Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial response

Hmmmmmm. I see what you're trying to do. But I have some issues with what's in the proposal at the moment. Without picking apart each word or clause or sentence ... I think that the proposal is ignoring the very issue at heart. That is, indeed sometimes, victims and/or perpetrators become notable only because of the death/murder event. That's it. We can cite numerous examples. Natalee Holloway's name has come up very often as of late. Laci Peterson. Whoever heard of her before her murder? Jessie Davis. Kitty Genovese. The Columbine High School killers. Many of these people's names are notable only because of the murder that they committed or were victims of. I think, to add an additional requirement ("they need to murder -- or be murdered -- and also to be notable for something else") does not really address the core of the issue at hand. These are my initial thoughts after I read the proposal on the other page. Also, if they were "notable for something else" (prior to the murder), then they would already have a Wikipedia page ... and/or this debate would be inapplicable. The AFD debate really boils down to people who become notable pretty much only due to a death/murder (in either role as victim or perpetrator). And then the underlying question becomes, does that in and of itself constitute notability? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Your section on "Victims" states: Victims may have their own articles if ... they are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Thus, victims of high-profile crimes are not automatically entitled to an article. Notability here is defined as satisfying the notability of persons guidelines. That's exactly my point. Many victims (and perpetrators, also) are only notable with the crime/death/murder ... and nothing else. Adoption of this policy would eliminate Natalee Holloway, JonBenét Ramsey, Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, Jessie Davis, Kitty Genovese, Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Karla Faye Tucker, Aileen Wuornos, and a long list of others. Any encyclopedia missing these entries is virtually worthless, no? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Not exactly. Per the discussion at the village pump, these articles would be redirected to "Murder of Natalee Holloway", etc. - the point being the subtle distinction that the victims themselves do not meet the notability requirement because they are only known for being murdered, but the event, which is what is actually notable from third party resources, is notable enough to warrant an article. My prediction is that the guideline would be interpreted to redirect these names to appropriately titled articles documenting the event, but not biographical details not pertinent to the crime. Does that make sense? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ... yes and no. First ... I think that these debates generally center around the issue "this murder is not notable ... no one has ever heard of this person before ... millions are murdered every day ... why should there be an article on everyone who gets murdered". That is the general tenor of the debate ... that it is not notable to begin with. There is not much "rage" / argument / debate over: "yes, I think the murder is indeed notable and I am upset that the article is inadequately titled". I have not seen much of that, at least. Furthermore, if indeed that was the case, someone would never create an AFD ("I want this article deleted") ... they would simply talk about a name change on the Talk Page ("I want the article title changed"). AFD is different than name changes. So, the question really is: is this stuff notable? Second ... your proposal is well-intentioned ... but it all boils down to semantics. The deletionists think this stuff does not belong --- regardless of the title of the article. The inclusionists think that the stuff belongs --- and, generally, with redirects, I could care less about the semantic title. As long as the article is there (and not deleted). So the real issue is not about proper naming techniques ... the real underlying issue that causes all the debate is whether this stuff meets the notability criteria. Also, I don't think it's a great idea to expect someone to type in "the death of Natalee Holloway" ... or "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" ... or "the disappearance and death of Natalee Holloway" ... or whatever. People are just going to type in "Natalee Holloway". Think about it. Years after the fact, is someone going to type in "Richard Speck" ... or "the murder of student nurses as committed by Richard Speck" ...? Is someone going to type in "Charles Manson" ... or "the series of killings allegedly ordered by Charles Manson" ...? Yes, a simple redirect will/should solve this. But, it's a band-aid on the larger issue. It's a silly exercise to have the same exact info and just tweak the name of the article (which will simply get redirected anyway with the deleted / "offending" title). Again, we need to decide, are people notable for the circumstances of their murder or not (victim or killer)? That is the real issue and the one creating all the thorns in these AFD debates ... and, in fact, prompting the very AFD debates to begin with. Otherwise, people would simply have more civil / less heated exchanges about a title of an article on the Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Also ... it will be very hard to "separate" biographical information about a person's life from an article about the event of their death, I would think. It's all one and the same. I mean, the victim is a person --- and, as such, has lived a life (i.e., a life full of biographical information!). So, it's not necessarily "relevant" (to the criminal event) that Natalee Holloway is age 18 or is from Alabama or was on a class trip or was about to enter college on a scholarship, etc., etc., etc. None of those are "relevant" to the crime. But, they are relevant to the person --- who this victim was. There needs to be some biographical information to provide context to the "event" ... since the event involves a real person ... a person who has lived a life (that is, a biography). Otherwise, we can just photocopy a police report that has "just the facts, ma'am" ... in the vein of "at 01200 hours, the body of a white female deceased victim, approximately aged 20, was found by Officer Smith at the corner of X and Y streets with what appeared to be shell casings nearby" ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Ditto on the perp. When I read about Lee Harvey Oswald (or Richard Speck or whoever), I don't want to just know about the event in question (that he killed Kennedy, that he killed 8 student nurses). I want to know who that man is ... what's his life, his background, his bio ... to see where he came from and how/why he came about to commit these murders. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I have to disagree with this. Of course you would want to know what caused a person to execute these kinds of crimes. However, this is irrelevant to a discussion on policy for VICTIMS of crimes. Would you care what caused someone to become a victim of a crime? It seems that this debate centers on victims of RANDOM crimes. The victims' personal history has NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE EVENTS. The perpetrator's past, on the other hand, DOES have something to do with it. Stay focused. Rooot (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite focused, thanks. My point is that it would be difficult to write about a person without writing about their life. As explained more fully in my above comment. The two are virtually inseperable ... or clearly overlap extensively. Otherwise, the alternative is to talk about "a white female in her 20's that appeared to have a gunshot wound to the head", period, ... like a robotic police report. What good is the JonBenet Ramsey article if we don't know that she was a 5-year-old ... if we don't know that she was from Colorado ... if we don't know that she was a beauty queen contestant ... etc.? How can you talk about a person without talking about their life / their bio? Why not just say "white female found dead at home" and be done with it? If it's the "event" that's so important ... does the random victim of the random crime even need to be named at all? Come now. In your thinking then ... the Wikipedia article can detail the "event" / the "crime" / the "murder" ... and then just parenthetically add "oh, yeah, by the way, there was a victim also in this whole event". If indeed the article is about the event and not the victim. Come on --- they're virtually inseperable. I am not saying that we need every detail of the victim's life. But, clearly, you need some "bio info" to even begin a discussion of the victim. And, the victim, by the way, --- random or not --- is a major player in the "event" being discussed. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Your argument is based on the premise that all murders are inherently notable and worthy of inclusion. I, and most editors, completely disagree with this. The victim is not notable. The murder is not notable. The REACTION to this murder MAY be notable. It baffles me how so many other editors here seem to have so much personally at stake with these murder victim articles. With that, I will end with a simple WP:NPOV. Good day. Rooot (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhh ... do you know how to read English? Cuz, I was assuming that you do. (My bad.) Where on earth did you find that premise ... that all murders are inherently notable? You really gotta fill me in on that. I don't see it anywhere and, in fact, it's quite the opposite of my position. So, I really very much want to know where you "found" that premise in my argument. My guess is that you yourself injected it (i.e., to create a red herring), but I will be fair and give you an opportunity to respond. (Geez, which I bet he won't do.) Or, are you really suggesting that I am suggesting that each and every murder that occurs in the USA and in the world for that matter, should be included in Wikipedia? Is that your line of reasoning ... that you reasonably believe this? Wow. I am gonna guess that there are -- what -- 8 zillion murders that have occurred over time. And you reasonably have concluded that my position is that all of them are notable? Interesting thought process you have (or, rather, lack thereof). And -- of course, as would be expected -- you in no way addressed the substance of my post ... that it is difficult to separate the person (the victim) from the life of that person (the victim's bio). So, let me see if I understand. (1) You completely ignored the substance of my posting ... (2) out of whole cloth, you interjected of your own doing some "offensive" (and unreasonable) premise that is not even there to begin with ... (3) and you reasonably embrace a bizarre position that I am advocating for every murder to be included. Do I have that all straight, so far? And this is a "reply", how exactly? Unreal. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I will say that Rooot is right that not all murders are inherently notable, though I agree that it doesn't mesh with what Joseph was saying. To your comments, Joseph, it comes down to this problem: is the event or the victim or the event the notable topic worthy of inclusion? I believe it is the event, not the victim, if that event has had significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If it is the event, then the title of the article *does* matter, because the title indicates that the article be about the event and significant factors contributing to it. This means that, beyond a description of the name, age, and other facts about the victim that relate to the murder, no other biographical material is necessary. If a college student is murdered, it is not necessary to know what high school she went to, where she was born, etc. since that adds nothing to an article on the event. Take a look at the depth of biographical coverage in the Good Article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann to see what I mean. So the title change is significant, and the biographical content is mostly unnecessary. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely get your point. But, it's all really just a matter of semantics. If someone types in "Natalee Holloway" ... there will be a redirect to "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". So, by default, the name of the article really is simply "Natalee Holloway" if typing that will get you there (redirect or not). It's all rather silly. What would be the name of the Richard Speck article? I think common sense would be "Richard Speck". Why add this silly layer of semantic confusion and call it "the murderous events committed by Richard Speck" ...? Just seems silly. Lee Harvey Oswald -- whoever heard of him? So, his article should be "the alleged assassin of JFK" ...? No, anyone who wants to read about Lee Harvey Oswald is pretty much going to type in Lee Harvey Oswald. And, again, back to the original question ... I am not convinced that a simple name change will satisfy those who want Eve Carson deleted. Their basic claim is that any random murder -- like hers -- is not notable. Their claim is not that the article is mis-titled. As I said above, that's is why these are brought to an AFD as opposed to mere dialogue on a Talk Page. And again, separating a person/victim from a person's life/bio is perhaps admirable ... but practically untenable. Which biographical facts are pertinent to the event, and which are not? Slippery slope. Is it "relevant" that Carson was Class President? No, not relevant to the crime per se. But, yes, relevant to who the victim was. So, again, if bio info is pared down to "only that relevant to the event", we will be getting police style reports that say nothing substantive about the victim at all. Is it relevent that Carson was from North Carolina? No. Is it releveant that she was 22? No. Is it relevant that she was a pre-med major? No. None of the bio facts are relevant to the event of the murder per se. But, you delete all that and what are you left with? ... "some victim (we don't really even need the name, actually) was murdered at such and such place and such and such time ... The event went down as follows ... blah blah blah." I see what you're saying. I'd like to see the hurdle cleared on random victims getting murdered, making a lot of press, and whether or not -- finally -- this is or is not Wiki "notable". Your attempts are a start, of course. I am just filling in some feedback and input. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree that the title change alone is meaningless, but it needs to be coupled with a change in focus of the content. Media coverage in these instances is actually of the crime, not the victim. In which case, nothing more substantive about the victim is required. The name, age and job of the victim are likely to be notable, particularly in the case of Eve Carson. I don't think we would ever obtain consensus by saying that the full biography of the victim is immediately encyclopaedic because a crime has been committed, because I can't see that it is. Even if large scale bios of victims are done in the press, they are essentially still reporting the crime itself, meaning the victim is only notable because of one event. Hence an article on the crime, not the victim are required. This is the fundamental difference between Eve Carson and Natalee Holloway - the former is largely a description of her life and the memorial that followed, the latter (never nominated for AfD, you'll notice) exclusively covers her disappearance. The arguments at AfD are, I believe, about content since the material in Eve Carson is non-notable Fritzpoll (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not meaningless. If the article says "Natalee Holloway", then it's reasonable to assume it's a biography. But it's not. It presumably has some relevant biographical info. But the article is about "Disappearance of Natalie Holloway", because that's the notability of the story, not Holloway herself. Same principle applies to the Carson story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to WP:N

For the section on an article about a crime, a link to WP:N should exist but there should also be emphasis on Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. News articles appear just after a murder but we don't know until later if the event is notable. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - I will edit that in later - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So do we wait until we're sure an event is notable before creating an article on it? How long do we wait? Chuck (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people need to take a step back on how they interpret notable

We were seeing it on the AFD, and we are seeing it here. Some editors are taking the Eve Carson case and analyzing the facts, then deciding it's notability. Notability has NOTHING TO DO with what happened in the case, who Carson was, how many murders happen, or anything like that. It only has to do with the coverage and public attention given. If my pet rock was a #1 story on cnn and new york times for a few weeks, then the story of my pet rock would have an article, no matter how dumb this seems. If we can't get passed this issue, then we can't get to the tougher real issue, which is how to measure the difference in notability between murders (considering just about all murders have some level of media coverage). AFD discussions on these murders are particularly unique for a few reasons. Most AFDs have deletes votes for one of three reasons: 1. The editor doesn't know anything about the subject and believes it not to be notable. 2. The editor can't find any reliable sources on the subject and hence believes it not to be notable. 3. The subject can and should be covered in another article. In the case of Eve Carson... just about everyone knows who she is and the story of her death. There are endless 3rd party reputable sources reporting this, and she wouldn't fit within the realm of any other article. But... editors are analyzing the facts of the case then deciding themselves that its not all that interesting? When did this become how we decide notability?Gwynand (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - notability is established by third-party, reliable sources. In this case, my proposal is that this be interpreted as saying that the event, rather than the victim is notable, because the media coverage is actually of the event, not some notable activity by the victim. I'm trying to avoid making this specific to Eve Carson, so I'd be interested in your comments on my suggested answer to the problem Fritzpoll (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with nearly 100% of what Gwyand states above. No time for further comment at the moment. Just want to register my sentiment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrary Break

Some comments. First on the semantics of the article title. I think I agree that it is just semantics to an extent. The problem is that when it comes to posing arguments and coming to consensus (the very core of wikipedia) these semantics can be very important. I’ll try to be general and not just rely on the Carson case, but for that AFD we have so many voting and saying “outside of this crime she was completely lacking notability” and they would be right. However it stops there, they give a delete vote and go on with their day. Many arguments—legal and otherwise—are based on the semantic little ways everything is presented. So while I agree that in the end the title is probably unimportant, I don’t think it is wise to discount the importance of identifying exactly what we are discussing now, and the title comes in to play there. One thing I think Fritz is doing here is trying to clearly establish rules for when and if there should be an article on the crime, and when there can be further separate articles on perps and victims. In the example of JFKs death, there are probably 10 individual articles on people involved who are notable for no other reason than there involvement (Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, etc). The reasons for this are clear… over the years there was massive and intensively detailed info reported on all the individuals to warrant individual analysis of each. The phenomenon of the Amy Smarts, the McCanns, the Carsons, and the Holloways of the world is that their notability is essentially decided upon by the media. Circumstances of all these abductions/deaths are quite normal—there will be no famous court cases or policy changes to come from any of these. What this all means that over the years it will be less likely for detailed looks into their lives that don’t have to do with their abductions. They will always be connected to their cases, but people like say the Unabomber, or Charles Manson, would almost definitely have been notable without the media deciding so, and hence of some natural interesting aspects of their lives not connected to their crimes that will be covered publicly in some way. So I hope I am getting at something here… which is this: someone like say Mark David Chapman is notable only for killing John Lennon… but he is inherently notable for having done this. The media doesn’t need to prove this to us, nor do they need to interpret his importance. The world became fascinated with him not only for the murder but for who he was, and hence sources come up reporting on Mark David Chapman the man. That’s why there is John Lennon and Death of John Lennon and Mark David Chapman. In the cases of the Holloways and Carsons of the world, there is really nothing inherently notable about the crime. The public isn’t demanding to know what Eve Carson grew up doing, or what her possibly killer grew up doing. For lack of a better way of putting it, the murder was routine, but the media made it notable. We don’t currently have any public demand for info outside of the events of the murder, hence this is why they will probably only require the single encyclopedic article. This might be long-winded, but I hope it starts to explain how I see the differences in these various crimes. Gwynand (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Something you need to keep in mind is that Carson being the class president is significant in why there was such media coverage. The complainants keep saying that shootings happen every day, and that's true. But your typical murder doesn't grab the heartstrings of an entire campus. So while Carson may not have been "notable" prior to the murder, in the eyes of the complainants, who she was is inherently part of the story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And this all gets back to my original sentiment ... it is virtually (not totally, but virtually) impossible to separate the victim from the victim's bio when writing an article about the event and -- lo and behold -- the victims of the event. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Might I suggest that biographic details of victims that add to the notability of the event are important, but every detail of everything done before is not necessarily so. As an example: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - this is a similar event in that there was immense media coverage, but the biographical details are slim. It was important to know some details of her appearance, because they were unusual and oft-quoted. Her age was clearly significant as well. In the case of Eve Carson, her position within her college adds notability to the article. But details such as her place of birth, her high school, things she's said, etc. start to make the article into a memorial or an obituary. I am not suggesting all biographical info is excluded, but only including what is relevant; I wouldn't like to see these articles overrun with irrelevant biographical detail - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope of WP:NOT#NEWS

First, I want to say that I like the general idea of this draft guideline--I think having articles such as Murder of Eve Carson, with Eve Carson being just a redirect, is more in line with existing policies and guidelines than either keeping Eve Carson as an article on its own or a wholesale deletion, and I think this guideline nicely clarifies that.

But as to the topic I wanted to address, I'm getting the feeling that there's some confusion about just what WP:NOT#NEWS prohibits as far as such articles go, and perhaps this guideline would be an appropriate place to clarify that as well. Some people point to WP:NOT#NEWS as justification for a deletion of this type of article, but upon closer reading I'm not sure that's supported. "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The second quoted sentence is important, I think, in that it gives examples of the sort of thing which is considered "routine" and should not have articles about them. It means we shouldn't have articles on East Baptist Church Social of July 8, 2007 (Podunk, Iowa), New York Rangers vs. Buffalo Sabres, March 10, 2008 Hillary Duff's 5th DUI arrest, or Powerball drawing of February 9, 2008, even if they did have reliable independent secondary sources. But it seems to me that murders, even those receiving far less coverage than Eve Carson's, are well outside the examples of "routine" news given in WP:NOT#NEWS. Chuck (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. In the AFD, some were making the "Not News" argument with no explanation or indication they even understand what it means. It's almost like saying we shouldn't have reported on Sept 11th because its already covered in the "news".Gwynand (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. As far as I can see, this guideline is to exclude things that might only be picked up by a local newspaper, or not receive regular or continuous coverage. It's essentially covered by WP:N - notability is typically satisfied by a number of independent, reliable, third-party sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Archived discussion

The proposal has now matured sufficiently for a wider debate - I have hived off the existing discussion that got us to where we were at this page. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I took a day or so off, and came back to re-read your proposal. There is one thing wrong / misleading in the way that it is presented. You list the following breakdown: (1) when the victim is otherwise notable, the victim can get an article ... (2) when the perpetrator is otherwise notable, the perpetrator can get an article. And you do not address the key issue of what happens when either party is not notable independent of this one event / crime. Which, if you recall, is what prompted this whole discussion / process to begin with. Yes, it is somewhat buried in the next section called "how to title an article" ... but that is misleading. Your categories might be: (1) the victim is otherwise notable, by policy we do such and such; (2) the perpetrator is otherwise notable, by policy we do such and such; and ADD IN (3) when neither is notable independent of this one crime event, by policy we do such and such. It's a more logical outline, and more conducive to the discussion. Your current outline discusses #1 and then #2 ... skips #3 altogether ... and then goes into the minutiae of how to correctly label an article (in which #3 is buried almost as an after-thought). And #3 is the very core and essence of these contentious debates! The whole idea / question is ... what do we do when someone is not really notable, except when they become some victim of a random crime and their story dominates the news ( ... i.e., the #3 category) ...? Please re-structure to address this missing component. I mean, it's buried in there --- just make it more visible and vital to the outline. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I think you lost something from the first paragraph, so I moved it down to below the heading regarding articles on participants. I think the section now covers all three cases, and suggests that biography articles are only created when the participant is notable for something else -Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I am thinking about all this. Do we even need the #1 and the #2 category at all? If they are otherwise notable, they are getting a Wiki article anyway. So, what is the point of the #1 and #2 category at all? If either (victim / perpetrator) is already independently notable, there is no debate that they merit an article. Why re-create / repeat that policy already in place? It is #3 that we are really here to try to decipher. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

A good point, but there are more criteria for inclusion for perpetrators of crime that are proposed. As such I didn't want to imply that they don't get their own article if they are also criminals. Just seemed...neater, somehow. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deference to WP:BIO

This guideline defers to WP:BIO in regard to individual notability for victims and criminals. I (and I expect other editors as well) am uncomfortable with such broad inclusion in that almost any heinous crime will involve some sources discussing the victim's life in detail. I think a stricter rule than BIO for victims may be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you prefer the criteria for inclusion further down the page? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but it isn't that relevant given that the part above allows them separate articles just based on BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I will edit the guideline to reflect this Fritzpoll (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it now? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

Should I leave it here in my userspace, or would it be better if moved to, say Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Perpetrators section

There are generaly two people involved in any criminal act: the perpetrator and the victim. Regardless of how we may feel about the perpetrator, he/she is the only one covered under our very stringent guideline called biography of living persons. Unfortunately, unless the crime did not involve death of the victim, the victim by definition is not covered under BLP (L stands for living). I would feel much better about this proposal if/when the perpetrator section was updated to include some very strong wording/warnings regarding anybody that is only an alleged perpetrator v. someone that is found guilty in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is crucial here. I personally find it incredibly distasteful to start an article about a "cold blooded killer" until that person's respective trial is completed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about the latter - could you perhaps add the text yourself? Otherwise I'll look like some form of dictator! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who am I kidding? :) I scribbled out a paragraph based on your comments, and would appreciate feedback. But do feel free to edit the article yourself! Would it make it easier for people to edit this if it were in project space rather than user space? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Cold-blooded killing" and such stuff as that does not belong in wikipedia. "Just the facts, Sir or Madam." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Same concerns about convictions. One recent (Dec) to-do I was involved in was about Martha Stewart. It was claimed that reporting her well-publisized conviction was against BLP! Perhaps, it could be included that a felony conviction is presumed to be notable, IF the person already has an article. Another recent discussion was about Boris Berezhovsky. There his trials can't take place until he returns to Russia. Here I'd say that the most notable accusations can be included. In short I think that the guideline proposal should make clear that convictions are important for establishing notablity, and fleeing justice may be similarly interpreted. Thanks. Smallbones (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with reporting in a neutral fashion any criminal charges and the outcome of same.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Burk

I have posted a reference to this page on the deletion-request page for Lauren Burk and invited participants there to comment here. These are similar media-driven stories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with me, let's discuss it in a human manner. Don't take a heavy handed approach while hiding behind others. At least you have the courtesy to open your discussion page to edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.210.167 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above was presumably addressed to me, but is too vague to make any sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unusual crime

I think one of the dividing lines for inclusion should be the commonness of the crime. Someone getting killed and the perpetrator caught a few days later happens all to often to be notable enough for inclusion. While someone disappearing with controversy surrounding the investigation and suspects and the case dragging on for years doesn't happen often and therefore is more notable. Stated at WP:BIO: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." If something like this isn't included in the proposed policy somewhere I feel most articles will just come in conflict between it WP:ONEEVENT. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So how can we vaguely quantify this? Is it to do with the amount of media coverage happening over a significant period of time? The reason the guideline currently stipulates coverage at a national or global level is that I assumed (perhaps rashly) that the type of crime you describe would only receive local coverage, and this would help exclude it. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that does cover most of it just not cases of MWWS as well as people that are tied to celebrities through one event. Though, I can't think of a real way quantify it, we would need some very specific wording on it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this will be the crux of the problem. This guideline will prevent biographical articles of victims, and hopefully guide the content to reflect that, sad as it is, the victim is not notable. I'm wary of trying to be overprescriptive in words, and I think more participation is needed because I'm not certain a consensus yet exists on these matter, especially inclusion of MWWS articles - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certain that there isn't consensus on these kinds of subjects as the Burk and Carson AFDs show but participation can only help the issue. I'm rather new at the policy discussing, but I will try. This was just the first thing to come to my mind. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree--what aspects of a crime make it unusual or not are highly subjective and will be hotly argued in an AFD, leaving us back where we are now. To use Eve Carson as an example, those who support inclusion would argue that the murder of a student body president at a major university is highly uncommon, while those favoring deletion would argue that that is not a relevant criterion. I favor a criterion more like what is currently there, "mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope." While one might argue that the media give undue weight to certain events (and frankly I'd agree with this), at least it's a more objective standard, and closer to the general notability guideline. Chuck (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. The core of the deletionist arguments appear to be "I don't care what USAToday and CNN think, I don't think it's notable." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right Chuck, but I feel the difference in subjectivity wouldn't be much. When I was thinking usual I was thinking along the lines of the criminal act itself rather then the subjects. Like an odd/novel way to rob a bank. Maybe a distinction could be made between murders and other crimes. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Chuck and Baseball Bugs say above. Ultimately, we let others (reliable sources) determine what is / is not notable. (That's their job, not ours.) Then, we write it up. Whether or not we agree with the notability conferred upon an event by reliable sources is another issue altogether. We cannot say "Well, all of the major news media consider this notable, but I disagree with their assessment." That is the height of pomposity and the very opposite of objectivity. All of these contentious debates (Eve Carson, Lauren Burk, Jessie Davis, etc.) pretty much boil down to that argument. "Yes, it's all over the news, but I don't agree that it should be!" Well, who cares what you think? If it's made to be notable, then it's notable ... regardless of whether or not you agree. And regardless of how/who/when such notability was conferred. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

This page in a nutshell

I've boldly added a "this page in a nutshell" section. I'm not particularly tied to the wording, though, so have at it! Chuck (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it! :) A good summary Fritzpoll (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If the nutshell is representative of the proposal, I gladly support it in any voting. Kushal 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-criminal events?

Just a thought--it seems to me like this guideline might be well-applied to some non-criminal events as well, but I'm not sure whether the guideline is easily rewritten to accommodate these without becoming excessively wordy. Possible examples:

• A widely reported and covered missing person case, where the disappearance did not involve a crime (or where it's unclear whether the disappearance is the result of a crime).
• A widely reported suicide. (I was going to use Bud Dwyer as an example here, but after reading the article he'd probably be notable due to the scandal even without his suicide. Still, one can imagine a highly-publicized suicide of an otherwise unnotable person to which this guideline might apply.)
• A widely reported fatal but non-criminal accident.

Thoughts? Chuck (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to rewrite this to accomodate this point of view. This would essentially become "Notability (isolated incidents)", presumably? I don't think there's a justification at present for such an all-encompassing guideline, whereas the AfDs demonstrates that there is a problem that needs to be solved in the criminal domain. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think we need to encompass every scenario that may occur. In the examples cited above, missing persons cases usually wind up being criminal cases ... whether or not an official suspect is criminally charged. I mean, think about it, how often does someone go "missing", really? The Drew Peterson case is a good case. The wife is merely missing ... but certainly there is grave criminal suspicion and the police/public are operating under the assumption that she met with a crime. It would be a rare case that someone really is "missing". Also, suicides are crimes anyway. And a suicide would probably be only widely reported in the news if it were a notable person anyway, no? I can't imagine a non-notable person getting national news for a suicide? The third case (accident) would also get notable coverage on its own, I would imagine. So, yes, to keep things tight (and relevant), I think it's the criminal stuff that needs to be addressed at the moment. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Hmmmm. I actually can think of a non-notable person committing suicide, now that I think more about it. There was that guy (name?) who was ill and wanted to commit suicide and did so with the aid of Jack Kevorkian ... and I almost want to say that he made a video and it was broadcast on 20/20 or so? So, yes --- conceivably a non-notable person can commit a notable suicide. That is so rare, however. Crimes happen every day of the week ... and these contentious crime articles prompted Fritzpoll's policy proposal. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, can someone answer the question I keep asking - should this article be in project space rather than on my user page? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep it in your userspace until you are very satisfied with the wording on the page. It should be moved to Project space when it's ready to be judged/accepted/rejected/whatever by the community at large. If you think that's now, go for it! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to project space

I plan to move this to project space over the weekend in an effort to garner more support from the community at large. Before then I would like to perform a quick proofread/copyedit, and cite a few more examples, a source for which I may have found over at the village pump. Any objections, get them in quick! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am content, as is. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Upon reading (and rereading), I also support a move to project space. It may still be rejected and or merged with other established guidelines, but it's time to move it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not experienced in this particular aspect of notability, and I haven't participated in any of the AfDs that are the subject of this proposed guideline; I've only become aware of this issue after having a somewhat tangential discussion with Baseball Bugs (disclaimer: I might not know what I'm talking about :) ). In any case, it seems to be a pretty reasonable guideline, and as an uninvolved party, support moving it into project space. How it turns out in the end is anyone's guess, but hopefully it will lead to consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I've thought of. Maybe it would be a good idea to state in the proposed guideline that it's generally preferable (or perhaps required) to have sources other than Fox or CNN (and the like)? It appears that there are concerns that the stories some of these media outlets carry aren't always notable (like car chases in LA); this might help to allay some of these concerns. From my experience, print media is generally much less "info-tainment-y" than the 24-hour news channels. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Those "concerns" are strictly personal opinions of the editors that have no basis in anything else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS

I'm sorry that I'm joining this discussion a little late. I think there's a very strong need for a guideline in this area and I hope a consensus can be achieved concerning these types of articles, but I'm afraid this guideline will fall short of the mark.

There was a discussion a few days ago concerning WP:NOT#NEWS, but I think it missed the point. Yes, that policy is intended to prevent articles about church socials and Powerball drawings, but the most important part — the first sentence — was glossed over:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.

In today's 24-hour news environment, there's a need for news outlets to produce attention-getting stories that usually have no historic notability. In two years, or maybe even two weeks, few people outside the immediate family will remember the story.

The true difficulty is separating the wheat from the chaff. Unless a guideline can help editors distinguish between crime stories that are likely to gain traction and have historical notability and those that will be flashes in the pan, I'm afraid it may not be very helpful. I wish I could be more optimistic, because I really want to stop debating the same issues at AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can this perhaps be done carefully by restricting the definition of notability? The guideline already limits scope to sources of national or global scope in an attempt to hold back a tide of local news stories. Further restrictions mght limit the effect you're talking about. I don't think this guideline will ever resolve all AfDs, but I think it can limit the scope of the discussion so that it is less polarised - in essence, there is suddenly a middle ground to argue on. With a debate necessarily limited in scope, consensus on individual articles may be easier to reach. What are your opinions on this? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I offer a suggestion? If the intention of this proposed guideline is to establish the notability of crimes that receive intense media attention, you may need to propose changing WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NTEMP.

On the other hand, if this proposed guideline is intended to complement current policy and guideline without contradicting them, I think this guideline should acknowledge them. I've drafted a short section that could be included after the section titled "Notability of criminal acts". Here's a very rough sketch of what it might say:

Historical notability

Editors should bear in mind that intense media coverage alone does not confer notability on a criminal act. Wikipedia policy requires editors to consider the "historical notability of persons and events" and its notability guideline suggests that a short burst of news reports about a criminal act does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.

Editors should consider carefully whether today's news — even if it is the subject of national or global coverage — will be notable tomorrow.

I know that doesn't make this proposed guideline as straight-forward as it might otherwise be, but I think it acknowledges that the current policy and guideline still apply. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tricky one - there's clearly a need to acknowledge existing policy, and this is done in part by a link to WP:NOT#NEWS in the text. If it were to include a line relating to the "short-burst of coverage" issue (including relevant policy links), would this, in conjunction with the limitations of scope already made on the sourcing of information satisfy this issue without necessarily making the guideline over-prescriptive? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this guideline would have changed my "vote" in past AFDs. I argued "delete" on the basis of WP:BIO1E. If this guidance had been in place I would have chosen "keep". I think most "delete" votes from other editors were on that same basis and I suspect that all would have switched to "keep". The notability of the event is usually not in question; it's just the issue of "one event". I applaud the author of this proposal for finding a way to reduce future controversy. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice feedback, thank you! :) Always good to know that I'm not just respouting existing policy! Fritzpoll (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have anything against crime-related articles except that they seem to me to be contrary to current policy. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tightened notability criteria

I have made some potentially controversial additions to the "Notability of criminal acts" section, and would like some comments prior to moving to Project space. These additions have been driven by comments here and at the Village Pump. They may be too restrictive (or too wordy), but they're worth discussing Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it; I do think having tighter criteria for sourcing will help defuse a lot of the problems with AfDs. It should give a reasonably clear "measuring stick" during these debates. Good work. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I like this addition as well and I feel it's good, not too restrictive or wordy. It states pretty clearly what's constitutes national coverage. Two very minor points, I think a stronger word than "implies" should be used in the second paragraph, something like requires/states/means/denotes/indicates. And in the third paragraph should avoid using the word independent coverage, some people may confuse that with independent sources. I think it's entirely plausible that a criminal act which gains national attention is tied to a news agency, while their coverage of that event would be independent of other news agencies it wouldn't be a independent source. Maybe a word like exclusive/separate/unique would do. Maybe I'm thinking way too much about it and I'm the only one who'd get confused by it. Despite those two things, I support moving to the project space. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments per your comments, but I wasn't sure what you meant by your last statement. If you can clarify, or change the text yourself, feel free! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically I wanted to separate the word "Independent" with any word like coverage or report because it might confuse someone reading it as a synonym to "Independent source". Which has it's own meaning around here. At the same time I was trying to say that if criminal act is tied to a News Agency (large or small) it's own coverage of it shouldn't be applicable for the criterion. But I realize now that's just how WP:RS is going to interact with this policy and it doesn't need to be specifically stated. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha! I've left one use of independent in there, because I think it matches the Wiki definition, but I've changed the other to be explicitly "separately" although "individually" might be better...(agonises, then leaves it open for discussion). Thanks for the comments to my talk page too! - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as it is now. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be included in WO:BIO

While the advice given here appears reasonable, I think that a brief entry at WP:BIO and consideration in the Manual of Style are prefered solutions. There is no reason for adding yet another page to the already complicated notability infrastructure. I can see that the author is working with the best possible motivation here, but the unforseen consequences of WP:CREEP outweigh the benefit. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I did consider this, but there were reasons why I left it separate:

• It deals with a very specific class of articles, where a problem is easily identified (some examples given in the guideline - more can be supplied)
• WP:BIO is already complex and lengthy. Adding more to it would appear the violate the spirit of WP:CREEP, which is to prevent the increasing complexity of instructions
• To these ends, there is no need to confuse people reading WP:BIO by flooding it with suggestions that aren't relevant to most biographical articles

A standalone document allows the guideline to focus on a very specific set of problems, which will prevent instruction creep. By placing it in a general guideline, I think the temptation will be to expand its scope. I think the problem described needs to be addressed (and we have a loose consensus for this) but I am wary of integrating this guideline elsewhere for precisely the reasons you state. I welcome further comment on this issue, however Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning for keeping it as a separate article, but that raises another question: Where should there be a link to this new guideline? Somewhere in the main Notability page? In the Bio page? (as part of One event?) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know what language WO:BIO is written in? :) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, in Wolof :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Any idea what it says? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's saying something along the lines of "This page does not exist" but I'm not sure... Fritzpoll (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was ok to be in the {{notabilityguide}} template, but it may, at some point, need further links, and perhaps a suitable abbreviation? Fritzpoll (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see (said the blind man to his deaf wife). Yes, in the template is prob enough. How about WP:CRIME? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I do it now, or is it too soon? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRIME has already been taken by a wikiproject, who have also commandeered WP:CRIMINAL Fritzpoll (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:INFAMY? Not great but at least it's not already taken. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, this is gonna be officially the most difficult page to shortcut to, with WP:ACT and WP:NC. How about, WP:FELONY, WP:ILLEGAL, and WP:SCANDAL? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I like WP:FELONY, so I've linked that one through Fritzpoll (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent because I can't type that many colons>My $.02, I'm actually not a big fan of WP:FELONY being the shortcut, although it is memorable, it is also presumptive. Not all "criminal acts" that may be covered by this guideline are felonies. Again, for me anyway, it comes back to a presumption of innocence. Also, this guideline may eventually evolve to include mysterious disappearances and missing persons. Felony, in that sense, is a little bit peacocky. What about WP:N/CA, with a hatnote at WP:NCA that says "NCA redirects here. Did you mean notability (criminal acts)? Using a / is not unheard of, for example the WP:LOCE project uses several -- WP:LOCE/C, WP:LOCE/R, others. Also, WP:AN/I. It wouldn't be that foreign to remember. Any thoughts? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm happy with anything, really, provided it is memorable Fritzpoll (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it. I actually see another good reason for it. If you type WP:N/CA, and then click on the small font that says redirected from WP:N/CA, you can from there, get back to the general notability guideline (that I'll presume this will be linked from/to). IMO, it legitimizes this in a similar way to WP:MUSIC or WP:ATHLETE shortcuts. Just my opinion though. Do you want me to revert myself, or would you like me to delete the WP:FELONY redirect? (I'm admin). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You can wipe the WP:FELONY if you want to. Thanks :) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Should explain that details of crime don't matter

As we have seen in many arguments against inclusion of these articles, some editors ignore ruling purely on notability and start to take in details of the case to explain why it supposedly isn't notable. I think there should be explicit wording in this guideline/policy to describe that, something to the tune of "Specific details of crimes and their perceived uniqueness should never be used as a decider for inclusion. The most basic and routine crimes should be included if they meet the notability guidelines above. Likewise, the crimes perceived as unique and very interesting may not be included if they don't meet these guidelines." Thoughts? Gwynand (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By specifying the criteria for inclusion, I think this naturally specifies what the criteria for conclusion are not, simply by the act of omission. Anything else may run the risk of being over-wordy and open to more interpretation Fritzpoll (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, but the goal of this policy is to simplify rules of inclusion and heavily trim those long AfD debates. As is, the policy has some very good points, but is so general that it arguably adds very little to wp:note. We are writing this up because of the modern phenomenon of media obsession of otherwise routine deaths/dissapearances. I think some wording addressing the major issue might be helpful. Just look at the section below... it is proposed that random missing blondes are inherently not notable, but Shannon Matthews is because of the claim that it was the biggest missing persons search ever. We are trying to avoid these distinctions that don't have anything to do with notability.Gwynand (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "routine" murder. Every case is different. There are patterns, true. But there are patterns to serial killers also. There was no practical difference between the BTK guy and Ted Bundy. Yet somehow they are considered "notable"? And why is that? Only one reason: Intense media coverage. The only reason we know or care about Jack the Ripper is due to so-called "Fishwrap" news. Thus belying the capriciously and arbitrarily applied "Not News" policy that the deletionists fall back on when they personally don't like something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

I personally think that no article about a news story should exist if it doesn't put it into historical perspective. For example, your random missing pretty white girl shouldn't. But if there's something noteworthy about it, e.g. biggest X in Y years, it's still brought up a decade or so after it happens, then sure, it'd be fine. An example, and I'm quoting local knowledge here, is Shannon Matthews. 9-year old kid goes missing about 10 miles from where I live, she's found a month after. Now, the only coverage that got in even the local newspapers was a regular appeal in the papers, in conjunction with the local shops putting up similar posters. Nothing noteworthy there. However, the search for her turned out to be the biggest since Peter Sutcliffe, 30 years ago. Now that shows noteworthiness, folks. Will ^(talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s funny that we posted so close in time to one another, because it appears we are arguing virtually opposite points. It technically doesn’t matter that Matthews was the biggest missing persons case. This may have been why she became notable, but it’s not why she is notable. She is notable because there is an overwhelming amount of coverage on her since her discovery. We need to distinguish these whole things, it’s the whole concept of notability. It’s not up to us to decry the phenomenon of the random pretty white girl coverage, these cases are notable because of the coverage, period. Gwynand (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The random missing pretty girl syndrome is a noteworthy trend in itself, and therefore anything connected with it is automatically noteworthy also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, a syndrome is notable, (not being disputed) and therefore everyone connected to the syndrome is automatically notable?. A stretch at best. See WP:NOT#INHERITED. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say I'd disagree that this makes someone "automatically notable". Just a few minutes ago Bugs you made the point that something is notable only for "intense media coverage", which I happen to agree with. This contradicts that. You seem to be all over the place... please wp:agf in these discussions, we are trying to constructively get somewhere. Gwynand (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I am trying to flush out the inherent ambiguities and self-contradictions in the deletionists' arguments. The "notability" and "not news" rules are being applied capriciously and arbitrarily, strictly on the basis of the whims of the editors at that particular moment. Until that issue is addressed, there is no fixing this ongoing problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... we probably agree on this. What does this have to do with your comment about something being inherently notable due to missing white girl syndrome? In my opinion you are coming off as very confusing on many of these points, even though you appear to agree with many of us. Gwynand (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To point out the self-contradiction in the editor's citing of some alleged and presumably notable and citable syndrome, while claiming that specific elements of said syndrome are somehow not notable. This has nothing to do with personal attacks, it has to do with trying to get people to think about what they're saying, and to maybe, somehow, possibly, reach some common and consistent ground, which is why this new page was started in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Blah. This is why you are being so cryptic. Blonde white girls getting kidnapped isn't new or notable. The intense media coverage and cherry picking of certain cases may be, and that is causing a problem with AfDs. Two entirely different things. Maybe in the future there will be an article on this topic. I was simply pointing out why our discussion on notability are so important now. As shown in the AfDs, many many editors can't believe that these cases are notable and are trying to decide on their own that they are not... against the very concept of notability. I was trying to bring up the issue that we need to address these editors specifically. Gwynand (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet I can find you plenty of citations that it is notable. And who are the wikipedia editors to decide that standard news sources are not to be used when they don't like the story? "I don't like it" is not a defense. Yet it's the core of all these arguments. And it is unfixable until the light comes on and the editors understand that fact. See ya. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea-- we can cover the missing pretty girl as long as we give enough weight to say, the missing ugly black boy who was at the top of his class and has been missing for 10 years. My main problem is that as to satisfy NPOV, we should give equal amount of weight even if the media doesn't. As in "Amercan Idiot" -- even if the country is ruled by the media Wikipedia shouldn't. Editorofthewiki 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re to Gwynand: I know there's been a resurgence in the media, it's to be accepted if she's found. I'm arguing that the "biggest search in 30 years" adds historical perspective, which we need. I forgot to mention, her disappearance did get the front page for a day or two after, but it went down to poster appeals after that. Will ^(talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth ... Baseball Bugs usually has some very cogent points. I wish people would listen to / read / digest what he says. Sometimes, unjustly, he is dismissed out of hand. That's my two cents. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Reverted edits by JzG

I removed some text added by Jzg. The paragraph relating to covering the event not the person was, I felt, adequately and concisely explained earlier in the guideline. Simimlarly, the "news aggregator" comment - I see what you meant, but again, what constitutes a source has been a subject of debate here, and is partly covered by the existing text. I think that an additional paragraph like this one was somewhat blunt and confusing in context. Perhaps a discussion of whether this text is sufficiently restrictive is what is necessary? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted as well. If there is no discussion, there is no inclusion at this point, imo. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The p[oint of guideliens is that they reflect current practice, not shape some new intended current practice. The text I put in reflect current policy and practice and explains why it is current practice. The point of WP:BLP1E is that we are an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid aggregator. The crucial difference between notable criminals and non-notable ones is the character and depth of the sources. This should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My only problem is that, where you have placed this paragraph, the paragraph immediately preceding it summarises and points users to WP:BLP1E, which you then more or less quote. I don't see what additional information this paragraph adds? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the contribution to remove redundancy and integrated it into the existing text. Does this still cover everything you wanted said, or have I inadvertently removed something? Fritzpoll (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, I got bad timing. I went to merge the two paragraphs and got an EC, but this is what I had in mind:

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Articles on individuals, especially living individuals, should be drawn from reliable secondary sources. Tabloid stories about a murder victim are not a good basis for a biography, ideal sources are books and scholarly articles offering substantial treatment of the individual and the background for their involvement. Any notability of the crime is not automatically inherited by the victims or perpetrators of such crimes, and articles should not automatically be created on these individuals, in accordance with WP:BLP1E. However, the victims and/or perpetrators of notable crimes may have articles under certain conditions.

I'm posting it here on the off chance that ya two like it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Liked it, stole it, wikified it a bit, included it. Much better than my version Fritzpoll (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Grace period

Since I see it discussed a lot in the various afds I want to add one here. How about a grace period for articles under this guide? This is meant to help establish historical notability. Say something like 2 months, if anyone feels the article isn't quite up to snuff, they can tag it for afd. Now, I'm not proposing a routine tagging of afd after two months as well, we'd have to heavily discourage drive by tagging. Some thoughts? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

An excellent idea, and one which I was arguing for in the Carson and Burk articles, which are probably of equal notability, yet one was retained and one deleted, which illustrates again the capricious, arbitrary, whimsical approach to these types of stories. And which the deletionists will argue against on the grounds that it is not notable at that moment. Which really means they want to kill it immediately, while they have the energy for it, rather than revisiting it later when they might not. They argue that it is not notable at first. They are wrong. They have no way to know whether it is notable, because "wikipedia is not a crystal ball," nor do its editors possess one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, under that theory, the propsed article definitely isn't notable at the earlier moment in time because it hasn't asserted it's notability. There may be many cases where a case does become notable much further down the line, where it would then be appropriate to create an article. I think what we are discussing here are entirely different cases. Gwynand (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea in theory. Although "historical notability" and "two months" in the same sentence seems silly and oxymoronic. I see the point, nonetheless. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

The deletionists were arguing for deletion on the grounds that "in 6 months no one will care." Since they can't possibly know that for a fact, then a 6 month "grace period" would seem to be reasonable. Or 2 months. Or whatever. But unless the deletionists have crystal balls, they can't possibly "know" whether a story will be notable in 6 months. It's just more of the "I don't like it, so let's delete it" stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The deletionists merely delete because they don't like it (first) and then manufacture some weak "reasoning" (second). No doubt about that. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

I think I have to disagree (well, not have to but will!). Notability is not temporary, per policy. An event or individual has to establish their notability before it/they can be included. If a topic is insufficiently notable in hindsight, then it shouldn't have been included to begin with. This isn't arguing from a personal point of view, but from WP:NTEMP - the guideline specifies a particular level of coverage that has to be recieved, and I think that should weed out the newsflashes that WP:NOT#NEWS is trying to avoid, whilst accepting that WP:N currently accepts articles are notable provided they are backed up by reliable third-party sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Notability is defined thus: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." No mention of any timescale. And the fact remains that we cannot tell the future, and we shouldn't have to. If the coverage exists, the article should exist, anything else is original research. But what I think is important, and is brought out in this proposal, it that what the coverage makes notable enough for inclusion is an article about an event, not a biographical article. The endless stream of articles created in good faith purported to be biographical articles, which then stutter and fail, and become as a result of an complete dearth of information, soon to become coatrack articles, then candidates for deletion, is depressing. The whole situation is created purely because people don't realise what they are actually interested in and what is actually being covered in media. Jdcooper (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree here about the proper meaning of the general notabiity criterion. It's the criterion if nothing else applies, not a criterion which overrides everything else. Using it in an overriding sense is mistaking what is only a guideline as being policy. Personally, I think we need an overhaul of the entire concept, the article, and all those depending upon it. But it makes no sense to say that anything at all is suitable for an article if there are two sources. If that is the meaning of "notable" it has no relationship to being suitable or not for an encyclopedia one way or another. That we're an encyclopedia is what is policy. Now, I interpret the coverage of a proper modern online comprehensive general encyclopedia for the 21st century very broadly, but it doesnt depend only on sources. Sources only come into here via WP:V, which is policy--that we need information to write an article. DGG (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that the notability guidelines as they stand could do with some reworking, but I think at the moment that there is no strong community drive to do this yet. Most of this section is ultimately derived from note 6 at WP:N so I didn't think it would be that controversial, but it needed to be restated for the purposes of this guideline. In essence, it was to try to avoid the tabloidism that you are concerned about below, and may be rewritten if a better mechanism can be found. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionably criminal events

What about Natalee Holloway, who disappeared, possibly through a criminal agency, and possibly not? (please don't debate that here). Will this apply to that article? If so, perhaps some phrasing to make that clear is in order. In which case, we should also go back and apply it to others who presumably fell victim to a criminal act, but we are not sure, such as Joseph Force Crater. I would propose adding language like, "A disappearance, in which a criminal investigation took place, is included under the definition of "crime" for purposes of this page, regardless of whether it has been shown that a criminal act was committed."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Although Judge Crater, like Jimmy Hoffa, another one never found, was already presumably a "notable" figure before his disappearance. And you're right, although there is no proof of a crime in the Holloway case, there was definitely a criminal investigation, implying a supposition of crime on the part of the police. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Judge Crater wasn't notable in 1930whatever, I doubt if many trial level court judges such as Crater who have not provided over a notorious case, have their own articles. I don't think an article on any of his colleagues would survive AfD, unless they went on to do something more notable. And there are any number of disappeared people in that category. I suggest that if someone is notable for their disappearance only, that the article be headed "Disappearance of . . . ", if that is what editors want.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You have hit the core of the problem - "What editors want." What good editors should "want" are simply these two things: (1) providing information to the readers and (2) following policy. If the editors can decide arbitrarily that in this case we'll call it "disappearance" and in this other case we'll name it directly after the person, based on what they "want", i.e. their momentary whim, then something's wrong with the policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then let's get this in the policy and then we can all march together. Incidently, I put that phrase in there because I was feeling diffident about my suggestion. I don't usually get involved in matters of WP policy, and didn't want to put my foot in my keyboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffident strokes for diffident folks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Touché.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dumped a new sentence into the very start to allay concerns. Not happy with the wording, so feel free to tidy it up. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Trial

You might like to trial the draft guidelines against this article which is being discussed for deletion. WWGB (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Assuming no sources were found during the AfD, it would probably automatically fail against the guideline. Difficult to assess otherwise because sources aren't listed. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The coverage appears to be wide-spread in Spain (though I don't read Spanish) and the UK. The UK papers are national in scope; the coverage is unique (not just copied from a wire service). I would judge that the event is notable by this guideline. Agreed?

The article lists two ELs which are UK papers; the AFD has Google showing many other papers. Am I missing something? This seems a good test of what the new guideline covers or doesn't cover. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends - the coverage in Spain seems national in scope, or probably is; the Google links are all pointing back to the same website and I can't immediately see their source. If they can be clarified as multiple independent sources of national scope, not all using the same report feed, then yes, the guideline seems to accept. But the UK sources do not seem to me to be particularly useful (see below) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made an addition - I think the UK papers are not actually covering this event; they are actually covering the Madeleine McCann story again. As such, the guideline shouldn't allow this repeat coverage of the old event to confer notability on the new event. I added a sentence or two about this, but please remove it if you feel it is unnecessary Fritzpoll (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct that the UK papers are in essence re-covering the McCann story and that is a good reason for not assigning notability to Cortes. That raises a different question. Let's suppose that the Spanish coverage was national, non-trivial, and from multiple-independent sources - but all are written in Spanish. Let's assume that there is no English coverage. Does the event rate notability in English Wikipedia? Sbowers3 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. Longer answer is "It's an encyclopedia written in English. About the whole world, not just the English." Simple misplacement of an adjective, that's all. In other words, if the sources, other than being in Spanish, pass the independent test, the reliability test, they are OK. Not ideal but OK. The third test, the verifiability test, is the harder one. Just need to learn Spanish though, that's all. Or find someone who does. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Creep

I'm not persuaded that crimes are sufficiently different from other news events to require a special guideline. This then fails WP:CREEP. The real issue is what WP:NOT#NEWS means and why we, in fact, have huge amounts of news coverage here - people seem to write articles about everything that appears in the daily news, e.g. A More Perfect Union. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the issues you raise have been mentioned at the general discussion page Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions, particularly in relation to WP:CREEP. This guideline has a very specific problem that it solves Fritzpoll (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability criteria for Court cases/Trials?

I've often wished that someone had written up a guideline for judging the notability of court cases, I think cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security are pretty easily demonstrated, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elicia Hughes has me scratching my head. Input welcome. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can take a shot at writing one up, if people think there is a need and it doesn't violate WP:CREEP or something.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a guideline with broad community support, but if an experienced wikipedian with some experience with the subject were to start a draft/essay to parallel Wikipedia:Notability (science) for legal cases, I'd find it (and no doubt, the discussion it prompted) very useful. I'm certain there's a bunch of analogs to science citation indices that I know nothing about. Judging the relative notability of legal cases by Ghits and media noise feels pretty shakey. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like too much, BLP1E is for this - what about Jesse James?

Would Jesse James be notable under this? How about John Wayne Gacy? Kenneth Lay? Cordelia Botkin? Betty Broderick? Lawrence § t/e 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since in the various afds and discussions before this, BLP1E is often raised by one side and disregarded by the other stating that newsworthiness is notability. This proposed policy acts to clarify how newsworthiness interacts with notability in the context of criminal acts. Considering that in very similar Carson and Burk afds the former was kept and the latter deleted, this policy is needed. As for the specific cases you've mentioned, James, Gacy, and Lay, they survive for the historic impact their crimes have had besides being generally notable. Botkin and Broderick survive by passing general notability for having good references. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And so ought many others, for having adequate references. The problem is that these references are generally regarded as inadequate based on NOT NEWS as not showing long term notability. There needs a clear statement that though we are not a tabloid,. neither are we only a traditional historical record of major events only. DGG (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to define a tabloid as a non-reliable source for the purposes of determining notability. I think the problem might be in defining "tabloid", but I will have a quick peek Fritzpoll (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this as an inclusion to the section on establishing the notability of criminal acts

Many tabloid newspapers present information in a simplified, over-sensationalised manner. Sources that meet the definition given by Tabloid#As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper, given their recognised tendency for sensationalism, do not meet the standards of reliability required to establish notability of a criminal act in isolation. This does not prohibit their use in articles as sources of information, provided reliable sources can be used to establish notability.

It may need rewording, and the definition of a tabloid may need to be brought into the text, but in principle, what do people think? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My objection was in fact quite the opposite, pointing out the excessive use of NOT TABLOID to reject sources--tabloids are sources of public information, and public interest in an event is part of what makes it encyclopedic, in the sense that people will expect to find information about notable crimes in an encyclopedia, even if they have been informed about it only in a tabloid. I think there's also going to be a problem about definition: is the NY Post a tabloid in the sense suggested? DGG (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The NY Post is definitely a valid source--I'd contest anyone who says otherwise. It's I believe the 2nd or 3rd most circulated newspaper in our nation's largest market, and from their own article here: "The New York Post is the 13th-oldest newspaper published in the United States and the oldest to have been published continually as a daily.[3]" Lawrence § t/e 13:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I was trying to solve a problem that didin't exist with this suggestion. In which case, I suggest sticking with the current defintion. I'm then a bit unsure as to what problem you were identifying, DGG. Perhaps you can clarify? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

3.2 Inclusion of biographical information

I disagree with "The class of articles detailed in the preceding section are meant to be about the event, and not the participants. This means that biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event. The application of this guideline will necessarily vary from article to article and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

The background of the individuals is part of what makes the event notable. We write articles about the event not the participants partly in order not to have the name in the title--that does not mean they are insignificant. DGG (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the Murder of Eve Carson, do quotes from her at school, or the high school she went to, etc. actually contribute to the topic of the article? This is an example of what that particular paragraph is trying to prevent - the creation of an article purporting to be about something that is notable, in order to actually write about a topic that is not. The quoted paragraph does not preclude all information. In the example I give, it is of course essential to know the age of the victim, her position in her college and the college that she attended, but a detailed biography of the victim in this case is not particularly necessary. Notability policy does not, of course, tell us that notability has to extend to related topics within articles on notability, but the contents of this kind of article need to be constrained otherwise an article about the notable crime dissolves into a memorial/obituary/autobiography parading as a notable topic. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in this case, yes they do. that she was prominent in the student body s part of the notability. The nature of the victim can make a crime notable. However, there are indeed many other cases where the bio of the victim is overemphasised for the purpose of pathos. DGG (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, we're not disagreeing. From my statement above ...it is of course essential to know the age of the victim, her position in her college and the college that she attended... - what part of this section that you disagree with is overly restrictive in your view? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of the article do you then find excessive? It seemed to be you were citing it as a bad example. Not arguing with you, just to clarify. DGG (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and referring to the article, I see that it has actually been updated since I last saw it. Nonetheless, I think the funeral/memorial is covered in too much detail. Is there really a necessity for the UNC Chancellor's opinion on her to be in there? Why does her high school matter, or the fact that she was valedictorian? At most, it should cover biographical aspects relating to her role within the college, because that is the relevant part of her life to this article....at least, that's what I'm arguing! Fritzpoll (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?

This is mentioned in WP:AN because it is important and this page isn't seen by many people.

Murder of James Bulger is one example.

Who are we trying to kid? The article is on James Bulger. Adding "murder of" is wikilawyering to try to get James Bulger covered.

Why not delete the George W. Bush article and change it to "Pre-presidential life and presidential life of George W. Bush"? We are just creating episode titles like TV shows.

The debate should be whether a local murder is worthy of an encyclopedia, not banning people's names and wikilawying a compliant title.

BVande (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a proposal for a guideline being considered at the moment that would address titling and content issues like this. Have a look at WP:N/CA for the proposal on criminal acts Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this sort of discussion would be better held at the village pump or on the relevant policy talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with J Mil. There has been so much discussion on this topic in other forums. There are certainly valid non-wikilawyering reasons for having "murder of ...." titles. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with BVande's view of Murder of James Bulger. It is not a biography of Bulger, who does nothing in the article but die. It is about the murderers, the investigation, and the subsequent trial. Those were extensively covered in the national press of the U.K. It's hard to argue that the Manson family murders, Jack the Ripper, O.J. Simpson, and similar cases are not encyclopedic, even if the individuals involved are otherwise non-notable. The Bulger case is far less notorious, but it appears to be sufficiently notable for an article, even if Bulger himself was otherwise non-notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be about the crime entirely, and barely mentions any biographical information at all. In fact, it meets this guidelines proposals for content pretty much completely. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of discussion => no consensus

This proposal has been widely advertised, and yet there are only 15 endorsement/opposition comments on the opinions page. As such, User: Stifle has correctly marked this as rejected. If the community wishes to resurrect this proposal when the next set of AfDs on this matter crop up, it is a simple matter just to change the rejected tag back to the active proposal tag. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is jumping the gun in a big way. I have no argument with the idea that sustained lack of discussion, coupled with few participants = lack of consensus, but two weeks of relative quiet is not lack of discussion and this certainly shouldn't have been tagged as "rejected" with the majority of editors who have commented, voicing their support. Consensus is not an overnight process and affirmative approval is hard to come by (see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus). Moreover, I already see implicit support for this proposal from another source: the fact that it appears to me to codify the ideas that were already approved through consensus by multiple users in prior deletion debates on subjects within this proposal's ambit. The bar is set much lower for stating what is already approved by the community in practice but only now written down, than it is for changing or overriding established policies or processes.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) was proposed on August 1, 2003 and adopted as guideline almost two years later on June 13, 2005. Wikipedia:Notability (web) was proposed on July 2, 2005 and adopted as guideline on December 12, 2005, more than five months later. I posted the first draft of Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) on July 1, 2006 and it was adopted as guideline on February 6, 2007, seven months later. Over that span there were periods of inactivity, followed by a new voice and reinvigorated interest, as well as AfD discussions which mined from the proposal and thus showed use-evidence of consensus.

You posted the first draft of this on March 10, 2008—just a month and 10 days before it was marked as rejected, and I see you didn't start advertising until March 15 (at least that's when you added it to {{Notabilityguide}} and I also see that much of your other advertising efforts were done on March 19. No, this is not rejected, nor historical, nor can we say that it suffers from lack of discussion; not yet. I think it's time to you advertised this in a few more places you didn't try. A Wikipedia:Requests for comment might be useful. Certainly advertising at the Community Portal through a short summary at {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} is appropriate. I'm sure there are others. Meanwhile, I am adding this back to {{cent}} and removing the "sleeping" tag on the guideline page, as I think this was premature (obviously), and this post and my support on the opinions page show activity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me - but as the original author, I was unwilling to unilaterally undo this action in case it resulted from some systematic bias. If you can advertise it around a bit more, that'd be great, as it would look less like me pushing my own personal viewpoint alone. Many thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I was a lot gloomier in talking with Fritzpoll on my talkpage. I should've been more optimistic/patient/long-suffering! I didn't know the lengthy history of the other notabilty guidelines, that is excellent information for future reference. Also, excellent suggestions for crossposting this discussion, places I hadn't thought of. Back to work! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll go advertise this at the community portal and attempt to think of other areas.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} and feel free to modify.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)