Talk:Vancouver School of Theology

Is Topping notable

I don’t really see it. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Richard+R.+Topping%22 shows a number of book edits, does this imply that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or are we suggesting that he meets WP:NACADEMICS? It’s not clear to me, but notability isn't clear to me and since "articles should not contain red links … to topics that do not warrant an article" we shouldn’t be adding a redlink for the subject unless it can be shown that he is actually notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Having been reverted per WP:WTAF, I'm wondering of what relevance that is to an article about a university. Could you clarify?

I fully understand, but you need to prove he's notable, you just can't claim it. How do you reconcile your position concerning the burden of proof with WP:RED which provides "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject [emphasis in original]"? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't see the above post until after I posted, but my questions still apply. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your questions apply, because you got into an edit war while I was trying to explain that I do not believe that the subject is notable and that you should write the article to show that the subject is notable. At this point I'm certain that there should not be an article on the subject and would need convincing to the contrary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

And thanks for trying to notify me about your response, I don't need the ping as the article is on my watchlist, and I will see discussions here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RED is clear that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the subject is not notable given the perfectly reasonable claim to the subject meeting criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC as "the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university".

So, again, of what relevance is WP:WTAF here? And how do you reconcile your position concerning the burden of proof (you need to prove he's notable, you just can't claim it) with WP:RED?

I don't think your questions apply, because you got into an edit war How does the former follow from the latter? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an incomplete thought.

Stop breaking MOS:TALK, MOS:INDENTGAP. I formatted it correctly and you broke that.

Do not link directly to articles or redirects.

I did show that the subject is not notable and ACADEMIC is clear what roles apply, but Topping is not any of these, he is the principal. It's all about the name. Which then leads me back to the original questions I asked, and so, I re-state: no, he's not notable.

WTAF is also well-accepted in the community. If the article is written, it's clear the subject's notability. If the article is deleted, so are all links to it because community consensus is that the subject is not notable. The article, if it exists, the subject's notability is clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I did show that the subject is not notable You had made no such argument prior to reversion, despite having the burden of proof.

It's all about the name. Yeah, it definitely isn't. Are you seriously suggesting that criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC can't be applied to, e.g., pretty well all Scottish universities (which typically use the title Principal rather than President or Vice-Chancellor) and other universities in the Scottish tradition (such as Queen's University in Ontario) if they haven't adopted President or Vice-Chancellor as a secondary title in recent years?

WTAF is also well-accepted in the community. Did you read WP:WTAF before citing it? It explicitly limits its scope to lists, templates, and disambiguation pages. As I asked before, how is that relevant to an article about a university? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Point by point response:

I do not need to make the argument prior to reverting. WP:AGF requires you to assume that I did and I understand it. I did in fact look before I reverted and my first response was that the article was a redlink. I didn't realize that a wikilawyering anon was on the other end and would require me to provide a detailed essay on why the article was a redlink. Did you assume good faith? Did you in fact check to determine that an article could plausibly be written? Did you explain that when you added the link, or in either of your reverts?

Yes, it is about the name. This isn't a school in the Scottish tradition though, is it? It's a Canadian school. The terms are not the same and (now I get to wikilawyer) you can show that they are they are not considered to be equals.

I have read WTAF many times, but clearly not since JHunterJ made that change a year ago. You're correct, it doesn't apply. I will not use it for articles (until I can get it changed back). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)