Talk:3rd Stone

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Names

I am not sure why certain names without articles are being treated differently to others. Is there a guideline I've missed? Just because there is no article for them, does that mean the names can't be used until articles are created? If so, fine. dougweller (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an actual guideline, but the convention for potentially long and/or incomplete lists is to only include its notable members (generally but not exclusively taken as those with wikipedia articles). This convention is to some extent supported by Template:Cleanup-laundry which lists "not notable" as a reason for removing list items. There's little point in adding further names when the reader is unable to find out more information about them to provide those names with context. Doing so only clutters the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree about lists. But look at Castleden's Ghits on Google Scholar [1] and, a quick search, [2] and [3] - like Darvill, he doesn't have an article, but if either of them had articles they'd survive an AfD, right? Yes, I'd like to write articles for them, and I may do when I have time and aren't trying to deal with a lot of OR. dougweller (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (i) WP:NOTE isn't about how much you've written, but how much has been written about you & (ii) regardless of underlying notability, if there's no article to link to, then the author name means very little (the reader can't even tell if the author in question is a solid scholar or an infamous crank). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I linked to a review by Juilan Richards - more reviews:[4] and [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. As I read WP:RED, the redlink should be replaced. dougweller (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]