not done so does not speak well of your participation--is it to satisfy your own biases, or to do the right thing for the encyclopedia? People who want to win at AfDs, on either side, are generally not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. So yes, I do think it appropriate for you go find some sources, or come back and say what you tried and how you've failed, if only to demonstrate your good faith in trying to make sure the AfD reaches the right outcome. After all, you've demonstrated plenty of time invested in this discussion already, and if you try and fail to find better sources, you would reinforce the validity of your deletion opinion. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
* "Your opinion on the policy is not congruent with the community's consensus in general or in specific. As far as selectively quoting things, you're overlooking the WP:NRVE part of WP:N "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." You are again being selective in your approach to the referenced policy. That should read, in this context: "The absence of viable citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." The central issue being debated here (in this AfD) is whether the sources that exist suffice to address the notability issue. That section you cited clearly is concerned with a different scenario entirely: viable sources existing, but just not having been added yet. Clearly not analogous to our present situation. "The admin who closes the discussion will, absent some cosmic reversal or flood of last-minute opinions, note that the consensus is that the sourcing that exists is appropriate for the standalone article to be kept." If you're so certain that admin will decide in a manner consistent with your interpretation of policy, why are you being so vehement about this? I never "complained" about anything, you'll note. I rebutted a single claim by another editor (and my stance was/is absolutely true, mind you). You leapt to defend yourself, explaining the context of why those sources were deficient. Which was unnecessary in that I made no assumption about your process/motive in choosing to share those sources here; I simply disagreed with Cavorre's characterization of them. I even made a response to your own that served no other purpose than to convey this sentiment as an act of civility and to clarify my position. You've responded since with a tone that has been caustic and confrontational in the extreme and now you make unfounded judgements concerning my conduct. "The single most important factor for editor longevity on Wikipedia is the ability to live with consensus not going their way." Thank you for the unsolicited (and in this context, patronizing and highly inappropriate) advice, but I think I'll take my ques on how best to conduct myself from elsewhere. I do not believe consensus is what is holding us up here, consequently. I've already made a point of saying that view consensus as a useful tool here for getting to the root of issues and proposing possible solutions -- one such was suggested by Masem days ago which I think has potential but which has gone largely ignored here while these side-issues (that may become moot if we put our heads together) have continued to dominate. But as for my arguments, I structure them according to policy. I've found my balance between friendliness and accordance with good editing practice, thank you. "Of course, if you spent the 5 minutes that I did on finding sources rather than complaining about the ones identified to date, you could have demonstrated notability to your own satisfaction. The fact that you have not done so does not speak well of your participation--is it to satisfy your own biases, or to do the right thing for the encyclopedia?" I think I'll decide how I allocate my limited time to the project. First off, how do you even know that I haven't looked and found nothing that met that criteria? Why would I share sources I knew were no good for our purposes here? You made the same assumption about the nominating editor with absolutely no basis. Regardless, the fact is that I've already contributed quite a bit of time to this discussion, gone over sources submitted previously, viewed the page content at length and followed up its links, all of which is established by my comments here. You have no place making assumptions about how else I've handled this process nor demanding what criteria I have to meet in order for my positions to be valid. My arguments stand on their own merits And now I'm being forced to engage in this utterly unproductive discussion with you, just to address your accusations. "People who want to win at AfDs, on either side, are generally not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia." Ok, I don't know how to be more explicit about this: I don't have a horse in this race. Do you think I was whipped with a utility belt as a child that I hate this subject matter so much? Everything I've said here has been an attempt to reconcile the issues that I see with notability. I'm even trying to help another editor to implement a "Keep" option that I think shows promise. Clearly my position here is not an arbitrary or entrenched one. "So yes, I do think it appropriate for you go find some sources, or come back and say what you tried and how you've failed, if only to demonstrate your good faith in trying to make sure the AfD reaches the right outcome. After all, you've demonstrated plenty of time invested in this discussion already, and if you try and fail to find better sources, you would reinforce the validity of your deletion opinion" Oh, you think it's appropriate huh? Well I don't see any community guidelines detailing that as a prerequisite for forwarding any opinion that I have given here. Regardless, I choose how I will contribute to the project and my workflow in approaching a discussion/process, thank you and I do not require, nor do I particularly want, your oversight of how I approach that task or any discussion, unless you have a concrete issue to raise that rises to the level of a breech of conduct. As such, if you have anything further to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you'd constrain yourself to responding narrowly within the scope of facts and policy; further assessments of my capabilities as an editor in general and "advice" will not be welcomed. Snow (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)