This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Question about "notable gallery" in context of
WP:NARTIST
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Savedge When we're dealing with sources, we refer to perennial sources list or RSN. One commentator suggests being a line item in a bankruptcy proceeding in "Polaroid Collection" counts as being a part of "notable gallery". How do we determine if a gallery is a "notable gallery" or run of the mill, or vanity gallery? Does being a line item of a bankruptcy asset list like above count as such?
Graywalls (
talk)
07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Appearing in a legal document still appears like a trivial mention (in a WP:PRIMARY source, at that, which shouldn't be used for notability anyway), the coverage needs to be about the article subject, not some other random topic where the subject happens to be mentioned.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, Sure. Do you have a question about the Polaroid Collection, the Westlicht Museum, or galleries in general? To address the sale of the Polaroid Collection, that has received coverage in the media. The guardian wrote about it when it was auctioned,
[1] and there's more news coverage after the sale
here. There's likely more, but just is just from searching for 15 seconds.
Vexations (
talk)
15:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Vexations, for this particular source, I consider this to be like an estate sale/liquidation that has received significant attention. I feel that it isn't appropriate to count towards notability for absolutely everything that appears in the inventory sheet of this. In this particular instance, Savedge just happened to be a few of many thousands of items whose existence was limited to an inventorying list. I'm saying for future such situation, significant media coverage of asset A and handful of items within asset A, doesn't mean a separate primary source document that itemizes everything in asset A should be considered as a notability point for every name/item that appears in the list.
Graywalls (
talk)
19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
FAC
Laura Harrier is currently in a standstill. One editor supported the promotion to FA status but the current editor believes the article is too short to be a Featured Article. Could anyone assist with this article or quickly look over it for a review, or if not interested in reviewing it, let me know if it is indeed too short please?
Factfanatic1 (
talk)
13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Now that I looked at it more closely, I actually think just using infobox medical person would work because it has a parameter for "|research_field="
Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?02:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello!
I want to get a feedback on the
article and some suggestions to improve it.
If you think that no improvements are required then please help me by Approving the article. It has all references and is properly linked to other Wiki pages.
SinghPurnima72 (
talk)
15:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Idea: Create Category:Cause of death disputed
This has been brought up in my home wiki and I can't decide it's a good idea or not but I can't find a category here (or any discussion of deletion of such category). Do you think it's a good idea? Should I be bold and start it as a subcategory of
Category:Deaths_by_cause?
Ladsgroupoverleg12:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Iridescent. I agree with most of your scepticism here.
Cause of death is rarely a
WP:DEFINING characteristic. Most people die of natural causes (heart attack, stroke, cancer) some time after they have stopped doing whatever made them
WP:Notable.
There is some significance where the death is occupation-related, such as soldiers killed on active service, or major event-related (the Holocaust, tsunamis, etc) .... but that's a small proportion of biographies.
I could see a case for
Category:Cause of death disputed for those biogs where such a dispute is actually
WP:DEFINING (e.g.
Jeffrey Epstein). But the problem is that the category would fill up not just with the conspiracy theorist examples which Iridiscent cites, but with an even greater number of articles where there wasn't a definitive autopsy, but the uncertainty is not a notable issue.