Talk:Eszter Hargittai

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 August 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial talk

Proposed deletion of this page is consequential on proposed deletion of Crooked Timber discussed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crooked_Timber. Both should be handled together. JQ 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original page made no claim of notability, the page now does and should not face redeletion under speedy criteria. If you have an issue with this article please list it on AFD seperately thanks! ALKIVAR™

18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and WP:EL

Things like being quoted in Wired should be trivial to provide references for, and we should all be on the same side when it comes to removing things without citations.

And the same with external links. Having four liks to a person's various personal web pages violates NPOV if nothing else.

Can we please not compromise our basic encyclopedic standards over something small like deletion or demonstration notability?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put a little number by the word Wired, go right ahead. And last time I looked, we don't remove authors' bibliographies as a violation of NP:NPOV. Kappa 08:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was uncivil, and uncalled for, and a revert which removes footnotes is doubly bad form. I had commented out rather than removed anything for precisely that reason. Right now the page has multiple links to personal pages by E.H. Does it not occur to you that this is not a good idea? If her "bibliography" is worthy of inclusion in the article, than it should by confirmed (blah blah reliable sources) and put on the page. That is what WP:EL says, after all.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can leave the list of publications unchanged for now, I promise to add proper notes as soon as I get time. It's only about 5 minutes Google for each one. Isn't there some tag that could be added to the effect of "proper citations needed", instead of things just being deleted?JQ 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually delete them, I commented them out so that they were invisible. And the whole "five minutes google search" is exactly my point. It's not my job to go and hunt up citations, although I often do so when I'm cleaning up articles. It's the job of the person who is putting things in to cite them. Shave a monkey, I just don't understand the behavior here. But to answer your question, yes I suppose that ^{[citation needed]} or something could also be used...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{citationneeded}} would have enabled AFD voters to better evaluate the notability of the subject without diving in and looking for HTML comments. Kappa 08:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if those claims turned out to be false after the article was kept based upon them? You could have heard the screaming all the way to Moscow if I'd renominated... during AfD is when we most need to be worrying about accuracy, not getting slapdash. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You could have heard the screaming all the way to Moscow if I'd renominated... " doesn't seem right. "The previous result was keep, based on such-and-such a claim, however this claim turns out to be false, please reconsider in the light of this new evidence". No-one would mind that. Kappa 09:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a couple of examples of those and I may concede the point. I would, at the same time, note that all the disputed items now have citations. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wired News or Wired Magazine?

In the body of the article, and in the footnote, we reference Wired. Which article should we link to? --Rob 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it was published in the magazine... but it clearly shows it was a web article. Probably link to news instead. ALKIVAR™

21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]