Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Podcasts and Online Radio Stations/Programs

I'm surprised to see neither of these mentioned because some prominent people have created podcasts and become famous because of either their popularity or because they are ground-breaking. What is the consensus view here? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Inherent notability of BBC TV Shows

I just cited this essay in an AfD, claiming that any show with a regular series broadcast on BBC One or BBC Two, particularly before about 1990, is inherently notable. The simple fact is, back then in the pre-satellite years, the barrier to getting a regular show on national BBC television was significant, and the BBC had a very high quality control of output, so actually appearing on a regular basis was a major achievement. Most shows were documented in reliable sources such as the national press, or magazines such as the Radio Times, but the majority of these sources are, understandably, offline. What do you all think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia sources don't have to be online to be valid. We can cite stuff to newspaper coverage, magazine articles, books and other content that isn't available online — it becomes a bit harder to access enough sources to write an article with if you have to do offline or archival research, admittedly, but the online or offline status of the sources has no bearing on the topic's eligibility for a Wikipedia article. That's always true for any topic on Wikipedia, for the record, not just for TV shows. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable

Can anyone explain this weirdness? "even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years." For a non-expert like me this sounds like a joke. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• What "sounds like a joke" about it, exactly? Class D stations are "unprotected", which means they can be forced off the air if another company wins a license to launch another station on the same frequency — see, frex, CHEV (AM). So if a class D station fights back against a displacement order, and gets media coverage for that, then...do you see where this is going now? Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Films from countries that made them and TV show airdates

I want a new rule about films and TV shows that from the countries that made them. The films from a country that made them should have the releases dates on the year of films, not from a country that first released a film, as seen on 2013 in film. It would confuse every signal reader that remembered the first release date from a country that made them.

The TV shows that are from various countries should be the only country to have the airdates on various season orders, not from the airdates that have earlier in different countries for reasons from what I said above. These changes must be agreed upon for the sake of readers from various countries. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Introducing notability criteria for academic journals

I just copied specialized notability criteria about academic journals and pasted it here - pleae see it in the article as I placed it.

Here is some context on this -

• This is copied from Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), an essay started in 2009 and said in the first edit summary to be derived from the older Wikipedia:Notability (academics).
• The development of this guideline has overlap with the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals.
• I signaled both the WP:NJournal talk page and that WikiProject that I am linking content here

My own perspective is that WP:NJOURNAL is a widely accepted standard for confirming or denying the notability of academic journals.

To give more context on academic journals - it is very unusual for any academic journals to meet WP:GNG, yet it is possible to confirm in other ways that academic journals are respected. There is almost no journalism on academic journals themselves, yet unlike with non-academic journals or any other media sources, it is very easy to confirm if any given article from an academic journal is widely cited. The guideline suggests that the citing is a show of recognition and respect, which is true in academia. This specialized guideline is useful because academic sources are frequently cited on Wikipedia and Wikipedia readers need some information about the source content in Wikipedia. This notability guideline is intended to reflect the respect given to journals in academia.

This is a small and specialized area. I propose to include this specialized guideline in WP:NMEDIA. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I inserted the academic journals criteria in response to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#RFC:_when_are_community_radio_stations_notable.3F where people are asking about the notability of radio stations. I am not sure what to say about radio stations, but I do like the idea of developing NMEDIA by making it a hub for all community policy about any kind of media, including academic journals, and including radio stations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I am in favor of making WP:NJOURNAL an official guideline. Thanks for taking the initiative to make this happen! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support I am in favor of making NJournal an official guideline. Per Bluerasberry, I think we should remove the current requirements that a journal also meet GNG (not that a journal won't meet GNG, it may, but GNG doesn't always work in this case, as noted above), and instead replace it with a sentence similar to that found at WP:TEXTBOOK.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I am in favor of making WP:NJOURNAL an official guideline. Also, I agree with the comments by User:3family6. - tucoxn\^talk 03:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NJOURNAL falls under WP:ACADEMIC in which those folks spent quite a bit of time curating. IMHO, NJOURNAL should go through WP:PROPOSAL at the village pump as a standalone guideline and be nothing more than a section and Hatnote (main article) in NMEDIA because it is so specialized and not likely to remain static.009o9 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of NMEDIA has strayed?

From the lede, "The following is a tool to help determine whether a media outlet is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article."

I came here because WP:NMEDIA seems to be a good catch-all for cases like record labels where project guidance is weak and otherwise notable publishers cannot pass WP:CORP. However, the Guidelines section is full of other guidelines that focus on the published work, rather than the media outlet/publisher.

For instance, there is no reason to have a static copy of Book or Film notability criteria, because this essay is not about the actual (book or film) work, it is about the publisher of the work. What would need to be addressed in NMEDIA is Book publishers, Film production companies, Record labels and Newspaper/Magazine conglomerates, etc. These are the notable media outlet components of the published work(s) that fit the Why a separate guideline section. Anybody else see it this way? 009o9 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Additional one property that is missing from the essay is that the media outlet/publisher (or its parent) is usually a (the) copyright holder of notable work(s). 009o9 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• This guideline isn't actually straying from its purpose. A book publishing company is indeed a form of media, but so is the book itself; a television or radio station is a form of media, but so is each individual program it airs; and on, and so forth. The concept of "media" covers both the content and the companies that created or distributed that content; the only thing that would be truly out of scope is individual media personalities, as they're already covered by things like WP:CREATIVE and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Interpretations

A few times over the past couple of years, it's become clear that some of the notability criteria for media outlets may need to be reworded for improved clarity about what was intended. For example, the criteria for radio stations include "established broadcast history" and "unique programming" — but both of those have sometimes been misinterpreted as implying something much more restrictive than what was intended:

• "Unique programming" was meant to cover "programming that originates from the station itself", but has at times been misunderstood to mean that a station only qualifies for an article if its programming was unique as in "radically innovative and creatively unprecedented", something which very few radio stations on earth could actually credibly claim.
• "Established broadcast history" meant "establishment as in has been launched", but has been misinterpreted as meaning something more along the lines of "establishment as in élite", which again very few radio stations on earth could actually credibly claim.

So I believe that both of those criteria need to be reworded for clarity. I'm not wedded to these specific wordings, if anybody has something better to offer, but to start the discussion I would like to propose the following:

• "Unique programming" be replaced with "self-created programming".
• "Established" be simply removed, so that the criterion is just "broadcast history".

Any input? Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

"Award winning"

Wondering how useful #1, "have produced award winning work" really is, bearing in mind the enormous proliferation of awards there are today. There is an AfD for Yukon, North of Ordinary, which has won International Regional Magazine Association (IRMA) awards, but Arizona Highways won 20 IRMA Awards for 2015 alone. IRMA must hand out awards like confetti. And then there are the seemingly endless vanity awards. "Award winning" links to Category:Journalism awards. Perhaps we could at least limit #1 to awards with a category? Thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC to amend this and related guidelines

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Amending_WP:NMEDIA_and_related_guidelines_to_accord_with_WP:PSCI.2FWP:NFRINGE -- Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

YouTube series

Are YouTube series notable ? --Saqib (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#TV movies and notability

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#TV movies and notability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability of reliable sources - new essay

I drafted

• Wikipedia:Notability (reliable sources).

In this documentation I raise the issue of conferring notability to a source to have its own Wikipedia article based on its popularity as a citation in Wikipedia article reference sections. I would appreciate any comments on the talk page.

This could apply to newspapers, academic journals, other periodicals, and databases which are popular as reliable sources that Wikipedia articles cite. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:PUMP regarding Programming

Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 63#The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Television seasons

It appears that this notability guideline addresses notability of television series, but does not specifically address when individual seasons of shows should have their own articles. I and some other AFC reviewers think that upcoming seasons are seldom notable, just as shows that have not yet been aired are seldom notable, and unreleased films are seldom notable. Some editors point out that other television shows have had new articles for future seasons before the season starts. Other editors think that this is a case of the argument that other stuff exists that isn't notable, as an excuse for allowing more non-notable stuff.

My thought at this point is that the notability guideline for TV shows should address seasons as well as shows, and should say that upcoming seasons do not need their own articles. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the NTV guideline is mostly clear, there is only the need to add "season". To change the notability criteria to "when it starts airing" as the editor above said would be to go against years of precedent. As long as there is significant, independent, reliable coverage, I see no reason why upcoming TV seasons cannot have their own article before the air date. For example, the Dancing with the Stars cast list is announced weeks ahead, but the season isn't notable and doesn't warrant an article until it starts airing? That makes no sense. Heartfox (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: This is posted to the wrong Talk page – it needs to go to either WT:TV or WT:MOSTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Aligning the differing notability guidelines on news media

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability § Aligning WP:Notability (periodicals), WP:Notability (media), and WP:Notability (academic journals). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of YouTube channels

Has this been discussed before? It can be measured by the number of subscribers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No – it is only relevant if there is reliable secondary source coverage of this. Number of subscribers by itself confers no notability – that is effectively just a variation of WP:LOTSOFGHITS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Should this page be a guideline?

I notice that this is the only SNG page listed at {{Notability guide}} that is classified as an explanatory supplement rather than a guideline. Should we seek consensus to just make it a guideline? That might help with the redundancy issue from above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion has moved to Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Planning_for_possible_RfC_to_make_WP:NMEDIA_a_guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite; please centralize there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Wikipedia:Notability (media) be accorded the status of subject-specific notability guideline (SNG), using the proposed text at Wikipedia:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation

Though it says it is "not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines", Wikipedia:Notability (media), an explanatory supplement, has long been considered almost an SNG. It is the only non-SNG listed in the sidebar of {{Notability guide}} and largely has reflected consensus. It is also the only notability-related supplemental page.

In recent months, the fact that it has not been an SNG has come up in several discussions. Most of them revolve around notability for smaller broadcast radio stations, for which there have been a number of AfD discussions; there was also an inquiry on whether it should be removed from {{Notability guide}}. The crux of the debate is that, while topic editors have largely been in favor of keeping the pages, other editors believe that NMEDIA shouldn't be accounted for and the pages don't meet the general notability guideline.

In order to declare NMEDIA an SNG, an RfC is required to gauge consensus. The rewrite also updates the text, without changing the meaning of the content, to:

• Improve its clarity, generalizability, and ease of reading, particularly for editors not familiar with broadcast media topics
• Add examples to assist non-topic editors
• Remove redundancies to other notability pages

The last section, on television programming, is left unchanged for now, as it is likely to be split out soon if the current project for a "Notability (television)" page is adopted. That RfC will be a separate endeavor and has been months in the making; it has not yet been put to discussion as here.

Contributors to the improved text, including this RfC author, are @Nathan Obral, Neutralhomer, Novem Linguae, Sdkb, and Tdl1060:. At the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite, the following users commented: @Superastig, SportingFlyer, Onel5969, 78.26, North8000, SMcCandlish, and Peteforsyth:. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as author. Media articles often are confusing for non-topic editors that encounter them in encyclopedic processes. In recent years, as I and others have endeavored to bring the consensus and resources in these topic areas (in such diverse areas as naming conventions, infoboxes and now notability) nearer to current encyclopedic standards, I have interacted with many non-topic editors. A media outlet guideline is a necessity for this encyclopedia given the number of pages involved (there are more than 30,000 combined transclusions of the radio station, television station and television channel infoboxes), and it feels like a historic accident that this was not an SNG sooner, as it has been treated as one for quite some time. I understand the recent concerns that have come up in the radio deletion discussions, and I'm committed to modifying the rewrite based on the consensus at this discussion, but the goal of this first phase and the current proposed text is to provide a cleaned-up version of the present explanatory supplement as a new SNG, which generally reflects what has been the consensus. If that consensus shifts, NMEDIA should as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Sammi, as a contributor to the discussion, and as a creator and contributor to hundreds (thousands?) of radio station articles of my 16 years here at Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply)} 03:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, needs work - Some bulletpoints:
  • Briefly, on the less crucial supplementary material at the top: The "What is notability" section reads awkwardly to me and seems unnecessary. "General notability" likewise seems unnecessary, with some material at the end largely unrelated to general notability. IMO just move the first few sentences under "general notability" into "why separate criteria", tighten that section, and remove the first two sections.
  • As for the meat of the proposed guideline, some of it just strikes me as too inclusive.
    • e.g. "significant publications" in a niche market (what does that mean?) and "authoritative/influential in their subject area".
    • "Award winning" generally benefits from a footnote clarifying what kinds of awards qualify.
    • What may help is to change "[newspapers/magazines/journals are notable if they meet] one or more of the following criteria" to something which conveys "at least one, but preferably more than one".
  • Under broadcast radio, the first line isn't clear whether one or all of the three bulletpoints are required. Also a definition of "broadcasting history" would be helpful.
  • Under "Pay television and radio services" it's unclear when/if it's talking about the cable/satellite/streaming provider or the channels they provide. At the beginning it seems like the bulletpoints are listing examples of what's not notable, but then it says "most individual channels [are not notable]". To the extent it's about the providers (a cable company, for example) that seems outside the scope of this guideline.
  • I don't think programming should be part of this. The premise here is that media don't write about each other so we need a special guideline, but they most certainly write about programming.
  • Some of this I would've happily mentioned before an RfC started, but I didn't see a new page was created for discussion, and was surprised, just now, to see that something I said here was copied there without so much as a ping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Just in case the above is unclear, I don't mind a bit of a GNG exception for media given the mismatch between importance and the extent to which they are the subject of in depth coverage. Such exceptions just need to be watertight. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to these comments particularly on the broadcast section, Rhododendrites:

• Broadcast radio: It is one or more, as per the current NMEDIA text. I have made this a little clearer, because the reorganization does kind of make things weird. "Broadcast history" has gone undefined since the initial NMEDIA and this could potentially be a point of refinement.
• Service as in provider, and I recognize that is a bit funky, but the section you mention mostly applies to channels on a satellite radio service. Most of Category:Sirius XM Radio channels should probably be sent to AfD, for instance. You would be correct that a cable company itself would not be covered by NMEDIA.
• In all truth, programming shouldn't be here (now that it's more of a notability for "media outlets" rather than "types of media" document), but it is. The reason I'm being fairly hands-off in that section is because almost all of it appears to be being spun off soon into a new and more detailed WP:NTV, which likely would seek guideline status, but I'm not sure when that RfC will be called. Also consider that this guideline also used to mention and duplicate NBOOK, NFILM, etc. We'll have a rump "radio programming" mention here because it won't really fit in any other guideline. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal carves out a gaping exception from the GNG. In doing so, it opens the door to the creation of vast numbers of hopelessly unsourceable articles, all of which will be (like it or not) defended at AfD with one-line "keep per WP:NMEDIA" votes, thereby pushing us one step further toward becoming little more than a directory. I thus must oppose. First, to be clear: this RfC is the result of hard work, and it contains some largely uncontroversial concepts. But in my view, the harms greatly outweigh any potential benefits. I'm particularly worried about about the idea found under the heading "Broadcast media", which essentially gives a free pass to, inter alia, any radio station that "originates (or has originated) at least some of its own programming". That means that a one-sentence trivial mention in a press report to a station's program would create a heavy presumption that the station is ipso facto notable, resulting in great grosses of irremediable permastubs. But more fundamentally, I vehemently disagree with the explanation under the heading "Why separate criteria". It admits that "the media does not often report on itself" and that it is often "difficult to find significant coverage in reliable sources". That's exactly right, and in my view it leads to the clear conclusion that these articles should be deleted for want of significant coverage. Yet the criteria instead use that reasoning to advocate deeming these articles as notable anyway, on the theory that they "serv[e] an important purpose". But no important purpose is being served by creating stubs sourced only to "pages produced by the outlet", trivial mentions, and directory information. The common rejoinder, of course, is that not all articles fall into those categories. But if there is additional coverage, the articles will meet the GNG as written. If there isn't, I believe as a philosophical matter that there simply shouldn't be an article on the subject. Again, we're not a directory; directory-style articles are useless to our readers. If the coverage rises beyond directory-level coverage, the article passes the GNG. This is therefore a solution in search of a problem, and it will likely create far more problems than it solves. I apologize for the length of this comment, but I feel it's important to express my respectful but firm disagreement with the principles on which this proposal is based. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Per Sammi Brie, and as a creator and contributor to several radio station articles in my country. It's time NMEDIA should be considered an SNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There is currently a radio station AFD that is being appealed at DRV. Sometimes an AFD ends up at DRV because the notability guideline is vague or ambiguous. In such a case, the community should both review the AFD at DRV and consider whether the notability guideline needs to be revised. This is such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, regretfully, largely per Extraordinary Writ. I can see that a lot of careful thought has been put into this proposal, and many of the drafting authors are people I respect. However, relatively 'lax' SNGs such as this can lead to a vast quantity of stubs that will almost certainly never amount to a useful encyclopedia article. I agree with Extraordinary Writ that, on the whole, if something hasn't received significant coverage for the purposes of the GNG then we are unlikely to be able to write a decent article about it and we shouldn't try to 'force the issue' with SNGs. firefly ( t · c ) 06:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I agree that as currently written, this would carve out a large exception to the GNG. I have relatively fewer problems with the newspaper guidelines (though would not accept them as written) than with the broadcast media guidelines, but the those guidelines are not only very unclear, they have little relationship to "can we find reliable sources about this topic to help us write an encyclopaedia article?" SportingFlyer T·C 09:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Sammi. The opposers are people I respect, and I recognize their concerns. Nonetheless -- I have the strong sense, as someone who does not edit in but does follow quite a bit of editing in the topic area, that broadcast stations are one of those areas where such a disproportionate amount in it is notable-per-GNG that presumptive notability is a reasonable move (and this, to be clear, is not presumptive notability -- it's a complex and well-reasoned notability 'guideline' with some elements of presumptive notability but many not). I don't think this is a practice where the risk of directory outcomes is so great as to jeopardize the encyclopedia, which -- I believe unintentionally -- comes across in some oppose positions. I do not think this is a solution in search of a problem, but rather the opposite -- that an attempt to deprecate this would be instilling a problem that does not currently exist. I do not agree that this is an SNG that would open the door to problematic permastubs, but rather one that permits the writing of complex, full articles without unnecessary complications at AfD. I do not, as a principle, think it particularly useful to change notability guidelines in directions that flood PROD/AfD with inoffensive articles; the sole outcome of such practices is more often to dispirit people and chill content creation than it is to improve the encyclopedia. (Ask me about NSONGS. Or don't.) Vaticidalprophet 09:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Tagging my fellow Wikipedians @SBKSPP and Bluemask: to join the discussion. The latter is also involved in Philippine radio stations for years. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, needs work Probably would support after that, an SNG should exist for media. Right now a part of it reads like a general essay rather than an SNG plus it hasn't had the close scrutiny of a SNG. So evolve it to be SNG-suitable and then let's put it in. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. As I've said, clarification of this SNG would make NPP patrol easier, but despite the good work being done, I believe that the concerns raised by Extraordinary Wit are the overriding factor. This is a difficult line to tread. WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY must be balanced at providing useful information to readers. The problem currently is the nebulousness of the guideline. I'm not opposed to permastubs, if they serve a useful purpose. Not sure what the answer is, but it needs to be easily discernable. Absent that, GNG must still suffice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as it currently stands - The essay needs to be more defined in how a media subject meets notability. We do need a SNG for media and this is a starting point but the essay is not to that level. I have argued this point before but many SNG's and even the primary guideline allow for presumed notability but, most often, follow it with the fact that presumed notability does not mean it can't be challenged and found to not be confirmed to be notable. Presumed notability is for creating but confirmed notability can only come through the test of community consensus, either on the article talk page or by way of our various deletion processes. While we can never say that consensus will always stay the same, we can put in guidelines which will aid editors, who truly want to make a difference, in the ability to add articles with relative confidence they will pass the test. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the broadcast radio, at least. For instance, how do you define Has an established broadcasting history or Has a large audience? I sometimes listen to a hyper-local AM country station that's been around since the 70s or 80s, and produces some original programming such as some morning talk stuff and analysis of local farm commodity prices. Yet because it's a tiny low-watt station in a rural area related to a better-known FM station, it gets basically no significant coverage. Yet this proposed guideline would make it a clear pass, as it would conceivably meet prongs 1 and 3, despite utterly failing the GNG. Stuff doesn't get notability simply by existing. When two of the three prongs of a proposed SNG are literally based on the arguments to avoid of WP:ITSPOPULAR ("large audience") and WP:ITSOLD ("established broadcast history"), I can't see how proposed SNG will in practice function as anything other than a backdoor to sneak around the GNG. Sorry, but at least the broadcast radio one is so vague and based mainly on factors of subjective importance, that it's not going to function how an SNG should. It won't be a reliable indicator of GNG-meeting, and it'll be too vague that it can be used to support (or oppose) almost anything. And the third point about Originates some of its own programming would seem to extend to every station that does or has ever broadcasted such mundanities as having a station employee broadcast local high school basketball games or having a customized local farm commodity pricing or do like one station I listen to does and have a local over-the-air people call in and do "For sale" ads for old junk cars and stuff. The broadcast radio one is so filled with vagueness, subjective importance, and a really low bar that it will not indicate GNG and will simply include almost anything besides what is explicitly excluded, which isn't much. Hog Farm _Talk 16:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Sammi. As to Hog Farm's concerns regarding "established broadcasting history" and "large audience", these are very strong indicators that a station will be able to be sourced so that it will pass GNG. An article on a local small town AM station was recently brought to AfD while it was an unsourced stub, and it was expanded and sourced to the point that it easily passes GNG from just a few hours research.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed guideline says explicitly that it's setting out to make the notability guidelines for media outlets as inclusive as possible without falling foul of WP:V, carving out a very large exemption from the GNG in the process. The justification for doing so is that "it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope". I don't personally think that's a good enough justification for this exemption. The GNG is there for a reason, if a subject doesn't pass the GNG then any article about the subject will have to be either very short or deeply problematic. We do have some SNGs which are presented as alternatives to the GNG, but there is usually a very good reason for doing so. For example the five pillars note that Wikipedia has aspects of a gazetteer, and this is used to justify including articles on populated places. I don't think that the desire of a very small number of readers to evaluate the reliability of sources (something which is probably best done outside a Wikipedia article anyway) is a good enough reason to maintain large numbers of articles on insignificant media outlets. Hut 8.5 18:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• General support, but needs work. I'm one of the more active editors on newspaper articles, so I've been following and helping some with the development of this RfC, but it's unfortunately been a rocky path. There are multiple related problems that need to get solved: (1) The status of NMEDIA was unclear, as it has been listed in the notability sidebar and frequently been referenced at AfD discussions but been classified as an explanatory supplement, (2) there has been overlap between NMEDIA and several other notability pages, and (3) the page could use a general tune-up. The rewrite attempted to do 2 and 3, but I don't think it really succeeded, unfortunately, as pointed out by Rhododendrites and several others above; I also expressed some concerns here.
  So there's definitely some messy aspects here that need to be refined. But I really hope that those aspects don't ultimately stop us from having an SNG for newspapers, since we really ought to have one. I've come across plenty of AfDs for newspapers in small markets, often in foreign languages, that appear to be papers of record for some domain, but for which it's really hard to find sourcing. To address the oppose concerns, this doesn't mean that such sourcing doesn't exist, as a native speaker with good research skills could probably find sources. But the likelihood of such a person showing up to an AfD is low, so the pages get deleted more often than they should. The newspapers criteria would provide a reasonable buffer against this, without being so broad as to allow in junk or topics for which GNG sourcing truly doesn't exist. Our ultimate purpose is to provide information that documents the world's knowledge, and documenting the places that knowledge comes from needs to be a part of that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Extraordinary Writ and Hog Farm. I believe that this end run around the GNG will lead to the creation or retention of article topics about which insufficient reliable, independent sources exist to write an encyclopedia article. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support Per rationale presented by Sammi and Vaticidalprophet. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current phrasing is far too broadening, and it would lead to what users above have described as a run-around WP:GNG. Subject-specific notability guidelines, in my view, are generally constructed to more narrowly define the sorts of sources required for notability, not to permit additional sources that would not count under WP:GNG. In particular, the area for "newspapers, magazines, and journals" appears to have some critical flaws, and what's good about it doesn't appear to be distinct from a straightforward application of WP:GNG.

  In my current reading of the guideline, a work that has won one journalistic award would be defined as notable under the proposed guideline. I also don't know how we would quantify whether a prospective source is a significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets, except by relying upon multile reliable sources that say so. Frequent citation by reliable sources, in my reading, would allow for repeated trivial mentions of an article topic's work to confer reliability on the source itself, but this would effectively eliminate the WP:SIGCOV requirement for media sources. Notability being conferred upon media outlets that are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area would run into a similar problem; all this would require is for media outlets to repeatedly give trivial mentions to another media outlet that say that its reporting is very good, but this alone isn't conducive to writing an encyclopedia article about it. The notion that media sources that have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history are notable seems like a good idea, but "historic purpose" is rather vague, and "significant history" is ultimately another way of saying that reliable sources cover its history (which would be OK as far as WP:GNG is concerned, but it doesn't actually do anything).

  In the "general notability" section, the sentence If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability rubs me a bit the wrong way. It would imply that a single independent reliable source that covers the media entity substantially would possibly be enough to establish notability if it were sufficiently deep. I think that this is imprudent; WP:N states that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but [multiple sources are generally expected. At a baseline, I would oppose a guideline that would not require multiple reliable sources to be used; an article built upon a single source, even if it's deep, may implicitly pose troubles for WP:NPOV considerations, owing to its reliance upon the sole detailed source. There's even a cleanup template for this sort of article.

  There are additional issues that I have with the current guideline's prose, though I think that the above is enough to stake my opposition to the implementation of this guideline at this time. It's a step towards something, but I don't think lowering standards below the coverage required by WP:GNG is prudent. And, even if the guideline were to nothing but apply WP:GNG in a media-specific context, then I'd be concerned about instruction creep. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mikehawk10, I just happen to have put this discussion on pause for 7 days to address other issues. The awards question has come up before. I'd love to see specific suggestions to improve this section at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite, though, including proposed text if you have any. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose in anything like the current state, though we may need a guideline on this. The purpose of the SNGs is to explain how GNG applies to a topic area, and to predict GNG passage, i.e. predict the likelihood of there being sufficient coverage in multiple, in-depth, independent, reliable sources. There's only one exception to this that I know of: WP:PROF (which pre-dates GNG), and it's a special case, because the most influential academics often receive little or no press coverage, but their impact can be determined by citation rates. I.e., it's still multiple instances of non-trivial independent reliable sourcing, just of a different nature, relying on the academic's output instead of telling a story about the academic).

  So, rewrite this as a draft guideline that applies GNG instead of trying to bypass it.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I'd be more than welcome to take your views on the rewrite (and you can contribute, as right now the RfC is paused). As it stands right now, it makes a significant effort to apply the GNG first and foremost, and this language has been beefed up considerably. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how it could do this even more effectively. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Sammi Brie: Tweaks like this mostly help, but there's still a focus on "presuming" notability, which it's clear many people are not going to support. It should instead be geared to predicting notability with a fair degree of accuracy. The real purpose of these SNG pages is helping editors (especially newer ones) decide whether something is worth their editorial time to create or is likely to result in deletion. Helping other editors decide whether it should be deleted is only a secondary function, and many of us never rely on SNG material at AfD, but only on GNG itself (aside from NPROF cases), because we understand that the SNGs are mostly not rules but topically reasoned expressions of statistical likelihood of compliance with the actual rules.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I'm probably not going to pursue this further simply because this is clearly not going to happen any time soon. I want to see about transforming the page into possibly an essay and refreshing BCASTOUTCOMES with some of this material, but I'm not going to make major further edits especially given that the television programming section is likely going to be its own SNG soon, and I don't want status changes here to affect that very near forthcoming RfC or discussions there in the meantime. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Up to you. Do keep in mind that most proposals for new guidelines, especially at such a late date, do not meet with success on first attempt or even second ones. Mostly we already have the guidelines we need, and convincing the community otherwise takes a lot of revision, and more listening than persuasion. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, the irony about this case is that NMEDIA had been accorded that status by default (and inclusion in a sidebar) for so long; in all honesty, this should have been an SNG ten years ago. This is a historical accident, but the feeling that this should just defer to GNG among other editors has been quite strong. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  The same "listed for years in a standard sidebar" thing was true of several MoS-labeled pages that were just essays and not guidelines; of those I remember, two failed guideline proposal and are now {{Historical}}. One did "pass" though. (However, one actual guideline, "WP:Manual of Style/Proper names", was dismantled and its salvageable parts merged into others). I think this in case we should have an SNG on this, by which I mean one that is a guideline. But people clearly want to hash out the details a bit more.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The idea of "significant coverage" is the cornerstone of our notability policy. Significant coverage is crucial not just to establish notability but to provide verifiability and avoid orginal research. There seems to be unnecessary exceptions to this in the essay's current state. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. SNG should either explain which groups are very highly likely to meet the GNG (as in, 99%+ certainty), or should set a higher bar (like we e.g. do for porn stars). SNGs which try to give blanket notability even for those articles which don't even meet the already low GNG bar should never be accepted: it's bad enough we have some historical ones like this for e.g. some sports, but new ones definitely shouldn't be added). Fram (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Extraordinary Writ. Unfortunately, the current text is far too inclusionist in nature, and would give rise to a large number of GNG-failing permastubs. SNG's should only cover areas where a GNG pass can be safely assured. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative or influential in their subject area", "are frequently cited by other reliable sources", and "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets" are obscenely vague and do nothing to enhance our interpretation of what constitutes significant coverge, which cannot be tossed away, per HighInBC. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Reywas92, you're also invited to contribute to the rewrite text itself. I would more than welcome edits to the text to address these shortfalls! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose AND revert failed proposal to essay status. While it is well-produced and it looked like a reasonable guideline when I first scanned it, and my initial reaction was to try to help improve it, on closer review I find almost every paragraph pushes well outside community norms of Notability. For example there are repeated attempts to lower the bar to a single source, or even ZERO significant-coverage sources. Alsee (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  Alsee, it's likely that this "explanatory supplement" will become an essay. I may not make these changes immediately because the television section is breaking out as its own guideline in a parallel development to this one but which I expect will have more community support (that RfC really needs to happen soon), and I don't want to make modifications to that section. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Extraordinary Writ and others who raise similar concerns. It is not so much the specific criteria but the "Why separate criteria" section that concerns me. That section not only contains the reasoning why this SNG was written, of course, but also the reasoning why editors would cite it at AfD. If it's bad advice that muddles the waters on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG, it should not be promoted, and I think it is. The premise "Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself." is sound and a good reason for writing an SNG on media topics. A good SNG would supplement the GNG by explaining where to find sources instead and by giving rules of thumb for merits that have been found to correlate with abundance of sources. This SNG goes further and, by the way of an intermediate logical step "As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope." (which I do not think is true) arrives at the conclusion "Accordingly, the notability standards for media organizations and content are designed to be as inclusive, not restrictive, as possible within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources." (which I do not think is good advice). That media outlets are both our sources and topics that we cover is wholly inconsequential to notability concerns. Media topics are topics just like any other and should be held to the same standard. The advice to read and write these guideliines to be as inclusive as possible in relation to WP:V and WP:RS is to misunderstand and missaply WP:N and the relationship between SNGs and the GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support as we've really needed a policy like this for a while. The rationale presented in "Why separate criteria" is convincing to me, and the subject-specific criteria are not too inclusive. I think splitting "broadcast media" and "Newspapers, magazines and journals" into separate policies makes sense though. To be clear, I support both of them. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment as a contributor to the draft for Wikipedia:Notability (television), I would recommend that any radio info in the Programming section of the rewrite be "untangled" from the television info (now before the rewrite may be implemented, or at least a plan to do so should Notability (television) come into existence) because all of the television material in that section is more or less translated to Notability (television), but the radio info is not, as that should remain here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Favre1fan93: When the new NTV is created, likely what will be left for WP:RPRGM besides a link to the new television notability guidelines will be something similar to the "Local TV series" heading and part of the "TV guides" section, as the programming section really only mentions radio alongside TV in that sort of context. (Also moved the comment down to the discussion section.) (edit conflict) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's still a few problems with this proposal, the two strongest ones in my mind being the fact it still reads like an OUTCOMES essay, and as I've noted in my oppose, because what the essay claims is notable has not been clearly tied into with whether GNG will be passed. Almost all SNGs tend to try to predict when the GNG will be met by using source-based reasoning - I don't see that here yet. I have no opposition to making NMEDIA a SNG generally, but it needs to be closely tied to the GNG in order to avoid the conflicts that we've been seeing: any topic which passes the SNG should also pass the GNG, and if it fails the SNG, then we determine if GNG applies. SportingFlyer T·C 12:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that there has to be wording in the requirements that point back to WP:N and WP:V. No SNG should seek to replace GNG with its own notability guidelines but should compliment it. --ARoseWolf 15:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• We do need to take into consideration these statements going forward, "Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition." Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources." These are circumstances surrounding media outlets like radio, television and newspapers that make them unique to most other subjects we would encounter on Wikipedia. It may be harder for a media outlet to pass the sum total of GNG requirements because of events that another subject would not encounter. --ARoseWolf 16:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've added this proposal to T:CENT, in the hope of bringing in a wider range of editors for this important discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've been monitoring this discussion and am noticing that, while there is a general desire to have a notability guideline for media outlets, there is a consensus among many of the non-topic editors that NMEDIA as currently written is too much of a carve-out, a relic of a prior era that is out of sync with the GNG. I am all here for bringing NMEDIA closer to the GNG if that is what is called for. How would you feel if the guideline were worded as follows: (edit conflict) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A licensed broadcast radio station must meet the general notability guideline. It likely does so if it fulfills one (or, preferably, more) of the following:

• Has an established broadcasting history
• Has a large audience
• Originates (or has originated) at least some of its own programming

• I think this is a great suggested alteration. I really believe if we can establish some kind of historical background then I would find it easier to suggest the keep course of action at AfD. Almost all SNG's have a built in "presumed" notability clause. The article will still have to pass community consensus to confirm notability. The key for any originator will be to prove it meets one of the criteria which can be done through sources. We will get there. This SNG is needed for the community. :) --ARoseWolf 16:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Still, none of these are source-based. "Has an established broadcasting history" isn't bad, but I'm more interested in what sources establish that a station would have a broadcast history than a statement. SportingFlyer T·C 16:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Agree with SportingFlyer. IMO none of those are workable or really clearly definable. What is "a large audience"? Would an argument that something is the most popular station in Laclede County, Missouri (pop ~35,000) count as a large audience? Or does it need to have an audience above a certain figure? Actually, how do you even determine what an audience size? Do you just go by Neilson ratings? Because if it has a Neilson rating, its gonna pass GNG anyway. How would you define audience size for say KRES or KEZS-FM or something like that? What is an established broadcasting history? Broadcasting since 1970? On the same frequency since 1995? That its license has never been revoked by the FCC? It is unclear what that means. And what counts as original programming? A unique morning show? Local commodity price reports? A local news segment? Broadcasting the local high school basketball and football games? None of these seem to be easily definable, and you can argue that almost everything meets them. Hog Farm _Talk 17:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that having a large audience is probably not a very good inclusion criteria seeing as we don't accept that as part of any other criteria to include a subject. How many times have we seen that a particular person has x number of followers on Instagram or x number of subscribers on YouTube as if that is enough to make them notable? --ARoseWolf 17:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: Off the top of my head, I can think of regulatory filings and records (such as those from the FCC), the sources at World Radio History, and other general sources like newspapers and magazines. One of my personal specialties is using newspaper databases to improve US/Canada broadcast articles, which has included over 200 US station DYKs and a series of GAs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• edit conflict w/ExWrit below An FCC regulatory filing wouldn't really pass GNG on its own. General sources like newspapers and magazines are great - the question in my mind, though, is figuring out what sorts of stations will receive coverage from these newspapers and magazines in a way that someone with a limited knowledge of the topic can easily apply (think new page patrol), and distinguishing it from the ones that only get mentions in say regulatory filings, like the Philippine stations currently at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• GNG doesn't expressly tell us what sources are good for article creation of general subjects. No SNG provides that either. Does NSPORTS tell us exactly what sources are permissible for sports related articles? No. If the GNG or any SNG did then we wouldn't need WP:RSP and the like. Reliable sources are determined by the community consensus and generally doesn't occur overnight but with much discussion over time.--ARoseWolf 17:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe I've been mis-understood. WP:NBOOK discusses multiple reviews. WP:NALBUM #1 copies the GNG, #5 and #7 discuss the types of sources a notable album might be found in. WP:NBUILD doesn't explicitly discuss sources, but current consensus is that historical building documents are reliable secondary sources. Almost everything goes back to WP:GNG - even NSPORTS, which does try to predict whether the GNG will be met for every sport with a SNG. What characteristics of broadcast media are predictive as to whether the GNG will be met? SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Part of the problem I've faced in writing about non-North America topics is that some of the most useful general sources just aren't digitized and easily available. I've also noted even within North America that coverage of the media has declined in the last 20 years or so, due to the internet and cutbacks in local newsrooms, and I say that having written dozens of pages on such topics. (edit conflict) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I certainly have no objection to these ideas per se, but I fail to see why a formal notability guideline is the place for them. An essay or explanatory supplement (e.g. WP:OUTCOMES) about indicators of notability would be more appropriate. But making them binding would likely still encourage the sort of "keep, passes NMEDIA" reasoning to which I objected above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Can I ask for some specific examples of articles that meet this SNG but fail the GNG? If the page is deleted a reference to the title would help, then perhaps an admin can provide a copy of the page in sandbox? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• ProcrastinatingReader We have had several active and recent AfDs, mostly in the Philippines at pages like DXLJ (currently at AfD). KWBG, previously a stub, went to AfD, had sources applied, and now looks to meet the GNG. Articles on US radio station AfDs that have met the SNG have generally been kept in recent years. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• @ProcrastinatingReader: Slightly related, but a page like KWBG, which is still under AfD, is a "come back story" in my opinion and has the makings of a GA. Sammi has a couple to her name, I have a couple as well (WABN, WBCM-LP, WFGM (AM), WKEY (AM)), plus one FA (WINC (AM)). My point is, that while others may argue that these articles fail GNG (I strongly disagree), they clearly meet other standards. Sources can be found. It takes time, but it can be done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Striking, apologizes.

Note: I would just like to note that all of the editors who !voted "oppose" above (EDIT: as of this writing, prior to Hog Farm's !vote) did not participate in the expansion of NMEDIA discussion and !vote almost exclusively "delete" in all radio station AfDs. This statement is meant to give clarity to their !votes, not as a accusation toward them individually or as a whole, nor is it meant to cause an arguement (ie: BATTLEGROUND). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC) @Neutralhomer: - I don't think that's an entirely accurate statement. You use all of the editors who !voted "oppose", and yet I don't ever remember participating in a radio station or TV AFD. Now maybe there's one or two I've been in (I seriously have no memory of participating in radio stuff except for vandalism reversion and passing two or three GA reviews of radio GANs). I don't think that's a fair (or accurate) to use the word "all" that many times when not "all" are radio/TV AFD regulars. Hog Farm Talk 17:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC) @Hog Farm: You are correct. When I wrote that, you hadn't !voted yet. So, I do apologize. That was a wording mistake on my part, which I have corrected. Again, my apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Before you run to poison the well, did you even ping anyone you're talking about to the drafting page to work on it? I certainly wasn't pinged, despite you copying my words and signature there. As I wrote above, I would've participated if I had been alerted to it. Also, I don't think I've participated at more than, say, 5? radio/tv station AfDs ever? And the only two in recent memory were one in which I didn't !vote at all, with a redirect for the other one. So no, I wouldn't say I "!vote almost exclusively 'delete'". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry if I failed to ping you in the rewrite page — that would be my fault, Rhododendrites. (I must say that what Neutralhomer said is a poor characterization of discussion participants.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC) My objection isn't necessarily not being pinged. I don't expect people to know that I'd be interested in something. My only objection is moving what I wrote here without pinging me, and then using lack of participation as a way to cast doubt (or whatnot) on my !vote. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC) No, fault lies with me. This battlegrounded and I knew it would (didn't mean for it to)...even said it wasn't meant to be. Strike and cot/cob'ing the whole thing. Move along. Apologizes to all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks, Neutralhomer. For what it's worth, you have my consent to just remove this now-collapsed section altogether if you'd prefer (and if Hog Farm and Sammi don't object) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Query - Would it be wisest to maybe handle this in smaller chunks? The way I'm reading this, there seems to be more support for say the proposed newspaper guidelines than the broadcast radio, for instance. The three segments of newspapers, TV, and radio are separate enough that they might be better off discussed separately. I'm also worried that this RFC has potential to become very confusing down the road, as changes to the wordings of some of the sections are being discussed right now (esp. broadcast radio). If the wording for that section does change, that could make the earlier portions of this RFC very hard to interpret. A lot of RFCs I've seen quote the exact proposed wording in the RFC discussion introduction, which makes it clearer who is referring to what. Obviously, the current RFC topic is so large that that is not feasible here. Would splitting it up into chunks per discrete subject matter so the actual proposed wording can be !voted on be a clearer way of doing this? I see the added benefit to that of if part, but not all, of this gains consensus in some form, with the whole judged as one, it's difficult on the RFC closer to determine the consensus for the subparts, but its clearer what has consensus and what doesn't if smaller chunks are discussed individually. Hog Farm _Talk 18:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Hog Farm: Actually, I would support that. Have like an NRADIO, NNEWSPAPERS, NTVSTATIONS, etc. "Media" is very broad and could include a number of platforms. It would be better, in my opinion to have TV and Newspapers break away. I do think Radio Stations should be our primary focus (at the moment) as the AfDs are currently focused around the radio stations. But this is a very good idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Excellent suggestion, @Hog Farm. I agree with your assessment of the situation. This is probably the best and most sensible way forward, all things considered. --ARoseWolf 18:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I note that we have Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) and Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), two essays which are called upon by the present and rewrite versions of NMEDIA. The other chunks of NMEDIA as it exists now are the radio and television media outlets section, the television programming section (well on its way to being spun out as a new WP:NTV) and a rump section on radio programming. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think this is a good idea. Despite all the good effort that has gone into this RfC, its launch still unfortunately feels premature to me. I also think that any changes from the rewrite should be merged into NMEDIA itself before asking for a large !vote. I think the best path forward would for this discussion to be hatted and paused, so that we can go back to the drawing board and take some of the feedback so far into consideration, and then return with a stronger proposal more likely to succeed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think this would be more likely to succeed if it tried to identify situations where it is likely that the subject would pass the GNG, rather than trying to exempt the topic from the GNG altogether. The newspapers bit is trying to do that and it's getting more support. If there are deletion discussions about topics which do pass the GNG but where it's hard to find evidence of that then a guideline for identifying those situations would be helpful. Hut 8.5 19:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comparison of NMEDIA to the NMEDIA rewrite, just for convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Wikipedia%3ANotability+%28media%29&rev1=&page2=Wikipedia%3ANotability+%28media%29%2F2021+rewrite&rev2=&action=&diffonly=&unhide=&diffmode=source {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not taking a Support/Oppose position at this time. However, from the discussion, it's apparent that there is no general agreement that this current essay accurately reflects consensus. Assuming the proposal to make it a guideline fails, the second part of the opening sentence ("however, it reflects consensus for notability of media topics reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a topic should be written, merged, deleted or further developed.") should be removed; it does not reflect such a consensus. TJRC (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  TJRC, I agree. NMEDIA probably reflected consensus about 10 years ago, but it clearly does not now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I could be completely off base here but I believe the discussion was brought here to generate a new consensus based on the fact that the old consensus had, obviously, changed. Articles on radio station after radio station was coming up for AfD after, correct me if I am wrong, it had been properly agreed upon years ago what the criteria would be for inclusion. Rather than continue to see the station articles come up for deletion and the same arguments being brought forward on those AfD's some decided to bring it here for community discussion. --ARoseWolf 17:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Convergence toward the GNG

The first response I'm noting is a sense that NMEDIA as currently written (and originally rewritten) is too lax and strays too far from the GNG. I am committed to ensuring that NMEDIA meets today's consensus, and as a result, I have made some edits to the rewrite and invite you to consult them at this diff.

• I've taken my trial balloon proposal from above and incorporated it into the guideline.
• I've replaced "large audience" with "major media market" to address the concern from ARoseWolf on interpretation of that section. I'd like more feedback on operationalizing the "bullet points" in radio.
• Throughout the broadcast section, the new emphasis is that meeting these criteria is likely to result in a page that meets the GNG, not that these are separate criteria to be fulfilled on their own. This helps subordinate this SNG to the GNG in such a way that it provides interpretive materials that identify when a subject is likely to pass the GNG, as Hut 8.5 suggested.
• I have inserted a draft of the radio programming text detached from television topics to accommodate the future NTV spin-off.

I'm becoming more skeptical of the "Why separate criteria" section after this rewrite, because I feel it subverts the actual point of NMEDIA in this light. Some of its points are true—the media covering the media is sometimes a dicey proposition—but the very section header seems to go against where this draft must lead to have encyclopedic acceptance, as has become apparent. To the topic editors, I imagine that most US stations will be able to meet this as is; it's more likely, though, that this guideline as written would change the Philippines outcomes and lead to more use of lists as an alternative to deletion (one already called for in the present NMEDIA text).

Again, I invite your thoughts. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: "Is in a major media market", I don't like this, it's too limiting. What is a "major media market"? Are we talking top 20, top 10? Just the top 5? If so, there are a LOT of articles that are not going to meet NMEDIA/NRADIO or GNG. That just makes all of what we are doing moot.

How about "Is received by a large population"? Make the criteria more than a population of 2,500, with special criteria for Alaskan stations (ie: bush stations) and low-power FMs. Alaska bush stations are made to serve one town with maybe a couple hundred people, but with a eclectic and wide-range of music and language heard and a rich programming schedule. Low-power FMs, by definition, are made to cover smaller areas, but also with the same eclectic and wide-range of programming and even language in some major cities.

So, setting these two groups of stations to the same rules as full power AM and FM stations would be a little unfair.

But I agree with Sammi, that converging NMEDIA/NRADIO toward GNG is a good thing, but not making NMEDIA/NRADIO into something that takes all of this and makes it something that actually walks it a few steps backwards instead of forwards. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe a "media market" is a North American concept that doesn't make sense as a worldwide guideline. Apart from that, I do have a concern with shifting the text we're supposed to be voting on in the middle of the RfC, especially since this is likely going to take time to workshop, but the changes are moving in a good direction. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, outside of North America, I'm not sure "media market" has meaning. Plus, most readers outside of the radio industry usually don't even know what a "media market" is. They just know radio station X is in city Y. "In a major media market" feels limiting to me, too. Considering potential audience reach is a bit better, but, as Neutralhomer said, what about the LPFMs? --DrChuck68 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, that's a fair point as well, but I wanted something that could be more easily operationalized than "large audience" and did not read like an endorsement based on sheer number of listeners. I actually like the 2,500 rule from Neutralhomer, but I wonder if that might be seen by other editors as met by virtually all stations (maybe a higher cap is worth discussing) — particularly seeing Hog Farm's comments. It's worth noting that this is one bullet point among several. I am, however, encouraged by the fact that this is moving in a direction that I believe could ultimately lead to broader acceptance. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: The 2,500 number was something I pulled out of thin air, so feel free to tinker with it. I was thinking more about rural stations when I did (ie: WKMM, KLAM, etc). I still feel that if there is a population cap, Alaska bush stations and LPFMs should have special criteria. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor Point

Partially related and unrelated to above survey (Sammi Brie, feel free to move this at will, and correct me if I am wrong), I have noticed that folks have said that this rewrite is a "bypass to GNG". NMEDIA has never (current writing or rewrite) been used as a "bypass" or "end-run around" GNG. It has always been used in conjunction with GNG, as well as RS and V. Sources have always...ALWAYS...had to be provided per RS and V. There have never been (or should there be) any articles that have just been unsourced stubs. If there are, bring them to my attention immediately and I will take care of them...immediately.

NMEDIA has always worked in conjunction with GNG, N, RS, V, and the major rules and regulations of Wikipedia. It has never been an "end-run" or a "bypass". Why folks believe that it currently is or that this rewrite will make it so, is beyond me...and it is false. We are not trying to do that. We are working to bring NMEDIA into alignment (correct me if I am wrong here Sammi, but I don't believe I am) with GNG further to avoid this confusion altogether.

I urge those who have concerns to please take part in the discussion and rewrite that is ongoing. I believe anyone who has concerns or issues can work them out there and can input them into the rewrite directly with us. You input is wanted, needed, valid, and requested. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll put this comment here, because it's as good a place as any, even if it's not necessarily directly responding to Neutralhomer. I feel like there are multiple discussions happening on this page, and wonder if the desire to satisfy the highest number of people is going to lead to something that just doesn't do much. Personally, I don't find SNGs all that helpful when they are, as many people interpret them to be, just a guide regarding what subjects are likely to satisfy the GNG. There are a few niche cases when sources that would satisfy the GNG are inaccessible/hard to find that they are useful, but if any of them can be dismissed via "prove it meets the GNG then," I have a hard time seeing their development as all that meaningful an exercise.

The tension in these discussions, and with every SNG, is squarely in the extent to which they do/don't align with the GNG, and to what extent that's a good or bad thing. For everyone saying SNGs can only be secondary to the GNG, remember that PROF existed before the GNG and has repeatedly had its inclusion reaffirmed. PROF is not another path to the GNG, but an extremely rare case of a subject for which there's consensus about inclusion, and which isn't as compatible with the GNG as some other subjects. Then there's e.g. our notability of populated places, geographic features, etc., which again aren't necessarily subject to the kind of coverage that we look for in the GNG.

At the end of the day, I'm someone who thinks we should be erring on the side of putting things under the GNG. I think that any carve-outs we have should be extremely limited... and I think it's at least worth talking about whether media should be one of those. It's another case of a mismatch between importance to society and the amount of traditional in-depth independent coverage they receive. So it's at least worth asking that question in as careful a way as possible before ditching that possibility and just asking what the media indicators are of GNG. Because, at least in my opinion, this is not one of those subjects where sources are hidden away offline or in specialist databases such that a guide-style SNG is important. If we're not going to have a carve-out, then just apply the GNG.

I know there are a lot of opinions about all of these interpretations. Here's the TL;DR - answer the "should we have an SNG that's informed by WP:N but not absolutely subordinate to the GNG" (because we do have those) first before bothering with the other kind of SNG. It's worth at least answering definitively (although how to frame that question or how to draft that proposed guideline would be really tricky). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, this has been, to put it mildly, a chaotic discussion. We've come to generally resolving a number of the textual issues that came up, but this is still a high-level tension and one the rewrite is trying to change.

NMEDIA's rap is something I think gained because of the way it was (and is) brought up in deletion discussions as a near auto-keep for broadcast radio articles that frankly don't yet meet the GNG (something that indirectly contributed to this process taking place). The rapidly emerging consensus indicates that this guideline should be subordinated to the GNG.

I've been trying to rewrite NMEDIA in such a way that it is a GNG-aligned guideline. The need for this, specific to this class of articles, is undeniable. As a topic editor, I frequently find situations in which non-topic encyclopedia editors become confused by the way our broadcasting articles work (the one-to-a-license rule, having so many dabpages, and so on), and it's been my broad experience that this area of the project can sometimes get out of alignment over the long run with encyclopedia-wide policies and guidelines (something I have worked consistently to change in the last two to three years).

It's going to be impossible to satisfy everyone, but this process is also important because NMEDIA, which declares to "reflect consensus for notability of media topics reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice", has obviously come out of line with where consensus is today.

As to the question posed above, I don't think the consensus that has emerged would permit a "yes" answer, and I think framing alone would be a tall order. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

7-day pause

I appreciate all the comments that have come in in the first 24 or so hours of this RfC. They have indicated that, while there are positives of the rewrite and general acceptance in the areas other than broadcast, there is more to do to shift this document to reflect current consensus in the broadcast section. As a result, I am pausing this RfC for seven days as of the writing of this comment. The 7-day period will be used to revise the rewrite to address several concerns that have been raised, in addition to the change to a GNG-centric model already made, and return to present a document to the community that has wider buy-in.

Specific areas of focus that have been cited include:

• Revisions to the "why separate criteria" section
• Operationalizing "established broadcast history"
• Considering a population threshold as one potential bullet point that makes a radio station likely to meet the GNG

We've come a long way, but the amount of work needed is enough that we shouldn't be actively taking !votes at an RfC in the meantime. I will be pinging all of the contributors to this RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite with some next steps and discussion pointers relating to the above. I want to reiterate here that I am committed to seeing this through and ending up with an NMEDIA that is a recognized SNG and reflects current community consensus; if I wasn't, I wouldn't be taking this step. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extending the pause for another week, as comments received indicate more work needs to be done (and I have had other matters to tend to on and off wiki). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The deletionist NMEDIA?

@Extraordinary Writ, Devonian Wombat, Fram, HighInBC, Mikehawk10, and Buidhe: I'm pinging some of the strongest oppose votes because I would like to sincerely ask all of you, "What would your version of NMEDIA look like?"

I know this is a strange ask, but I am genuinely committed to incorporating your points of view, and given the number of comments, I can't do that without some specific text as a starting point. Even though the revised guideline comes closer to the GNG, the fear of permastubs and of the rewrite being still out of harmony seems to be a strong one. I'm inviting you to write your own NMEDIA as a base so I can see what needs changing and reconcile it with the rewrite that has been developed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

First off characterizing us as deletionists with that section heading is not helpful, I don't know all of the people you pinged but those I do know have a reputation for neutrality. It would be based on the standards set out at WP:GNG, with specifics for the topic of media. It would not be a lower standard which essentially becomes an exception to GNG. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, I meant it as a contrast to the thinking that the rewrite is too inclusionist at this time. I'll also take the reply to note that the rewrite is open to tweaks right now, and I invite some WP:BOLDness. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't consider myself a deletionist as I favor keeping any article topic with sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to write a solid encyclopedia article. If I were convinced that the guideline was closely tailored to what would meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP, I wouldn't oppose it, but I still don't entirely see the need. In particular, I don't think that the standard for currently existing media organizations should be any more lenient than NCORP as they have the same potential problem of self-promotion. (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Except that a general corporation can be covered by media without that media having a fear of promoting a potential rival. Why would a media outlet do an in-depth story on another media outlet? --ARoseWolf 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

"Media outlets" are not the only reliable sources out there. We can also use books from reputable publishers, scholarly works published in reputable journals, and so on. Those will frequently study media, and so will provide potential reliable and independent source material for media subjects. If there just isn't much of that either—well then, the subject in question is not an appropriate subject of a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There in lies the problem to me. This one-size-fits-all approach is detrimental to the over-all project, in my opinion. I am not for the inclusion of non-encyclopedic subject material but where an encyclopedia article can be written I think we should find a way to include it. I am for the use of common sense and not being afraid to be bold and color outside the lines sometimes. We don't have to abandon reason but we shouldn't weaponize reason either just to stick to some rigid line of what we personally view as appropriate. I am perfectly okay with a subject that I might feel is non-notable being here if it remains encyclopedic. I am not fond of two sentence stubs. I think the reader deserves more than that. But I love getting out of the box and viewing things from a different angle sometimes. --ARoseWolf 16:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, there are often sources in newspapers and the like (less so in the last 15-20 years), it's just that sometimes there is real bias based on corporate concerns. I recently elevated WBPX-TV to GA, for instance, and it contains lots of references from The Boston Globe. However, the 1998 book source notes that the Globe's coverage was biased, likely because of concerns over regional media competition, and even cites it as a factor in the demise of one era of the station: Monitor Channel executives released a statement, titled "Staying the Course", in which they described the Globe's "all-out assault on the television activities of the Monitor"; according to Susan Bridge, a former employee who later wrote a book on the Monitor Channel's history, this had been provoked by continuing talks for a partnership between the Monitor Channel and The Providence Journal Company. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the "one size fits all" approach is a bit more on the other side. We can include things without having them be an article subject, by for example covering them in a related or parent article. And if there's only enough source material for a few sentences, than rather than having a permastub, that is exactly what we should do. Being an article subject is not the only way something can be included in the encyclopedia. "Non-notable" means "shouldn't be an article subject on its own"; it does not mean "should not appear in the encyclopedia at all". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does there have to be "sides"? I think that creates a battleground too often. There isnt always an article to discuss them in either. Most people struggle with finding an appropriate place to redirect. I'm not saying we should have a permastub and, as I pointed out, a subject that I feel is not notable doesn't mean it isn't notable. Often times an argument can be made to keep and an equal argument can be made to delete almost any article on Wikipedia. That's with application of every guideline and policy. --ARoseWolf 16:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade and Sammi Brie: Sammi has a point. I use WorldRadioHistory.com for my VAST radio history sources. The problem is they stop around the mid-to-late 2000s. The publications went online-only. What folks think is "non-notable" or "doesn't meet GNG" is actually a continuation of a print publication. Take Billboard for example. That was a print publication for years, now it's a website. Radio and Records was THE source for anything radio, recording, and television, now it's a website. So, what the !Oppose editors claim is "non-notable" or "doesn't meet GNG" and "sources will never meet RS", is actually a continuation of something that has been around for decades.

Sammi brings up another very good point. A vast majority of the !Oppose editors are not participating in the discussion or the rewrite. It's just !vote and ghost. They give their opinion, we ask for their input, sometimes they give it, but most of the time, they are gone. We are genuinely (again, correct me if I am wrong here Sammi) asking all sides to participate here. So there is a "one-size-fits-all" approach, so everyone is happy. Because not everyone is going to be happy with our changes....but if we try and work together and get all the input we can from all sides, then maybe we can get something that works for everyone. The yays, the nays, the neutrals, the "mehs", and the inbetweens. Work with us. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe you'd probably like my suggested rewrite, as all it would say is: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Ultimately, either we have enough sources to write a reasonably complete standalone article, or we don't. We do not need yet another "SNG" that people misinterpret as a substitute for actually finding the sources prior to writing an article, or to permitting one even in their absence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I think you just described NMEDIA as it stands now. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well then, it doesn't need any rewriting in that case, let's just leave it there. There's either enough source material to write a complete article, or there isn't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.