Talk:Paul M. Hebert Law Center

notable alumni, problematic

persons without a standing Wikipedia article being removed, failed notability.

thank you for helping keep Wikipedia accurate, s 24.17.106.158 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

i don't have time to fix the most recent mistake reversal.

an editor with more time available can circle back and reverse the addition of these non notable additions.

thanks in advance,

s 24.17.106.158 (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability explicitly does not determine the contents of articles, only if a subject merits a dedicated, stand-alone article. The guideline explicitly says this: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." The most directly appropriate guideline says that "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines..." So please don't remove or encourage others to remove information from an article solely because that information is not independently notable.

With that said, in most cases information like this can be removed if it's not supported by reliable sources; in my experience, the vast majority of information that editors would like to erroneously remove because it's "not notable" is also unsourced which is a valid reason for removal. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

i disagree with this, in both application and theory.

however, given there seems to be various interpretations for determining notability strictly for inclusion in lists of notable people, i will defer to your judgement.

my debate points would center around encyclopedia reliablity and the watering down of the notability of persons included with article.

thanks for helping keep my encyclopedia accurate,

carry on,

s 24.17.106.158 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)