Help talk:System administrator deletion tasks

From Fan History Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the conversation has run its course.


Procedure re:Notability

We need to improve our procedure in terms of dealing with individuals who are notable. There are some issues that need to be resolved so that we can avoid future problems. They are timeline of steps to take and defining what is notable. --Laura 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Steps regarding notability

When we determine some one is notable, and it isn't apparent on the wiki article about them, I think we need to make the procedure more clear. If we make that determination, the person involved needs to be notified that they have been determined notable. Then, if the article doesn't make clear why, the article needs to be improved to do just that. Doing it backwards has the potential to look grudgy or like we are trying to cover our asses when denying. We also need to be extremely clear as to why some one is notable as standards are obviously going to differ. That needs to be done before the article is worked on. --Laura 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. While we have a clear order of steps for someone to take who is applying for an ADR, we don't make it as clear what our steps to follow then are (beyond, typically, trying to respond in a timely fashion.) What I think are important rules for admins to follow when an ADR comes in is:
1. If the person handling deletion requests has any questions regarding the clear notability or non-notability of the individual, alert the other admins as well as comment on the talk page so discussion can follow.
2. Make it policy that while an ADR request is being considered, the article itself will not be edited in the meantime (should, in fact, a protection-lock be at least temporarily put in place?) We can provide links to prove our stance of notability on the talk page, but refrain from editing the article itself.
3. If the request is denied, give the reasons why on the talk page. This allows the requestor to be involved, as well as makes sure the other admins can follow the timeline of what is going on.
Just my thoughts on the matter.--Sidewinder 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel like those are good steps... but at the same time, there was an article about some one who was ADRed locked and I would consider them notable. (I wasn't paying attention to them.) Most of them don't have that issue. The FanFiction.Net articles almost never. It is the LiveJournal articles that tend to be more problematic because the site allows much more interaction between people, the focus is not on the content. If you're not as aware of the history and social dynamics... but at the same time, most of these articles aren't that important and can be covered in other articles if the person is deemed notable. I'm babbling. :/ I just want to make sure if we fix it this time, we fix it so it doesn't need to be redone again for another year. --Laura 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, yes, if a determination is made of notability but it may not be clear from the current article, that article SHOULD be updated at that point to make the notability clear. That makes it appear less grudgy, I think. Do it after the matter is settled and there has been discussion, not before.--Sidewinder 16:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What is notable?

This is one I think where it will be hard to reach consensus because of overlapping standards as to who and who is not notable differs from community to community. My general thinking was to add this to our who is notable FAQ and to this article:


1. Name appears 1,000+ times on Google.

2. Have had 4 or more posts linked on metafandom.

3. Have been featured on fandom_wank or fandom_wank wiki.

4. Been mentioned by the main stream press.

5. Been listed on stop_plagiarism as a plagiarist.

6. Have stories with 1,000+ reviews on FanFiction.Net or 500+ reviews their primary archive.

7. Been an active primary participant in one or more kerfluffles that have been documented on Fan History.

8. Been active in three or more kerfluffles that have been documented on Fan History.

9. Mentioned on Fanlore.

10. Founder/Maintainer of a LiveJournal community, mailing list or other community with over 1,000 members.

The only problem I have with this list is that I know just looking at it that if is too fan fiction focused, too LiveJournal focused, too media fandom focused and too FanFiction.Net focused. I'm really not sure how to get away from that as those are the folks where it feels like this would be the group of people who would have the most issue with their being an article about them. --Laura 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My other issue with the list is that it would require more work from our staff to do that in a timely manner. --Laura 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a google search might turn up places like DevART, Elfwood, YouTube or other places that we could use as indicators of notability within different spheres. Problem is that our people articles themselves--simply because of their sources--favor FanFiction.net and LiveJournal. So we're going to look at those first. --Tikatu 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having accounts doesn't make one notable. It is one's status on those services. I could probably figure out YouTube. I might be able to figure out DeviantART. Elfwood, I would be lost. Twitter I could figure out. (Just look at number of followers, number of retweets.) LiveJournal has the issue of SMOFs. I'm babbling. It is the SMOF issue where some one could be really well networked with a few of the key influencers. Do we currently make clear that, if a person suddenly implodes, they might become notable and could have the article about them reinstated? I don't think it would be likely to happen... but we need to make clear to people that it MIGHT happen. (And if it does, are we obligated to notify them? That should be written in to the procedure either way.) --Laura 12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of reinstating an article does need to be addressed, I think. Whether we could retroactively apply that to anyone who has put in an ADR request that was accepted so far...I don't know. I wouldn't be too comfortable about that. But it is a good point to consider. Someone could go from being a lurker to a BNF or become majorly involved in a fannish kerfluffle...and it does seem as though our hands would be tied as far as reporting on them.
Perhaps the ADR from this point forward needs to make it clear that if the ADR was accepted because the person is considered, at this point in time, non-notable, that we reserve the right to reinstate the article in the future, covering that person's future actions, if that person does in fact become notable? This is probably an issue that should be voted on by all admins.--Sidewinder 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
What Tikatu said. It is a bit biased toward LJ and FF.N, but that's also where we have a lot of bot-created articles which have a higher percentage of being brought up for requested deletion. But I think it's necessary to have it at least as a starting list for determining notability so that we have a guideline to point people towards in case they object to our classification as notable.
Only think I'd add is I see metafandom being used less and less frequently these days, in favor of linkspam. And Fail situations don't tend to end up on fandom_wank but on unfunnybusiness instead. Perhaps we need a rule that more generally states something like:
11. Played a notable role in a fandom kerfluffle
Where notable could equal having a post that was widely linked to or signal-boosted and/or commented regularly in the discussion.--Sidewinder 11:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The issue of who is and who is not notable is kind of dealt with in the FAQ. Maybe we should move that to a separate page. Put a "For more information regarding notability, please see Help:What is notable or something like that. I haven't been following things like fandom wank, unfunnybusiness and linkspam to know what is important. If we move it to a separate page, we should probably say something like "Been mentioned on sites that document fandom kerfluffles like linkspam, unfunnybusiness, metafilter, metafandom, fandom_wank as a primary participant" to give examples of the type of sites. Because for things like say the Harry Potter fandom, they could be covered by TLC. For Twilight, they might be covered by Twilight moms. --Laura 12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a separate Help page on "What is notable". Make it easier for people to see our guidelines for such. And yes, keeping it vague on the specific sites where notability would be, erm, noted. :) Because it won't be the same fandom to fandom.--Sidewinder 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've forwarded an email from our delete box to you both on the subject of notability. And I agree with Sidewinder that actual amounts of links/quotes/friends/reviews/what have you need to be on the vague side because they'll vary from fandom to fandom. Some consider me a BNF, and my handle is on dozens of pages in a Google search. But not all mentions of my handle are about me; the majority of those mentions are in the first few pages, and I do use my handle in non-fannish venues. So, applying the "appears 1000 times on Google" isn't exactly fair when making the determination of whether or not I'm notable. In fact, going by the list as it stands now, I am NOT notable. However, people in my fandom would disagree and say that I am. (And I think the two of you might say that as well. :D)--Tikatu 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's one of those subjects where it's hard to apply hard and set rules, because as has been mentioned, the rules can be different from one fandom to the next. We can post a general guideline as to what are the kinds of things which would make a person *likely* to be considered notable by our standards, but with a caveat that the final decision is still up to the admins, might NOT be a unanimous decision, and might take some time to decide in cases where there is some dissent.
And I still think it's an important guideline to follow to not continue to add to a person's page while an ADR is under consideration.--Sockii 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this. Put a hold on the ADR until notability is determined, then, if it is, add to the article in order to pinpoint what makes a person notable.
Got the email; thanks. Would it be helpful at all for me to promote/mention that we're having this discussion right now? In case anyone else would like to chime in with opinions?--Sidewinder 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with it, though we may want to move it out of this particular space as the title "system administrator deletion tasks" might put people off. --Tikatu 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Promoting it might be good. We could probably really use some feedback from vested parties regarding how to handle this issue. As for moving parts of it, maybe create that page regarding notability mostly as a stub and have the conversation there. --Laura 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

An issue related to this that needs addressing. Should we, for certain fans, label them notable preemptively? This was done with a few articles after an issue with another article. It was based on a major kerfluffle in fandom where we felt that we might get ADRs as another party had made a request that we denied. --Laura 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For articles that we do determine are notable, should we create some sort of header and put them on our pretty much ignored list of articles that could use improvement? --Laura 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just tagging this with an edit because we still need to finish codifying our policy. --Laura 12:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
Support FH