Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

User's edits consist largely of AfDs (dozens a day)[1] and often inaccurate templates. He has repeatedly made accusations of WP:COI and WP:OR. He has made it clear he does not understand the subject material, and refuses to acknowledge community accepted notability guildelines as valid. Inconsistently applies other communities’ guidelines as rationales and justifications for his actions (i.e. guidelines for books or video games).

Desired outcome

Gavin.collins to cease inappropriate tagging and deletion-nomination of articles, especially RPG-related articles. If he wishes to continue reviewing the appropriateness of such articles and criticising their structure or support, as is certainly most welcome in principle, he should take the time to understand the material and mileu, including but not limited to: what an RPG is, what the point of different sorts of books and material (rulebooks, supplements, background material, etc) is, the awards that are used in the industry, and the concept of notability within the industry. Two key points are that notability of things that are, by their nature, of restricted interest is relative to the potentially-interested audience, and that awards within the gaming industry are not inherently less endowing of notability than awards within any other industry.


Description

Gavin.collins has been tagging and nominating for deletion a large number of gaming-related articles, especially those related to RPGs. Tags, such as {{notability}}, {{howto}}, and so on, are applied inappropriately, and continue to be so despite good faith attempts to explain to the user how they are such. User has openly nominated for AfD in "retaliation" for removal of inappropriate tags. On a number of occaisions, the user has accused a number of editors of having a conflict of interest, by working for game publishers, simply because they disagreed with his assessment of the article. Reasoned arguments to the user are often met with "I don't agree", which is a rather difficult argument to actually understand or respond to.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [2][3] [4][5][6] - Accusing someone of WP:COI (via working for the publisher) because they support the article.
  2. [7] - User edits showing AfDs and prods with no attempt to fix articles.
  3. [8][9] - Uses made up statistics or other information during AfDs. Shows clear lack of understanding of industry related article.
  4. [10][11][12] - Discounts industry award as being WP:COI without understanding the award.
  5. [13] - Accusations that articles are spam.
  6. [14] - Added AfD minutes after requesting proof of notability.
  7. [15][16] - Using obscurity as a reasoning for lack of notability.
  8. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] - Adding excessive and inappropriate tags (especially {{plot}}. User clearly using a copy/paste template and is trying to tag as many articles as possible, as clearly can be seen here.
  9. [42] - Discounts valid references as trivial if they conflict with his opinion.
  10. [43][44] - Ignoring consensus.
  11. [45], followed by [46] and [47] - Ignoring consensus, and WP:POINT.
  12. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] Repeated inappropriate use of policies as the basis of deletion nominations, especially WP:OR and WP:POV, despite many editors' attempts to explain why these are misinterpretations.
  13. [54] Made retaliatory AfD edits on pages mere minutes after they were cleaned up. Possible violations of WP:CIVIL
  14. [55] Reopend a closed AfD debate after it was snowballed, only to have snowball again. WP:POINT


Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:GAME
  2. WP:COI
  3. WP:OR
  4. WP:Consensus
  5. WP:Etiquette
  6. WP:POINT
  7. WP:OSTRICH
  8. WP:IDONTKNOWIT#I_have_never_heard_of_it
  9. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [56] - Discussion about mass GURPS deletions.
  2. [57] - Discussion about Park Jung Suk.
  3. [58] - Discussion at Village Pump.
  4. [59] - Final attempt at resolution.

Attempts by Turlo Lomon (talk):

  1. User talk:Gavin.collins#Recent Templates - Early contact
  2. User talk:Gavin.collins#Lissome Avid Engineer - Attempt to build a bridge
  3. [60] - Attempt to explain awards.

Attempts by SamBC(talk):

  1. [61] Explanation of disputed third-party publication.
  2. [62] Explanation of inappropriate tagging.
  3. [63],[64] discussing notability for RPGs and products thereof.

Attempts by Goochelaar(talk):

  1. [65] Pointing out that defining other people's work and interests as "fancruft" is not the best of all possible bases to work together.
  2. [66] Trying to clarify the difference between a "how-to" and an article describing a game system.

Attempts by Pinball22 (talk):

  1. [67] Explanation of apparent misunderstanding of policies and general concerns about deletion nominations.
  2. [68] [69] Attempts to explain how to choose more appropriate cleanup tags, explanation of concerns about indiscriminate tagging and lack of basic research.

Attempt by Webwarlock (talk):

  1. [70] First Formal Request

Attempt by Harmil (talk · contribs):

  1. Edits on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rincewind page.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Turlo Lomon 08:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SamBC(talk) 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Goochelaar 12:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pinball22 14:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Web Warlock 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Harmil 13:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Orangemike
  2. Rindis 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Donovan Ravenhull 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Craw-daddy 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Edward321 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rray 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JackofSpades 03:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Angelbo Talk / Contribs 12:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Pat Payne 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. KTo288 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cyborg Ninja 02:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. UsaSatsui 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 11:54 AM, 10 October 2007
  14. Cube lurker
  15. Oakshade 04:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Raistlin 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. JHunterJ 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. AndyJones 12:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Master Forcide 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Robbstrd 19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. BOZ 02:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Itub 16:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. shadzar18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ukulele 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Quinsareth 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Avador 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. CBeilby 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Freederick (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Iquander (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. DGG (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I would like to add that any knowledge he has of the tabletop-RPG industry is woefully outdated; in response to a concern User:The Transhumanist raised on his talk page regarding derivative works in re Dungeons & Dragons, he identified the long-defunct company TSR, Inc. (bought out by Wizards of the Coast in the very late 90's) as the copyright holder. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  35. McJeff (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Ikip (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Response from Gavin Collins

  1. In the first instance, it should be noted that I have not been involved in any edit war, and I have not deleted or altered any of the text of the articles cited above. I have followed Wikipedia policies & guidelines in good faith. In my view, I have followed these guidelines, rather than broken them. I am not trying to make any point or push any point of view. I am concerned about the quality of article content, and may have diagreements with other editors about notability, verifiable sources, style and content.
  2. I believe the statement of dispute to be a misrepresentation: He has repeatedly made accusations of WP:COI and WP:OR. An accusation must contain explicit charge of wrongdoing or implied some sort of guilt or blame against an editor. I have looked through the evidence provided in RFC, and until I stand corrected, I don't see a single (let alone repeated) instances of me making an accusation against any editor for convravening COI, OR or any other guideline. I don't even see any evidence of me taking an editor to task for doing so, or being abusive in any way. I freely admit I have made mistakes in my interpretation of WP Guidelines, but I listen to others and make apologies where appropriate.
  3. The articles cited above mainly relate to articles about Role Playing Games, and the reason why this RFC has been initiated in my view is that I have been a participant in discussions with, or been the nominator of, Articles for Deletion which involve RPGs. The editors who have contributed to this RFC have also been contributors to those articles.
  4. The result of some of these AfD discussions has been the deletion or merger of articles. I can understand why they might be irritated by the fact that some of their work has the subject of these discussions, as I believe they hold great affection for RPG articles regardless of whether they fall foul of WP policies & guidelines about notability, verifiable sources.
  5. In response to points raised by members of the RPG project, I initiated a thread at Village pump policy discussion, raising my concerns about how non-notable fancruft has recently becoming the primary characteristic of a many RPG related articles[71]. Some of the responses to my posting regarding the AfD process and notability may help provide context to this RFC[72][73][74].
  6. I think the root cause of this dispute can be traced back to the fact that RPG Project does not have guidelines about notability, verifiability or the appropriate use of plot and game summaries. As a result, there are many RPG related articles (at least a great deal of those I have come across so far) that fail to meet the modest requirements of WP policies & guidelines. Now that editors from outside the project, for which I am only one, are pointing out that some article are not of sufficient quality for an encyclopedia, it is apparent that some members of the project may feel threatened, now that the lack of quality control has been brought into question.
  7. I have suggested that the RPG project introduce guidelines that might be applied to their articles to improve their quality and effectively act as a defence against deletion proposals that are not warranted[75]. I have not tried to impose such guidelines on the project, as their creation would have to be a consensus building exercise. However my suggestion has been rejected on the grounds that they are not relevant[76].
  8. In the meantime, some RPG articles have been nominated for AfD. Some of those discussions may have resulted in outcomes that may have irritated these editors, and as an expression of their irritation, they have initiated this RFC. However, acknowledgement of the quality of these articles concerned has been lacking.
  9. I am not sure I will find time to go through all of the instances which are the subject of this RFC. At the time of writing, all I can add is that the underlying subject of discussion was notability, lack of sources or article content. Whereas these instances are cited as examples of me not "listening", I would suggest that they may be examples of disagreements about the subjects under discussion. I will try and add more detail to this matter later.
  10. This RFC was initiated after a personal attack was made against me [77]. If the “consensus” is that the attack was appropriate or justified, or even supported by the wider WP community, then I this would give me reason to believe that this RFC was not brought for good reason, other than to subdue my efforts to improve article quality; I suspect this RFC was primarily created as an attack page so that my contributions to AfD debates can be discredited[78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85].


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Gavin Collins (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SolidPlaid 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The desired outcome section implies that Gavin should understand "the concept of notability within the industry" before tagging any more articles. This isn't correct - articles should comply with general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Addhoc 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Mattisse 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) - I agree with Gavin's description above. He questioned the application of Wikipedia policies and procedures by a group of editors editing a particular subject matter. Those editors seem to feel they should not have to justify anything such as the application of the Wikipedia notability guidelines to Gavin, an editor whom they seem to consider an outsider and therefore an editor who has no right to question.[reply]
  5. I agree with this, though I still encourage Gavin to be more cautious on the AfDs. -- Ned Scott 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jack Merridew 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ridernyc (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Merkin's mum 03:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Ned Scott

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I'm just passing by here, and I haven't reviewed every link provided, but felt I should say something.

Asking questions, wondering about notability, and placing things up for a deletion discussion are pretty normal when the articles lack information to suggest otherwise. It would seem that many of these articles should be cleaned up, merged or deleted as Gavin suggests. The fact that things like this are cited as examples of disruption bothers me. This is a good example of a user who is acting in good faith. Most of the conclusions I see him taking are understandable and conceivable. Because of the nature of Wikipedia, anyone can review articles, not just those who already know about RPGs.

At the same time, I hope Gavin will proceed with more caution, and listen to some of the concerns brought up here. In the end, it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, we just all want to work together, better. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Ned Scott
  2. -- Jack Merridew 15:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Ridernyc (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Merkin's mum 03:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Itub

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I very rarely edit RPG articles and very rarely participate in RPG-related AfDs. But I often watch the list of current AfDs to see what's up. Naturally enough, I've seen many AfDs by Gavin.collins. My impression is that his AfDs are excessive and inaccurate. In order to provide a more quantitative assessment, I just looked at all the nominations in his last 500 edits. I found 19 nominations, out of which 9 ended up as keep (even snowball keep), 1 no consensus, 1 merge, 2 redirect, and 6 delete. That's less than a 50% "deletion average", if you will, which in my opinion means that most of his nominations are a waste of time. I can only come up with three possible explanations for this:

  1. He doesn't understand the current consensus regarding deletion. I would expect that someone with a good understanding of it would get at least 80% of his nominations to go through. I know this 80% number is not based on any policy, but is just my own personal opinion about how often it is reasonable to waste everyone's time with unsuccessful nominations.
  2. He is misusing the AfD process for other purposes. Assuming good faith, that could be something such as pushing other editors to improve the articles. While improving the articles is a noble goal, AfD is not the right means to do it.
  3. He doesn't agree with current deletion consensus, but wants to change it "one AfD at a time". Again, I don't think AfD is the proper forum for this type of campaign.

My suggestion is that he should aim to nominate only articles that have a high probability of being deleted. This emphatically includes not nominating articles that can be made guideline-compliant through simple editing. Instead, he should try to nominate only articles about topics where notability can not be established after making a good-faith effort at searching to see if sources exist. Nominating articles that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting deleted is just making a point.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Itub 08:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JHunterJ 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Edward321 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ukulele 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Iquander (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rray 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. CBeilby 00:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Polaron 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Harmil 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kmusser 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. With a note that he should try to improve articles before he prods or AfDs them. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Shemeska (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Bilby (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. McJeff (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I also strongly agree with Hobit's note above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I will also add my agreement with Hobit's note/suggestion. -   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. BOZ (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Ikip (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Inside view by Ukulele

An article I created was recently nominated for AFD by Gavin. Two images were also incorrectly nominated for speedy deletion by Gavin, but were saved by another admin who directed him to Wikipedia's fair-use policy. So this is an involved view. Gavin has recently cited this particular AFD discussion in his above response to further his argument that this RFC is personal attack against him to subvert his clean-up efforts. Were it not for Solidplaid's comment linking to this RFC, I never would have even known of its existence.

After reading through the lengthly complaints in this RFC, I believe the descriptions of Gavin's behavior are consistent with my recent experience, and endorse the summary of the dispute. I feel that Gavin does not take the time to properly read and understand many of the Wikipedia policies he employs, and thereby wields requests for deletion irresponsibly. I also feel that Gavin improperly applies standards of notability to niche or obscure subjects, such as RPG content. He has demonstrated and admitted that he does not thoroughly read articles before he nominates them for AFD and appears to have a poor understanding of subject matter in general, resulting in his hasty eschewing widely accepted community standards of notability. Gavin seems insistent on interpreting this RFC as an attack, even after the wide majority of complainants have bent over backwards to try to keep the discussion civil and made sincere statements of abhorrence over derogatory statements made against him and vandalism to his personal pages. Gavin may not consider us his peers in this matter, but we are, as he is among us. I hope that Gavin can consider this and consider many of the consistent points being raised about his editing behavior. AFD is a most extreme measure, and the process often becomes confusing as others often suggest Keep or Delete for a gamut of reasons other than original intent. It's a frustrating time-consuming process-- AFD should be handled much much more responsibly by Gavin. I wish that Gavin would give clean-up tags time to work-- I'm talking months, here. WP does not work on a deadline unless something is utter nonsense, blatant libel or a solidly verifiable conflict of interest. Ukulele 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view:

  1. Ukulele 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rray 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CBeilby 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Quinsareth 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BOZ (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Ridernyc

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I have watched many and probably voted in a few of the D&D AFD's, while I think Gavin may be overly aggressive I don't think he fully to blame for the situation. It's seems most of the people who contribute to D&D have a total disregard for notability guidelines and WP:Plot. They operate under the presumption that notability of every character, module and object related to D&D inherits it's notability from D&D. When confronted on issues they rally and fight back. Note this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (2nd nomination). The debate was quickly side tracked to try to show that Dragon magazine was anything other then a primary source. The articles in question were published in 1995 and 1996, long before the magazine was sold. The editors of these articles love to throw up smoke screens and ignore policies and guidelines. While Gavin's actions are wrong I believe they are the result of frustration from dealing with hostile editors. For these editors to ignore there own behavior and claim they are innocent is unjustified in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this view:

  1. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse with the exception that I don't feel Gavin has done much wrong. There are many D&D editors that need to cleave more closely to policies and guidelines. --Jack Merridew 08:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gavin Collins (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have encountered the same phenomenon from a science fiction group myself, and it is a form of bullying which intimidates people from removing some articles that need to go.Merkin's mum 03:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sjakkalle

Regarding the AFDs, I disagree with many of them, agree with some of them, but as long as the people involved will respect the opinions of the other side and abide by consensus I am not bothered too much by them on its own.

However, there are two concerns I have with Gavin.collins. The first one is that his edits have overwhelmingly been concerned with deleting articles or sticking maintenance tags on articles, often four or five, covering half the screen and looking very important. That is the conduct of someone who is bossing people around, and not the conduct of someone who wishes to lead by example. A person who leads by example will put plenty of effort into creating, improving or saving some articles. If Gavin wants to give the impression of someone who wants to help, rather than someone who wants to exercise power, he needs to refocus his attention onto article building. You cannot be a good demolition expert without a good idea of how to build a house.

The second concern is Gavin.collins' misuse of the term "vandal" to describe the other person in an edit dispute, a problem I called him on a few days ago [86], and where Gavin continues to maintain that he was in the right [87]. The dispute in question was an anonymous IP, on the first edit, removing some maintenance templates which Gavin had added. Gavin restored the (three) tags calling the edits "vandalism by singel purpose IP account" [88], (there are several more examples), which is a very harsh judgment to pass on the first edit from an IP. It is also possible that this IP was a casual reader who thought those tags distracting. For a newbie, seeing the edit reverted and called "vandalism" is extremely off-putting, which is why we have the WP:BITE guideline.


Users who endorse this view:

Outside view from uninvolved Merkinsmum

This strikes me as similar to when science fiction, or pagan groups and other groups, try to establish criteria for "the concept of notability within the industry" to quote something said above. There shouldn't be different rules for notability depending on what fans and so on deem notable. It should go on whether it has been mentioned in a reliable publication, such as a mainstream newspaper that would pass WP:RS as it is commonly understood for other articles- i.e. is an article about the subject on google news archive, which archives news stories going back for decades? Or has a large section about it been published in a book from a well-known (to the mainstream population) or long established, reputable publishing house? And is there more than one article about it, ideally? Having said that, as someone implied above, it's a "political" situation in a way, where I can 100% see Gavin's aims but he doesn't stand much chance of acheiving them. So he needs to detatch, choose his battles etc and be a tactical player, trying to get on with people a little along the way. But in general, he definitely shouldn't be discouraged/bullied into not trying to delete articles he as a good faith contributor, thinks are not notable. Merkin's mum 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gavin.collins&oldid=1146383443"