Content deleted Content added
Line 202: == Administrator assistance had been requested to restore the prematurely closed AfD discussion. == '''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:KSci|<b><font size="3"><font color="black">K</font><font color="darkred">Sci</font></font></b> ]]'''</span><sup>[[User talk:KSci|(talk)]]</sup> 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC) == The following was written but could not be saved because the AfD discussion was prematurely closed without allowing sufficient time for all input (at least a week). == ::: @Chiswick Chap and @Safiel, I think we must base any rationales for noteworthiness one the WP Rules and Guidelines. The word "potential" does not, for example, qualify as a noteworthiness criteria, the word is not found in WP:GNG. Also, the number of sources mentioning a subject is specifically excluded as a criteria. A vast number of sources can be found on the topic of bathroom wallpaper, but I think we will agree that bathroom wallpaper is not a noteworthy WP topic. That fact that authors have characterized the positions of others as polemic does not establish polemic as a noteworthy topic in its own right. To establish polemic as warranting an article we need ''second and third party sources stating that plemic is a subject of note in its own right''. I do not believe it is not enough to find sources that use the term to characterize the positions of others, particularly if it is used as a pejorative word to stigmatize views whom one disagrees. WP:GNG states: :::- ''"'Significant coverage' '''addresses the topic directly and in detail.'''"'' - We need sources specifically addressing the subject matter of 'polemic', which is a very different test from finding examples where the word is an adjective. :::- ''"Reliable" means '''sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability''', per the reliable source guideline."'' - We need reliable sources describing a topic 'polemic' as an independent topic, and again this is more than finding people using the term as an adjective. :::- ''"'''Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.'''"'' - The sources *should be independent*, that is not tied to an issue or position, showing that polemic is more than just a common pejorative adjective. ::: I believe we need more than just the use of the use of the adjective in published works to justify a stand-alone article — otherwise we are in violation of the rule stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of people writing that one thing or another is polemic doesn't do this. The term to a great extent is subjective, so a history is not defined by examples alone. We need sources describing the subject of the article 'polemic' as a topic of note in its own right. ::: Additionally, based on WP:MERGREASON reason #3: ''Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.'' The years this article failed to develop and sustained very poor quality provide the best available indicator of its likelihood of being expanded into a full article in a reasonable period of time in the future. This lack of interest is also a valid measure of the topic's notability. :::If the topic grows sufficiently to warrant an independent article, a separate article on 'polemic' can then be reasonably reinstated. :::'''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:KSci|<b><font size="3"><font color="black">K</font><font color="darkred">Sci</font></font></b> ]]'''</span><sup>[[User talk:KSci|(talk)]]</sup> 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC) | |||