3 ms·

Can you explain why posting a notification to a partisan group about a deletion is considered canvasing? It seems like saying "if there is an issue involving sc

Can you explain why posting a notification to a partisan group about a deletion is considered canvasing? It seems like saying "if there is an issue involving schools, you can't tell the parents of school kids." Am I just reading that wrong? (Just so we're clear, I'm not attacking you. I can see how someone might take it that way so I wanted to clarify before we even go down that road.)

bradbeattie 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing I don't really see anything in WP:CANVAS that would frown on informing a specific subgroup. If anyone's capable of demonstrating notability, it's likely to be those who are most familiar with the subject at hand, yeah? I'd actually encourage going directly to the associated community and asking for assistance in determining notability. That being said, evidence does need to be put forth that meets WP:NOTE: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are many subsections and clarifications, but that's really the core of it. My experience in notability largely revolves around webcomics. There's a very low bar for entry and a fair amount of pride in one's creation, which I can well understand. However, things started getting to the point where an article was being created for each and every webcomic out there. In some cases, the fan community was quite helpful in demonstrating notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Whiteboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... If you disagree with notion of notability in general, we can discuss that separately (so long as you put forth an argument that my cat McMuttonchops can have an article in Wikipedia).
- docgnome 17y ago
  The way that graph reads if you inform a partisan audience about an article for deletion, it's considered canvasing and you can be baned as a result. And given that the discussion of deletion for the dwm article was closed because of discussions here and other places, it just appears that that is exactly what happened.

bradbeattie 17y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing I don't really see anything in WP:CANVAS that would frown on informing a specific subgroup. If anyone's capable of demonstrating notability, it's likely to be those who are most familiar with the subject at hand, yeah? I'd actually encourage going directly to the associated community and asking for assistance in determining notability. That being said, evidence does need to be put forth that meets WP:NOTE: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are many subsections and clarifications, but that's really the core of it. My experience in notability largely revolves around webcomics. There's a very low bar for entry and a fair amount of pride in one's creation, which I can well understand. However, things started getting to the point where an article was being created for each and every webcomic out there. In some cases, the fan community was quite helpful in demonstrating notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Whiteboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion... If you disagree with notion of notability in general, we can discuss that separately (so long as you put forth an argument that my cat McMuttonchops can have an article in Wikipedia).

docgnome 17y ago
The way that graph reads if you inform a partisan audience about an article for deletion, it's considered canvasing and you can be baned as a result. And given that the discussion of deletion for the dwm article was closed because of discussions here and other places, it just appears that that is exactly what happened.