Talk:Mohammed Amon
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
A no-doubt well-meaning contributor...
A no-doubt well-meaning contributor has triggered a concern for me. They have called upon the authority of the essay WP:PUFF in the edit summary as a justification for an edit.
WP:PUFF is an essay, not a policy, or a guideline. Although this essay is widely called upon as if it were a wikipedia policy, it is not. It is just the personal opinion of some wikipedia contributors. Calling upon the authority of this essay is not a substitute for a specific explanation.
The authors of this essay are critical of the use of the phrase "is notable because". It is an awkward phrase, placed in wikipedia articles to clearly and explicitly bar overly hasty fans of speedy deletion to try to delete new small articles as meeting speedy deletion criteria A7 -- no assertion of notability.
That this phrase is necessary is a reflection of a weakness of the wording and interpretation of WP:CSD. It is routine for some fans of speedy deletion to claim articles lapse from A7, without regard for multiple implicit assertions of notability. The underlying problem is that assessing "notability" requires a frankly subjective judgment, but we mistakenly treat it as if were a judgment that can be reached by consulting an objective standard.
In general I am concerned whenever an essay is cited as if it were an actual policy.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The edit you are speaking about.
- The edit summary for this edit:
I think there is no strong reason to include this. Possible OR and maybe WP:PUFF
- Your allegations against the contributor are wrong and an example of Ad hominem.
- Please give us the reasons for inclusion if you disagree.
- Cheers! IQinn (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.