While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.
DreamRimmer mentions Ashok Attri (diplomat) (Archive.org capture) in their answer to Q3. Since that article (and its talk page per CSD G8) has since been deleted, I am copying its talk page contents here for any non-admins who wish to review it:
Hi DreamRimmer. Any article about a BLP that has few or no references but has a 'credible claim of importance or significance' can be tagged as unreferenced or for more citations. I believe you can follow the flowchart after this step. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira: First of all, you are misunderstanding my comment, and I did not ask about unreferenced or for more citations taggings. I want to emphasize that the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria. Please note that any article that doesn't pass WP:GNG or any relevant SNG must not be marked as reviewed. I kindly request you to review the notability guidelines again, as I believe, based on your comments, that you may not fully understand the notability guidelines. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what the next step would be according to the flowchart once you've checked that the article doesn't meet the GNG criteria? Jeraxmoira (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an article does not meet GNG, then check if it meets any relevant SNG (although it's best to check SNG first). If it fails both, you can nominate it for AfD or leave it for another reviewer. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you're mistaken here. According to the flowchart, the next step is to assess if the article contains a credible claim of importance or significance. If it does, the next step is to check if the article is about a BLP or not.
While I wouldn't recommend reviewing solely from that flowchart—it hasn't been updated in years and was never intended as a replacement for actual policy—Jeraxmoira is right here. It's not an NPPer's job to definitively establish notability either way. That's what AfD is for. If the topic is at least plausibly notable, doesn't have serious content problems, and isn't eligible for speedy deletion, it is perfectly acceptable to mark it as reviewed. DreamRimmer, if you think the subject of this article isn't notable, you should nominate it for deletion or tag it with {{notablity}} rather than unreviewing it. – Joe (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And FWIW, while I haven't looked at the sources, I'd be surprised if someone who's served as the Indian ambassador to two countries isn't notable. That's not an insignificant office. – Joe (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I should have nominated it for AfD instead of marking it as unreviewed, it was reviewed today, so I added it back to the NPP queue for a second review (as the 'Add to the NewPagesFeed' and 'unreviewed' options are available for this purpose). I want to mention that I haven't marked it as unreviewed a second time after Dewritech marked this as reviewed; I simply started a discussion here. However, I disagree with Jeraxmoira's statement, 'I don't think it needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to be marked as reviewed.' Also, their next comment, 'Any article about a BLP that has few or no references but has a 'credible claim of importance or significance' can be tagged as unreferenced or for more citations. I believe you can follow the flowchart after this step,' was irrelevant to my comment. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DreamRimmer, all of my comments imply the same NPR steps outlined in the flowchart, albeit at different levels of understanding. I tried explaining it by highlighting the line "credible claim of importance or significance". In the second reply, I edited the image to hide the irrelevant boxes to explain it further. In my third reply, I explained it clearly outlining what was written in the box next to GNG on the flowchart, yet you chose to ignore it. Although some of your recent lines are okay, what you said earlier and what you are saying with your new comments don't match is unwarranted. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've quite grasped the point. Notability isn't the only factor to mark an article as reviewed, according to the steps outlined in the flowchart. Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many content guidelines that must be followed. In the end, yes, notability is required for inclusion on Wikipedia. If it fails to meet this criterion, it should not deserve a standalone article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're talking past each other a bit. DreamRimmer is of course correct that if an article does not pass any notability guideline, i.e. it is definitely not notable, it should not be marked as reviewed – it should be deleted. But most of the time that's not something you can tell just by looking at an article. In other words, most new articles are about a topic of undetermined notability. You'd have to do a detailed source analysis to determine it either way, and this is frequently more than an NPPer has time for. For that reason, if an article doesn't make a clear case for notability in the form of GNG-meeting citations, the flowchart directs the reviewer to assess it against the speedy deletion criteria, check for the existence of reliable sources, then tag it and move on. I think this is what Jeraxmoira meant when they said I don't think it needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to be marked as reviewed – perhaps it would have been clearer to say the article doesn't need to have been determined to pass a notability guideline to be marked as removed. But the point is that when you, DreamRimmer, asked "how this pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO?", that was really a question for the creator of the article, not Jeraxmoira.
In any case, I think there's little to be gained by continuing this conversation. AfD is the place to discuss the notability of the article. Jeraxmoira has not, at least in my opinion as an uninvolved admin and new page patroller of seven years, done anything wrong in their reviewing. DreamRimmer, you are very far from being asked to hand in your NPR permission, but if you don't mind I'll follow up with some advice on your talk page. – Joe (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't think I reviewed this article in the first place. And the question was not directed to the creator rather towards the reviewer User:Dewritech. I pitched in to speak on behalf of User:Dewritech as I felt they were just following the chart. Yes, I should have worded it better.
I think you did not notice that Jeraxmoira (trial NPP) and Dewritech are different users. As a Wikipedia contributor, I must be able to answer any questions or concerns regarding my actions, such as moving a page, marking a page as reviewed or unreviewed, or adding any content to articles. I believe everyone follows this. That's why I asked the reviewer how this passed GNG or ANYBIO. Feel free to share any advice; I would appreciate it if you could email me instead of leaving a talk page message. – DreamRimmer (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jeraxmoira's analysis of the flowchart up to the bubble Does a google search (news/books/scholar as appropriate for the topic) turn up any reliable sources?. In my opinion, this bubble needs updating and should really say Does a google search (news/books/scholar as appropriate for the topic) turn up around 3 reliable independent secondary sources that go into around 3 paragraphs of detail (WP:GNG)?
It is also my opinion that ambassadors are not inherently notable. It is my opinion that they do not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL, and must meet WP:GNG. So if the GNG bubble ended up being a "no", and you moved on to the SNG bubble, the SNG bubble would be a "no" in my opinion. I could be wrong about ambassadors not meeting ANYBIO or NPOL. Links to a couple recent AFDs where ambassadors were kept using these PAGs would convince me to change my mind.
I agree that that step of the flowchart could be clearer but there won't be a consensus for your suggestion for various reasons, and it is only unobvious, not ambiguous. Anyone following the steps carefully should be able to conclude the search for sources is for GNG because the next step is proposing deletion. — Usedtobecool☎️04:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should exist, because answering "no" to the CCS box then leads to the A7 question, then the A9 question, then the A11 question, then circles back to the main line of the flowchart. The notability check occurs after the CCS box via the GNG box (Does a google search (news/books/scholar as appropriate for the topic) turn up any reliable sources?) and the SNG box (Does the topic qualify for any subject-specific notability criteria? (check relevant notability pages, criteria must be verifiable) If it is a list: see WP:LISTN). CCS is not notability. CCS is checked first to finish up CSD checking, then notability checking occurs. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hold on. There is already a GNG box earlier in the flowchart. Hmm. I think I see your confusion. An article that fails the early GNG box but passes the CCS box and passes the google search for reliable sources box is allowed to skip the notability checks with less than WP:GNG, when in reality GNG should be enforced. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first GNG box is for sourcing in the article, which would be an easy pass. The second check for sources is for GNG but as WP:BEFORE. If it passes, you tag with reference tags and mark reviewed, if it fails, you propose deletion. Best, — Usedtobecool☎️08:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense. Thank you for this clarification. Maybe I was right with my original statement then, that the Does a google search (news/books/scholar as appropriate for the topic) turn up any reliable sources? box should be re-worded to emphasize GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It should say GNG for sure, considering what we've learnt in this incident. Your suggestion for explaining GNG above is what I think won't find consensus, because I get the impression that GNG has become even less stringent and vaguer about what kind of sources and how many since I first read it in 2019. Officially, I reckon this would be explained with "quality of sourcing matters as much as quantity", unofficially I think it's a response to SNGs getting stricter. — Usedtobecool☎️08:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I expected during the initial discussion about the article being marked as reviewed, but instead it was diverted to Ashok Attri's notability. Nevertheless, my initial comment on the ORCP was to highlight their overall behavior and was never about Ashok Attri or NPP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's some software challenges to updating this flowchart. I've looked into it before. The original software used to make it is a defunct online flowchart generator, so we don't have a proper editable file. Maybe I can mess around with it in an SVG editor like Inkscape... –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure why you decided to throw your two cents into this two and half month old discussion but, if you're going to change ICPH's widely-used flowchart to say something completely different to what it does now (Does a google search (news/books/scholar as appropriate for the topic) turn up any reliable sources? does not mean "check the article against the GNG", at all) then it should not be off the back of a discussion on the talk page of a biography of a retired Indian diplomat that is currently at AfD. – Joe (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suspect because of time zone things. Anyone on UTC 1 will see "starts at 10:02" and potentially forget that "10:02" their time is really 09:02 UTC. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. The milk has spilled, and it is just an hour off. I don't think much can be faulted on this. A pedantic me would request you to re-sign the vote after 20 minutes from now lest others seek to invalidate the early votes in a toss-up, if it happens. If this 2-day thing becomes a permanent thing, we can look into solutions to warn people not to vote early if they do so mistakenly. – robertsky (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
