Talk: Non-notable articles

Revision as of 16:33, 13 July 2012

Please discuss notability reconsideration here

Current discussions

Every wand flagged as of 19:20 UTC

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 17:09, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through and flagged every obvious (well, obvious to me, anyway) breach of the notability policy. If no one sees anything of merit here, they should all be deleted. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 02:26, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Padma and Parvati Patil's wands

Special case to the above discussion. While Parvati Patil's wand seems to fit the notability policy (has a unique design), her sister's does not. This obviously causes a unique problem for the group wand article (though I personally think this and the related Fred and George Weasley's wands article are unnecessary, but that's not directly a notability issue). -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 02:26, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Wrock bands

I'm glad to see we're finally moving on this. I'd be willing to go ahead and tackle the List of wrock bands article and then mark those wrock band articles that won't be sticking around under the new policy. It's rather later at night where I am, so I'll save it for tomorrow, but I should have it all done by tomorrow (Saturday) evening, unless someone else is really eager to take care of it and decides to handle it first. ProfessorTofty 03:13, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is taking somewhat longer than expected because there are so many of these, and our information on them is so scant. Therefore, I basically had to go through each one and Google them to try to figure out whether or not they fit the guidelines, starting with the "two albums" criterion. The tour criterion was a bit harder since many (most?) of these bands are no longer even active, so I've tried to err a bit on the side of caution. Even so, out of close to sixty wrock bands that have articles on here, I ended up with around twenty that could be considered notable, so that thins the herd by 2/3. I'll go ahead and start marking the ones that are non-notable (I've copied the info on each one to a document saved on my computer) and I'll put together the actual List of wrock bands article tomorrow, or rather later today since it's after midnight where I am. P.S.: For those that actually are notable, we may want to consider investing a bit of time in improving them. Most of them just contain a brief description of what their name is a pun of in relationship to the Harry Potter series and little else, which doesn't make for very informative reading. ProfessorTofty 05:04, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

List of wrock bands article created and non-notable bands delinked on the Wizard rock article. Still to do - removing the links from various disambiguation pages. ProfessorTofty 05:28, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Links to these bands on disambiguation pages edited to link to the List of wrock bands instead. I also notice some on an old house points game archive page and on some user/user talk pages, but I'll leave these for the admins to decide whether or not anything needs to be done with those. I know Nick has been working on that. ProfessorTofty 01:20, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's anything else that needs to be done that I"m missing, these can all be deleted. Everything else has been handled. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:54, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Unidentified Quidditch Spectators

I'm currently in the process of tagging these, including the 1996 spectators that were created a while back and have been up for deletion for a long time. The older "Quidditch spectator" articles with pictures might be worth saving as part of a "hub" article, but the 1996 ones I think could just be deleted - there's really nothing worth saving there - no picture, just a mention of some random student that was heard shouting off-screen. ProfessorTofty 03:38, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

MyHogwarts.co.uk

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:32, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be taken care of asap. It does not satisfy the notability guidelines as far as I can tell (all info seems to point that it has not even been around for one year, much less the minimum of two with good activity the guidelines require) and is currently part of an edit war with a user obviously affiliated with the site in question regarding it being tagged for deletion. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 00:07, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Done. I don't think discussion is necessary, since it clearly goes against the approved policy. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 00:32, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unidentified bespectacled Slytherin girl

Bespectacled Slytherin girl has enough links that if it doesn't meet the notabiity standards, I believe there's something wrong with those standards. It allows all the relevant info--which admittedly ain't much, but ain't nuffin, neither!--to be collected in one place, which is good for the Wiki. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 04:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

It has six links, if you don't include the one on this page, those on talk pages, or the file link for the image. Sorry, but that's hardly anywhere even remotely close to a large number of links. On a sidenote, isn't it about time more of these articles were deleted? We're now over a month in from the introduction of notability. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a large number, I claimed the number was sufficient.

If the wiki keepers are determined to throw away useful information--and I know it's useful because I wanted to know it, and this was where it was accurately and clearly set forth--then my protests certainly won't stop y'all. Nevertheless, I'm obliged to say that such a result, esp. for a wiki of only a few thousand pages, seems to me a shining case of implementing the perfect as the enemy of the good. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 16:33, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 [[Bespectacled Slytherin girl]] has enough links that if it doesn't meet the notabiity standards, I believe there's something wrong with those standards. It allows all the relevant info--which admittedly ain't much, but ain't nuffin, neither!--to be collected in one place, which is good for the Wiki. [[User:GeorgeTSLC|GeorgeTSLC]] ([[User talk:GeorgeTSLC|talk]]) 04:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
 :It has six links, if you don't include the one on this page, those on talk pages, or the file link for the image. Sorry, but that's hardly anywhere even remotely close to a large number of links. On a sidenote, isn't it about time more of these articles were deleted? We're now over a month in from the introduction of notability. [[User:ProfessorTofty|ProfessorTofty]] ([[User talk:ProfessorTofty|talk]]) 04:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
+:::I didn't say it was a large number, I claimed the number was sufficient.
+:::If the wiki keepers are determined to throw away useful information--and I know it's useful because I wanted to know it, and this was where it was accurately and clearly set forth--then my protests certainly won't stop y'all. Nevertheless, I'm obliged to say that such a result, esp. for a wiki of only a few thousand pages, seems to me a shining case of implementing the perfect as the enemy of the good. [[User:GeorgeTSLC|GeorgeTSLC]] ([[User talk:GeorgeTSLC|talk]]) 16:33, July 13, 2012 (UTC)