User talk:Szmenderowiecki/Attempt at compilation/Content

Explainer about changes to SIGCOV

WhatamIdoing So you started with the example in SIGCOV. First of all, the general comparison is... a bit misleading. You forgot all the notes and subsequent paragraphs, which make all the difference. I hope you see the mind process behind what I was doing.

This is from what I started, section "General notability guideline". That's a lot of text.

General notability guideline, from WP:N

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[1]
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,^[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"^[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.^[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.^[5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

New GNG text
A topic generally may have a stand-alone article or list when several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject^[a] address the topic directly and in detail,^[b] so that editors do not have to resort to original research.

So what do we start from? The definition.

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

And there go explainers.

First, what "presumed" means. By dictionary definition, presumption is not statement of fact, just assumption that something is a fact, and one you have to disprove. I understand this is a clarification. That's what is in the "Caveats" section, bullet point 3. However, the footnote basically says that not all sources are allowed to establish notability, but all of the examples fail for various reasons: directories, databases and minor news stories - not SIGCOV; advertisements, announcements columns - not independent. So why mention them when we cover that later.
Then what "significant coverage" means. Actually that definition is included in the last part of the GNG: addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content becomes address the topic directly and in detail so that editors do not have to resort to original research. Just doesn't have a separate line.
I omitted "reliable" completely, that's what RS already should define, so why define additionally in N?
"Sources". You expect secondary sources - there you go, you have them in the definition. The number of sources is generally multiple - so it also migrates to the definition - the special cases are hidden in a footnote. I used several, but you point that it may confuse American editors - so be it, let it be multiple.
"Independent of the subject" - got it covered in RS.

So the point is - did I change the definition that much? Not much, really.

You raised some points on VPP:

failing repeatedly because nobody wants to admit how long (or, perhaps more precisely, how low) "in detail" actually is, for fear that some "unworthy" subject might deliberately seek a qualifying level of independent media coverage. - the current variation of SIGCOV does not say "how low", and neither does mine. I'm not fixing this bug presicely for the reason you mentioned. Just write it in simpler terms.
The NOR line in the GNG is basically worthless, and AFAICT removing it would have no effect whatsoever on AFD outcomes, but the fear of making changes to such a high-visibility sentence will likely prevent us from fixing that - as I mention above, the line is basically copypasta from SIGCOV, so doesn't change the guideline as such. The difference is that right now it's in the explanation, and the changed version just crams it into the main sentence. But I'm not an asshole about it and I can yield as to that part - OR is prohibited anyway. As to many other parts anyway.
The e footnote remark:
- primary sources aren't always about events - point taken
- sources don't have to adhere to the neutral point of view - I suppose you are speaking of paragraph 2 of the footnote. This is almost the same as footnote 3 right now says: In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- a smaller number of high-quality sources is not automatically less indicative of notability than a large number of worse sources - a point that the current guideline doesn't make clear, either, but I've fixed that as well.
- At the time we started leaning on secondary sources (about 15 years ago), we had a lot of editors who thought that secondary was a fancy way to spell independent - "secondary sources that are independent of the subject" implies that secondary and independent are not the same, as you can have "secondary non-independent sources". I actually spell out the difference later, in RS.
- The GNG offers a conditional rebuttable presumption, which you have turned into a statement of permission (may/are allowed to have...) - first, it's "may generally have an article", which is a more family-friendly way to say "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". As in, there is no central authority that allows articles. If you can generally have it, and you disagree, you have to point out why "generally" does not apply. Note not everyone is a native English speaker, so if we can reasonably simplify language, we should.
- The GNG says that multiple sources are only "generally expected", rather than required, and you have changed that. Name cases of a notable topic where only one source that would count towards notability exists about it. Also, multiple where I was taught just means "more than 1", even though often it's more like 9 or 24 than 2 or 3. Moreover, if it's "generally expected requirement", it is exactly what a guideline is - set of best, generally expected practices. And after all, you can IAR in cases when there's a good reason to.
- whereas the GNG is usually looking for "two" If that's what generally expected, it should be codified into the guideline. I see good reasons not to - your example with 10 shitty sources vs 2 good ones is exactly the argument I'd use.
- Among the things you haven't resolved is whether the sources for an article must be considered in isolation. - my job is not to "resolve" current problems with policy, and more codifying it into a simpler format. It is partially covered in footnote e (references coming from a single source). I may do it if I guess that the policy is too convoluted and just covers an obscure case, but otherwise I won't do that. Guess what - your question is relevant, but I didn't see any answer in the current version of N, so I didn't include it in the revision simply because I have no idea how to codify it properly. This is one of the reasons I asked for external input.

I hope my answers helped.

Notes

^ There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but you should generally provide multiple sources. Do not use primary sources for this purpose, as they are not as detached from the event. Some sources do not qualify because they are themselves trivial news coverage or would be one of the things that Wikipedia is not.
If there are few sources, you may still create the article but you have to verify that the few sources you have reflect a neutral point of view, are credible and provide sufficient detail. The fewer sources you have, the less the chance the topic is notable.
We require secondary sources as a basis for articles. Tertiary sources may occasionally be used to assert notability, but you must primarily rely on secondary sources.
If the same person or organization creates multiple publications (particularly if in a series or in the same periodical), or if multiple outlets/people publish same or very similar stories, or even if the works are superficially different but still rely on the same sources and thus essentially say the same thing, for notability purposes these works will normally count as a single source.
^
To illustrate the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" (in detail) coverage
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM
- This article by the National Post^[6] is a great source to establish the notability of Coalition Avenir Québec or Premier François Legault, whose deeds are covered there in detail. However, it might not be as good to establish notability of Legault's chief of staff, Martin Koskinen, as detail about him is not as plentiful.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,^[7] that "in high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"In detail" does not mean "primarily/only about this subject", it just means that there is ample information about it which you can use to write an article.

References

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
^ Lévesque, Catherine (2022-08-26). "Who is François Legault? The unapologetic, apparently unbeatable Quebec leader". National Post. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[nofixednumber-6] There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but you should generally provide multiple sources. Do not use primary sources for this purpose, as they are not as detached from the event. Some sources do not qualify because they are themselves trivial news coverage or would be one of the things that Wikipedia is not.
If there are few sources, you may still create the article but you have to verify that the few sources you have reflect a neutral point of view, are credible and provide sufficient detail. The fewer sources you have, the less the chance the topic is notable.
We require secondary sources as a basis for articles. Tertiary sources may occasionally be used to assert notability, but you must primarily rely on secondary sources.
If the same person or organization creates multiple publications (particularly if in a series or in the same periodical), or if multiple outlets/people publish same or very similar stories, or even if the works are superficially different but still rely on the same sources and thus essentially say the same thing, for notability purposes these works will normally count as a single source.

[Trivia-9] To illustrate the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" (in detail) coverage
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM

This article by the National Post^[6] is a great source to establish the notability of Coalition Avenir Québec or Premier François Legault, whose deeds are covered there in detail. However, it might not be as good to establish notability of Legault's chief of staff, Martin Koskinen, as detail about him is not as plentiful.

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,^[7] that "in high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"In detail" does not mean "primarily/only about this subject", it just means that there is ample information about it which you can use to write an article.

[3] The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM

[4] This article by the National Post^[6] is a great source to establish the notability of Coalition Avenir Québec or Premier François Legault, whose deeds are covered there in detail. However, it might not be as good to establish notability of Legault's chief of staff, Martin Koskinen, as detail about him is not as plentiful.

[5] Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,^[7] that "in high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

[1] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[2] Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.

[3] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[4] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[5] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Questionable sources for handling of such situations.

[7] Lévesque, Catherine (2022-08-26). "Who is François Legault? The unapologetic, apparently unbeatable Quebec leader". National Post. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

[8] Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[a]

[b]

[6]

[7]