Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance

how many RS until we can consider it a credible claim?

To editor Lourdes: Could you develop consensus about the changes you're making rather than be bold? Chris Troutman (talk) 08:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure Chris. No problems. I'll revert the changes to how they were before (and I'll ping SoWhy too, as they had chipped in). Thanks, Lourdes 08:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, requiring multiple RS is far too strict for A7, because if you have those, notability is usually established. A single RS that mentions the subject is usually considered sufficient to pass A7's low bar because coverage in one source means more might exist. I'd propose rephrasing the #2 of the added text as such:

Two, if there is no evident claim of significance in the article, check the references links provided within the article. If the references links within the article are potentially reliable sources that discuss the subject or provide a possible claim of significance as discussed in #1 above, then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied (except when it's clear that this is all the coverage this subject will ever get). For example, if the new article contains just one line: "John Doe is a fitness trainer", the initial view might be that there is no claim of significance. But if the sources in the same article discuss the subject, there is a link in the same article to a newspaper article about how John Doe has trained multiple A-List actors for their upcoming movies and has received awards for it, then this is already a sufficient claim of significance, even if it's not in the article itself chances are, more coverage may exist ; and in this case too, the A7, A9 and A11 tags should generally not be applied (except when it's clear that this is all the coverage this subject will ever get).

Regards SoWhy 14:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a single RS is too low a bar. I don't think two or even three RSs connote notability, necessarily, so "two or three" might be a good bracket for a credible claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I agree with SoWhy here (although I was the one who wrote the 2-3 paragraphs under contention and included "multiple reliable sources" initially). For a credible claim of significance, in my opinion, even one RS may work; in the sense that an admin would be expected to decline an A7 if, for example, there's a New York Times report on the celeb fitness trainer. A single RS is a low bar; but a credible claim of significance is expected to be a lower bar. Lourdes 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed 7th important point

I notice that this essay does not discuss alternatives to deletion, and certain policies and guidelines (namely WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M, WP:BLAR, WP:FAILN, and even WP:CSD itself) imply that if one exists, speedy deletion is not appropriate. In accordance with such policies and guidelines, I think we should add the following point: 7. Any statement which, if true, provides an alternative to deletion should the subject still fail the notability guidelines is a claim of significance, or something along those lines. I'm not going to boldly add this for obvious reasons, and would like to know what others think. Adam9007 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You could alternatively, and without discussion, consider including the ATD link in the See Also section. Lourdes 05:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Good form to check for sources

The policy has now been changed to include "While the responsibility to provide such a claim of significance (either in words or in references) rests with the person adding the article/material, good form dictates that any new page patroller conducts at least some rudimentary search on their own before tagging any new article on any speedy criteria." I'm not convinced that this is a good change. With G10 for starters the important thing is to get them deleted as quickly as possible. Sometimes sources exist and a neutral article could be written, but if all that starts is an unsourced attack, longstanding policy is that we delete and we don't start with an unsourced attack. Similar concerns apply re several other criteria - if an article says "x is a qualified doctor and who is married to y, they have three children and two grandchildren" then it is possible that a search would discover that x meets our criteria because they have also been an Olympic medal winner and national politician. But we don't put the obligation on the patroller to do that search, not least because we would be wasting the time of our volunteer patrollers. The A7 test does require that the patroller check the history to see if the article has been vandalised, but it does not put an obligation on the patroller to check that a credible assertion of importance could be made for an article subject if the writer hasn't already made such a claim. ϢereSpielChequers 09:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The wording was in the essay for a long time and I tried to remove it. I was reverted by Oiyarbepsy. Now that it has been brought up, I will say based on 1) what I have been taught, 2) my reading of the WP:BEFORE essay, and 3) personal experience, I do not believe the community has an expectation that WP:BEFORE be performed for CSDs, only for PROD and AFD. I would support removal of the paragraph. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The wording says new page patroller, not speedy deleter. It absolutely is good practice for new page patrollers to do a quick check on the subject before nominating for speedy deletion, checking the patrolled check box, placing maintenance tags, or any new page patrol activity. I think it's totally reasonable to expect about a minute of checking on any new page - just check internet search results, that's it. I don't really understand why someone would object to such a reasonable expectation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotected edit request 26 July 2022

Please rename Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters in the See-also section to the new page name Wikipedia:Over-hasty Speedy Deleters. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:BCD7:22B:B8B7:CD47 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)