Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:News articles: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Deprecated: new section
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,652,389 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{essaysort|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Essays|importance=low}}

}}
<!-- Template:Archive box begins -->
{{archives|
{| class="infobox plainlinks" style="width: {{{box-width|238px}}}"
|<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">{{{image|[[Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png|{{{image-width|40px}}}|Archive]]}}}'''<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]'''
</div>
----
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)/Archive 1|Jan-Mar 2007]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)/Archive 1|Jan-Mar 2007]]
}}
|}<!-- Template:Archive box ends -->

==AFDs for news stories(May 10-September 19, 2007)==
==AFDs for news stories(May 10-September 19, 2007)==
Note: this list includes articles about people, things or incidents which were newsworthy and have 2 or more press or TV citations, but some do not judge to be encyclopedic. In a few cases, there are news articles about the subject, but no one bothered to add the news sources. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: this list includes articles about people, things or incidents which were newsworthy and have 2 or more press or TV citations, but some do not judge to be encyclopedic. In a few cases, there are news articles about the subject, but no one bothered to add the news sources. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 14: Line 12:
**Closed as '''Keep''' (widespread news coverage continues.) [[User:Edison|Edison]] 03:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
**Closed as '''Keep''' (widespread news coverage continues.) [[User:Edison|Edison]] 03:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Meyer]] May 11, 2007. Worker entered electrical vault at Scientology premises without authorization or safety precautions and was electricuted. Anti-scientology sites [http://www.holysmoke.org/sm/stacy_moxon6.htm] called it was a suspicious death,but officially an accident. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Meyer]] May 11, 2007. Worker entered electrical vault at Scientology premises without authorization or safety precautions and was electricuted. Anti-scientology sites [http://www.holysmoke.org/sm/stacy_moxon6.htm] called it was a suspicious death,but officially an accident. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
**Closed as '''No consensus, default to Keep''' [[User:Edison|Edison]] 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
**Closed as '''No consensus, default to Keep''' [[User:Edison|Edison]] 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
***Deleted after second AFD, which closed 24 Dec 2010. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 18:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmie Tseng]] May 26, 2007. Minor convicted of manslaughter. '''Deleted'''. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esmie Tseng]] May 26, 2007. Minor convicted of manslaughter. '''Deleted'''. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Waterman]] May 27, 2007. Minor acquitted of complicity in murder of her mother, blogged about trial. 10,000 Google hits. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) '''Deleted''' [[User:Edison|Edison]] 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Waterman]] May 27, 2007. Minor acquitted of complicity in murder of her mother, blogged about trial. 10,000 Google hits. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) '''Deleted''' [[User:Edison|Edison]] 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 106: Line 105:
These policies can be used to argue for deletion or redirects for articles about someone who was in the news (however widely covered) for some unusual manner of death, for having some rare disease or medical condition, or for committing or being the victim of a crime, for some embarrassing incident, or for being an internet meme because of a photo or video. It still leaves no obvious basis for arguing to delete a story which had multiple substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, but was a "watercooler story" about some freak occurrance such as a cute animal in distress, which tends to be a ratings booster for TV news shows, but of questionable encyclopedic nature. Clearly, if a child got a pumpkin-shaped bucket stuck on his head and was an internet meme and TV show and newspaper article subject, we have a basis for deleting an article about him. We should be equally able, through a policy provision, to delete a similar story about an animal.[[User:Edison|Edison]] 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
These policies can be used to argue for deletion or redirects for articles about someone who was in the news (however widely covered) for some unusual manner of death, for having some rare disease or medical condition, or for committing or being the victim of a crime, for some embarrassing incident, or for being an internet meme because of a photo or video. It still leaves no obvious basis for arguing to delete a story which had multiple substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, but was a "watercooler story" about some freak occurrance such as a cute animal in distress, which tends to be a ratings booster for TV news shows, but of questionable encyclopedic nature. Clearly, if a child got a pumpkin-shaped bucket stuck on his head and was an internet meme and TV show and newspaper article subject, we have a basis for deleting an article about him. We should be equally able, through a policy provision, to delete a similar story about an animal.[[User:Edison|Edison]] 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


*Thank goodness some good has come out of this debate. For a time I felt as if we were discussing this in a vacuum and not achieving anything despite a large support base. Glad to see it's been implemented ''somewhere'' at least, and being cited in AfD debates. At least it shows that others agree with the line taken by the guideline when it was first proposed, and in most cases are !voting in favour of excluding one-shot events, while keeping (in some form or other) those with potential significance. '''<font color="red">[[User:Zunaid|Zun]]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:Zunaid|aid]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|©]]</font><font color="orange">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|®]]</font>''' 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
*Thank goodness some good has come out of this debate. For a time I felt as if we were discussing this in a vacuum and not achieving anything despite a large support base. Glad to see it's been implemented ''somewhere'' at least, and being cited in AfD debates. At least it shows that others agree with the line taken by the guideline when it was first proposed, and in most cases are !voting in favour of excluding one-shot events, while keeping (in some form or other) those with potential significance. '''[[User:Zunaid|<span style="color:red;">Zun</span>]][[User Talk:Zunaid|<span style="color:green;">aid</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|<span style="color:blue;">©</span>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|<span style="color:orange;">®</span>]]''' 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


**In recent AFDs such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Girl]], the argument and shortcut [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] or[[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper]] has been used by [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] to lead to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and specifically the section about "Not an indiscriminate list of information" and the section 10 about newspaper reports. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
**In recent AFDs such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Girl]], the argument and shortcut [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] or[[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper]] has been used by [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] to lead to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and specifically the section about "Not an indiscriminate list of information" and the section 10 about newspaper reports. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 114: Line 113:
== Consensus? ==
== Consensus? ==


Looking at the above results, and more importantly at some of the arguments put forward at AfD discussions, it is clear there is no consensus amongst editors about where (if at all) the threshold lies between "newsworthy" and "encyclopedia worthy". Thus some of the results reflect not the strength of the argument, but the strength of the numbers that pitch up. This is worrying. How do we reach a happy medium? '''<font color="red">[[User:Zunaid|Zun]]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:Zunaid|aid]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|©]]</font><font color="orange">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|®]]</font>''' 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the above results, and more importantly at some of the arguments put forward at AfD discussions, it is clear there is no consensus amongst editors about where (if at all) the threshold lies between "newsworthy" and "encyclopedia worthy". Thus some of the results reflect not the strength of the argument, but the strength of the numbers that pitch up. This is worrying. How do we reach a happy medium? '''[[User:Zunaid|<span style="color:red;">Zun</span>]][[User Talk:Zunaid|<span style="color:green;">aid</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|<span style="color:blue;">©</span>]][[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|<span style="color:orange;">®</span>]]''' 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


:The results show that in the collective judgement of editors who participate in AFDs, there are some articles based on news stories which appear to satisfy [[WP:N]] and [[WP:A]], with multiple independent reliable sources having substantial coverage, which may be newsworthy but are not encyclopedic. Murders are highly newsworthy. Any murder gets coverage in all local news media. If the victim is a child, it is likely to get national news coverage. If a child is kidnapped, and especially if the child is white and from a middle or upper class family, the coverage is likely to be international, such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine McCann]]. Missing white females are especially likely to get extensive news coverage. If the case leads to a "Megan's law" the creation of "Amber Alerts" or other corrective measures then the case had an enduring effect on society and seems likely to get kept in the AFD process. The new policy [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] has been cited in numerous cases where a newsworthy story was deleted on the grounds that it was not encyclopedic. The article are likely to be reoriented as the "case" or the "murder" or the "kidnapping" or the "suicide" rather than a memorial article about the person, whoc like most of us has typically not led a notable life prior to the crime. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
:The results show that in the collective judgement of editors who participate in AFDs, there are some articles based on news stories which appear to satisfy [[WP:N]] and [[WP:A]], with multiple independent reliable sources having substantial coverage, which may be newsworthy but are not encyclopedic. Murders are highly newsworthy. Any murder gets coverage in all local news media. If the victim is a child, it is likely to get national news coverage. If a child is kidnapped, and especially if the child is white and from a middle or upper class family, the coverage is likely to be international, such as [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine McCann]]. Missing white females are especially likely to get extensive news coverage. If the case leads to a "Megan's law" the creation of "Amber Alerts" or other corrective measures then the case had an enduring effect on society and seems likely to get kept in the AFD process. The new policy [[WP:NOT#NEWS]] has been cited in numerous cases where a newsworthy story was deleted on the grounds that it was not encyclopedic. The article are likely to be reoriented as the "case" or the "murder" or the "kidnapping" or the "suicide" rather than a memorial article about the person, whoc like most of us has typically not led a notable life prior to the crime. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 129: Line 128:
:* Did not even consider that option. Thanks. [[User:WikiScrubber|WikiScrubber]] ([[User talk:WikiScrubber|talk]]) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:* Did not even consider that option. Thanks. [[User:WikiScrubber|WikiScrubber]] ([[User talk:WikiScrubber|talk]]) 23:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:* I agree with Father Goose: confusions like that should be avoid, especially when it's easy to do so. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:* I agree with Father Goose: confusions like that should be avoid, especially when it's easy to do so. [[User:Xasodfuih|Xasodfuih]] ([[User talk:Xasodfuih|talk]]) 13:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

== Deprecated ==

This shortcut is now a [[soft redirect]] to [[WP:NOTNEWSPAPER]] as per discussion at [[Talk:What Wikipedia is not]].--[[User:Cerejota|Cerejota]] ([[User talk:Cerejota|talk]]) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:03, 3 September 2024

AFDs for news stories(May 10-September 19, 2007)

[edit]

Note: this list includes articles about people, things or incidents which were newsworthy and have 2 or more press or TV citations, but some do not judge to be encyclopedic. In a few cases, there are news articles about the subject, but no one bothered to add the news sources. Edison 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edison 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other policies and guidelines with similar provisions

[edit]

Since the discussions on this guideline proposal occurred, two official policy pages have had certain provision added similar to ideas expressed here, and have been cited in AFDs, as has this (now) essay: WP:NOT#IINFO In WP:NOT says 10:News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary as they could largely duplicate relevant information. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." This provision was added on May 28, 2007 [2] by User:Jimbo Wales tp Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

This agrees with the WP:BLP section "Articles about living people notable only for one event" which says "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted. Court cases, crimes, and natural disasters, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, based on reliable secondary sources, and not primary-source material interpreted only by Wikipedians. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, and create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead. In such cases, a redirect is often the best option." This was added there by User:Kusma [3]on May 28, 2007, based on earlier discussions.

These policies can be used to argue for deletion or redirects for articles about someone who was in the news (however widely covered) for some unusual manner of death, for having some rare disease or medical condition, or for committing or being the victim of a crime, for some embarrassing incident, or for being an internet meme because of a photo or video. It still leaves no obvious basis for arguing to delete a story which had multiple substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, but was a "watercooler story" about some freak occurrance such as a cute animal in distress, which tends to be a ratings booster for TV news shows, but of questionable encyclopedic nature. Clearly, if a child got a pumpkin-shaped bucket stuck on his head and was an internet meme and TV show and newspaper article subject, we have a basis for deleting an article about him. We should be equally able, through a policy provision, to delete a similar story about an animal.Edison 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank goodness some good has come out of this debate. For a time I felt as if we were discussing this in a vacuum and not achieving anything despite a large support base. Glad to see it's been implemented somewhere at least, and being cited in AfD debates. At least it shows that others agree with the line taken by the guideline when it was first proposed, and in most cases are !voting in favour of excluding one-shot events, while keeping (in some form or other) those with potential significance. Zunaid©® 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

[edit]

Looking at the above results, and more importantly at some of the arguments put forward at AfD discussions, it is clear there is no consensus amongst editors about where (if at all) the threshold lies between "newsworthy" and "encyclopedia worthy". Thus some of the results reflect not the strength of the argument, but the strength of the numbers that pitch up. This is worrying. How do we reach a happy medium? Zunaid©® 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The results show that in the collective judgement of editors who participate in AFDs, there are some articles based on news stories which appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:A, with multiple independent reliable sources having substantial coverage, which may be newsworthy but are not encyclopedic. Murders are highly newsworthy. Any murder gets coverage in all local news media. If the victim is a child, it is likely to get national news coverage. If a child is kidnapped, and especially if the child is white and from a middle or upper class family, the coverage is likely to be international, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madeleine McCann. Missing white females are especially likely to get extensive news coverage. If the case leads to a "Megan's law" the creation of "Amber Alerts" or other corrective measures then the case had an enduring effect on society and seems likely to get kept in the AFD process. The new policy WP:NOT#NEWS has been cited in numerous cases where a newsworthy story was deleted on the grounds that it was not encyclopedic. The article are likely to be reoriented as the "case" or the "murder" or the "kidnapping" or the "suicide" rather than a memorial article about the person, whoc like most of us has typically not led a notable life prior to the crime. Edison 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy WP:N#TEMP says "A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This undercuts claims that a subject is notable because there were lots of news stories about it in a short period after the story broke. Edison (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS vs NOT#NEWS shortcut confusion

[edit]

As evidenced in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_4#YouTube_cat_abuse_incident, the WP:NOTNEWS essay and WP:NOT#NEWS policy are the source of significant confusion. WP:NOTNEWS should definitely be a link to the policy and the essay should be moved to another obviously-not-policy shortcut like WP:NOTNEWSESSAY, perhaps with a disambiguation link so as not to break existing links intended for the essay. Are there any other suggestions for a better shortcut name? WikiScrubber (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced this page needs a shortcut at all. WP:News articles is fine. Meanwhile, the NOTNEWS shortcut is definitely causing confusion with NOT#NEWS. I'm just going to be bold and redirect WP:NOTNEWS to the appropriate section of WP:NOT. I have nothing against essays (or even {{failed}} proposals subsequently labeled as essays, which is what this page is), but we want to avoid presenting them in a way that causes them to be confused with "official" guidance.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:News_articles&oldid=1243844353"