This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Barte, Let me introduce myself, I’m HallenW & I’m the one who removed the notability tag from WP Public Art in Public Places article, & was surprised to see such an instant reversion. I can see by your userpage you’re quite experienced. Can I address your edit summary? So you wrote there’s “obvious notability in the number of links” to the Public Art in Public Places archive on WP articles – quite right, that’s what I saw and I agree the notability is obvious, and significant! I see at least 60 [go to: Special:Linksearch/*.publicartinpublicplaces.info]. Such references and links must be beneficial for WP articles, right? So I wonder, do you imply the archive’s quality, impartiality, (WP) reliability or relevance is questioned? I’ve seen none – this org. is non-commercial, non-profit, a public resource, free/open/active/accurate/impartial. What’s left? (& the org.’s website mission/philosophy certainly shares WP’s ethic). And I’ve seen authors of articles appreciate [‘thank’] the data, references and links to the Public Art in Public Places archives. So I’m puzzled: Can you explain how your objection squares with the archive’s relevant presence on WP as a legitimate and reliable source? May I ask if it could be time for a reconsideration? Best, HallenW ( talk) 00:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)