Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

When should we do the RfC?

It seems like we're getting tired, and we may have missed our chance to use the watchlist notice. I think randomran's version was pretty concise, and forced people to choose various options in a good way. How are we going to get a large cross section of wiki to vote on this thing? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)

Good question. I haven't the faintest idea for the procedure to get there. But I think the centralized discussion page I was working on still needs a bit of work. Step one: is there a consensus to withdraw the last two proposals, for the sake of brevity and readability? (Or, will the people who proposed them voluntarily withdraw them?) Then we can get to step two, which would be to tighten up the remaining proposals around the two major issues. Randomran (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed them. If someone wants to put them back, that's fine. Barring that, we should work on the final wording and how we're going to get the word out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2.3 one (which you have attributed to me), I'd actually split that up into two. The first being to consolidate, the second being to make notability policy. They are two different thoughts and I know likely the policy aspect will be shot down, but consolidation is still achievable. --MASEM 13:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Quick question, though: does it make sense to propose this as policy right now? The two main issues really are the notability of sub-articles and the relationship between the general and specific guidelines. I worry that a proposal to make notability policy would take this RFC a little off topic. It's a good idea, but I think we should focus on the most pressing issues for readability and efficiency's sake. What do you think? Randomran (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If you separate the issues, I think it is completely fair game in this rather large RFC we're having if the "concept" of notability should be policy. I would be careful to make sure we are not saying that notability is equal to the GNG (presently, that's why we have this) that would imply the GNG is the policy. But to determine if there's strong enough consensus that editors feel that notability is policy would help guide further writing. Maybe this might be better written as the inclusion policy idea - in that articles need to meet to meet any of the requirements to be included in WP, and those requirements are spelled out in more detailed guidelines (following the pattern of V/RS). --MASEM 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's maybe why we should propose this as policy at a later time. Right now, notability is just the GNG. We should wait to see how that changes and evolves before we put it to the wider community that it should be policy. We'll want a consensus about notability as a guideline before strengthening it as policy. If we push too far too fast, we're more likely to confuse and polarize parts of the community, no? I'm just thinking out loud. What do you think? Randomran (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to pull my branching suggestion from this proposal - the more I work on it, the more I think it is a fundamentally different suggestion from the others, and best presented not as a fix for fictional articles but as a reconsideration of article organization in general. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. There's at least circumstantial support for letting sub-articles inherit notability. It's something that has a lot of support among critics of the current notability guideline, and so it would be a shame to deprive those people of an opportunity to have this proposal heard out. If you still wanted to propose a more comprehensive plan for re-organization in the future that's not directly related to notability, you could do that later. But for the time being, I think this is too relevant and too popular to keep it from the wider community. Randomran (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I intend to put branching to the larger community, but I do not think it is best considered as a fiction proposal, and I am hesitant to put it up for a vote in that context and then have that vote be taken the wrong way in a broader context. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If you take a closer look, the RFC is only about notability. It does not directly deal with fiction, although all specific notability guidelines are bound to be affected. These are notability proposals, not fiction proposals. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't suggest specifically spelling out Phil's system in this, but some mention if sub-supporting pages, particularly if clearly marked as being such, are appropriate and do not need to meet the GNG or other notability requirements. Exactly how to demonstrate support articles is a detail left for later (which Phil's idea fits into), but we need to still ask that question. --MASEM 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that's a fair compromise. We won't go into detail about the naming conventions or how this will apply to fiction. But we will propose that sub-articles can inherit notability from parents, and that you can always split a notable article when it becomes too big no matter what content has grown. "Inherited notability" is a common misconception now, so we might as well find out who's right. Randomran (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
          • In answer to Phil, I am not sure what point he is trying to make and need clarification. My understanding is that, subject to the RFC, sub-articles may obtain approval by consensus if it can be shown that (a) they are in accordance with existing policy and guidelines, or (b) existing policies and guidelines will be amended to accomodate them. However, I think what Phil is thinking is that sub-articles should be approved on the basis that existing policy and guidelines only apply to articles, and that sub-articles will have new policy and guidelines which will apply only to them. Could he clarify his position? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Next phase of RFC preparation

RFC Discussion Page: Work in Progress

I am wrapping up the first phase of the RFC preparation. Having established a consensus to keep the number of proposals down in order to promote readability, the RFC is now organized around two main issues, with a few yes/no proposals to address each issue. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, there won't be any additional proposals or issues taken up in this RFC.

The next phase is to clean-up and clarify the remaining proposals. The key is to balance conciseness and completeness, in order to have optimal readability. I've begun working on the proposals, but feel free to chime in with your comments or boldly edit and we can discuss as problems arise. Randomran (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• What are people's readability concerns? Every once in a while I come back to length. Is 7k too much? Not enough? Just about right? Randomran (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Smaller is better, as long as we include all the relevant info. "Reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is a mouthful, so I think it would be good if we had some shorthand for it. Maybe define GNG at the top, and use GNG after that.
  • Also, instead of saying "This would clarify the relationship between the general notability guideline and specific notability guidelines, which is not explicitly stated as of yet." and something similar at the end of 2A and 2B, I think saying it once before going into 2A would be best. I also think 2 should go before 1.
  • Basically, anything that we're repeating a bunch, we should try and find a way to say it once if at all possible.
  • 1.4 and 2.3 are specific proposals, they're a bit different. I think 1.4 is too specific and should be removed. I don't think it will get enough support to go into effect, and there are probably other competing proposals it should be put against if/when we get to that. 2.3 is a proposal, but I think it's broad enough, and may have support, so I think it's worthwhile to include it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not sure about 2 going before 1. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you were right, 2 before 1. If 1.3 didn't depend on an understanding and acceptance of a certain outcome from 2.2 then you could post them in whatever order you wnt but seeing as how 1.3 does depend on 2.2 I would argue for placing them in reverse order to allow the overarching concept of 2.2 to help define (or restrict) 1.3. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I would support getting rid of proposal 1.4 too, if there are no objections. In the interest of readability. I also agree we need to cut down the repetition, without sacrificing clarity. "Appropriate sources" might be a useful shorthand that we could establish in the lead. Randomran (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed 1.4, if someone wants to re-add it that's fine. I think "appropriate sources" would work fine. We can just define it once towards the beginning. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have one concern, namely abstraction. I think we need to add an article/sub-article examples page as a sort of addendum to the RFC. e.g.

Proposal A: Every sub-article of a notable main article is also notable

1. User:Phil Sandifer/Heroes/Episodes
2. User:Phil Sandifer/Heroes/Characters

I think that an examples page is important, because it will help to ground the discussions in terms of practicle application for each proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Gavin. (That is almost hard to say :-), but I think that's twice this month) Hobit (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Is the namespace of the proposal truly essential? I would prefer to avoid proposing changes to the namespace and focus just on the notability of articles. But I'm willing to go with the flow here, if there's a few editors who feel strongly about it. Randomran (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Something's bugging me about the phrase "If an article can show a relationship to a notable parent article..." I get the distinct feeling that is going to be misused. The extension of main article concept should be more explicit. Maybe a requirement that the split be consensus approved. That means the section would need to start in the main article and naturally grow big enough that a split was requested and consensus approved, before moving to a sub-article. Otherwise people could just make new articles and editors of the "parent" article would never know. At least this maintains some level of accountability. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think every proposal can be exploited in weird ways if nobody is watching. Consensus-building has to provide checks and balances. But I think you have a fair point. "If an article can show a relationship to a notable parent article" is really loose, and makes this proposal unlikely to gain support. We can be more clear: "If an article can demonstrate that it is an extension of a section of a notable parent article." Something to that effect. Randomran (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect there is a way to improve that wording, but the idea is good, and the wording is fine if no one can find something better. Hobit (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article

I was thinking, is there an instance where a website may be notable enough to be used as a source, yet not notable to have an article about it? I wrote an article that has a website as a major source for the article, but the website does not have an article. The website has been covered in a newspaper article and an magazine article, but I am not sure if that is enough to give it notability as a source. The newspaper and magazine both have articles. - LA @ 09:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

According to everything we have said above, and in the past year of discussion, 2 RS = 1 article. So if you've got a magazine article and a newspaper article and they are ostensibly different articles (i.e. not comming from the same AP Press Release) than you have WP:Notability. The reliability of the site is something that can only be proved or disproved with time and case by case (even CBS has gotten stuff wrong). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a distinction here about notability and reliability: reliability is that the site can be trusted, while notability refers to coverage of the site in other reliable sources. Thus it is quite easy for a site to be reliable but not to have gained sufficient coverage in other sources so as to be notable. One area where this is an issue is that of journals: a journal might be reliable (especially if peer-reviewed) but that doesn't mean it fits the general notability requirements, although there are sufficient exceptions that can be used to defend it, should the need arise (mostly to do with specific requirements for specialist works). - Bilby (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point Bilby. Sources don't require notability, they require reliability. Then we can use that reliability to demonstrate the notability of something else. So, LA, the sources you have don't need to demonstrate notability like the subject of the wiki-article does. The sources need to be proven sources that can be expected to be reliable. Whether the source is notable enough to have an article of it's own is a separate issue altogether. Andyes, as Bilby's example shows, you can have a source that is reliable enough to use as a source but is no notable] enough to have it's own article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"2 RS = 1 article" is a very poor characterisation of the rule. There are many types of reliable sources, and not all contribute to a demonstration of notability. Secondary sources are usually required, and unfortunately, "reliable" is not a useful adjective for a commentary/analysis secondary source. The commentary, especially, is merely the authors opinion. A more meaningful adjective for a secondary source is “reputable”. I don’t think many are inclined to describe purely primary sources, like a phone book, census data, quotations, for example, as “reputable”. Now, I’d be happy to see people saying “two reputable sources justify an article”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• This happens all the time. 90% of the academic journals out there don't need articles, there wouldn't be any independent sources to cover them, but we still use them as sources. The reliable source guidelines don't really operate on the same wavelength as the notability guidelines. The source doesn't have to be "important" per se, just has to exercise editorial control and represent information in a reasonable way. For a website example, Economic Principals. I'll defend it to the death as RS, but I can't imagine writing an article on it. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Local sources != notability?

Hello all, In watching AfD and DRV (mainly Murder of Joseph Didier but also a number of others) I've been finding that people really want things to be "not notable" because they are local events. While I don't agree with that, I do think there is something approaching consensus on this issue. WP:NOT#NEWS is one valid reason for deletion on the basis of local, but the murder one above doesn't seem to fit (there are probably 40+ sources from two papers, one of which serves about 10 million readers, and over a 30 year time span). I've also seen arguments about gaming things that the reviews/sources are all from the small circle that cares and doesn't have wider notability. ("We have no sources evidenced at this AFD to show notability from outside the genre and fan-circles." is a quote from a current Arbcomm member) Again I think that is a poor reason not to have things here (specialized encyclopedia and all that), but apparently that's how people want things defined. I'd rather we clearly say that isn't the case here, but if people think it should be, we should have it here. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the many people who feel that local demonstrations of notability are not sufficient. Wikipedia aims to be comprehensive, and to be comprehesive, we have to welcome things no matter how specialised, or local. Just as long as there are reputable secondary sources.

On the Murder of Joseph Didier question, I followed it but didn’t get involved. My assessment is that it is a case of a multitude of detailed, reliable primary sources, and of a lack of any sources that are sufficiently secondary. The source you suggested, http://www.comportone.com/cpo/crime/articles/didier.htm, for example, contains a huge amount of factual detail, but does not, in the end, contain commentary or anaylsis or alternative perspective or any other transformation of primary source material, on the subject in question. apart from the facts, what does it say about the murder? I didn’t express this assessment because I didn’t check every source, and because I found it hard to believe that no solid, reputable secondary source existed.

I’m not quite sure about this, but I’ve started to wonder about a correlation between subjects like this, with a plethora of primary sources but no secondary sources, and a lack of incoming links. In other words, if a subject is “wikipedia-notable”, then it will have direct relevence to other articles. Did the Murder of Joseph Didier have many mainspace incoming links?

WP:NOT#NEWS is valid for what it says, but it doesn’t affect the issue of local not. Secondary sources published locally are no more “news reports” than secondary sources published in important cities or even globaly. WP:NOT#NEWS was cited a lot in the AfD because it looked like a lot of references were to news reports, not even news stories (what stories there were were about the murderer, not the murder). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as I'm not real clear about what side either of you fall on (but maybe that's a factor of the written word not conveying the meaning it's supposed to), I feel that we should not restrain things to global only. Any given subject is only of interest to those who are interested in it, so this cannot be a limiting factor. If we artificially limit the scope of Wikipedia we are dooming ourselves from the start. Besides, if we relegate everything to non-notable local sources or fan sources then I can't see much more than being a regugitation of the news outlets and trade journals - which is exactly what we are trying not to be. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another way to look at this (which I think overlaps with Smokey Joe's view) is that when we talk notable events, what is primary and secondary sources become much different than if we were talking about a person or object. In the above case, if Joseph Didier was a notable person, then any article discussing the events of and following his murder would be secondary and appropriate to include as sources. However, on the topic of specifically and only his murder, those reports are all primary - they are only repeating information and not performing any analysis on it, thus requiring more to tell us why that event is notable. Local events like this infrequently get the secondary sources (even if the sources are strictly local) at large that give them the notability they need.

Notability of events is one of those things that needs time to develop moreso that notability of people or places or things. Some events are immediately apparently notable (9/11 of course), but other events may simply be news blips today but in two weeks, months, years, decades or whatnot will become significant. We don't report on every major dip the stock market, but we do have articles on those dips that have had significant economic impact as determined later.

So I don't think it's necessarily limiting local verses national coverage or the like. It is the true notability of an event that needs to be considered, and that is always not apparent the time the event is happening; it is only post-event that usually its impact becomes apparent. --MASEM 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• The primary vs. secondary source issue is one I hadn't considered (nor was it raised during the AfD or DRV!). Given the retrospective in 2001 on the impact the murder had on the community, not to mention the articles in 2008 on the parole hearing, I think that this isn't the actual issue people are seeing. Many stated "not notable" or "local" as reasons to delete, with a few NOT#NEWS.

Further, I think it's really hard to say that a news story is a primary source of anything. The idea is if _someone_ unrelated to the subject felt it was worth taking the time to write about it, and that source isn't self-published, then we presume the subject is notable. That's the point of WP:N right? Hobit (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the issue wasn't mentioned in the debates, but in this case, as in many others, I see the secondary source issue as a crucial underlying factor, unfortunately often ignored or not understood, an in the end, danced around. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason N calls for secondary sources, as secondary is more about analysis and critical observation, not direct reporting. That's why, as least to myself, I would claim that news reports of an event are primary sources - they are only reiterating facts about it as they are made available, and thus the basis for why WP:NOT#NEWS is here. Now, it is more interesting when we start getting to critical analysis, which is what magazines like Newsweek, or expose pieces, or investigative journalism does. Not every one of these is necessary secondary, but these more than likely than the average newspaper piece will qualify towards "significant secondary coverage" of an event. And this is why local events don't usually become notable is that these local events happen -- and that's it, it's not really examined in depth as to achieve that significant secondary coverage. --MASEM 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing we discard newspapers as RSs? Are are you going to say that newspaper stories about an election are primary sources, and don't count for notability? We'll eliminate a lot of congressmen, if we don;t count news stories about them. We have no requirement for "critical analysis" as a measure of notability. Most of the sources we use in WP are newspaper stories. Try that one at WP:RS.

Discounting that red herring, the problem with local is really just the limitation of our sources, and the fact that we tend to reject local newspapers as not being sufficiently objective when it suits our purposes. But the prior limitations are changing: at this point, I would have no trouble getting two significant reviews for almost every bar in Brooklyn, as the local neighborhood papers are now online, and they tend to cover them exhaustively. This is also true for people who sing at them, etc. Given two significant reviews of a local bar singer, would that supersede the limitations of WP:MUSIC? Given two articles in different papers on a local high school football coach, would he be notable? There was a local assembly primary this past year, where the two candidates got into a court fight challenging each other, and there were more than two stories about it. Are they notable? We've had no hesitation removing local unelected politicians when nobody can find the stories--I always say delete myself in such cases--, but supposing they can? These are published papers I'm talking about, with professional full-time editors, and professional reporters--and I've used them for some things that I do consider notable, like subway route changes.. (And, anyway, some of the stories will things like post-election analyses, which are certainly secondary even by your proposed standard.) DGG (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying all newspaper articles are primary sources, but that they are primary sources for certain types of events, and particularly with articles written in the short aftermath of the event, do not necessarily imply notability for that event. The "secondary sources" implies that the coverage is more than just simply reiterating the event as it occurred but instead provides a better overview (which is why Newsweek and others are generally better in demonstrating notability of events) or analysis and additional commentary, as per WP:PSTS. Basically, this is just a reflection of WP:NOT#NEWS - just because multiple newspapers printed it does not make it notable. --MASEM 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe (and I may be off here) that DGG is pointing out a fundamental error in our current attempt to codify notability as "2 RS = 1 article". In my opinion the issue with trying to tie the overall concept of "notability" into a concise rule is a misdirected effort, as notability is inherently a subjective measure, and as we all know, any attempts to apply an objective standard to subjective concepts is doomed to fail. More specifically, and more to the point that DGG is trying to make (again, as I understand it), is that this "2 RS" rule creates apparently contradicting situations where some random bar in Brooklyn passes a literal interpretation of the notability rules, while a notorious murder in a small town does not. Fortunately, WP:N is a guideline and open to some interpretation, but unfortunately all to many of us (and I've done it myself) treat it as an immutable policy. In reality, the concept of "notability" remains a subjective measure and is one that should be treated subjectively in debates. After all, the guideline itself says that multiple reliable sources is indicative of presumed notability - not guaranteed inclusion. Shereth 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to the murder listed above. There were 10ish sources in the article and it was shown in the AfD that there were around a total of 30 sources spanning 30 years. There was an overwhelming sense that the murder wasn't notable. And the main reasons given (other than WP:JNN which was the main reason given) was "local" or NOT#NEWS. People seem to _think_ that local sources are a notability problem and !vote in AfDs that way. As the guidelines should reflect practice, we should at least address the issue here. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not unusual at AfD that !voters give mistaken reasons. Anyway, I don't think that "local" swung the debates, and I think that "NOT#NEWS" is an alternative way of saying that all the sources were primary. As for "guidelines should reflect practice" I think this is mistakenly taken as dogma; while it (the "reflection" part) is true, guidelines should also guide towards better practice than is the norm, without being too "prescriptive". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to get to earlier; local sources tend to be primary sources in relation to events, as they are simply re-iterating what happened and do not show that next level of separation that is generally required by WP:PSTS. This doesn't mean local sources are not allowed anywhere - they can support a description of the event, and they can be secondary for persons, places, and things at times, but by and large, local newspapers are simply event reporters, adding nothing new for sake of journalistic integrity. For notability, we need that additional level of discussion - either an analysis of the event or a high-level summary of the event - which is common for national magazines and the very largest newspapers, that makes that event significant for WP's notability. An article sources only on local newspaper articles is going to look like WP:NOT#NEWS because there is no offering of a secondary-source version of the events.

Basically, it is not local-ness of the source that is the issue, it is the fact that the average newspaper article is most often a primary source when talking about events and thus not sufficient for notability that comes into play. As local events tend to be only covered in local newspapers, that leads to the fact that most local events simply do not show notability. --MASEM 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to take a step back and try to say what it is I wanted to say before. To me it appears that the discussion here is on whether or not "local" sources should be considered "reliable" sources for notability. While I understand - and sympathize - with the desire to clarify what is invariably a muddy aspect of many deletion debates, I do not feel that we should come down with a hard and fast rule. As has been pointed out, there are times when a "local" source will lack sufficient objectivity toward a subject to really be counted as reliable, but there are times when they work just fine. Rather than trying to decide if a published article is going to be reliable on its face, there ought to be some wiggle room so that the involved editors can take a look at the article and decide for themselves if it is sufficient to demonstrate notability. It is my belief that further distilling our notability criteria down to logical, black-or-white qualifications, while making the process more straightforward, detracts from the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative effort. Our discussions should be such that we use policy and guideline to facilitate a discussion, not dictate it. Ultimately I believe it should be up to the editors to decide if the presented sources establish notability rather than a firm set of criteria upon which to measure it. Shereth 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that is any merit in specifically addressing local sources. Sources should neither be accepted nor rejected due to being local. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Which, I suppose, is what I said in 25 words or less :) Shereth 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

another criterion?

This is the first time I have commented on this page and I do so with respect you have all put into this policy. I think it is well-crafted. And I also recognize that we need this policy. But I fear that sometimes some editors too eaily use it to justify requesting the deletion of an article. Notability is a subjective standard - a good thing, our standards ought to require good judgment and leave room for negotiation. Anyway, I want to suggest another criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia: Usefulness. An article that is sitting on the threshold of notability might nevertheless be of use to individual researchers, and, it seems to me, that Wikipedia not being paper we should encourage articles that may be on less notable things, but that may nevertheless be useful to some group of readers. To be clear I am not trying to challenge this policy, only to suggest an avenue for improvement. I'd be glad if we just had an open discussion and people think about the possible ways to work on this. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Usefulness", without further example, is not really appropriate, as WP is not a textbook, guidebook, manual, or similar work. This is not to say that we can't provide useful information in context of an encyclopedic description, but information that is present on WP only because it is useful is basically discouraged. If the information is truly useful, there will likely be sources that suggest why its useful, or enough to support an article about the general topic and allowing for inclusion, to a point, of useful information. For example, we do have a full periodic table in its article, but the article is just not the table but includes the reasoning and the history behind it. --MASEM 13:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the odds of finding a topic that was "useful" but not covered by any other source is rather slim. So slim as to not be a real influence in deciding what to include. If it's useful someone will remark on just how useful and then we have an article. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not get the textbook example. Isn't the primary function of an encyclopedia its usefulness in education or research? Same for Padillah's comment - if it is notable, it will be covered by another source too. So I do not understand these objections.

I understand that we do not have the periodic table, but also information about its history. I would argue that this supports my point. It is the periodic table, not the history, that is notable. We add the history because it is useful for people doing research on the history of chemistry for example. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, I'm realy glad to see SL joining the discussion here -- welcome! What he proposes is not too far from what I proposed a while back, considering a topic notable if the article answers a widespread and legitimate question. Adding further criteria really boils down to when do we allow primary source material to form an article, in the absense of sufficient secondary sources to satisfy the general notability criterion? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, we do have a periodic table, and a few detailed versions as well. This is useful information, but it's not there because the information is useful, but because it makes complete sense to include this as part of coverage of the history and use of the table, and that all the information is factually correct (to reliable sources). We have Lists of integrals, and I'm sure there's a bunch of other useful pages that one can point out. But all this material can be added as it supports the encyclopedic content of periodic table and integral respectively, and can be verified through reliable sources; it's "usefulness" along is not the only criteria. The counter-example would be if I wanted to list every move that every Street Fighter character can make. It's useful (not to all, but neither is the periodic table or list of integrals), and can be backed by reliable sources, but it exceeds what we consider as good encyclopedic content. Which is why we should avoid "usefulness" only as a criteria. If something can be worked out that allows for useful content within the context of something else, then we should be able to incorporate that better. --MASEM 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that usefulness completely subjective. "Multiple reliable third-party sources" may seem arbitrary, but at least it's somewhat precise. Plus, it's a really low threshold -- if you ask me, most of article should be verifiable by reliable third-party sources, rather than just two statements in the whole article. And there's room for discussion and consensus: okay, you have those two sources, but is the coverage trivial or substantial? A standard of "usefulness" would devolve virtually every discussion into "it's useful" / "no it's not!" / "well I think so!" / "well I don't!" That never happens with notability. Thankfully, there are other ways to modify the notability standard that are somewhat precise. We'll be having an RFC on those soon. Randomran (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Random, I don't see the problem as being the rules, but the format for interpreting the rules. AfD is an abysmal process of ILIKEIT-voting or earning Admin status. As long as participation at AfD is a core "requirement" for passing RfA, then we will continue to recruit the uninformed hall-monitors into the interpretation process. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree that the quality of AFD participation is often disgraceful. I'm not sure what the solution is. There are definitely a lot of uninformed opinions in there, but they can't all be chasing after admin status, can they? If so, then we're really screwed. Randomran (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I see several types of undesirable AfD participants: blind zealots for deletion or inclusion, wet-behind-the-ears wantabe admins, uninformed self-appointed bureacrats (new page patrollers etc.) and biased interested parties. There are some really good participants who really care about the project and do an excellent job. One solution might be prescreening article creations by unregistered and newly registered members, along with a mentoring process, where someone seeking to introduce a topic could have the option of being mentored through the submission by a seasoned wikipedian. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I think I'm starting to agree, here. We need to ensure better quality AFD participation. But right now, the most pressing thing is to update the notability standard. If you should ever come up with a proposal to work on the AFD process, hit me up on my talk page. This is important work. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Randomran is right, it is a lower threshold - that is precisely why I raise it; I think some editors use notability too strictly. But let me be crystal clear: I am NOT proposing usefulness as a replacement or alternative to notability. At most I would say that when editors are in conflict as to whether a topic meets the standard of notability, they can use the other criteria of utility as a way to make a decision - that is, I am suggesting it as a supplement, to be used in a limited set of cases. Is "usefulness" subjective? No more so than notability - it sounds like you may be confusing quantifable for objective. Yes, I grant notability may be easier to measure than utility, but this does not make utility purely subjective. Utility is certainly context-dependent. The question is, can we operationalize utility? I should think this is possible, I think this is one thing Wittgenstein was after. The question is, is this a thread worth pursuing, and working on? I very much appreciate Kevin Murray's encouraging feedback ... and Randomran saying s/he may be coming around, which tells me that yes, this is wirth playing around with and working on. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way I did not realize people were still disatisfied with the account of the notability policy itself. If someone can lay out for me or direct me to a concise account of the source of disatisfaction maybe I can come up with some ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You might check out User:Randomran/test. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Modifying AfD

I think that the two critical issues throughout the notability infrastructure are (A) when is a topic not encyclopedic even if it passes WP:N, and (B) when is a topic suitable for inclusion when it doesn't pass WP:N, but there is sufficient verifiable primary source material to write an article. I don’t think anybody really objects to deleting unsourced material.

Personally I reject A since I see the bar of WP:N as satisfactory. I think that the only way to determine the answer to B is case-by-case by neutral, educated and informed wikipedians; all attempts at subject specific rule-sets are failures. This includes BIO, CORP el al. The only good thing about BIO and CORP is that they contain the failures into manageable areas.

Maybe a solution is stages of AfD, where:

(1) unsourced are either deleted or marked for improvement based on admin discretion; the latter group would be passed on to mentorship. Admins should only delete obvious crap and vanity spam -- this would be similar to speedy. We might have a means of appeal to a second admin, and a process to request mentoring. If an admin is incapable of making good decisions, then the admin should be barred from this process.

(2) Those with primary sources only are sent to a committee of experienced editors (like 3O works) who discuss the issues with the authors and try to make the article work -- if not they can delete. The emphasis here would be evaluating the quality of the topic.

(3) Those articles with single or weak secondary sources go through a similar process as 2, but with greater emphasis on the strength of the sources and synergies among them, than evaluating the topic itself.

(4) Articles failing 2 or 3 can post an appeal to a format similar to our current AfD. This would dramatically cut the workload at AfD and allow more restrictive participation (e.g., X months and Y edits qualifies for evaluation status (voting) in an AfD, where others may comment and debate). --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• At first I was about to chime in that this sounds like too much process creep, but then I realized there is some merit to your suggestion, and it might be worth bringing up at the village pump to discuss any actual process/policy change. I would, however, have to suggest a bit of simplification (the multi-step process does seem a little much). We currently have {{prod}} to handle uncontroversial nominations, but perhaps we can suggest a change where all nominations go through a "proposed deletion" phase, with some slight modifications. Here is my suggestion -

• All nominations use the {{prod}} template to start with, and should include a relevant nominating statement, and enter into a 5 day waiting period. During the 5 day waiting period, editors are invited to improve the article and attempt to address the concerns raised.
• If no improvement is made to the article or no objections are raised in the 5 day period, the article is deleted. The prod notice cannot be removed, but objections should be raised on the article's talk page. Objections should have some basis in policy, and should otherwise be discounted. Any constructive edits to the article other than minor copy editing is to be considered an objection to deletion. Administrators may, at their discretion, delete on sight any nomination that would qualify under any speedy deletion categories, the nomination notwithstanding.
• Articles with improvement or objections will proceed to a standard AfD after the 5 day waiting period. Any editor, not just administrators, may transition an article from {{prod}} to AfD after the prod is expried.
• AfD discussions with no concurring delete !votes may be speedily closed after 24 hours, otherwise they will run the full 5 days of discussion.

• The primary difference between this and the previous suggestion is that it does not require the creation or involvement of special committees, and does not introduce a new level of "administrative discretion" that is likely to produce more cannon fodder for frivolous DRV discussions. All nominations go through the same process. Shereth 16:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Good ideas. The closer we can come to using existing infrastructure the better. I think the first task is to identify whether there is a consensus that AfD is broken. Then we should identify how and why it is broken. Then set a goal for what a better result would be. The last step should be affecting the simplest repair to achieve the goal. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd have to suggest bringing up the topic at either WP:VPR, WT:AFD or WT:DPR. Probably would be best to open up a single discussion in one location, and then link to them otherwise. Shereth 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries as establishing notability

I'd like to see something in the guidelines about obituaries. Editors often point to them as a "verifiable 3rd party source" in a notability discussion. The existence of an obituary does nothing in my opinion to establish notability. Pretty much anyone can get one. In some circumstances the family pays for them and usually writes them (which brings up V#SELF concerns). They are reasonable references to use but assuming they establish notability is going a bit too far I think. Comments?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. If persons are notable, the obit will hint at that, but alone it proves nothing except that they died. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I see an obit as being akin to a listing in the phone book. It may provide good information for an article, but does nothing to establish notability on its own. If it tells us that the person won the Victoria Cross at 20, was awarded the Nobel Prize at 30 and died at the international space station at 120 years old, we might have some inherent notability. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything in an obit which would establish notability should be referencing on it's own.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• It depends on where it's published. The usual way US obits are published are that the family gives information to the funeral director, the funeral director writes/edits the obit, the newspaper obit editor edits the obit, and then the obit is printed having met the appropriate policies of the publication. These are the news obituaries, not the classified obituaries - there is a difference. Of course, that applies to the local newspaper of record for the location of the residence of the deceased. If a farmer in Iowa dies, and the New York Times publishes the obituary, there is going to be something notable going on - and it may well be the only accurate printed record of the fact. It will also meet the publication requirements of the New York Times. That will be emminently reliable. I don't know that there is any way to codify in a guideline when an obituary is or is not a reliable source because it varies so greatly from source to source. They cannot be wholly discounted, but they cannot either be entirely beyond reproach. How would this be handled in the guideline? Jim Miller (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem that is being demonstrated here is the use of 3rd party sources to "demonstrate" notability for its own sake. I believe this to be a faulty rationale. Multiple, reliable 3rd party sources are an indicator of notability not merely because they exist, but because they reliably document something notable about the subject. If an obituary from the NYT says "Jim McDonald, farmer from Iowa, passed yesterday and is survived by his family", there is no indication of reliability there, the RS notwithstanding. If, however, the obit says "Jim McDonald, farmer from Iowa renowned for his revolutionary techniques in environmentally friendly irrigation ..", the the obit is providing us a source of notability. This measure should be universal among all types of sources - they should provide a reliably sourced reason for notability and should not be used to merely establish notability themselves. Shereth 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with this very well-stated position, S. As you indicate, it apples more broadly: to restaurant reviews, book reviews, music reviews, and to many news articles: something in the text of the source, not just the existence of the source, must establish the notability of the subject of the WP article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You are correct that this is a bigger issue that just obits. Many editors play the "find the subject of the article in Google News" game, thinking that simplying finding a name mentioned in a newspaper, somewhere, anywhere is good enough. They also tend to apply more value to an reference than appropriate simply based on the source "But it's from the New York Times, that's a verifiable 3rd party reference and it mentions the subject of the article". They fail to even read the article they are citing. I bring up Obits because it's the low hanging fruit of the problem. Clarification of using Obits to demonstrate notability would help a lot in AFDs.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem with that is simply that we don't do that here. We do not make judgements as to the value of a subject for inclusion because we have no justification to do so. Since Wikipedia is not paper we do not have a reason to decide if any one topic is more or less worthy than any other, because the inclusion of any topic does not preclude the inclusion of any other. Our only criteria are that adequate sources can be found to allow us to cover the subject in a way that is neutral, sourced, and as complete as we can make it. Inclusion here does not grant any particular status to a topic (forgive us our arrogance the day we act as if it does!). The current guideline defers all judgement of notability to those people we have decided are reliable sources and if they decide to take notice of something, we blindly accept their subjective judgement. We are here to gather and eternally preserve those pieces of human knowledge that we can source to other people's judgement. Jim Miller (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that we must blindly accept the secondary sources subjective judgement. Obits usually don't demonstrate notability because they don't constitute "significant coverage" on the topic rather than the subject's importance in the obit. John Citizen might have been a boring uninspiring person, but if several independent sources each issue an obit, then the topic (being John Citizen) becomes more "notable". Notability then becomes a function of how often or how extensive the person or topic has been reported on. Assize (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While I agree with you in principle, that is not what the guideline says and not how it is being interpreted. Currently, "significant coverage" is within a single work, and a news story such as an obit is considered a single work: in other words, a NY Times obit would be ok for establishing notability of the deceased (the obit gives that person significant coverage) but not for the people who survived the deceased (the obit merely mentions them, and does NOT give them significant coverage). Multiple sources on the deceased are not required by the guideline as currently written. As a result I think a modification of the guideline (and/or supplementing through helpful essays that expand on it) to clarify this concept would be helpful. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Significant coverage" is also in the body of sources as a whole, and in the amount of coverage the work gives. A blurb obituary, briefly describing who the person was, their occupation, the date of death, and survivors, isn't significant coverage of anyone. (It is also generally written by the family, making it non-independent, but that is a separate issue.) On the other hand, a major newspaper running a full-page story on a person after their death may well constitute significant coverage, especially if additional material is available. We should always be wary of relying on a single source if no others are available, it is the use of multiple sources which allows a neutral presentation of a body of work about a subject. In almost all cases, notable people will be written about during their life. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think we are all on the same page here but to parrot it back, a single NYT Obit alone does not comprise "significant coverage". That Obit along with other references can comprise "significant coverage". I bring up the issue because some editors seem to think that the existence of an obit implies notabilty and the reliablilty of the source (It's in the NYT so you know it's a good reference) somehow transforms that single reference into notabilty. I'm proposing a breif mention of obits, mentioning the reliability problems (differentiating between news obituaries which are generally written by jhournalists and classified type obituaries which are essentially primary sources). --Rtphokie (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think an Obit has no more or less significance than any other article. It must demonstrate notability. That a human has accomplished death is not that uncommon. However, if the article mentions what the person did in life that can be paired with other sources of notability and support inclusion. I think the argument is a little slanted because anybody that's done something notable will likely have more than an obit mentioning what happened. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do have concerns about codifying it because of how it may be used. I believe that if the NYT publishes an obit, and the deceased did not reside in New York City, that person is notable because the facts in the obit are going to be verifiable (even if not already verified with other sources). Such a subject would pass the GNG, but have WP:V problems. The article should be tagged, but not subject to an AfD immediately. On the other end of the issue is an obit in any small town newspaper in the world that will not confer anything verifiable through other sources. Those would not necessarily be subjects that would meet the GNG. Then of course we will have all of the exceptions. Sometimes the NYT is just a local NYC newspaper and publishes a lot of things that are local in nature. Conversely, very notable people reside in small towns all the time, and will have their obits in local sources. Sometimes an obit can be used to demonstrate notability, and sometimes it can't. I would hope the mention would be clear that there is no direct correlation regarding obits and notability. (edit conflict) Jim Miller (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with JM. Before we make any changes to the guideline text (that are potentially CREEPy), I know I for one would appreciate if someone could point me to a real example of where an editor pointed to an obit as establishing notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

About the abuse of {{notability}}

I've found out that some people tend to add this template to articles which they do not know or regard it unpopular or unimportant. However, they are usually notable, such as softwares widely used by Internet users (IZarc and Xnview, etc.), a racing team founded by a well-known enterprise (Team Impul). Hope that people can use Google test to find reliable secondary sources or read it thoroughly before adding this template. After all, notability is hard to evaluate. --RekishiEJ (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability should never be something that falls upon the reader to "figure out". If an article does not spell out, in clear terms, why it is notable - and fails to source this with reliable sources - then putting the {{notability}} tag is quite warranted. Shereth 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, but some softwares are widely used by many Internet users, and they're often discussed. Claiming these are not notable or questioning the importance of them is an insult to many users. I recommend abolishing most notability guidelines, since notability guidelines duplicates with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Wikipedia:Fringe theories to a certain extent. Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger also oppose setting fame, importance, significance or notability guidelines, and assert that we should only focus on verifiability and not notability. When there is a need to determine an articles's notability, we should only determine it by using common sense (e.g. social cases which are not substantially reported by local or national news media, reported by foreign news media or mentioned in news programs or documentaries should not have their articles, though we can find some reliable sources), wisdom (e.g. fictional characters not mentioned by third-party reliable sources theoretically should not have their own articles, according to the lead of WP:NOR. But since articles about works related to them and list of characters of the works are too overcrowded, they should have their own article) and core content policies. --RekishiEJ (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference between {{unreferenced}} and {{notability}} is the difference between "The article has no sources" and "The article has no sources and I'm likely to put the article on WP:AFD soon-ish because of it". Nifboy (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Just to copy what others have said, articles are tagged for notability because they don't prove notability. People aren't judging the article's lack of importance. People are judging the article's lack of sources. Randomran (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think there is value to changing the {{notability}} tag so that it mentions sources more prominently and addresses this concern. How about making the intro. sentence say "This article may not have the sources to indicate it meets the general notability guideline or one of the following . . ."? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference, at least in my use, is that I will use {{notability}} when I have genuine doubt that enough sources even exist on the subject to have an article, and that the article may need to be deleted or merged. If the subject clearly is a notable one, but no sources are currently cited, I will use {{unreferenced}} instead. As an example, if an article were written that cited no sources or only primary sources on a minor actor who had played bit parts, I would use {{notability}}, as it is questionable whether enough sourcing even exists. On the other hand, if Harrison Ford cited no sources, I would use {{unreferenced}}, because it is clear that enough sourcing can be found to support the article, even if such sourcing has not yet been cited. They are both just maintenance tags, and like any maintenance tag, should be used wherever appropriate to aid in identifying problems articles may have and steps that may need to be taken to correct those problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing the upcoming RFC page

See the prototype page that we have been working on.

In order to promote clarity and focused discussion, we've narrowed the RFC to two main issues with three main proposals for compromise. We've also had some time to re-word the sections. How close are we to being done? Think about (1) clarity, (2) length, and (3) neutrality. Are there any parts of this that are unclear, too long, or biased? Randomran (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

HEre's my suggestion: The first half is good: the three choices don't overlap much. The second part is not as good in this regard; I would change the third one that it's not so much consolidation but that we should not have subguidelines in the first, making the GNG absolute and without additional allowances; this would make the three options lacking the overlap as the first half of this is written.

Also, in B for the second set, I would remove These are really just an extension of "reliable independent secondary sources" for the purposes of notability.; I think this statement pre-loads the debate a bit, as while I think most of us here agrees is the intent, having new eyes on this may treat this as a default fact and affect the debate. --MASEM 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to incorporate your suggestions. Although I'm not too concerned about overlap. We shouldn't be worried if people !vote for more than one proposal, in fact it should be encouraged. While inclusion/deletion is black and white, there are many different compromises that might be acceptable. Is there anything else that you think needs work? Do you think we may need a better lead, or other sections like "see also" or "none of the above"? Randomran (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm looking forward to this RfC. It should be very useful for clarifying some questions that are currently indeed unresolved. I would like to point out two minor points:

• I'm not sure about the following sentence in the rationale to proposal 1.C: "For example, what WP:Notability (people) implies, but does not state, is that somehow an athlete inherits notability from participating in a notable sporting tournament." That has never occurred to me. IMHO, a better reason for this rule is that given in footnote 8 to WP:POLITICIAN: We want to provide complete coverage of a certain set of people – something that is not feasible for, say, fictional characters or bands. Aren't there better examples for the inheritance of notability under current rules?
• Don't we need subsections such as "oppose", "support" (formatted as numbered lists), "neutral or other proposal" and "discussion" for each individual proposal?  Sandstein  23:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I changed the example for 1.C. I could also use a little more guidance: my participation in RFCs has been pretty small, let alone a watchlisted centralized discussion. If you could point me to the format for one that has already taken place, I'd really appreciate the opportunity to learn from it. That way I can add the oppose/support/neutral headings for all these proposals. Randomran (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we include a question as to whether certain types of articles are automatically notable? I think we have some precedents for certain roads, communities, and other things. The page is looking great otherwise. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The question of "inherent notability" is one that I run across fairly often - one of my areas of interest is geography and a lot of people are running under an assumption that historic consensus grants any "populated place" immunity from notability guidelines. I think this question is largely dependent upon just what the intended scope of Wikipedia is - are we shooting for general knowledge encyclopedia, or are we also wanting to take on the role of an almanac? If so, what subjects do we want to cover as an almanac vs. encyclopedia? Geography, sports, weather events, celestial objects, public transportation, etc? I am uncertain as to whether this discussion is really geared toward tackling this issue per se but it is certainly relevant. It is also a fairly important decision, as any subject that we are choosing to cover as an almanac we are effectively granting wholesale immunity from the notability guidelines. Shereth 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is essentially a question about the relationship between the GNG and the subject specific guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations). There's a few proposals, and all of them would reel in the subject specific guidelines and make them less of a blank check for notability. Randomran (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"are we shooting for general knowledge encyclopedia, or are we also wanting to take on the role of an almanac? Well the answer is in the first pillar, we are an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.. The wikipedia definition on meta also explain what we can provide summaries of all subjects of interest and also provide exhaustive detail on those subjects, conveniently linked, categorized, and searchable for readers who want more detail. So yes, we are a specialized encyclopedia and an almanac.--Yoggysot (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really clarify anything. "elements of almanacs". Which elements? Anything that would still meet WP:NOT. And policies like WP:NOT#OR inform policies like WP:V, which informs WP:N: an article without reliable third party sources shouldn't exist. There's a lot of interpretations of the relationship between our fundamental pillars and this guideline. Hence the need for an RFC. Trust me: this isn't an easy discussion that can be unraveled by one clever argument. Randomran (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Non-essay - unlableled opinion piece

A user, Uncle G has requested that his writing not be labeled as an essay, with the required disclaimer tag; I won't quibble with that, but I think it sets a poor precedent. However, I don't think that our process pages should link to an undefined writing where the standard essay disclaimer is not displayed. If it becomes an essay again, then I wouldn't object to a link here. We allow essays at WP, but if people want to just have random writings not clearly defined as opinions, then they should publish these at their own websites. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with that, for the most part. Uncle G's essay is very assertively written but represents a personal opinion, not a consensus position. I would only be comfortable having a link to it from here if it was explicitly identified as a personal view -- either with an {{essay}} tag, a simple "this is my personal view" opening statement, or any other equivalent approach.--Father Goose (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

With Uncle G's piece located in userspace, I think any reasonable reader should realise that it reflects an individual's opinion. I am therefore not concerned with the absence of the {{essay}} tag. Anyway, the meaning of "essay" is so broad as to be nearly meaningless. In any case, User:Uncle G/On notability is so significant to the history of this that it should be linked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think that would be like linking to an earlier revision of the guideline because of its significance to the guidance that eventually emerged. If the guideline has moved beyond its origins, we shouldn't be clouding its message by linking to an earlier view -- especially if we don't note that that view is now defunct.--Father Goose (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does he have such an objection to the {{essay}} tag? It is, after all, an opinion written by him, in prose form. Unless I miss my guess, that's an essay. Is he trying to avoid having it pointed out that his opinion is not policy and editors don't necessarily have to abide by "his rules"? It is very strongly worded to not be clearly identified as a single users opinion-driven essay. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Uncle G has left the project and asked another editor to remove the tag. It seems like some type of demonstration against WP procedures. I don't see any reason to venerate an old essay which has served its purpose and is now just potentially confusing opinion by an ex-wikipedian. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The essay is not like an earlier version because it is not in the history of the page. WP:N has definitely not moved beyond the scope of the Uncle G essay. It is currently very relevent, and far more illuminating than confusing. For anyone interested in developing any notability concept, I would recommend reading it. The status of the past major author is irrelevent. Agreed, we don’t want to venerate, but it needs to be linked, if not directly, then indirectly. Perhaps all the further readings should be collected on a further readings page. Uncle G’s essay would be prominent in the list, but a lot of people have written intelligeably on notability, and it would be sensible to collect it all for easy reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand why essays should be linked to this guideline at all. Basically, they are all opinion pieces, and should not be "piggy-back" riding at the end to the guideline. I say get rid of them all.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Authors

You have probably answered this a ton of times... but I can not find any discussion. I see there is a guideline on books, but is there a guideline on authors? Is an author automatically notable for having published a few books? What makes an author notable? Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Authors fall under WP:CREATIVE and the bar is set pretty low. Multiple independent reviews of a significant or well-known work pretty much sums up the minimum for authors to be presumed notable, so there isn't even a requirement for multiple books. Jim Miller (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... that is exactly what I was looking for. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding issue #1

As it stands, the description of issue #1 fails to acknowledge a key thrust of the argument for sub-article notability, which is that the constraint of article size should not be what determines depth of content. This is an important issue - as it stands, issue #1 is suggesting no inclusion guidelines at all for sub-articles, which is a position nobody has seriously advocated. A clarification that this is to allow "coverage of appropriate detail relative to the overall coverage of the topic" seems to me essential here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added that article size is a reason for making sub-articles there. --MASEM 00:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Issue 2 of RfC

My biggest concern with the RfC is issue 2. Specifically, I'm not seeing what I think is the current way we do things as an option.

Notability guidelines currently are written to _expand_ GNG. Are we to assume that people voting against 2a are voting in favor of guidelines _expanding_ GNG? As many of the guidelines (which predate GNG) are written as expansions of notability, I think we should be including the current practice as an option. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Isn't the only issue whether you need to only meet either WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CORP to be "notable", or whether you must meet WP:N plus either WP:BIO, WP:CORP to be "notable". As an aside, it would lovely if we could drop the word "notable" and use "includable". Assize (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am also concerned that all of the proposed versions seem to miss the concept that the general guidelines should serve as a fallback position for the specific guidelines. The process should be to see if someting meets a specific guideline, and if not, then use the GNG. I don't think the "define and clarify" language is specific enough to demonstrate the If not X, then Y usage that I believe reflects current practice. Is this not an option to be presented in the RfC? Jim Miller (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• To the above, that's the question we don't know the answer to, there's too much confusion if the GNG must serve as the basis for subguidelines, or if the subguidelines stand on their own with the GNG as backup. This, I believe, is option 2 in the second issue. However, when this is started, there are sections to add what you may feel needs to be an alternate or more exacting statement to get input on. --MASEM 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, the idea that "Proposal 2.B: Specific notability guidelines can define and clarify the sources that assert notability" appeared to be about, well, sources. I don't think it serves us well to define "having sold 1 million albums" as a source. That's an odd definition of source. Is there major objection to ""Proposal 2.B: Specific notability guidelines can define and clarify inclusion criteria" or some such? Hobit (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hobit, I agree that all of the guidelines must be about sources. When all is said and done, this is still only a guideline and not policy. WP:V trumps it all anyway. I prefer the term topic specific guidelines to subguidelines because the latter implies a relationship that is, according to this entire discussion, undecided. I would prefer the option to be in language as clear as "Subjects that meet either the appropriate topic specific guideline or the general notability guideline are presumed to be notable." It may or may not gain consensus, but at least it will be completely clear what is being discussed. Jim Miller (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be a useful clarification in the RfC. A bunch of them predate NOTE after all. It seems like it might predjudice people towards giving the other guidelines more leeway, but they aren't sub historically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• The problem I have is that we shouldn't call things "sources" that aren't actually sources. Being in a professional game isn't a source per se. Nor is being on the NYT bestseller's list. Rather these are "notability criteria for inclusion". Heck, I'd like to see our "notability guidelines" changed to "inclusion guidelines" too. We shouldn't be using words in a way that are different than the standard meaning of the words. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds to me like you want to offer another proposal, and fix the wording of proposal 2.B. Would you have a specific wording for both suggestions? The proposals in the current RFC had significant backing. But seeing as this proposal is very much on topic, I think we could make an exception and add it in real quick -- assuming there are no major objections to putting it towards the larger community. (Again, there were some crazy proposals like "abolish notability" that were pretty much snuffed in the cradle.) Randomran (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are some serious problems with issue 2 as it stands - it does not seem to acknowledge historical reality, nor to acknowledge what seems to me the most sensible compromise on this issue - the subject notability guidelines establish things that it can be assumed meet the general guideline. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's open for debate. Arguably, proposal 2b is exactly what you say: historical reality, sensible compromise, relationship wit the general guideline, etc... It's tough. We want to advance the arguments for each proposal, but we want to do so in a way that's neutral. Randomran (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the 2b proposal as to focus on "objective criteria that's not the GNG", but which includes the issue of what sources are used. --MASEM 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the title is now too long, but you can't have it all :-). That addresses my issue. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think limiting the statement to a single sentence may be a problem. The word "can" indicates that the specific guidelines may or may not do something. Since the specific guidelines are written and achieve consensus in exactly the same way as the GNG, why not remove the possibility for doubt? How about "Topic specific notability guidelines define objective criteria and sources that demonstrate notability for certain subjects. The general guideline is used for all other subjects." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That case needs to specifically imply that these guidelines are not built on the GNG (that is, the articles they purport to include would then be a subset of those allowed by the GNG) but instead are a separate approach to notability as the GNG. This is needed to make this case separate from the first case where the subguidelines are to be considered extensions of the GNG. --MASEM 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a revert. I might be a little biased, since I proposed 2.B. But the idea wasn't to give the subject specific guidelines a free hand (e.g.: the SNGs may define any other objective criteria for what is or isn't notable) but to reign it in (e.g.: the SNGs can redefine the kind of sources that assert notability). If someone wants to propose that SNGs may completely override or circumvent the GNG, that would be a different but legitimate proposal. We'd be adding it at the last minute, but if it really seems like it has a legitimate shot at gaining a consensus we should put it to the wider community. I know I'd be personally against something this loose, but it's not to say that the wider community wouldn't support it. There were a few other proposals that were snuffed in the cradle. Would this be one of them? Not sure. Randomran (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the current wording is just fine.

Proposal: Specific notability guidelines such as WP:Notability (music) and WP:Notability (people) should be allowed to provide 
additional criteria that may not meet the general notability guideline but define notability for that subject. This may include 
specifying non-traditional sources for notability demonstration.

This seems to give the SNG a fairly free hand actually. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phil's concern, as I understand it. I don't see any of the options clearly conveying the idea that the subject guidelines simply provide reasonable indicators that it's safe to presume sufficient sources exist (rather than being criteria that restrict or loosen notability requirements). In general, I am concerned that the draft RfC fails to provide options using the premise that notability is the presumption that sufficient independent sources exist to satisfy the content principles of Wikipedia, with the view that the GNG is the most direct way of forming that presumption and the subject guidelines providing rational reasons for holding such a presumption. Vassyana (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there's definitely support for a 4th option. Enough that we should at least put it to the rest of the community before saying decisively that the compromise won't fly. We'll have to work on the wording though.Randomran (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fourth option

• I've proposed the 4th option, but do feel it should replace the 2nd option. Please see [1] Hobit (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I disagree about replacing the 2nd option, since it garnered a decent amount of support from inclusionists and deletionists and everywhere in between. Again, it's supposed to represent a compromise. But I think your new proposal is reasonable, even if I disagree with it. It deserves more discussion from the wider community. Randomran (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, or can it be?

I think that sentence: ... though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. needs to be modified in such a way as to say that notability can also be lost when this WP:N and/or related policies change (as did happen with one article I know of) 216.80.119.92 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you describe what you mean—what page was at one time notable and then wasn't due to a policy change? An article either has reliable sources substantively treating it or it does not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor above is Lakinekaki (talk · contribs) who is having a dispute with Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), and is hence trying to find ways of getting the notable and well referenced wikipedia page about him deleted. Rubin's notability has not been shown to be "temporary" in any way. To answer his question, notability is not usually temporary. Can you expand on your question (and please log in)? If you are referring to his awards and huge number of citations, those are "still" notable. Verbal chat 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, above editor is wrong. He is trying to guess what I want to do, which is in itself 'amusing'. This is what I am trying to say:

one example of older version of the policy:A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic.

And current WP:N also requires significant coverage in secondary sources. So, some articles that were notable in the past are not notable any more. For example, before, an idea can be published in a variety of sources by a single author in a sources that are independent, while now, another author has to also review the idea.

No, there is no requirement for secondary sources, althouth this is preferred. Dhaluza (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Verbal, please stop WP:STALKing my edits. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to guess as you didn't say. I think that some articles that met the old notability criteria might no longer meet the new criteria, if that's what you mean. Could you let us know which article you are thinking of, and why you think this might be a problem? Verbal chat 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Specific article is not important. I also don't think this is a problem, but think that it needs to be spelled out in the guideline, so that an editor contributing an article that barely meets the criteria would know that criteria can become stricter. And, I am not talking just about this most general WP:N, but also all specific notability guidelines can change, so placing that note in the general guideline would be enough. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It should not be necessary to state that policies may change when policies are changed. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be necessary, but does it hurt? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem though, or need for clarification. Yes, policies change - and that is pretty clear. If a user feels that there is a problem with the article due to a change in policy it can be taken to AfD. Is there something else you're getting at or that I'm missing? Thanks for the reply. Verbal chat 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't see a need for clarification. However, there may be other editors here that might see some usefulness in what I am proposing. I also disagree that 'policies change' is so obvious to newcomers, to whom older editors just keep citing various policies and guidelines, and may be intimidated by the bureaucracy that may seem more stable than it actually is. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of baseball players being discussed...

...at WT:MLB#Minor league players' AFDs closed. My proposal on disputed notability guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten Eleven Twelve proposals for subject specific notability pages

We now have ten proposals for subject specific notability pages:

1. Aircraft
2. Criminal acts
3. Fiction
4. Law enforcement agency
5. Geographic locations
6. Transportation
7. Schools
8. Toys and games
9. Buildings, structures, and landmarks
10. Religious texts
11. Political parties(NEW)
12. Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles

I think that we need to come up with a better solution. Either we need to: (A)fix WP:N to address the issues, (B) educate our users as to how and why WP:N is the solution, or (C) compress these permutaitons into logical but broad based categories so we don't end up with 100 competing and conflicting permutations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2008 1(UTC)

Where are these proposals? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

These are all listed at the bottom of the template at the top of the WP:N page and each of the subject specific notability pages such as BIO and CORP. There may be others that haven't been listed at the template that appear automatically at Category:Wikipedia proposals when the proposal template is adde to the page. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, besides criminal acts and fiction (since most social cases, fictional characters, places, stuff and events do not merit their articles, and WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:N are not enough), all proposals should be rejected to avoid duplication with WP:N and core content policies. If they are not enough, common sense and wisdom can supplement them to do the necessary notability judgments. --RekishiEJ (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This has just gotten silly, and the primary reason is that people seem to view specific notability guidelines as a way to avoid having to meet generic notability guidelines. We need to just make it clear that everything must pass the general notability guidelines, and that the purpose of topic-specific notability guidelines is to come up with reasons to exclude articles, not include them. If we do that, the rage for everyone to get their own topic-specific notability guideline will be over in a flash.
Kww (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What your asking for is achieved by this change [2]. Articles must meet the GNG. Subguidelines may explain this better, or provide further restrictions. Exceptions are occassional and not on a wholesale basis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is it documented what the purpose of topic-specific guidelines is? I think WP:N should have a section about this. 99of9 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue to think this is both a misrepresentation of the point of subject notability guidelines and a misrepresentation of the development of notability. The point of these guidelines is, as I understand it, "anything that can do this can surely meet the GNG," which allows faster resolution of notability debates. Furthermore, the GNG came after the subject notability guides, making it more accurate to read the GNG as "if there's no specific guideline, the GNG serves." Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

True, notability subguidelines predate WP:N, and certainly this version. However, WP:N has developed to become more consistent with core policy (especially WP:NOR and WP:V) and the wiki philosophy (trust the individual editor). WP:N is supposed to say “we should only have articles where sufficient suitable sources exist to support the article”. If it doesn’t say this, then let’s fix it. The devil is in the detail, but the underlying principle is sound. Read WP:PSTS carefully. But this is not to say that there is a definitive rule. Contributors will need to interpret this stuff on a case by case, source by source, basis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that WP:N was developed to supercede the subject guidelines, and that consensus exists for it to do so? WP:N appears to me, looking at its earliest forms, to have been an attempt to generalize the precedent of the existing notability guidelines. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not commenting on original intentions. It is my opinion that WP:N can and should supercede notability subguidelines. This is quite consistent with User:Uncle G/On notability, where the subject specific guidelines are “secondary notability criteria” that augment his primary notability criteria where even it would fail. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument of which precedes which aside, it may be of value to try and reach some kind of more broad consensus as to whether the GNG supersedes the subguidelines, or vice versa. It is my personal belief that a sub-guideline should never supersede the general guidelines and that they should only serve to augment existing guidelines. As they stand, many of them serve only to create "exceptions" where articles that would otherwise be deemed non-notable to pass. In any event, I do not see a lot of sense in trying to argue the technicality of which came first, but rather we should focus on establishing which way consensus on the issue stands. Shereth 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The subguides have generally been used to loosen NOTE. Parts of NOT like NEWS and some others have been used to tighten it. There is no established consensus either way on the sub guidese, although we hope to change that with the RfC discussed above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate description. The subject guidelines predate NOTE, so they don't exist to loosen it. NOTE might exist to tighten the subguidelines, but it's a subtle point, and one I'd want to see more evidence of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to Shereth's point, it seems to me that either a) the whole GNG needs to be rewritten; b) all the specific guidelines need to be rewritten; or c) we accept that specific notability guidelines may override the GNG. If the wording to the GNG is changed as suggested, the result will be that sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources will become a necessary condition, and sufficient where other specific necessary conditions are not specified. Further to that, the only thing the specific notability guidelines can then provide is additional necessary (but not sufficient) requirements. Which I gather is the aim. However, many of the accepted specific notability guidelines provide their own sufficient guidelines which are counter to the GNG. For example:

• WP:MUSIC includes charting on a national chart as a sufficient requirement for notability.
• WP:ACADEMIC accepts people who are "significant expert[s] in his or her area".
• WP:WEB accepts sites that have won a well-known independent award.
• WP:ORG permits, among other things, non-profits that are national or international in scale.
• WP:BOOK accepts books that have won a major literary award.

They all acknowledge the importance of verifiability, but verifiability is not notability. So if you do want to argue that GNC provides necessary conditions, you will also need to argue that the current make up of many of the specific guidelines is wrong, or modify GNG to incorporate additional requirements. - Bilby (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The specific guidelines with alternative criteria that are counter to the GNG, according to the letter, contradict WP:NOT#DIRECTORY by legitimising the original creation of a directory of “charted music”, “experts”, “national non-profits” and “award winners”. Under the GNG, these things are allowed if there exists other non-primary sources. If there are no non-primary sources, then these directories violate WP:NOR. Clearly, many of the specific guidelines are wrong, vis a vis WP:NOR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

At some point, we are legitimising the creation of other directories and similar content such as lists of roads in a state, lists of towns and villages in a country, and so forth, but we allow these. WP:NOR is an important guideline when it comes to what is written about a topic once inclusion is determined, but at some point, to create the encyclopedia, we have to engage in OR ourselves to decide was is appropriate to include and how we approach topics; that's just the nature of the editoral process. Objective guidelines are the best to minimize issues with NOR, but at the same time, NOR does not itself set any limits on inclusion.

What I think we need to do is to look up from the policies and guidelines and get a judgement of which way the wind is blowing in regards to all these policies (the aim of the RFC randoman is prepping). Notability is not going to disappear tomorrow because of that, nor is the GNG. The issue of the absoluteness of the GNG is what is presently fracturing the community and thus it is necessary to see if we can resolve that. If not -- well, best we do is take the middle ground, but with focused discussion, we may be able to put an end to this mess we're in. If that means we only have notabiliy and no sub-guidelines, hey, all the better in terms of BURO. Until the Foundation comes in and says it must be a certain way, we have to go by what the community favors as best as possible, and that might mean hard-nosed evaluation of some of the core policies may need to be changed slightly to account for the community. --MASEM 06:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I'm not disputing that these subject guidelines might be wrong (in the sense of being against policies or against consensus). I'm not sure that they are, by any means, but I leave open that possibility. I'm just of the opinion that changing GNG to deny parts of established subject notability guidelines is a big deal, so the RFC approach Masem refers to is the best choice. It seems like a small thing, to go from "or" to "and", but it may well have a big impact. - Bilby (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a real problem with WP:MUSIC, which is considerably older than WP:N, being treated as providing an additional guideline to WP:N. I think the historical reality here is important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Equally, all of the specific guidelines have a history and debate that shouldn't be ignored. I guess my concern is that making GNC necessary will override their work, and therefore it should be seen as a non-trivial problem. It is going to need lots of discussion, and will need to involve those involved in the specific guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't even see that there is a paradox here. One thing that this page stresses is that deletion is inappropriate for subjects for which sources could presumably be found. The subject notability guidelines seem to me useful tools in preventing the unfortunate yet frequent problem of somebody without much experience in an area coming in and nominating articles for deletion due to notability problems that transparently do not exist to anybody with a modicum of knowledge of the area. Subject specific guidelines are what says "Look, if these things are met, it's going to pass the GNG, don't worry about it." And the GNG is, likewise, an attempt to create a general case that covers the instances provided by the subject guidelines it followed from. They are not in conflict with one another, but part of a larger development of understanding of this issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the subject specific guidelines are useful in preventing hasty deletion of articles that can be improved. The “wrong” subguidelines contain what I would accept as “indicators of probable notability”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you on all of that (although I think you're completely right in terms of the basic purpose they serve) - as I think that they do tend to work with GNG, but not always. Some subject guidelines (eg WP:MUSIC) seem to say "If it meets GNG, it is notable. But if it meets one of these other requirements, then it is notable too". Perhaps the problem is that GNG is too general, and thus can't possibly encompass the subject specific exceptions? - Bilby (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a major part of the problem is human nature: the people that write the guidelines are interested in their topic, and want to find a way to include articles. I wrote a longer version below, but I will firmly maintain that any sub-guideline that attempts to include things that do not meet the GNG are invalid, and can be ignored. All articles must meet the GNG.
Kww (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts (as noted already on WP:BIO's talk page): we need more specific guidelines, WP:N is a good point to start from but it's quite much based on subjective bias (grade of reliability is quite a subjective measurement) and recentism (we live in the time of the Internet, and it's quite easy to find sources for contemporary people who however are not notable, from Internet memes to non-league footballers). So, WP:N is necessary, but it must be seen just as a parent guideline, which has to be necessarily respected by all articles around, but it is often not enough. We need more precise guidelines based on the subject's particular occupation (e.g., athletes, entertainers, politicians, railways and so on). I fully understand the concerns coming from people suggesting a "bigger picture" (i.e., a larger WP:N guideline instead of more specific guidelines based on the subject's main topic), but believe me when I say this could not work here, at least not in a Wikipedia made by over 2 million articles, and hundreds of AFD cases coming up and down every week. --Angelo (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully support SmokeyJoe's change. The GNG must be met for all articles at all times. Any subguideline that attempts to subvert them by not requiring multiple independent sources is invalid. Most of the sub-guidelines are reasonable: if something meets WP:MUSIC, the odds are pretty good that those sources can be found. Even there, articles are routinely killed at AFD because no one can find third-party sourcing to confirm the statements. In practical fact, if someone met the requirements of WP:MUSIC but nobody at all wrote about them, the article would get deleted as a hoax.

The real trouble is the geography articles, where people interested in those areas keep trying to claim that every element of their subject is inherently notable. This is basically a free pass to write myriads of unsourced stubs. This is unacceptable.

The purpose of subguidelines must be viewed as exclusionary. That local band that gets good reviews in the hometown paper? Did it meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC? No? No article.
Kww (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree with this statement more. Subguidelines ought to be exclusionary in nature, not inclusionary. The purpose of WP:MUSIC should be to whittle away minor bands of local interest that nonetheless have multiple reliable sources in the form of "articles" in local newspapers that amount to little more than promotional pieces. WP:ATHLETE is another one that I find problematic - the way the guideline is currently written is being interpreted to allow any athlete who has attained "pro" status to sneak in, without having to meet the general guidelines. This creates silly situations where a no-name benchwarmer gets an article because he is "pro" while another prominent amateur gets the axe. This does not make sense. Shereth 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sub-guidelines must be exclusionary, not inclusionary. A subject who fails WP:N but not WP:ATHLETE should not be considered notable. Obviously, the opposite situation should be considered true as well (i.e., players who meet WP:N but not WP:ATHLETE), that's what I tried to explain. We need sub-guidelines as additional rules of thumb for subjects from a particular topic who are known to meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Exclusionary use of the GNG is is inherently culturally biased. It favors those topics which have what those in the Western mainstream culture regard as conventional sources, which are alone considered reliable--and then in practice it further narrows it to those that have interenet equivalents, which is all the limited searching capability of most Wikipedia editors can find. Sorry for adding this now, but I do not think the cultural bias aspect has been raised previously. DGG (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That’s true if we limit searches for sources to internest searches. Often at AfD, experienced wikipedians are aware of this, and consider the possibility that suitable sources exist, but require time and effort to physically access print only sources. Enthusiastic fresh AfD participants can be less tolerant. Perhaps alongside the GNG it should be clearly noted that we must allow reasonable time to do this before good faith articles are deleted. Ideally, contributors should have their sources at hand, but realistically, and allowing for newcomers making their first tentative contribution, we must allow for valid entries made without sources, on the assumption that once the subject is identified, propor sources will follow.

Another point is that deletionists are often, rightly, less harsh with difficult to source subjects, such as non-western historical subjects, and obscure non-western subjects. Again, it may be a good idea for this behaviour to be explicitly encouraged to help reduce cultrual biases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely concerned about cultural (and gender and political) bias in wikipedia, but there's nothing inherently biased about the GNG. A reliable source isn't something that's ruled on by a cabal of western editors, but something that is proven by looking at a source's editorial policy. Do they have peer review? Do they have editorial fact-checking? And it's through those reliable sources -- Italian, German, Japanese -- that notability is asserted. I don't doubt that international topics have a harder time because Westerners might not know how to access the relevant sources, but that goes right back to our need for more international editors. The guideline itself is neutral. The only thing I'd concede is that we're not friendly to oral cultures, but then that's a problem that goes well beyond wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The bias comes from AfD giving an article days to produce reliable secondary sources. This works fine if the sources are to be found in open access journals. It works poorly for historical subjects covered historically, in books and journals that are not even widely kept, let alone online. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I have no doubt about that. A strict interpretation of the GNG is kinder to more recent phenomena, which have coverage on the internet. But then people should make allowances for that in certain AFDs, rather than following the GNG to the letter. Give the article a chance. Otherwise, there's no cultural bias in the GNG. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Were it that people made such allowances. Which is where subject-specific guidelines come in handy - as a way of saying "We're pretty sure anything that meets this guideline will also meet the GNG." Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support this approach. Subguidlines interpreting the GNG, predicting what sort of articles should be able to meet the GNG, with the idea that the articles should be improved in time to actually meet it. As it stands, subguidelines effective sidestep the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping may not necessary be a bad problem, provided that ultimately, the requirements achieve the same goal that the application of notability in general should achieve: articles that are not indiscriminate information per NOT, meet the five pillars (specifically, V, NOR, and NPOV), and basically are otherwise encyclopedic in quality. The GNG clearly is the most direct route to getting to that point, but the question is (and I have no answer for) can other means be used to meet those requirements? Or more simply: the GNG is a means to an end, but is it the only means to that end? Hopefully we can figure that question out in the pending RFC. --MASEM 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping is what we've been doing all along. It has the practical "virtue" that it greatly adds to the possible arguments for either side, but the disadvantage remains that all the things that meet GNG are not what we actually consider notable, and we evade that by using very extended interpretations of wp:not and wp:RS inconsistently. Those whose life is centered around Afd may well prefer to keep things as they are. DGG (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that we avoid trying to resolve this argument now? The question of what purpose the subguidelines serve is part of the RFC that is being prepared, and while the issue raised by various people above are good, it may be better energy spent when the wide-scale RFC is presented. --MASEM 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy what Masem said. This is definitely something that needs to be tackled by clarifying the relationship between the GNG and subguidelines. I'd like to think the RFC is close to being ready. I'm just not really sure what the next step is. What do you think, Masem? Randomran (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go, only thing I would change is to include a general comments section, possibly for the addition of additional proposals by the community relating to each topic as the RFC is in progress. --MASEM 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second the above. I'd love to see this move forward. Shereth 15:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to go over to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Request for a new watchlist notice and see if we can get enough support for a notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see this going forward. My own opinion on the subguidelines is that they should be intended to say "A subject for which one of the following is true is likely to have sufficient sourcing available to write a full article." They cannot ever say "An article is permissible even if such sources do not in fact exist", as that is contrary to verifiability, what we are not, and often the prohibition on original research. I certainly hope that an RfC will help to clarify this, and perhaps then we can get rid of or consolidate some of the permastubs that seem to get perpetuated on athletes, villages, asteroids, albums, what have you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to take issue with the statements above that the subject specific guidelines should work in only one direction. They should only be used to clarify the general notability guidelines, but this may work towards inclusion or exclusion, depending on the individual circumstances. WP:N is somewhat redundant with WP:V, but the latter is a policy, so no subject specific notability guidelines can override it. The subject specific guidelines are a compliment to WP:OUTCOMES which also cuts both ways. Dhaluza (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With regard to the "and" vs "or" issue [3], I don't think either word reflects either current consensus or what is best. How do you compromise between "and" and "or"? I think notability subguidelines should be consistent with the GNG, but they may offer altered interpretation. I see WP:N having far less redundancy with WP:V than with WP:NOR. WP:N is much more restrictive than WP:V, but it offers an interpretation of WP:NOR as it applies to whole articles. In terms of consistency, WP:N is very close to Wikipedia:Attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles)

Wikipedia:Notability (Septuagenarian female plumbers with red hair and freckles) has been proposed as a further but necessary extension of the notability infrastructure. As this infrastructure of subject specific notability guidelines grows, we must keep pace with the need to define every permutation of expectations at AfD and prevent the dangerous application of independent thought. Not only must we determine consensus on this critical issue immediately, but we must also hasten to define every possible situation which may tax the good judgment of our AfD closers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Too Many

Is there a protocol to close the discussion on the proposal for Aircraft? I don't see that as needed at all. A special rule Law Enforcement Agencies also seems superfluous. At least Fiction and Geographic Places are generating discussion, but some these others, they will be ignored at AFD anyway. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link(s) to the discussion(s) in question? Shereth 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, Wikipedia talk:Notability (aircraft) and Wikipedia talk:Notability (law enforcement agencies). They're in the navbox sidebar on the WP:N page, under "proposals".--Father Goose (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second, you're contemplating closing discussion here on the say of one person? See the talk discussion at the project group: talk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

New notability guideline re: fraternal groups

I think we need a policy dealing with notability of membership in fraternal groups in general (though my area of expertise is Freemasonry in particular). There is a real problem with famous people being dues-paying Masons, Rotarians, Elks, etc, but otherwise having nothing to do with the group of note. With Masonry, many people join and aren't active, meaning that their membership has little impact on their lives. Therefore, there ends up being 40,000 people in the group cat, and the sole reason for their inclusion is one line in a huge article that says "X was a Mason/Rotarian/Elk in X Lodge (and maybe a date)." - it's effectively trivia, and isn't useful when looking through the cat. At the Freemasonry WikiProject, we've had to go as far as state that only Masons notable as Masons can go in the Freemasonry cat. The Freemasons by nationality cats were removed as overcatting, and I just found a ton of people shoved in the Grand Lodge cats where they really don't belong.

To address the issues, I'd like to propose a few notability policy additions that I think will make fraternal org cats more usable and useful (meaning that when you go to the cat, you're going to find people who had a definite impact on the group.

1. Being the local, national, or international head of a fraternal group does not confer notability on its own (many times it changes yearly, and there simply isn't a lot of RS news coverage of this nature - most of it is from in-house publications, which can go either way depending on consensus).
2. A person not notable for being in the group does not qualify for inclusion in the cat for the group. As an example, William Preston, James Anderson, and Elizabeth Aldworth count for Freemasonry, but Michael Richards and George Washington do not - their Masonic membership is known, but they were not active. They should instead be added to a list of famous members if their membership can be verified. For example, we have a List of Freemasons they can be added to instead.

The above can apply equally for Rotary, etc. It would definitely cut down on cleanup for fraternal cats. MSJapan (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Being the national of international head of a major group like the ones discussed in my opinion does indeed confer notability. If it changes yearly, and we do 20 or 30 organisations, and go back 50 years, that's about 2000 articles most of which probably deserve to be here anyway. Agreed the use of a qualifier is not usually a good idea except for major historic figures in the history of the group. I don't see how we can do any differently in terms of notable members except the same a college alumni--if they were a member, it is documented, and have a Wikipedia page, they go in the category. anything esle means unending debates on individuals. DGG (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• The last thing we need is more subject specific guidelines. We need to get rid of what we have including ORG and BIO and make WP:N work for the needs of the entire project. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• At the very least, we don't have any need for guidelines which attempt to confer notability on things that haven't got sources.
  Kww (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to DGG... I understand how most peole would think that being the head of a major fraternal organization should be notable... It seems like it would be a rare and prestegious thing... but is it really? For many of these organizations there is no single national or international head. To continue to use Freemasonry as the example... there are at least two Grand Masters for each State of the US (one for the "Mainstream" Grand Lodge and another for the Prince Hall Grand Lodge). Canada has one for each Province, while Mexico has multiple jurisdictions... so each year you have over 150 Grand Masters in North America alone. Include the rest of the world and the number of Grand Masters skyrockets. Now throw in the fact that there are often sometimes multiple, competing Grand Lodges within the same geographic area (In France, for example, there are something like 8 independant Masonic Grand Lodges and Grand Orients, each with its own seperate Grand Master). As a conservative estimate, you end up with over a thousand different "heads" of the orgainization each year. Now toss in the fact that these change each year... in 50 years you have over 50,000 Grand Masters... and I just don't see being one of fifty thousand as being notable. While Freemasonry may be an extreme case, I am sure that other fraternal organizations have similar numbers. Can we really say these men are notable? Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure... if they meet WP:N.  ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Merchendise as Notability

Can merchandise featuring a character be used to establish notability? I realize that it is far from the ideal source but I'm trying to find ways to improve articles based on fictional characters and in many cases there's simply not a lot of academic material to go off of. I'm specifically looking at characters such as Buzz Lightyear and Ronald McDonald. They are internationally recognizable characters but there's not a lot in terms of traditional sources to go off of. In instances like this could the fact that they've appeared in so much merchandise (in Buzz's case this would include the Toy Story films and spinoff media) be used to help assert their notability?

S. Luke 04:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Merchandise alone establishes the existence of a concerted marketing effort, not notability.
Kww (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, articles about popular culture usually do not have to be referenced with academic jounals...... And merchandise featuring a character can be a notability indicator since this kind of fictional characters are usually main characters, but editors should create this kind of articles after finishing the creation of the ficitonal work and list of ...... characters, with another condition that the two articles are quite full (just as Japanese Wikipedia does). This Wikipedia edition does not have the tendency to abusively create fictional character articles (for instance, Japanese Wikipedia does not have Red Haired Shanks and Marshall D. Teach, while Italian Wikipedia does have them independently). --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? All articles must be properly sourced and referenced, including "popular culture" articles. Granted, they do not have to be from academic journals, there are many articles whose sources are primarily found in the form of news or magazine articles as opposed to academic journals. No article, however, is exempt from requiring sourcing per WP:RS - regardless of the topic. Merchandise is not a reliable source. Shereth 16:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the merchandise has some reliable sources, I think it can be used. The mere existence of the merchandise cannot. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Commercial publications, regardless of type, can generally be sources for Wikipedia except in some situations. And non-reliable sources can sometimes be indicators for notability. For example, if an engineering paper is reported in New York Times, then though the newspaper can not be a reliable source in the field, it can still be the notability indicator since being mentioned by a newspaper means the original research contained in the paper has high value to be mentioned in related Wikipedia articles. And WP:RS is a mere guideline, which means that though in most situations editors must follow it, in some circumstances it can be completely ignored, such as using an interview in a forum as a source in the article about the interviewer or interviewee. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the guidelines can on occasion be ignored but that is the exception to the rule. We should not be making broad statements to the effect that unorthodox sourcing to determine notability are acceptable for a certain class of articles - exceptions to the rule are examined on a case by case basis and not in sweeping assumptions. Shereth 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would think not. A thing is notable because it is ubiquitous is society, not the other way round. In other words everybody knows about Buzz Lightyear because of the movies and toys, it's not that society had a yearning for a new toy and Disney/Pixar said "Hey, we should make a movie about that". padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The merchandise itself would probably not be considered a reliable source, unless it was itself a form of publication (e.g. a book). The manual or instructions might be a reliable primary source subject to WP:SPS, thus meeting WP:V/WP:OR, but this alone would probably not be sufficient for notability. For articles of mass merchandise, it would generally need to be noted somehow in independent publications, which should not be a problem for any truly notable merchandise (the two examples you cite should have plenty of references, even if they have not yet been included in their articles). Note that the actual content of the published sources is not a factor in notability--an item does not need to be a sensation, it could be notable as a flop or farce if the coverage of it as such had enough substance to support an article. What we cannot do is write about something in anticipation of its being noticed (or worse yet, in an effort to get it noticed).

In reference to the above, one thing to consider is where referenced content belongs. For example, is a book sufficiently notable by itself, or should it be covered in the article about its author? In the latter case, coverage of the book would be evidence of notability of the author as well as the book. The same could apply to merchandise in general, and in this case you would have to evaluate whether the item was sufficiently notable by itself, or should be covered in an article about the maker. So it would be reasonble to ask whether Ronald McDonald should be a stand-alone article, or merged with McDonalds, and likewise for Buzz Lightyear and Toy Story. But in these two specific cases, I think it's clear that there is sufficient material for stand-alone articles.

What generally should not happen is deletion of an article about something real, since the mercahdise itself is evidence that it exists. If there is insufficient content for an article, then the title should be redirected to an article about the manufactirer or a more general article about the category or class of items, preserving the history for possible re-use if additional sources are found later. Deletion is only appropriate when a simple merge/redirect is not appropriate.

-- Dhaluza (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the feedback, I wasn't asking whether merchadise alone was enough to establish notability but rather if it could be used at all to contribute to it. For example if a link was provided to a site that mentioned the large amount of merchandise featuring the character would that amount to notability. S. Luke 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

An article discussing the merchandise would certainly help to establish notability. A toy-store's webpage with a list of items for sale would not.
Kww (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The one other thing that might support notability is comparitive data like sales rankings, or notable awards for design, etc. That is, something that distinguishes the item in some way. The problem is that this can become quite subjective, which this guideline tries to avoid, but there can be obvious exceptions, especially when there is other circumstantial evidence. Dhaluza (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How much third party coverage?

One more question. Is there a general rule of thumb establishing how many reliable third party sources have to adress a subject for it to be considered notable? For example if the notability of a subject is debated and someone were to post links to reliable soruces on a talk page to try to prove its notability, would five suffice? ten? does the article have to be the core subject or would one or two sentences specifically adressing the subject be enough to constitute coverage? To use the Buzz Lightyear example again would articles (not plot summaries or film reviews but actual articles) about Toy Story that simply mention him suffice, or would they have to be articles about the character himself? S. Luke 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Multiple" just means "more than one", so if you found two, it would be hard to argue against it. The argument usually comes over the requirement for the examination of the topic to be direct and detailed. There's a bit more room for debate there. In your example, if you could find me two articles about Toy Story that had a couple paragraphs each devoted to the character of Buzz Lightyear, that would make me comfortable with you asserting that he was notable. If you could find 50 articles that said "Buzz Lightyear is a character in Toy Story" but said nothing else about him, I would say that you hadn't found any evidence of notability at all.
Kww (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources are preferred, but not necessarily required. For example, historical subjects may have only one truly independent reference, with all others coming from it. The exact number is not specified, because in some cases, two weak references may not be sufficient (as you point out), but a few more might be enough (assuming they examine different facets of notability, and don't just repeat the same thing). Dhaluza (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So its a case of quality over quantity then. You've met the criteria if you've found:

a. reliable sources that specifically adress the subject (either an article, or a significant portion of a larger article specifically dedicated to it)

b. there are mutliple sources like it, mutliple can mean two or three, so long as they fit point a.

Does that pretty much cover the gist of it?

S. Luke 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. Notability guidelines are somewhat subjective, and for good reasons, because there will always be cases where there are minor exceptions and deviances from the rule, but the summary above is pretty accurate. Shereth 18:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To expand on S. Luke's response, the question of "how much coverage within those sources" (the guideline says "significant") is more amorphous then the number of sources. As the guideline's footnote points out, a mere mention is not significant coverage; in addition, AfD after AfD has concluded that a database entry (like IMDB or AllMusic, or government databases of companies or census information) is not significant coverage and therefore not enough, standing alone, to bring an article up to a the level of notability that the guideline requires (even though those database entries "specifically address the subject"). So even if an album had its own entry in 10 music databases, but there was no significant coverage elsewhere, it would not meet the guideline of WP:N. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I really appreciate all the responses by the way. S. Luke 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Luke (talk • contribs)

RfC proposal

I have made a proposal for the draft RfC (User_talk:Randomran/test#Proposal for section 2). We need outside opinions to determine if the proposal is suitable, needs further revision or is fundamentally flawed. A few additional voices would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy that. I'd appreciate it if someone could read the proposal, read some of the discussion, and see if this proposal is both (1) logical enough and (2) fair enough that it could reasonably gather support. Some proposals are just so flawed or unfair that they could never gain a consensus. Randomran (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cemetaries

I was looking up comedian Joe E. Lewis, and noticed that the Cedar Park Page[4] where he was buried was a page, which looking at it, stated where it was and the notable people buried there. It strikes me that cemetaries are generally non-notable, and that the grounds notablility is not increased by famous people being put in it. However, I figured I would check here to see if the matter has been discussed or "litigated" ad naseum in AFD before prodding.205.200.79.114 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

many cemeteries are notable. If they are of historic importance, or in many important people are buried there, you should be able to find references talking about the chemistry itself. There are often published guidebooks. But without such references I don't think they would be notable. DGG (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The article in question Cedar Park Cemetery, Emerson would be an obvious keep. Cemeteries which draw the attention of multiple Wikipedia editors who are adding accurate and interesting content are more than likely to be in the class of notable cemeteries. In this case, there been no issue of WP:N raised on the discussion page (in fact, there is no discussion page) which would be the place to raise it prior to an WP:AFD nomination. patsw (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability and WP:Notability

There are uses of the term notable littered about Wikipedia and applied to lists without qualification, such as at

• template:Scrubs
• Czech_Republic_national_football_team#Notable_former_players
• Steven_De_Lelie#Noteable_roles
• St._Marys_Lincolns#Noteable_Alumni

when the editors are challenged to WP:PROVEIT, they usually refer to this policy, although they dont explain why they selectively exclude subjects which also meet WP:NOTE. Is it worth putting a disclaimer on this page indicating that this is an internal WP standard, and should not be the subject of encylopedic articles Fasach Nua (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For the football articles, I would say that in this case 'notable' is used in the 'fame' notable sense, not the WP:NOTABILITY sense, because per WP:ATHLETE we have (or can have) articles on every single player that has ever played for a national team, the listing of which is obviously not the current purpose of these sections, or should not be. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this topic at WP:FOOTY. There are many editors in wikiproject who quote wp:note, pehaps the header should to these sections could be wikilinked as notable, to remove any ambiguity, although I still feel there should be a disclaimer here Fasach Nua (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they are merely pointing out to you that because of the general requirement of WP:NOTE, if you have an issue with why a particular player has been included in a famous player section, then the information is, or should be, in their article for judgement. MickMacNee (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say judgement you mean judgement? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

However, for 'notable alumni' sections, then clearly the meaning is WP:NOTE, and any alumnus with an article can be listed. MickMacNee (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Should that be linked as 'notable alumni' ? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually if it is just a list of related articles, then perhaps "see also" might be a better title, I am not sure WP:NOTE is in itself encylopedic, it is simply a bench mark for one particular encylopedia Fasach Nua (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a term of art when used in the Wikipedia. It refers to an editorial decision to include or exclude an article based on some objective criteria ("first", "biggest", "awarded") or some subjective criteria ("significant", "famous", "unique"). One response to the arbitrariness of subjective criteria in a gray-area case has been to make as much of it objective on the relevant Wiki-project page where the subject matter experts would gather. WP:WikiProject Football/Notability is an example. Common misunderstandings are that an editor's declaration of "notable" or "non-notable" ends discussion, or that the word notability has a clear meaning in English. I also recommend that new editors read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. patsw (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"but do not specifically regulate the content of articles"

I don't understand why "notability" isn't supposed to apply to content. Requiring a topic to have "received significant coverage" etc etc sounds like something that's necessary and appropriate for content, for example. Just referring to the reader to WP:UNDUE doesn't cover it off, if you ask me, because "undue weight" is a subsection of WP:NPOV and adding non-notable material to an article doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its neutrality. How else are we supposed to keep non-notable content out of Wiki articles if people say, "WP:NOTABLE doesn't apply to content and WP:UNDUE doesn't apply either because there are no neutrality issues here"?Bdell555 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest in its place? I'm as big of a fan of multiple, independent sources as they come, but I can't see requiring that every detail be covered in multiple sources. Once it has been decided that a topic is notable, individual details are generally only required to be verifiable, and the article as a whole must still be considered to rely on secondary sources. What articles are you having trouble with? What kind of information are they adding?
Kww (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual details are not merely required to be verifiable. Many verifiable details are excluded from article because they are not notable or relevant to the topic, which are similar concepts, or for neutrality, etc. reasons. —Centrx→talk • 07:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally having trouble with articles where somebody who doesn't like an article subject comes in and adds stuff like "the subject of this article kicked a dog in the street last week". I say, "this isn't notable" and the reply comes "WP:NOTABLE doesn't apply to content". Somebody at the other extreme, who thinks the article subject is the greatest thing since sliced bread, then comes in and deletes not only the dog kicking incident, but deletes a bunch of other notable, reliably sourced material that is negative to the subject as well citing WP:BLP. When I say, you are going to other extreme, because WP:NOTABLE would have dealt with the dog kicking incidents, they reply "WP:NOTABLE doesn't apply to content", such that the only way to deal with material negative to an article subject like an allegation of dog kicking is, according to them, to apply some heavy weapon like WP:BLP instead of a scalpel like a notability threshold.Bdell555 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to call content within articles "notable" or not, but such content does not have the same standards of inclusion as entire topics do. —Centrx→talk • 07:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There must be some boundary point between where WP:N applies top down, and where editorial freedom applies from the bottom up. A topic should typically have coverage in multiple secondary sources. This coverage is what the article is based on. Given that, we editors can drastically edit the content, organising it differently to how it is organized in sources. Requiring individual sections to individually meet WP:N would stop this editorial freedom, and make sections like independent articles. So then would you seek to apply WP:N to sub-sections, sub-sub-sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that the standard for content within an article should be less stringent, but when we just say notability doesn't apply to content period, we have no notability standards for content at all (aside from a mention that "trivia" should not be included). Again, just refering readers to a section of WP:NPOV doesn't really create a notability standard since a need for neutrality and a need for notability aren't quite the same thing.Bdell555 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the second and third paragraphs of that section are doing there. "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" has nothing to do with them, and nothing to do with WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE. WP:N is already redundant with WP:NOR. It's just a special case of special importance with respect to deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I just consider it less than ideal to have to always appeal to WP:UNDUE with respect to dealing with non-notable article content since some frivolous, "who could possibly care" stuff may actually IMPROVE the neutrality weighting (e.g. it might be the only bit of negative or positive material to counter some positive or negative material already in the article) but it's just too gossipy/tabloidish for inclusion in a serious encylopedia.Bdell555 (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with this [5]? I removed what seems irrelevent, and put in WP:NOR. If you think a section is not notable, can you phrase your position in terms of WP:NOR, in particular WP:PSTS. There are rarely WP:N concerns when WP:PSTS is adhered to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that change as even worse, since it removes the instructions to not give material more "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement" etc than it deserves. I don't see "no original research" as necessarily related. I can't really say someone adding frivolous material is violating NOR if he or she isn't synthesizing "primary" sources or otherwise trying to get the Wiki article to argue for some conclusion; - "original research" is typically a multi-step operation, involving some background "therefore" or deduction that the sources do not make themselves. The problem I see is typically a single step, "let's add this frivolous thing and even headline it in the intro" operation.Bdell555 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This section does need adjustment; UNDUE needs to be given mention here, and to be truthful, while I think we know was the intent of "notability doesn't limit article content", it doesn't come across that way. Without it, people can effectively justify writing volumes of information on a topic where it is only possible to include two or three sentences that describe why the work is notable with sources, with dozens and dozens of subpages of primary information. There is a point that editors need to realize that if you can barely get a topic to meet the GNG, you should not be expecting to expand it much beyond what notability there is, and likely the topic, while notable, can fit into a larger framework.

That said, the only area where I know for sure this happens is fiction, and technically WP:PLOT covers this case. However, I'm thinking this is a possibility for people, websites, and other contemporary topics, so shuffling the idea away is not useful. --MASEM 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a relevant problem on BLP's: for example, Lindsay Lohan is clearly notable. Unfortunately, you can find a written mention of every date she's ever had, every other teen star she's ever had a spat with, every car she's wrecked, rehab attended, valet stiffed for a tip, etc. Without some concept of undue weight and notability, her article would turn into a 900 paragraph chronicle of her personal life with one or two paragraphs at the top indicating that she acts and attempts to sing.
Kww (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe's changes. The removed sections were bloat. I understand the thinking behind the paragraph that mentioned, and even repurposed WP:UNDUE, but it goes beyond the scope of WP:N.--Father Goose (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this problem boils down to one of relevance, not notability. That Senator John Doe, a famous politician, kicked a dog in the street last night may be notable because there were a few newspaper stories about it, but it is in all likelihood not relevant to the topic, in that it adds nothing but trivial information. On the other hand, the fact that Senator John Doe was in attendance at JFK's inaugural address, may not be notable as it was not covered in multiple, independent sources, but it is highly relevant because it was what sparked Senator John Doe's interest in politics. There are no specific guidelines or policies regarding what is relevant because this is largely an editorial issue that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. WP:ROC applies here, although it is merely an essay. Perhaps some thought should be given to elevating it to guideline status. Shereth 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Shereth, although I generally agree, it's disturbing how you misread WP:N and advocate original research. It has been generally agreed that a few newspaper reports won't make the kicking of a dog sufficiently notable. Senator John Doe attendances at JFK's inaugural address should only be judged relevent by a reliable source that says so. Read the talk page of WP:ROC before suggesting "elevating" the failed proposal. Consider the establish guideline WP:TOPIC as an existing solution to this perceived problem. In general, I highly recommend "style guidelines" over "notability guidelines" for purposes of improvement of content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is equally disturbing to see how you misread my statement and somehow conclude that I advocate original research. I in no way suggested that anything that does not meet inclusion guidelines and does not have reliable sources should be added to articles. Where on earth did you get this idea? Shereth 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"it is highly relevant because it was what sparked Senator John Doe's interest in politics" This phrase contains an implied fact serving to justify inclusion. To include things because of disputable facts (as opposed to because a third party says so) is to wander down the path of original research. "I don't believe it is at all true that the address sparked Doe's interest; I think it was something else, and I don't like this encyclopedia perpetuating the old story as fact." another editor might say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You've totally misunderstood the point of what I was saying. In any case, I was using is as an "off the top of my head" example and going under the assumption that all the information was sourced - the entire point of my statement was to say that some things, regardless of the fact that they are sourced, does not make them relevant to the current topic. I did not mean to imply that editors should make that judgement call, themselves. Shereth 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was completely off Shereth's intended point --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:RELEVANT currently redirects to WP:NOTABLE, so clearly the distinction is rather subtle for some. In any case, without a notability/relevancy policy, one doesn't have something commonly recognized that can be appealed to. I can say, "this is irrelevant, and here's a million reasons why" and someone can respond, "yeah, well, I say it is relevant, and there is no applicable policy, so you have no ground for removal I need acknowledge". The absence of policy is equally an issue for addition, such that I say, "this is relevant" and someone says, "no it isn't, and no policy OKs it as presumptively relevant, so you have no ground for addition I need acknowledge."Bdell555 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:N is not about relevance, and WP:N should not be allowed conceptual sprawl because of a bad redirect. Look at the history of the redirect for the amount of consideration it represents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555, there seems to be a misunderstanding about UNDUE and NPOV in general in your comments. The "neutrality" in NPOV refers to the position of the editor (a concept reinforced by WP:NOR), not to some objective neutrality in creating article prose. NPOV is more or less the requirement that we report the content of reliable sources, roughly in proportion to the prominence of those claims in the references as a whole. "UNDUE" tells us that if a claim only appears in one or very few sources (that is, it is only stated by an extreme minority), then we should not include that information. I believe "undue weight" is exactly what you're looking for and covers your concerns. Vassyana (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If neutrality is subjective, it is "unverifiable" because we can't see into the heads of other editors. Hence neutrality has to be assessed "objective"ly, and that means looking at the edits (the "article prose") as opposed to the "editor". I'll grant your point insofar as what matters is that the material be neutrally presented in the context of the article as a whole as opposed to inherently neutral itself. But that still means looking at edits, not editors. An article might just present someone's good side such that something fuller about his or her complex humanity might ideally be in order, but that doesn't mean grabbing something frivolous like he wasn't a sweetie that wiped the seatie wouldn't get the article closer to theoretically ideal neutrality at an unacceptable cost to a notability/relevance standard.

When I suggest Wikipedia need not say "Senator Cletus kicked a dog in the street last week", I'm not suggesting that that material should be excluded because the source for that is in the "extreme minority". There might actually be more Google hits for that than for something like mundane like his birthplace. Do the "majority" of sources say that he kicked a cat, not a dog, such that including "Senator Cletus kicked a dog" would be to give "unequal time" to the dog theory? More likely, most sources don't say anything about who the good Senator kicked last week (besides someone's metaphorical behind). Again, arguing that that a frivolous allegation is "minority" view isn't the ideal argument since it presumes there is some majority view denying the allegation (if there actually is a serious controversy like that, the controversy itself is probably notable, in fact).Bdell555 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Minority refers to the proportion of references that present the claims. If the allegation is widely repeated in reliable sources, it's probably suitable for inclusion in an article. If it's only repeated in an extreme minority of the available sources, it's probably not appropriate for inclusion. Vassyana (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proportionate to what? You're suggesting that we can't reject the frivolous stuff without weighing it against other sources. There might not be any other sources to weigh against because no one else believes it is worth addressing!

There might well be 100 times more sources for Obama's position on, say, offshore drilling than there are for Obama's first job. That doesn't mean we should cut one sentence mentioning his first job in order to have 100 sentences about his position on drilling in his Wiki biography. The total source count just reflects what the sources are interested in covering, and that doesn't necessarily reflect what we should be interested in. When it comes to whether we should say X as opposed to Y, then, yes, if 80% of the sources say X and 20% say Y, that weighting should be reflected in our presentation of X and/or Y. Undue weight is relevant to how we present material where competing theories or claims exist and has no obvious application to material that isn't controversial amongst sources. Therefore, unless one thinks that absolutely everything that isn't disputed by another source is fair game for either inclusion or exclusion without policy guidance, we need a relevance or notability standard other than just WP:UNDUE.Bdell555 (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Brian, welcome to the Notability discussions. I read your user page; I'm impressed by your background and applaud your frank approach. While I agree with much of what you ay about article content, I don't agree that WP:N is the place to address content. Notability has become a slang or euphemism for "encyclopedic suitability of a topic." There are other policies and guidelines dealing specifically with the inclusion of content, and I think that broadening the scope of WP:N is needless [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]. Let's move that discussion elsewhere, but please hang around to help sort out the issues regarding the inclusion of topics. The notability infrastructure is broken as evidenced by the lack of faith in WP:N demonstrated in the plethora of subject specific guidelines and the 11 proposals for new ones. Help! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding my comment above, it is difficult to reference to a summary of our many content policies and guidelines, and what weak summary we have is confusing. I combined together the content of two prominent templates (below) and then removed a couple of misplaced items. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Policies

• What Wikipedia is not
  
• Neutral point of view
  
• Verifiability
  
• No original research
  
• Biographies of living persons

Guidelines

• 3D Illustrations: 3D Illustrations which use a method or technique to simulate depth such as Anaglyph images and Stereograms should not be used as general inline illustrations in articles.
• Autobiography:Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself, since most of us find objectivity especially difficult when we ourselves are concerned (however it is not impossible.). Contribute on the talk page instead. Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself.
• Don't include copies of primary sources: Don't copy lengthy poems, speeches or other source text into Wikipedia. Consider placing them in Wikisource if you need to.
• Guide to writing better articles
• Patent nonsense: Patent nonsense (Text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all and completely and irredeemably confused texts) should be dealt with appropriately.
• Citing sources: point the reader to authoritative references (and list them properly), so that facts can be verified.
• Avoid statements that will date quickly
• Spoiler: Wikipedia contains spoilers. There is generally no need to warn readers of this.
• Avoid inappropriate expressions

Yes, well, upon further reflection I think that Vassyana is on to something in the sense that a notability threshold should be relative to the rest of Wikipedia and its dynamic growth as opposed to absolute. If all of human knowledge were inside Wikipedia, then Senator Cletus kicked a dog last week would be inside too (the only question being which article is it most relevant to). Who wants to exclude knowledge? It's ultimately the reason we're all here. It is more of a priority issue such that we shouldn't be expanding Wikipedia to include that stuff when there's more important stuff we haven't included yet. As such, undue weight is theoretically the right policy, just not WP:UNDUE which is an intra-article policy. But perhaps it's the best we can do, since WP:NOTABLE is the extra-article policy, and a formal combination of the two policies or a new meta policy may be unworkable. The intra/extra division is rather arbitrary/conventional (as someone pointed out, a topic barely makes it over the line for any sized article at all, and then the article's potential size becomes limitless?) but as humans we have to draw arbitrary/conventional lines in order to have manageably sized things to work with.

re all the specific subject guidelines for notability, I think one has to get specific, unfortunately. Since only admins can ultimately delete non-notable articles, I have limited incentive to parse the guidelines closely. After all, I would just be making a recommendation about how to interpret or apply, not interpreting or applying myself. But it's one of the most important jobs now that English Wikipedia already contains 2.5 million articles.Bdell555 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You definately have a say in deletion initially by nominating for Speedy, Prod, or AfD and then by participating in the discussions. non-admins familiar with the AfD process have been allowed to close AfDs, but I have mixed feelings on that practice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is still is something to be said about UNDUE relative to notability. We should not have 100+ kb articles that have have only 2 secondary sources but otherwise sourced completely from primary sources - there's likely a large number of BLPs that can be classified in this, and as I've mentioned, fiction attracts these types of articles. This aspect is really not covered well in other policies or guidelines; it's not a WP:V issue. It is loosely a OR and POV issue in that when editors take a lot from primary sources, the likelihood of OR/POV introduction increases. UNDUE's aspect on content balance is not so much strictly about notability, so modifying that would not be recommended. Now, maybe it's the case that for the specific areas where this is a problem (fiction, BLPs) we spell this out, and refer all other cases to UNDUE. However, I do think it's better to spell it out here, in better terms then already stated, as to make it clear that while a topic may be notable, it is not a license to write volumes about it. --MASEM 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that once notability is established there should be any limitation on primary source material as long as the text is pertinent and meets other content policies and processes. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we probably do have the need for some guidelines on article content, but we have enough problems here without discussing it. Such a discussion would be in a very tentative stage, and should be regarded as discussing ideas in a preliminary way. As for primary content in bio articles and in fiction, there seems to be general agreement that it is warranted if not controversial,and the discussion place for this particular point is probably WT:RS. V means we want a good source, not a particular kind of source. DGG (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have argued with mixed success that the requirement that an article rely on secondary sources says that half or more of the information in the article needs to be derived from secondary sources. I lose that argument a lot, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Kww (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The "what WP:N is not about" bloat

Jossi and Randoman have put back the bloat (WP:UNDUE & wikipedia-motherhood) under the section “Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content”. This is a bad idea because:

• WP:N should stay out of the business of article content. “Notability” here at wikipedia has a twisted non-real-world meaning that is deeply entrenched in the culture of AfD. It is about judging whether a topic could, with any amount of further research, be referenced adequately to justify an article, or whether it should be deleted. It’s an ugly, non-intuitive, newcomer-unfriendly, high-level concept that needs to be limited and defined as best we can. Wanting to go beyond the historical use to have “wikipedia-notability” govern section content is to go the wrong way. We can’t get rid of notability becasuse it is entrenched, but we need to not let it become a synonym for “encyclopedic”.

• WP:UNDUE is clearly stated policy elsewhere, and there is no purpose in paraphrasing it here. If it needs paraphrasing, paraphrase at WP:UNDUE.

• The appropriate shortcut for the apparent concern seems to be WP:TOPIC.

The after thought “Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content” should be kept brief and to the point. It states what WP:N is not about. It is silly to go on and on about what WP:N is not about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The entire section Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content should go. The point is made briefly in the lede and does not need restating at length. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  Just so. Half of the section is redundant, the other half drifts out of scope and tries to become a guideline on a different issue. We could toss the whole section and lose nothing.--Father Goose (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If every editor took their time to read through all key policies and guidelines, spent time in the wings learning how Wikipedia works, and so forth, I completely agree that this section is not necessary. The problem is is that there are editors that enter WP without taking any of these steps and even after several edits may not be fully aware of any major policies until they're directly pointed at them. The inclusion of this section is necessary to make sure that we help these types of editors connect the dots between various policies. (If all editors were logical and so forth, I'd argue we'd not need the notability guidelines in the first place; inclusion of topics would be readily obvious).

Or another way to view this. We have notability that says that you show a topic to be notable, it can merit its own article. However, this is not the same as saying that a notable topic has to have its own article. There are plenty of times (mostly in fiction, but likely other areas) where certainly a topic shows sufficient notability via a couple of sources but to go into the topic in great length in its own article either would become repetitive with one or more articles or would lead into content that violates NOT or other key policies. Yes, this is more a style issue, but it is directly related to notability - notability should be used to justify the existence of an article, but it is not the only judge. Yes, other policies say this already, but again by my first point, many editors don't bother with policies and guidelines until they run afoul of them, and only then read the ones they were pointed to. Maybe it doesn't have to be as many words here, but to completely drop the aspects of content of an article about a notable topic will lead to more confusion. --MASEM 12:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue of content is right in the lead: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles. Relevant content policies include: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." The section we're discussing repeats all that with little expansion, then continues with a lengthy paraphrase of WP:UNDUE. We can add UNDUE to the list of "relevant content policies", then leave the content policies to specify what the content policies are.--Father Goose (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not bloat if it's a common misunderstanding that most people don't take the time to clarify on their own. The lead tells us the main point, but the details of the guideline explains it in detail and shows the relationship with other guidelines and policies. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that "notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" deserves its own section if only for the fact that so many editors are uninformed or misinformed about this point. However, only the first paragraph of the section is needed. It is not the purpose or the role of the notability guideline to explain how article content actually is limited (to do so kind of undermines the whole point of the section); it's more than sufficient to simply link to the relevant policies and guidelines. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it's the second paragraph that is the most important. We don't need to explain that "notability doesn't directly limit article content" if we explain that the content should be given "weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". The article needs to answer two questions: what articles are worthy of inclusion, and what content is worthy of inclusion in those articles? If we don't answer the second question explicitly, people often make up their own answers, leading to unnecessary and repetitive disagreements. Randomran (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that "what content is worthy of inclusion in [an] article" is an important question, but it's not a question that falls within the scope of the notability guidelines. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you agree that it's important for readers to know that due weight should be given based on significance. But I can't think of a better location for that guideline than right here. Notability is about what's significant enough to be included: both articles and content. What is the value of splitting out the brief guideline on the significance of content, and making that guideline harder to find? Randomran (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, I disagree with the latter part of your comment. Notability is not about what content is significant enough to be included in articles. "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles." In fact, I would argue that including guidance about article content only muddles the point that notability is not about article content. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I have to jump in here and say that I agree with Black Falcon - N is about the topic of the article and not the content of the article, therefore the guideline should contain a bare minimum of information regarding article content. Shereth 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Right, I understand that you don't think WP:N should get into what content is significant enough for inclusion, but you also think it's an important question to address. I myself have been involved in several disagreements where it has become important to clarify that there is no direct limit on content, but that we cover factual content by giving due weight based on significance. So if not here, then where? Randomran (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
              • In the case of due weight, I'd say at WP:UNDUE. While it may, in certain cases, be handy to have WP:UNDUE explained in this guideline, one could just as well link to and/or quote from WP:UNDUE. It may also be worth noting that the undue weight provision of NPOV is not the only significant restriction on content within articles: there are numerous provisions in other policies (such as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability) that are equally important. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I've been in discussions where I've quoted from WP:UNDUE, but they ignore the policy about factual content and focus on neutral point of view -- which itself is the main focus of WP:NPOV. There is a real problem with burying important policies in inappropriate places, because it leads to a loss of clarity. I'm not comfortable deleting it here and burying it there. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • But at least WP:UNDUE is directly related to NPOV... If a user wants to ignore a particular portion of a policy, they will do so regardless of where it is located. (Perhaps WP:NPOV needs to be edited to make it even clearer that the undue weight provision cannot be ignored.) As regards "loss of clarity", I think it is more confusing to claim that "notability guidelines ... do not specifically regulate the content of articles", and immediately thereafter begin to describe regulations on the content of articles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • WP:UNDUE is in part related to NPOV. But another part of it is purely about factual content. When I would sometimes point people to WP:UNDUE, they would respond "but this content has no point of view", even though they had given undue weight to factual content. WP:N is a perfect place for it because WP:N "does not directly limit the content of articles", but content is indirectly limited by giving weight in proportion to its WP:Significance (which, incidentally, redirects to WP:N). There is absolutely no value to removing policy from this page when it only leads to greater confusion. I'd understand the need to simplify or shorten for the sake of clarity, but outright removal is a complete loss of information. I'm willing to accommodate your concerns. How would you feel about including a short restatement of WP:UNDUE ("strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject") in a section of WP:N, let alone in the lead? Randomran (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                      • For me, the issue is not reducing the amount of text in the guideline (16KB is not that long), but rather removing a source of confusion regarding the nature of notability. It is confusing when we indicate that this guideline does not regulate content within articles, yet include within the guideline regulations (copied from WP:UNDUE) about content within articles. You are correct to note that "content is indirectly limited by giving weight in proportion to its significance", but that limitation is imposed by WP:UNDUE, not by the notability guideline. Perhaps the issue could be resolved by clarifying the role/function of WP:UNDUE within the NPOV policy? Regarding your suggestion, could you edit the page to illustrate what kind of restatement you have in mind? A short statement wouldn't really concern me; it's the presence of two paragraphs that deal exclusive with the content of articles that does. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                        • If the issue is the confusion then we should stop saying "WP:N doesn't directly limit article content" and start saying "WP:N indirectly limits article content". The notion that we "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject" is highly relevant the notability guideline. There's a reason that WP:significance redirects to WP:N -- because significance is synonymous with notability (or at least highly related to notability). You might even say that we "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its notability". It doesn't make sense to bury this indirect limit on factual content in a policy concerning neutrality and bias.
                          At the most minimal, I think it would be enough to change the second paragraph of the lead to say: "Any verifiable content that complies with what Wikipedia is not is appropriate for inclusion in an article. However, articles should strive to treat each aspect of a subject with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." But ideally I think we could say the same thing, perhaps with one or two more sentences of clarification, in a section of the guideline. We would replace the entire section "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content" with "Significance of article content" or something, with this being the only paragraph. Maybe even have the WP:Significance redirect to that section. I'm okay with it being as short and concise as necessary, so long as we don't delete it from WP:N and effectively bury it. Randomran (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • BF is right. We should not further confuse the issues at this page. However, the guidance on content is too spread-out among many pages. I suggest that we reduce the number of process pages discussing content and consolidate to as few pages as possible, preferably one. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
          • My main concern is exactly what you just said: the guidance on content is spread out among many pages, and the issue of giving due weight to content based on its significance to a subject is buried. I feel like two sentences here is the best way to explain the indirect limits on article content. But if it's better placed elsewhere, I'd like to know where and why. Randomran (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
            • WP:Content is now just a redirect. This address could be used to consolidate discussion on content and likely reduce the CREEP that has occured. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm okay with creating a new guideline page about content (WP:CONTENT, WP:Significance, and WP:Importance are all redirects). It should probably begin with non-controversial restatements of existing policy/guidelines, so that it does not merely become an opinion piece. On the other hand, I still think it would be easier to just include the two sentences about "due weight based on significance" at WP:N. But I'm willing to accommodate people who are trying to shorten WP:N if they are willing to find other ways to maintain clarity. Randomran (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I was disappointed to learn that consensus could not be reached for a guideline on the relevance of content within articles (Wikipedia:Relevance is an essay only). Unfortunately, as I was not involved in the discussion for that proposal, I cannot say why it failed to gain consensus support. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The style guidelines offer help with bottom-up improvement. They assume that you have contributions, and they offer advice. The welcome the newcomer. The notability guidelines function top-down. They read like rules for summary judgements. They serve to punish newcomers by enabling the deletion of their contributions.

If we want to consolodate useful guidance, not judgement, the best page is the style guideline Wikipedia:Writing better articles, which includes the section WP:TOPIC, which was judged to be the appropriate reference for Wikipedia:Relevance, which failed, with one comment saying: “this is a redundant page; WP:TOPIC says it all; redirect immediately to avoid WP:CREEP. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)” --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another explanation to newcomers of notability. It is a term of art. You can't arrive in the Wikipedia as a new editor and import a prior personal notion of what notability is. It may seem silly to have some many pixels spent on one word, but it is not about a word but the criteria for the inclusion of an article in the Wikipedia which is a pretty important thing to get right on a consistent basis in order to have a useful online encyclopedia. There are obvious objective criteria: "the first", "the biggest", "the awarded", etc. But when it comes to subjective criteria, that is worked out in the article pages themselves, the project pages, and ultimately in the WP:AFD process. I think the status quo is working well.

The tension is always between creating rules to preempt articles from being added without merit, and dealing with new articles article by article, or project by project. The worst of it comes about when two editors dispute whether an article should be included or excluded and cannot articulate any objective criteria to others they are applying to their judgment. There is no shortcut, no magic 100 words that can be added to WP:N to make conflicts like this go away. patsw (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, to me, unclear why we would want to use a word that has a well-established meaning (i.e. "notability") and assign our own special and magical wiki meaning. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? I think this word notability was appropriated early on because editors could not come to a better consensus on reducing "the application of criteria for inclusion or exclusion of an article in the Wikipedia" to a single word or concept beyond verifiability alone because obviously non-notable topics can be verified. patsw (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That view has no grounding whatsoever in history. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)