Talk:Gravette, Arkansas

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gravette, Arkansas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov/ to http://factfinder2.census.gov/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There have been several attempts to add this individual to the list of Notable Persons from Gravette. These have been consistently reverted by editors who make claims regarding notability. However, these claims are plainly disproven by the fact of Barnett's inclusion in the primary page on the 2021 Storming of The US Capitol. Barnett's name has appeared on that page, without dispute, since at least January 7th 2021. Happy to begin dispute resolution should this edit be reverted again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard "Bigo" Barnett 

message: We are seeking opinions on the inclusion of January 6th Capitol Rioter Richard "Bigo" Barnett on the list of notable people from Gravette. Johnadams11 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know the article was deleted, <U>so what</U>. He's still notable for his actions, and the widespread coverage proves it. That photo of him at Pelosi's desk is an iconic and historical photograph that will be recorded in the history books. The insurrection at the Capitol was an extraordinary historical event and sadly, this is his legacy, and he will always be associated with Gravette Arkansas because of it. See our policy WP:IAR as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment: The broader community has given a clear consensus  here and  here that the subject matter is not notable. The moment the community agrees on notability, I'll be on board with including it here.Jacona (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count the !votes at the above mentioned deletion discussion were 18 for deleting, 1 for keeping.Jacona (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment: the community wasn't deciding if Barnett should be included as a notable citizen from Gravette, but rather was he a notable subject for a BLP, big difference. The subject of this article is about a city in Arkansas, not a BLP, and per WP:USCITY - having a BLP article is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article - so he doesn't have an article, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not a notable citizen from Gravette Arkansas. There is verifiable evidence that Barnett has received significant attention from multiple sources to support a claim of notability. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply either because this article is not a BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME is moot as well, as we are not suggesting Barnett has committed a crime. It's been widely reported that he is from Gravette Arkansas. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Isaidnoway, you are both right and wrong at the same time. For inclusion in the article about Gravette, wikipedia notability is not required. However, he's not just being included in an article about Gravette, but in a list of persons who are wikipedia notable. To be included in such a list, the individual must meet the inclusion criteria for notability. That means they could either have an article, or that if an article were to be written, it would likely survive the deletion process. The community has clearly indicated that an article on Barnett does not meet that standard at this time by deleting the article and rejecting an additional draft.Jacona (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia notable says notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people), which applies here, because this is not a stand-alone list, but rather a list/content within this article. Lists of people says that inclusion in lists contained within articles (which is what we are talking about here) should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, which Barnett clearly satisfies with the significant coverage he's received, and continues to receive for being an Arkansas man who gained renown. Good grief, he has more reliable sources that verify supporting his inclusion than the people already listed in this article, which btw, are unsourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the other entries in the list have their own article, and each is clearly sourced to Gravette in that article. Many wikilawyers remove such content, demanding a source in the current article, but I feel that's 1.) a jerk move, and 2.) a violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE, which along with WP:IAR is probably one of the 2 least popular rules among experienced editors. As far as your argument about nlist/listbio/sourcelist, it's not without merit, but it is certainly not the practice that's followed in popular articles. WTAF is clearly the consensus, and if we depart from it, we'll just be sitting around arguing about it with a different set of editors until we do. My guess is that sometime in the future, Barnett will get an article, and if he does, he will be uncontroversially included.Jacona (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Actually, someone did add it, and it did meet deletion criteria.  See deletion discussionJacona (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The !vote count was 17 for deletion, 1 for inclusion, so this was an extremely strong consensus that the subject was not notable at that time.Jacona (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to remind everyone, not notable for a BLP article, this article is not a BLP. Just because someone is not notable for a BLP, doesn't automatically mean their not noteworthy enough for inclusion in other articles, like 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, or this one, which reliable sources overwhelmingly describe him as being from Gravette. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be true if it were to be a sentence say, in the history section. But it's not. It's in a list of Notables, which means the subject must meet the criteria for inclusion in a list of notables.Jacona (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He does meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOURCELIST. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article. So if it's true he meets the criteria for a  (text of the article), then he can be added to notable people from Gravette. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people reads "To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached." When the list in question is a list of notable anything, the entries on that list must be in fact, notable. Just having a reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability.Jacona (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

text: The world of Barnett today is very much different than it was on January 11th. Plus, I think we know about some local notoriety that we did not really know about then. Time and energy permitting, I might write at least a stub. Rklahn (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Richard "Bigo" Barnett 

message: *Include - I'm usually a stickler for this type of thing, requiring a WP article for inclusion on a notable list in towns/cities/colleges/alumni. But this time, this guy is notable for putting his feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk, and he is from Gravette which is always mentioned in sources. He received both widespread national and international coverage. NBC News, ABC News, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Associated Press, Fox News, Reuters, Australia, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Taiwan, Canada, England. He is an infamous and notable citizen from Gravette Arkansas. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know the article was deleted, <U>so what</U>. He's still notable for his actions, and the widespread coverage proves it. That photo of him at Pelosi's desk is an iconic and historical photograph that will be recorded in the history books. The insurrection at the Capitol was an extraordinary historical event and sadly, this is his legacy, and he will always be associated with Gravette Arkansas because of it. See our policy WP:IAR as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment: The broader community has given a clear consensus  here and  here that the subject matter is not notable. The moment the community agrees on notability, I'll be on board with including it here.Jacona (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By my count the !votes at the above mentioned deletion discussion were 18 for deleting, 1 for keeping.Jacona (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Comment: the community wasn't deciding if Barnett should be included as a notable citizen from Gravette, but rather was he a notable subject for a BLP, big difference. The subject of this article is about a city in Arkansas, not a BLP, and per WP:USCITY - having a BLP article is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article - so he doesn't have an article, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's not a notable citizen from Gravette Arkansas. There is verifiable evidence that Barnett has received significant attention from multiple sources to support a claim of notability. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply either because this article is not a BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME is moot as well, as we are not suggesting Barnett has committed a crime. It's been widely reported that he is from Gravette Arkansas. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Isaidnoway, you are both right and wrong at the same time. For inclusion in the article about Gravette, wikipedia notability is not required. However, he's not just being included in an article about Gravette, but in a list of persons who are wikipedia notable. To be included in such a list, the individual must meet the inclusion criteria for notability. That means they could either have an article, or that if an article were to be written, it would likely survive the deletion process. The community has clearly indicated that an article on Barnett does not meet that standard at this time by deleting the article and rejecting an additional draft.Jacona (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia notable says notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people), which applies here, because this is not a stand-alone list, but rather a list/content within this article. Lists of people says that inclusion in lists contained within articles (which is what we are talking about here) should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, which Barnett clearly satisfies with the significant coverage he's received, and continues to receive for being an Arkansas man who gained renown. Good grief, he has more reliable sources that verify supporting his inclusion than the people already listed in this article, which btw, are unsourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the other entries in the list have their own article, and each is clearly sourced to Gravette in that article. Many wikilawyers remove such content, demanding a source in the current article, but I feel that's 1.) a jerk move, and 2.) a violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE, which along with WP:IAR is probably one of the 2 least popular rules among experienced editors. As far as your argument about nlist/listbio/sourcelist, it's not without merit, but it is certainly not the practice that's followed in popular articles. WTAF is clearly the consensus, and if we depart from it, we'll just be sitting around arguing about it with a different set of editors until we do. My guess is that sometime in the future, Barnett will get an article, and if he does, he will be uncontroversially included.Jacona (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Actually, someone did add it, and it did meet deletion criteria.  See deletion discussionJacona (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The !vote count was 17 for deletion, 1 for inclusion, so this was an extremely strong consensus that the subject was not notable at that time.Jacona (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to remind everyone, not notable for a BLP article, this article is not a BLP. Just because someone is not notable for a BLP, doesn't automatically mean their not noteworthy enough for inclusion in other articles, like 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, or this one, which reliable sources overwhelmingly describe him as being from Gravette. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be true if it were to be a sentence say, in the history section. But it's not. It's in a list of Notables, which means the subject must meet the criteria for inclusion in a list of notables.Jacona (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He does meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SOURCELIST. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article. So if it's true he meets the criteria for a  (text of the article), then he can be added to notable people from Gravette. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Notable_people reads "To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached." When the list in question is a list of notable anything, the entries on that list must be in fact, notable. Just having a reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability.Jacona (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

text: The world of Barnett today is very much different than it was on January 11th. Plus, I think we know about some local notoriety that we did not really know about then. Time and energy permitting, I might write at least a stub. Rklahn (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey