Wikipedia talk:Notability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Notability as a reason for inclusion

This is one thing that seems to be ignored in some of the above discussion about notability being equivalent to verifiability and which is not currently included in the main page but which was previously discussed in this talk page. Whereas verifiability as a fundamental principle requires that we must be able to verify an article, it does not require that an article must indeed be verified, with explicit references or citations to high-quality published sources. We can, however, verify that the subject is likely to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources independent of the subject, based on few or unreliable sources, such as those found on websites, despite there not currently being such sources referenced in the article. If we were only to base inclusion on whether the standard of highly reliable sources were currently and explicitly met, many articles would be deleted that warrant inclusion and which can in the future be brought up to high standards. That no one steps up to document these excellent multiple sources in a 5-day AfD is not a reason to delete an article, and this is implicitly understood in deletion discussions related to notability. So, what sort of wording could be added to the page to make this less subjective? We could make reasons for inclusion be "likely to have multiple independent non-trivial sources"—it is not so bad that there be some subjectivity in deciding to include an article on the provision that reliable sources eventually be added. However, for example, an article related to a website, pop culture, current events, or some other subject which would have reliable sources online should not be kept so subjectively (or based on fans saying "I think it is likely there are sources") if there are not sources to be found easily, whereas for example an article on a historical subject for which we can find rather unreliable mentions on personal websites, but which would need books to be found at a major library in order to have reliable sources, should be kept. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is not about the hypothetical "ability" for an article to be sourced at some unspecified time in the future. Verifiability is about a readers ability to verify the info in the article - meaning that it has been sourced so that people can scrounge those sources for verification of information. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and neither is verifiability. Fresheneesz 09:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Between Google's stable of sources (Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News) and offline sources, if nothing can be found, I think that's the best reason to delete an article. Quite frankly, lack of sourcing is the single biggest problem in Wikipedia today, and notability should not be used as a grounds for keeping an article despite a lack of verification. People certainly can use their discretion where information is likely to be true (hence the {{fact}} tags), and the process of nominating any article should begin by checking to make sure there are no good sources available that have been overlooked, but yes, no sources = a clear delete, regardless of notability. Ziggurat 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is often how notability is used in AfDs at the moment - as a measure of the likelihood of finding sources. And in many cases that's all you can do; you can't conclusively say there aren't any sources, merely that you haven't found them. So any unsourced article could be brought to AfD, and if not sourced during that time, could be deleted. It can be recreated later if/when sources have been found. I don't think you can judge articles on being "likely to have sources" because it would be so subjective. Although I agree that a failure to find sources online for a "modern" article is more damning than for a historical one.
Ziggurat, I would say "no sources = a clear delete" because of notability (i.e. the measure of an article being notable is that it has sources). Trebor 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Notability = enough non-trivial information in sources to write an article from. Thus, no sources is BY THE DEFINITION OF NOTABILITY, non-notable. A subject without any sources cannot be notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the comment again. There are reliable sources for such a subject, and some sources can be found online, but the sources that can be found online are alternatively unreliable, trivial, or few. If several Google books have passing mention that a person was the king of Sumer, there are certainly multiple non-trivial sources on that subject, but they may not necessarily be found online. If we find only a single book on Google for a subject that otherwise has indications of notability, there would be multiple sources but they cannot be found online. If we find several personal websites by amateur historians, these sources are not especially reliable but there nevertheless are likely to be multiple non-trivial sources to be had. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then they should be found and cited. I don't have a bias for online sources, although they do make things easier. But sources of some kind still need to be cited; the belief that such offline sources exist isn't enough, and an article that relies only on this belief should be deleted. Ziggurat 07:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources are already cited in the article, but not multiple non-trivial highly reliable sources. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There are venues to correct this. Deletion review is one of them. A deleted article still exists forever, it is just unreadable by non-admins. A deleted article can be restored via deletion review, and unlike AfD there is no time-limit on debate or statute of limitations on an article. Theoretically, an article could be restored even years later if reliable sources are eventually produced. Also, there is no rules against recreating an article with the same name, if the new article is substantially better than the deleted article. If sources are found and an new article written from those sources, the new article should be kept, even if those sources only exist in print. There is no requirement that reliable sources exist online. If you find a reliable print source to write an article from by all means do so. If we take as an arguement "I know the article has no sources now, but someday someone might be able to find something" then we can delete nothing, as this arguement can be applied to any debate. If, during the 5 days of the AfD, you find print sources, provide them so that others may see that they exist. If after the AfD the sources are found, bring the issue to DRV and provide the sources. The potential of existance of something is too tenuous or too subjective. Either the evidence has been provided, or it hasn't. We should not base our decisions to delete an article based merely on the potential that sources might exist. --Jayron32 06:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what is more common is that an article is created on top of the deleted one unknowingly by another user—it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Being a new article created fresh, it is then inferior to the previous article and is duplicated effort that could have been spent improving the previous article. More work is done on it, then 6 months later someone notices that there was an older deleted article—even users that know about the deletion log do not check it for every article—and there has been substantial redundant work done during that time, and then more work to merge them. Then someone thinks it should be deleted for not having highly reliable sources, the cycle repeats with steps backward and forward, and then eventually someone with book in hand comes by and creates a new article. In all this, there is a tremendous amount of redundant work, there is no doubt throughout that the topic warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia, and the deletion process actually serves to leave a weaker article on the encyclopedia than the one deleted. The issue is this: Articles which do not have multiple non-trivial highly reliable sources do not belong in the encyclopedia, but there are very few articles that meet this standard, and the only way to improve them is to keep them on. The use of notability in the deletion process takes this into account, but this guideline does not document it. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • what sort of wording could be added to the page to make this less subjective? — You haven't actually explained what is subjective in the first place about being unable to find sources. Your argument as a whole appears to be based upon the misconception that a subject should be judged at AFD solely by the sources already cited in the article. Nowhere does the page say that, and with good reason. Neither notability or verifiability are, or should be, judged solely by the citations in the article. One of the very purposes of having multiple editors involved in a deletion discussion process is that multiple people will attempt to research the subject, thereby ensuring that there is the best reasonable chance that if sources exist they will be found. (Conversely, copious citations, of non-trivial published works from independent sources, in the article itself are the best argument that a subject is notable.) If multiple editors perform such searches and fail, then the criteria have not been satisfied. We can only base our decisions upon what editors, after reasonable searches, do find, not what they might find but in fact have not.

    Yes, it is thus incumbent upon all AFD participants to do the research. Those that don't are not helping Wikipedia. The cases where AFD goes wrong are where no editors bother to do the research. The definition of notability given here is not the problem, and arguing against it is not the solution. Indeed, it is the lack of application of this definition of notability that is the problem, and the solution is to persuade editors to apply it; which involves performing reasonable research to check that no non-trivial published works from independent sources exist when asserting that something is not notable, and citing such published works when asserting that it is notable.

    If you want to add some wording to the page, "Do the research!" is an idea to consider. ☺ Uncle G 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposing, for the moment, that someone will always be willing to do the research on AfD, and that all the reliable sources in the world are on Google Books, notability as a concept is for more than deletion discussions. Is an individual editor deciding whether to nominate an article for deletion on the basis of the sources currently present in an article, or on the basis of doing an exhaustive search for every single article? Or is he instead deciding based on other criteria—of which there is evidence in the subguidelines—that we know a person has reliable sources because he has done a major thing, regardless of whether those sources are in the article or whether the editor in question cares to find all the reliable ones? We can find sources, just not several major sources of the highest caliber; we know it is not a hoax, and the article can and will be substantiated (and if deleted, someone will re-create it—and not as vanity, fancruft, or spam).
Back to the other point, take for example Aelle of Sussex. The article is tagged at the top as requiring sources, though there are a few links within to mostly random websites. Yet, this is an Anglo-Saxon king, this person was recorded by the Venerable Bede and in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and Britannica has an article on this person. There are several trivial mentions on Google Books and Google Scholars, and there are a few hundred rather unreliable websites too. I cannot, however, find multiple reliable published works that cover this subject non-trivially, but Britannica certainly found enough information and considers it sufficiently worthy to make an article. If I were to nominate this article for deletion, it would be unanimously kept—and its possible no one would bother to fix up the article right this minute. Perhaps this is a problem with the meaning of "trivial", or the meaning in relation to reliability. There are several books on Google that have a half page that mentions this person, though there may be entire chapters on it somewhere else. If we were to make a half page the standard, though, we would be including all manner of modern-day subjects in the millions of junk books now published. Aelle only gets half a page because there is not much known of him due to the mists of time; if more were known he would be the subject of entire books. With other topics, half a page in a couple of books means not notable. So, a binary notability is inadequate here. Maybe trivial needs to be defined better, or triviality and multiplicity need to be defined in terms of the reliability of the source (a single paragraph in Carlyle is worth more than a boatload of magazine features), or there should be a well-defined allowance for anything that is traditionally important, but triviality is dependent on the historical importance of the subject and the nature of the source. Triviality is, to some extent, a notability wrapped within a notability. —Centrx→talk • 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If editors have a strong suspicion that sources do exist but can't be found "immediately" (i.e. online), then there may be a consensus to keep, despite not having found them. It may be possible to create additional guidelines on triviality, but it would be something that varies so much between article and publications that it would be very hard. It might be easier just to decide on a case-by-case basis - editors using their best judgement as to whether sources exist. Out of interest, do we know how Britannica decides on whether to include something? Trebor 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am uncertain as to what the objection to this article is. Bede is old, but not trivial. Though we may debate his "reliability", the fact that the king makes citation in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, one of the most analyzed books in the history of the English Language, makes him quite notable. Britannica is quite reliable, and thus a valid source as well. If Britannica editors cared enough to write an article, than notability has MORE than been established. While triviality is something that must be handled on a case-by-case basis, the concept itself is central to the "encyclopedic nature" of a subject. Again, it is vital that "non-trivial" be a criteria for notability, but it should be open for discussion what "non-trivial" means, and that discussion should occur during each AfD or DRV as it applies to each article. --Jayron32 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mising Link

Here's Washington Post article on this policy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201111.html My take is that deleting an article is considerably more easy than writing one, so scales should be tipped in favor of keeping somehow. See also the tidbit on surreality of deletion debate: "There's this debate going on about me, but Wikipedia seems to dislike self-promotion, so saying anything on my own behalf would probably undermine my cause. It's like I'm on trial and I can't testify.". Valters 11:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting story and a reflection on the confused state of notability at the moment (and also some people's belief that Wikipedia's not paper means that anything and everything should be included). But I think that the notability guideline, at the moment, has the scales tipped as far as possible in favour of keeping. If there aren't independent sources, the article just can't exist because there's nothing in there that couldn't be challenged and removed. As to conflict of interest issues, there's nothing wrong with arguing to keep using wiki policy (there's nothing to stop you doing it anonymously anyway), it's merely a reflection that you might not be able to be objective about hte issue. Trebor 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I can not agree with the "favor in keeping" argument you mentioned - it seems that currently "notability" burden of proof lies on the article, not on person wishing to delete it. And secondly, for some reason, it seems that folks have very itchy delete finger lately (or speedy delete finger!). Note that formal voting process is not used when somebody decides to blank a section out of article, citing his opinion of non-notability. Destroying is easier than creating. Valters 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The burden of proof must lie with the article (and its editors) - there's no way one can conclusively prove there are no sources, so nothing could be deleted. Any unverified statement can be challenged and removed; by extension, any wholly unverified article can be deleted. This may remove some correct information, but that's better than having an encyclopaedia flooded with incorrect data. Blanking sections of an article is a different matter (more to do with undue weight than notability) and should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Trebor 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not actually about this project page at all. It's about deletion discussions at AFD, where the scales have always been tipped in favour of keeping. Would that the reporter had known enough to get xyr facts straight! Xe stated that it is only administrators who participate in the process. As the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion clearly says, twice, anyone is welcome to participate if they can make a good argument that is based upon our policies and guidelines. Similarly, would that the reporter had known enough to tell xyr readers how to make arguments about xyrselves! The best way to demonstrate that something is notable is to cite sources to demonstrate that the relevant notability criteria (which for the several subjects mentioned in the article are WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC) are satisfied. Uncle G 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As someone has said elsewhere, the article reeks of bad fact checking. "Wikipedia jettisons more than 100 entries every day", more like 1000+. "There are just over 1,000 administrators at any one time". These are just a couple of the cold hard facts they should have gotten right, and then there are the sensationalist implications. —Centrx→talk • 21:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Entries on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today page are numbered. On December 3 there were around 94 articles up for deletion and on December 2 - around 117, but I am not sure how many were voted to destroy in the end. Valters 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the problems with WP:N

I'm not going to try to respond to every single pro and con point raised above, just ask some questions and point some things out:

[edit] Objective 'cause it says so

1. WP:N detractors say [and provide reasoning or examples to demonstrate — SMcCandlish, 11:00, 7 Dec 2006] that WP:N is subjective; supporters simply retort that it isn't and that it can't be because it says it isn't. That's faulty logic. Most people accused of crimes maintain their innocence, but that doesn't mean some of them aren't lying. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is as subjective as you think because in my view, it does not look subjective. Your view may differ. If you consider it too subjective, why not modify the page?74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 ?!? Um, do you have a response that isn't a tautology? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This was not meant to be an argument (not the "tautological" part, anyway), but rather a statement of my position -- namely that I do not see it as subjective, or at least not as subjective as you want to think: you seem to think that the definition on the page (what _exactly_ are you talking about? The PNC? The thing at the top? A combination of things?) is totally subjective. If it was that subjective we could distort it to say "X is notable 'cuz Zebbeledon Zipzod, my #1 source of info, says so!" But I cannot see how such a distortion could possibly be made in any reasonable way, and thus I do not concieve of it as being THAT subjective! It might deserve some more clarification made, but it's far from totally subjective, and especially being worthless. It's not perfect, I'll concede that, and work does need to be done, but it's not worthess, totally biased "tar" as you called it. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed, in detail, below (#Two-fold subjectivity) and elsewhere what is subjective about WP:N, so I'm not going to reiterate it here. Please actually read the posts here. I've never said that all of WP:N is "totally" subjective; I've even praised parts of it. If it can't be applied objectively then it is worthless, as a guideline on how to write articles or which articles should be written, which seems to be what WP:N purports to be; I would say that in that sense it is actually worse than useless. It may well have use as an essay or something, but it's not Guideline material at this stage. Again, that doesn't mean I think WP:N should be labelled Rejected or otherwise burned down, I simply think it needs to be seriously re-thought, not just in its wording here or there but from the ground up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I posted some responses there (which I'm awaiting an answer on from you), and am going to concentrate my discussion there as I am getting lost in this vast maze of posts, topics, etc., especially since the objectivity seems to be the really big issue. 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: As to why I don't just go edit it: a) because I think that edits to something of this level of dispute should be hashed out in Talk before they are made (the reason that I posted this "Some of the problems with WP:N" in the first place; the discussion has been getting way too personal and tooth-gnashy and unproductive), or they typically just lead to more arguments, editwarring, etc., and b) I don't believe in this Proposal in the first place, and I don't just mean its present particular wording, but its entire raison d'etre so I have no interest in twiddling with it. If in a month or a week or a year I come look here and see that the disputes are resolved and there's actually a proposal in place that makes sense, I'd be happy to contribute to it. Here's an analogy: I recently quit an eight-ball team, and went and joined another one, because the original team were hopelessly in-fighting and unable to get over their personal differences, ineffective as a team (for either internal or external purposes) and unwilling to learn or progress. I'm a lot happier now. Actually that was a direct and total allegory not just an analogy. Hint hint. But I am putting my money where my mouth is. My intent here is to engender reconsideration of this entire proposal, in favor of a much more collective-wisdom guideline (drawing on the previous 5+ [non-]notability proposals and the discussions of them, and just as importantly on current practice (the creation of topical notability criteria, their consensus adoption, and their importation into Policy in WP:DEL). In my view, the appropriate function of a WP:N Guideline is to explain how notability works, from an objective (as possible) viewpoint, as a guideline on the applicability of extant Policy to various situations instead of as a conflict with at least two Policies that is trying to masquerade as a new wanna-be Policy. I have opened this discussion more than once here (earlier only to have it shunted off onto an Archive page while the discussion was still ongoing; if that wasn't bad faith it was definitely a bad move.) So, I re-open it again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So then why not just completely rewrite this whole thing? You seem to suggest that a WP:N page should exist (see "In my view, the appropriate function of a WP:N Guideline..." which suggests that you believe such a guideline should exist), but if this is not it, why not draft a full rewrite the way you see it as working. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically (to answer "why not just rewrite"), because this article is WP:OWNed and no edit I make is accepted, even when it isn't changing the core text of the article. I shudder to imagine the edit-war that would result if I were actually to attempt to change the article in any central way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So why not then make your own proposal like others have, even if not forcing a rewrite right here, but writing it in a separate article, or in your user space, then people can discuss that? Maybe you should give that a try, eh? You seem to have some sort of idea, so why not put it out here in full for everyone to see? 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Because there've already been too many notability and notability-based proposals. As for the later question, I *am* putting my ideas out there, here on this talk page and in its archives. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That argument cuts both ways. Detractors of notability say it's subjective because they say so. If there is unclarity about what a term means, a good response is to write a page that defines it. (Radiant) 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have misread what I said. I didn't say "pro-WP:N-objectivity viewpoints are tautological", I said that the claim that WP:N is objective because it says it is, is circular reasoning. I.e., you are not addressing the argument I actually presented; you've missed an entire layer of the logic here. Another way of looking at it is argument to authority, where the authority being cited as proof that WP:N isn't subjective is WP:N itself, which is by definition not authoritative on the subject since it the debated point in the first place (i.e. it's like saying "Mel Gibson harbors no anti-semitic sentiments, no matter what concerns or evidence are raised, because Mel Gibson says he doesn't, and that's proof"). As for the entirely separate issue of whether the pro-WP:N-objectivity arguments so far are tautological, they do in fact appear to be so, or at very best unsupported. WP:N-subjectivity arguments I've presented have laid out specifics about why this proposal is subjective, and others have raised similar concerns; we're not just saying so, we're showing so. The opposite is not true; WP:N proponents have not demonstrated objectivity, only asserted it without evidenciarily or logically defending the assertion, sometimes attempting and failing to defend it with the "objective 'cause it says so" tautology, and all without substantively addressing the subjectivity counter-argument — as usual around here). And, no, a good way to fix vague or subjective language in a proposal is not to write a yet another proposal inventing a newly-constructed definition for the disputed term, that no one is ever likely to get on board with; a good way to fix it is to replace it with something less vague or subjective. The "additional essay" idea is just a waste of time - both would have to be approved as Guidelines simultaneously, or the explanatory proposal before the one it explains, in order for the latter to ever make sense as a Guideline. <fzzt spark pop> Does not compute...Does not compute! <BANG> NB: I do think it is good and important that WP:N dissuade subjective interpretations, mind you; but doing so does not make it an objective standard if the subjectivity lies in its wording or regular application. It's not "there" yet.— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So then what do you propose for a change to the wording? Remember, the application derives from the wording. Put these ideas to paper, not leave them in your head. You don't need a full essay, you just need to describe the change to the wording that you believe should be made. 74.38.34.192 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already made them all quite plain, I think, and I'm satisfied that the discussion is progressing in a more constructive manner on all sides. I may or may not participate in crafting the exact wording of the projectpage directly. I've leery of doing so, frankly, for reasons (internal and external) that I've already raised, but we'll see. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: I've seen some acknowlegment of the concern I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved. Yay! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two-fold subjectivity

2. The subjectivity is two-fold:

  A. WP:N itself defines itself in terms of "triviality", which is simply another way of saying "interesting enough", which I believe everyone here, on both sides, has agreed is a subjective viewpoint. This subjectivity problem is continued with follow-up terms like "depth", "mere", "directly", "trivially", "superficial", "tangentially", etc., none of which are defined in any objective way and all of which are generally used in a subjective manner in English; it seems questionable to some of us whether many of them even can be definined or used objectively, due to their very nature. The second paragraph of the "Notability is not subjective" section doesn't do anything to solve this problem. The text in it is self-evidently incorrect about what this "Guideline" actually says. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about if we defined, say, "non-trivial" to mean something like "an article devoted to, or other detailed discourse on the subject" (ie. more than a passing reference). What would the community think of this? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
How is that any less subjective? What does "passing" mean? How do you define "detailed"? What is "devotion" in this context? The worm can is just spilling even more. In theory I think that precise definitions could help, but in practice I'm skeptical they are feasible. There's another problem there that I won't get into just yet, because I can't remember the WP: shortcut to it right off hand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So then what exactly do you propose, anyway? PS. More "detailed" would be like at least one full, proper article on the subject: a journalistic/magazine/etc.-like article or report. 74.38.34.192 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's your definition of what "detailed" enough is to qualify as evidence of notability, then I'd have to oppose that definition. Vehemently. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Another point! On all the agreed-upon notability guidelines (ie. not WP:N proper), that same criterion of "multiple, independent, non-trivial sources" appears, so I guess that all those are "totally subjective, biased tar" as well even though they seem far more stable than WP:N. 74.38.34.192 04:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it was established that this isn't actually the case; not all of the subject-specific notability criteria actually use UncleG's PNC. I think they should mind you (or should all at least use some consistent standard), and now that I no longer feel WP:N need go away, I think WP:N is the place to establish that. As for your quoting of me back at myself, you're mischaracterizing my argument, which has been that the the topical notability guidelines at WP:N (despite their lack of total consistency) are valid because Policy says they are. The tarbaby here consists of the objectivity faults in the present WP:N wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  B. WP:N's wording asside, the actual application of it is subjective. The effect has been to provide a "Delete: Non-notable" shorthand for those who used to write "Delete: I've never heard of this" or "Delete: This isn't interesting enough". The actual meaning of these "votes", which do seem to be being treated more and more as votes, hasn't changed any, they've simply been leant an air of non-bogusness. It is instructive to re-read Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#There is a lack of objective criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However, this again comes down to the community. This seems to reflect the overall attitude of the community (otherwise it wouldn't continue -- practice here ideally reflects the opinion of every Wikipedia editor), and how exactly would you propose to change that? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Chanting "community" as a mantra does not a logical argument make. To get to the substance of the matter, the fact that a lot of people do it doesn't make it right. We have (non-controversial) Guidelines and Policies warning against all kinds of behaviors, activities and thought-patterns around here for the precise reason that many wikipedians make incorrect assumptions and act accordingly. They do treat AfD like a ballot. They do think that Policy is made and changed only by Being Bold and getting enough loudmouths to argue in their favor for a week so that to an incoming observer to the discussion it may look like they have consensus. They do get into edit wars. They do bite the newbies. The overall attitude of "the community" at this very point in time does pretty much seem to amount to an AfD free-for-all of merciless deletion, much of it based on questionable "me too" notability "votes". The mood is sour. This often happens to a community, of any kind, when it is under stress (and WP is under stress, especially from vandals, spammers and WP:NPOV-violating autobiographers, in record numbers). This does not mean that this panicky, knee-jerk response is the most beneficial one. But this is a moot point. Policy is very clear on the fact that AfD is not a vote, and that articles are not to be deleted for reasons that are not genuinely actionable. "This isn't an interesting topic" is not an actionable criterion, but that's precisely what most of the NN !votes in AfD are really saying; very, very few of them can cite convincingly any reason mentioned in the notability criteria recognized by Policy at WP:DEL. Ironically, they don't even have to. Most of the articles that are deleted under NN that should be deleted are deletable for violation of the Three Pillars (often all three at once) or some other Policy. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so what you are saying is that a majority does not equal even rough consensus? I guess this is so, maybe I'm still too hung up on a vote as the fairest way to make a decision when obviously this is not true. I recently told somebody on an AFD discussion who was using notability that it was too disputed to "test the water", so to speak, but I can't seem to find it anymore :( 74.38.34.192 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Right; It IS so, according to the policy you cite, and several policies, guidelines and well-accepted essays on the topic. Being outvoted by a sheer headcount does not mean that your opponents' views have achieved consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of people misuse the word "vandalism" here, too. That's not a reason to drop our vandalism policy, and people misusing the term "non-notable" isn't a reason to trash the notability guideline; it's a reason to correct those people. Have you tried pointing out to them that there's a definition they're disregarding? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of "vandalism" being misused as a term. As a metaphor it works very well, and "BIG PENIISSS!!!!" edits are reverted and labelled vandalism every minute of every day. I can't think of a single instance of any article that I edit regularly enough to pay attention to its history page of a legit edit being reverted as vandalism. The few cases I've heard of have been dealt with swiftly by the community and in some cases administrative action. Non-problem. That is, I deny the validity of your analogy (admittedly on the basis that it doesn't fit my sense of wikireality; perhaps you can convince me that I'm somehow blindly lucky and simply not editing where bogus "vandalism"-revert editwarring is happening or whatever.) Moving on, and excising the analogy, the fact that people are broadly misinterpreting notability (and, ahem, notably much more so since WP:N was questionably promoted in an edit war to the disputed status of Guideline) is a very clear indication that something is deeply wrong with WP:N. As suggested above, I believe this is because there have been at least 5 other notability proposals, ALL of which were more moderate and thus just on a statistical basis alone probably closer represented actual consensus on the issue. As suggested above, I think there could be a place for a document known as Wikipedia:Notability but I think it would better serve us all as a guideline for editors of topical notability criteria on how to do a good job of that, and a general overview of the concept of notability, instead of a new Wikipedia-wide Notability Criterion. Lastly, no I have not pointed out to anyone that there's a definition in this document that they're disregarding, because this document is problematic mishmash of WP:OWN'ed personal stuff, actual practice already covered elsewhere, self-contradiction, vagueness and overbreadth. Instead, I point out that there are REAL, policy-sanctioned notability criteria for many topics in WP:DEL, that where there is not a topical notability criterion recognzied by WP:DEL as valid there remain WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., etc., and that WP:N is disputed and should not be relied upon. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't see evidence of the word "vandalism" being abused? I deal with that almost every day. Someone calls an edit they disagree with "vandalistic" or something and runs to an admin for help because they don't know how to handle a content dispute. I or someone has to explain to the person that it's not vandalism if the person thinks they're doing the right thing, and that calling it "vandalism" tends to escalate the dispute, etc. Ask any admin whether the dreaded "v-word" gets abused constantly.
I didn't say I don't believe it happens. I tried to indicate that I do not think abuse of the term "vandalism" is a major wikipedia problem. That is, I'm sure the lack of Wikipedian education on the WP definition of this term is a headache for admins, but they can always help improve editor education on the topic, or quit being admins. As an editor not an admin, misinterpretation of the meaning of "vandalism" here is simply a non-issue in my experience. Different topic entirely: As for your side issue, that the term "vandalism" escalates disputes, I agree. I think both WP:NFT and WP:VANDAL need a total rewrite with WP:NPOV and WP:BITE in mind. The "WP:NUKE" shortcut got, ahem, nuked on precisely these grounds, and I've seen several other examples take place over the last few months. Just using the term "vandal" is probably irritating enough to good faith but clueless editors, experimenters who don't understand where the sandbox is (it happens - someone even used the Sandbox (software development) article the other day as the sandbox; pretty funny really), and little school-kid genuine vandals who are having a prank and not really intending harm, per se, that it just makes them want to vandalize again. If you call someone an asshole they tend to act like one in response, as it were. Pretty lame situation for WP. One of the other cases I mentioned that I can think of was a "this page is frequently vandalized and if you'd like to help, Watch the page" kind of page heading template that was MfD'd because it would probably only result in increased vandalism, like a "vandalize here!" beacon. I forget what the others were, but the gist was that there's too much stuff in policyspace that conflicts with WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As for why you're so committed to opposing this page tooth and nail rather than improving it, I don't know what's going on there. Perhaps you don't realize that, practically speaking, you're just about infinitely less likely to get it deleted than to help us improve it, however many times that might make you say "grrr". Maybe you just get a kick out of being "against" things, I dunno.
The funny thing is, you and I seem to want the same thing. We both want people to stop thinking in terms of subjective "significance" in deletion discussions. We both want people to argue from sources. I'm just suggesting that we redefine notability in a way that makes it nothing more than the good old source-based argument, while you want them to drop the concept entirely. Which is easier to do - change the definition of a word into something harmless, or get people to drop the word entirely? I teach for a living, and I have an idea. -GTBacchus(talk)
Oh, I never had any illusions that WP:N would be MfD'd! I believe I agree with these goals, and I think there are enough participants at this point, from multiple wikipolitical stances, that someting useful can come of this, which is why my stance is much moderated over the last couple of days. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There also appears to be a long-standing lack of consensus even among notability supporters about what notability means and what subjective means in relation to it: Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability is not necessarily subjective, and then see the similarly named but totally different entry immediately above that. At least those with concerns about WP:N are consistent on this topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a more objective definition is under development. The work of development involves a lot of ideas getting thrown around, some of which may contradict each other. That's a sign that thinking is going on. Those who say the sky is falling are remarkably consistent, too. It's easy to be consistent with negativity; being constructive requires creativity, which surges in many directions at once. You're being a part of it despite yourself, SMcCandlish, by serving as a foil for ideas that are being considered. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. Being the foil, especially early on, was a large part of my purpose here, and a major part of why I've not made substantive edits to the main projectpage text — prevented me from being accused of doggedly defending my preferred term, sentence, etc., in the guideline content and clouding the meta-points in the debate with "noise" about this text twiddle or that. (I actually was the subject of some akin accusations, I note, with regard to even the non-content edits I made. I think my tactic was justifiable.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the disputed tag on the page should replace instead of modify the guideline tag. I wasn't going to go that far, but if one of WP:N's two most vociferous defenders is saying that the text, live and on-the-fly, is experimental rather than believed to be reflecting consensuses arrived at on the talk page, I believe such a change is entirely justified. That said, I agree and even applaud that actual consideration of various views is (finally!) happening. And yes, I realize I'm being a foil for this; I do not wish to directly edit this document other than maybe to fix typos or (way, way earlier) provide links to failed proposals on the topic, because I don't want to lend WP:N my support, at least until such time I think it is something worth my support. But I'm very happy to engage in talk page debate that may bring it within the realm of possibility of said worthiness. If I were totally hopeless about this topic, I'd just go do something else! I've spent more energy and time in here than I have on my favorite articles in the last month. I think that is a sign of good faith, hope and a desire to see a consensus actually develop. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it's a pleasure working with you. I'm entirely confident we'll get this sorted out in a way that's good for Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm finally feeling that way too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not everything has to be strictly defined here. For instance, "vandalism" and "featured article" are not strictly, objectively, or legalistically defined either, but the community has no problem at all working with them. (Radiant) 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That's wierd... I KNOW I replied to this, but my reply's not here. <pop sizzle spark> Cannot compute how that happened. To reply again: In what way do you find WP:VANDAL subjective? How an article gets to be featured is necessarily subjective, in that it's a consensus decision — a popularity contest, basically — about what articles would be best for the front page; it's subjective by definition, and isn't related in any way to the decision-making processes about what is or isn't of encyclopedic value; so I'm not sure what the pont of that example was. Seems rather apples and oranges on that one. And many of the criteria for getting even considered for FA status are not subjective at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That may've sounded self-contradictory. To rephrase: FA is subjective by its very nature, but to the extent that some of it can be objective, it is remarkably objective (and didn't have to be so), suggesting that objectivity is greatly valued on Wikipedia (an idea strongly bolstered by the very existence of WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:AUTO, among others.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: I see rather limited acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and willingness on the part of one to see the issue resolved. Clap-clap. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction on self-definition

3. WP:N contradicts itself (and uses bad grammar, incidentally). It defines itself in the first paragraph, then redefines itself under Primary Criterion [sic] with a tripartite definition that subsumes but goes far beyond the original definition with two additional criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What if we were to reword it a bit, perhaps maybe change the intro and shrink it down to a single def on this page? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it would be a good start. The main point was that you can't say at the top "notability means X" and then later say "No, actually notability really means X+Y+Z" and expect anyone to understand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Lots of pages on Wikipedia have bad grammar. Just like we don't delete articles for their grammar, we don't oppose policy/guidelines for their grammar. {{sofixit}}. (Radiant) 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Who said anything about deleting WP:N based on a grammar quibble? I just pointed it out so it can get fixed. I didn't call for deletion of WP:N in the first place, have opposed the suggestion. <fizzle spark> Doesn't address the actual point: WP:N is self-contradictory, which is a problem.
My conclusion: I've seen acknowlegment of the concern I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved, on the part of a single editor, who says he's leaving WP anyway. I consider this point, therefore, unanswered and unaddressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus conflict with existing guidelines

4. WP:N evidences lack of consensus even on the part of notability guidelines' authors: "One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the [topical notability] guidelines [in the list on the right]"... [emphasis added] If some of them don't use this criterion, then consensus on the issue has not (yet?) been reached. Which by the way is one example of how WP:N would supercede longer-standing and noncontroversial Guidelines, several of which have the force of Policy now because they have been imported by specific reference into WP:DEL. I.e., WP:N is over-broad, and in conflict with both Policy and other Guidelines. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It does not have to supercede them -- rather it is providing an addendum to those guidelines that do not have it (Are there any? I looked through all the accepted-as-guideline Notability pages and found that same PNC in all of them.), not tossing out every other criterion. Perhaps the term, "primary criterion" is somewhat misleading, though. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If WP:N adds a requirement/criterion that some WP:DEL-sanctioned notability criteria do not have - if it makes "passing" the "notability test" any harder for any articles - then, yes, it IS attempting to supercede Policy. I've already addressed this previously, with regard to WP:N "just adding to or strengthening" WP:V. It's an out-of-bounds endeavor. If WP:V or WP:DEL are deficient in some way, they should be modified via WP:HCP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What if it defines a "notability test"? It can't make that any "harder" until such a test is defined. I do not see how Policy explicitly defines something called "notability", so there's nothing to override! WP:N does not "add to" WP:V, it provides a new criterion all it's own. Notice there's more notability rules than just WP:N, by the way, so "notability" is obviously something else than "verifiability", even if it's designed to ensure it to something. 74.38.34.192 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your defining idea is kind of what I've been getting at when I've said elsewhere that WP:N should offer guidance on how to properly construct notability criteria (I remain unconvinced of the "safety net" argument others have made for WP:N as an actional deletion criterion in and of itself; while I agree that we can't write a tailored subject-specific notability criterion for every conceivable topic, at least not in our lifetimes, I think that BIG-topic subject-specific notability criteria could in fact cover everything, and as the need arises, be narrowed (e.g. the "books" notability guidelines could be adapted into a more general "publications" one, and if enough people thought they were too vague or overbroad for a particlar application, such as magazines or e-books or porno videos or whatever, they could write a narrowing one to cover that smaller topic more specifically. This system isn't a new idea, it's a description of what's already been happening with WP:DEL and CAT:Wikipedia notability criteria, after all, since long before WP:N was "born") Anyway, to return to your point, yes, WP:N does add a criterion all its own, that conflicts with WP:V, WP:DEL, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., taken as a combined whole that we can call "operating policy" (or some other term someone else prefers). I've been slowly convinced (more by my own observations of the players involved than by anyone's individual responses) that this can be rectified. I remain disturbed the apparent unsuccess of some to even understand the point, however. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Guess what? Our guidelines, like our encyclopedia, are a work in progress. We're working on it. It's like you're critiquing this as if it were presented as a perfect code of rules; it's not. We're fumbling towards perfection, and little improvements are the way we do it. If there's a notability criterion that doesn't include a version of the PNC, we talk about it. This isn't a reason to cry havoc and let loose the dogs, it's a reason to discuss the details. In this case, it appears to be a false alarm, because all the subject specific critera do include the PNC. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that fully. The position I entered this debate with, that WP:N should not have a Guideline tag on it (I never once suggested it should be deleted, I reiterate) was born of the view that WP:N is "too" embryonic to be an effective or reliable Guideline at this point. (I had other points too, especially with regard to process, but that was the major one). I actually (as of this writing, an in after expressing my changes of stance and belief that WP:N should and can be fixed instead of scrapped) still believe this; I think that the Guideline tag should be temporarily replaced with the disputed one, instead of paired with it, until WP:N is substantially improved. I'm "okay" with the present situation, but would wax sorely pissed at at attempts to remove the Disputed tag completely. PS: I don't think I was wardogging; I was simply pointing out that some of the WP:DEL topical notability criteria don't agree with WP:N and that WP:N even says so itself (the former may or may not even be true any longer, but isn't the real point on this subtopic, which was that this guideline is effectively saying "heck, even some of the long-standing notability criteria that are now part of Policy don't agree with me, and I admit it, so, um, uh, why am I am here again? What authoritativeness do I provide? Can I be sanely relied upon? Am I in conflict with Policy? I have a headache..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing; discussing the details. Recognizing that no Guideline is perfect does not, however, equate to recognizing that every Proposal should be a Guideline. You may not believe it, but I think that the PNC is actually not bad. If there really are no WP:DEL notability guidelines that are missing it any more, I'd say just edit WP:N (grrr, now I'm saying how to improve the thing instead of get rid of it...) to remove the "most" language, and then the WP:N proposal will be codifying consensus practice on that particular point, only, but at least that's one step closer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So, then could you post some examples here of how various sections should be improved? If you post it here they can be discussed and won't be mercilessly nuked from the article. 74.38.34.192 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The intent of this page has never been to supercede existing notability guidelines, nor does that say so on the page. (Radiant) 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: I've seen some acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and willingness to see the issue resolved, but remain unconvinced that it was fully understood. Good enough for now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vagueness

5. WP:N is vague. It states that "Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work" but provides no actual scale with which to make such a measurement, and ergo is abusing the word "measure" as well as suffering from subjectivity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then feel free to edit it, and gauge how the community as a whole responds. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As per the above undesire to be one of the direct authors of this thing, I decline. More particularly, I don't think it is possible anywhere near the present tactic to make notability as conceived by WP:N objective. Or even arbitrary, in the positive legal sense, which would actually probably satisfy me and (given the acceptance of other, topical, notability guidelines) many others. Lest that cause any confusion: Arbitrary in legal terms means "having a set, knowable boundary unaffected by personal, commercial or other bias", basically. The topical notability criteria have (or tend to have; some of them are still a bit deficient) a definite line, or more often a set of lines, any one of which will do, to cross for an article topic to be considered "notable". This is in large part is why I think a WP-wide notability criterion is nonsense, rather than a guideline on how to create notability criteria [and a definition of "notability &mdash SMcCandlish, Dec. 9, 2006]]. As a simple example, it might be determined by consensus at some point that sportspersons are not "notable" (solely as such) unless they have achieved some mark of stature in their field. How to define that?!? In pool (i.e. pocket billiards), I can confidently say that any professional player (not otherwise notable for some other reason) is not notable if they have not a) won first place in a national or international tournament sanctioned by a notable (defined elsewhere) organization; b) been in the top three in several such tournaments [but even "several" is probably too vague!] or c) ranked in the top 100 players in their game (eight-ball, whatever) by such an organization or a notable (defined elsewhere) publication in their field consistently for several years (again "several" is probably too vague.) Now let's switch to the NFL, AFL, NBA, etc. I think it is solidly arguable that every single member of these pro sports leagues is notable (even by WP:N's wonky criteria), simply by virtue of the fact that they are in them at all. So what about golfers? Is every single golfer who can, at least once, compete in a major golf event "notable"? Probably not. (What about champion spitters? Is distance spitting itself even "notable"? It sure is to the terbacky-chawin' competitors in it...) I don't know enough about golf to suggest appropriate criteria (and the point is, you probably don't either, but the major "editorial shepherds" of the golf articlespace probably do.) It's very "notable" that the arbitrary criteria for bands, books (that one's still a draft, but it's illustrative), fictional characters, etc., etc., are all radically different on their arbitrary criteria. There are very good reasons for this that WP:N is ignoring and trampling upon. There may be a plausible argument that this is a bad situation for some reason, but to date that argument has not been made successfully, and extant policy at WP:DEL assumes that argument to be false. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I probably do know how to write at least a couple of guidelines for golfspace notability, but I probably won't give it a try. I would also like an explanation of these "very good reasons" that you claim exist for it being very "notable" that all the "notability" guidelines are all "radically different from each other", etc. You know your arguments will be greatly improved if you explain reasons instead of just stating that they exist. 74.38.34.192 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already covered this multiple times in the last month, and the very post you are responding to self-illustrates the reason, with the differing examples of pool and the NFL and distance spitting. The short version is: What's "notable" in one field or for one reason isn't "notable" in/for others; the WP:DEL NN guidelines account for this and it seems to me that WP:N doesn't. My views on this are flexible, and in fact bending, but I have to observe that the concern raised has not been addressed, in this thread or any other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not everything has to be strictly defined here. For instance, "vandalism" and "featured article" are not strictly, objectively, or legalistically defined either, but the community has no problem at all working with them. (Radiant) 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
In what way(s) would you consider them WP:VANDAL vague or subjective? (FA is subjective by definition and is not related to article/content survival and thus of no relevance, any more than a beauty pageant is of relevant to whether cold fusion is possible; both of them are matters of debate, and society — our even larger community — can handle both of them. Doesn't mean they are subjec to the same criteria. So, can you restate your point? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: This point is completely unaddressed. Un-yay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-admission of lack of consensus

6. WP:N directly admits that it is not a consensus viewpoint: "The use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia." If a Proposal must reach consensus to become a Guideline, then how can WP:N possibly be a Guideline at this point? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There must be at least a rough consensus, but I'm not sure on this. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, this self-evidently is not the case. This is one of the most diputatious talk pages in all of Wikipedia:, and remains so even when I'm silent for several days straight, so I know 'tain't jus' li'l ol' me. The present Proposal has had no less than five competitors (probably more; I find a new one every time I go looking hard), three of which are cited on the page itself, and two others that were highly improperly deleted and redirected here; they should have been preserved as Failed Proposals; their once-existence is evidenced by their vestigial talk pages, which I have archived off-site lest anyone get any Bad Faith ideas. >;-) This is easily the single most contentious issue on Wikipedia, and even in all of wikidom, since it really lies at the heart of the inclusionism vs. deletionism debate (among others strongly influenced by it). Now, I'm sure that a vote cast on the talk page of AfD or some other place totally dominated by deletionists will show strong support for WP:N, but that's evidentiary of nothing of substance. THIS is where the debate is, for the most part (WP:NNOT still has a few discussions on it, and a recent RfAr named several other places the ArbCom noted the discussion still active), and, well, look: It's a debate! Debate != consensus. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, in a way, what's contentious about "notability" is the same thing that's contentious about "vandalism". There's a lot of people generating angst in other people by misusing the word "non-notable". Same thing with the word "vandalism". That's why we need to be vigilant about promoting the objective definition we are pretty close to being settled on, just as we constantly need to remind people that edits that they disagree with are not called vandalism. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm very strongly agreed with your first sentence here, despite (perhaps too virulent) disagreement on other points (I pushed those below to insert this here, because I think the agreement's more important than the disagreement). "Notability" has been through so many renames I doubt another would hurt (the ones I remember off the top of my head are "fame", "importance", "interest" and "significance"; I'm sure there were others.) Right this moment, I can't think of a better one. It would need to convey the idea, but not be as "insulting" in the negative. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm agreed on the tactic, should the need arise, but I have to virulently disagree that it is in fact needed on a systemic basis (I'm sure there are isolated cases, yes), or that misinterpretation of "vandalism in the context of Wikipedia" and "notability in the context of wikipedia" are comparable on any level at all. It's a total red herring. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Um... your unfamiliarity with the constant abuse of the "v-word" doesn't make it irrelevant. If you're active in dispute resolution, you'll see that almost every case begins with User X saying that User Y is making "vandalistic" edits, and demanding that someone block User Y. Nearly every time, it turns out they're both good faith editors, but the discussion has ground to a halt amid accusations of vandalism. People abuse the word because they know that "vandalism" is considered a Bad Thing here, so they want to associate their opponent with it. Sadly, I've seen admins do it.
Meanwhile, regarding "notability", User Z sees an article that he thinks should be deleted, out of whatever motivation makes her want to delete things, and she knows that "non-notable" is a good buzzword to throw out there. Both User X and User Z are using terms of art without being aware of their meanings. We address the content dispute situation by reminding User X that "vandalism" means "clear attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia", and that User Y probably thinks she's improving the 'pedia by making that edit. Similarly, in the deletion situation, we can address it by reminding User Z that "non-notable" means "lacking sufficient sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:NOT". In both cases, once we've dealt with the abused term, we can refocus the discussion on sources, to address the content dispute in one case, and to establish the verifiability of enough facts to clear WP:NOT in the other case.
Oops, I've lapsed into the presumptuous "we" again; sorry about that. Anyway, I hope my analogy is clarified now - if you're still doubtful regarding the abuse of the word "vandalism", I can provide literally hundreds of diffs on demand. (That said, I'll be travelling over the next three days or so, and I won't spend that time looking up diffs, however readily found.) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Addressed this (abuse of "vandalism") with Radiant elsewhere. Short version: I concur that it's probably a major headache for admins, but in my experience is not particularly problematic for WP as a whole (other than inasmuch as it is draining admin time); one's an internal arena, the other external, in a sense, though the dichotomy/dualism is false on many levels, so it's probably a poor metaphor. On a daily basis I am not confronted in any way that has a marked effect on me, as an active editor and quasi-active follower of AfD and other internal processes, by misinterpretation of "vandalism", but am so confronted and directly affected by misinterpretation of "notability", "non-notable", etc. On a side note, I apologize for my sharp tone above (the "red herring" sentence). Back to your main point, I do strongly agree (and I think I even have some rare agreement with Radiant, if I read him correctly) that the non-neutrality of the language is the issue in both cases; "nonnotable" and "vandal" labels simply tick people off. Covered my thoughts on this in more detail elsewhere within the last couple of hours, so I won't rehash. PS: I've even been stung with being called a "vandal" inappropriately myself, but oh well. I leave the {{test3}}, I think it was, template he put on my talk page in place instead of archiving it despite its age, because it says more about abuse of "vandalism" labels than about me. And the views I was advancing actually won the (notability guideline related, believe it or not) debate I got vandal-flagged for. Heh. >;-) That someone mislabelled me a vandal once and only once — despite the fact that I like to Be Bold and can sometimes be abrasive, and have been around for 16 months — is at least anecdotal evidence that abuse of "vandalism" is a pretty internal problem, to me. I can't imagine the legit editor that is being pistolwhipped with bogus vandalism charges all the time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That's an awkward phrase, but not a contradiction. Something can be consensual yet have a vocal minority opposing it. (Radiant) 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Simply asserting "no its not" without arguing your case doesn't win an argument; it's just silly. I've addressed the "minority" claim elsewhere. Claiming that "opposed by a vocal minority" equates to "one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" is so absurd it doesn't need further comment. At least others here acknowledge the contention and want to resolve it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: The point with regard to project page text is moot, since the passage in question was simply deleted; I don't have any current objection to that, since I think the text of the article is better for the deletion. The underlying concern raised remains unaddressed (a bald refutation and and unsupported claim that those with concerns are few and simply loudmouths doesn't constitute addressing the concerns they raise.) A decided un-yay. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reiteration of existing policy

7. The aspects of WP:N that don't seem to raise any disputation are really just restatements of WP:V and WP:NOT. To the extent that WP:N would attempt to establish inclusion criteria that are more stringent than those in WP:V, then WP:N is attempting to usurp Policy-level status over WP:V. If WP:N's proponents want WP:N to have that power, they need to run it through the Policy creating processes at WP:HCP, not propose a Guideline. Even then, this would simply create conflicting policies. It is being suggested here by several participants that any deficiencies in WP:V, etc., should be fixed in-place, and that WP:N is wholly unnecessary. This is not a new argument, but one that has yet to be addressed sufficiently by WP:N supporters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But the fact that this exists, and is used so much in deletion by a great deal of Wikipedia editors suggests that there is an additional bar -- notability -- agreed on by CONSENSUS. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Another tautological argument. This reasoning is totally circular. It's the very advancement of this work-in-progress Proposal as a Guideline, which required outright edit-warring to pull off, that has led to the situation you describe as evidence in support of the alleged Guideline. That's like saying that because the Democrats took back the US Congress that all Republican really are wrong-headed Bad People. There are several names for this fallacy, two of them being "putting the cart before the horse" and "inverted cause" (or I guess technically it could be confusion of correlation with causality). I'm too tired right now to go dig up the wikilinks to the canonical names of them, but I recognize them just the same; just go to Fallacy and Logical fallacy and read around (and sheesh, why have those articles not been merged? Gahhh...) Anyway, this summer I took a wikibreak. Before I left, notability arguments were sensible mostly, citing specific notability criteria recognized by Policy at WP:DEL as having achieved sufficient consensus for that level of trust in their wisdom, and things were pretty much OK; notability as such remained a little controversial but it was beginning to get integrated. I came back after just two months of moving cross-continent and getting my life re-situatuated to find a #$%*ing warzone in AfD, an almost staggering number of disputed deletions, a vitriolic RfAr in progress, edit-warrning over conflicting proposed Guidelines, etc., etc., and it has only gotten worse in the month since then, until this guideline was marked (and re-marked) Disputed (it's still bad, but people are beginning to notice and to start posting actual Policy-based issues with articles in their AfD !votes, instead of just saying "Delete NN per nom" and moving on to the next tickbox on their voting hitlist. WP:N has been an unmitigated disaster. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I see the mistake I made in my argument -- "this is OK cuz it exists" (now that I read that out again, it seems dumb.). However, what I really want is an explanation for why it is still used? The fact that some notability-related guidelines are accepted by the community seems like evidence enough to me that the concept of notability has consensus support, even if this particular page in it's present form, ie. WP:N, does not. That is the point I was trying to make -- that the notability concept has support, even if WP:N does not (or at least not as much as it should). I do believe that a Notability page should exist, even if this is not quite it, to describe the concept in general. And I do notice the problem with AFD comments being treated as votes, even though WP:NOT a democracy and is instead based on consensus (consensus != 2/3 majority to do a decision, by the way.). Perhaps notability should be rebuilt to be a clarification and guide to applying and using Official Policy (namely, WP:V plus WP:NOT plus perhaps WP:NOR and a bit of WP:NPOV (undue weight)) instead of scrapped entirely? Notice: guideline. There's a reason for that. As in "guiding" something. 70.101.146.27 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Any answer to my question? 74.38.34.192 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Which one? I don't see any that I haven't already address one way or another at some point. Super short version a re-response to the main point you've raised: "notability" as supported by Wikipedians generally does not equate to support for WP:N in its present state, or even its present purpose(s). That's a Korzybskian conflation of two related, indeed hierarchical, but nevertheless distinct topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I've replied to this argument in some detail. As I and others have pointed out, WP:V says that in order to be included, material must be verifiable. It does not state the converse of that, namely that all verifiable information must be included. The policy WP:V does not in any way address how much verifiable information is necessary to support an article on a topic.
Our policy WP:NOT does address this question, when it says Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. These statements have been understood to mean that we attempt to provide coverage with more depth than a directory listing.
This notability guideline does nothing more than unpack the ways in which WP:V and WP:NOT work together to inform decisions about what kind of sourcing we need to support an article. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish that ("...does nothing more than unpack...") were really the case. I actually advocate a WP:N replacement that is a guideline on how to apply extant Policy in relevant situations with relation to notability as codified at WP:DEL. That's not what WP:N is. If I see sufficient evidence that WP:N is no longer being WP:OWNed, I might even help it get there (believe it or not, my position that "WP:N must die" has actually moderated downward about 15-20% in the last week or two based on these discussions, despite having ongoing debates I was making headway in being relegated to an archive page when they were still active). As to your earlier argument, I've already re-re-responded to that too. The fact taht WP:V doesn't say that "everything verifiable MUST be included", and that this obviously does need to be clear somehow, does not militate for the validity of WP:N, because that factor is already covered by WP:V in combinaion with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, etc., etc., etc. WP:N is a solution in search of a problem, a hammer looking for a nail that isn't sticking up. Show me the magic. Show me the worthless article that survived AfD only because notabilty criteria weren't applied. I dare ya. Double dog dare. (Though that should be a new topic; I suspect a fair amount of debate about any given example, and quote depth on this talk page tends to get deep very fast.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I can see an editor skirting around WP:V/WP:NOT by applying them separately. Let's say the editor takes directory-style information from a reliable source, then pads it with unreliable information from (primary source, the author's own brain, whatever). Then argues that, "it satisfies WP:V and WP:NOT! It's not a directory entry (look at the page) and it has verifiable sources (look at the source!)" ColourBurst 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But that would be transparent nonsense and it would still get deleted; the material "padding" the list would still have to have reliable sources. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Especially considering that I never understood your "WP:N must die" position seeing how much notability is used in making decisions including deletion. A WP:N page of some sort should exist to define and explain the concept, even if not to be a deletion criterion in and of itself. And there are also consensually-agreed-upon-by-the-community guidelines with more specific critera for notability (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc.), and thus the position that "WP:N" must be GONE COMPLETELY seems illogical. The question is: what should WP:N BE, not should it EXIST or not, as the obvious answer to the latter is an emphatic YES. 74.38.34.192 02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I longer hold that position. However you (and several others here) seem to continue to engage in the logic mistake of equating "notability" and "Wikipedia:Notability". They are not the same thing. One is a concept, which exists in Policy, and the other is a guideline attempting to codify something about that concept further. At any rate, I am in agreement at this point that the question is in fact what WP:N should be rather than whether it should continue to exist as a guideline. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is not a problem as we have many guidelines to supplement policy pages. (Radiant) 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You do not appear to have even recognized the argument that was being made (either that or you are being flippant, which equals non-responsive to the substance). I've already covered the important aspects of this argument elsewhere, the passage you denigrated as "legalistic thinking" if I remember correctly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: I've seen little (though not zero) acknowlegment of the concerns I raised with this topic, and remain unconvinced that it was fully understood; but the issue/challenge (show me the article that should be deleted but can't without WP:N's help) has been taken up by others elsewhere, and I'm less concerned about this personally now than when I wrote it. Good enough for now, though the result is indeterminate as the discussion has migrated to other topics. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Jimbo factor

8. WP founder Jimbo Wales has unequivocally opposed notability, almost three years ago, in terms that are still completely relevant. One WP:N supporter has labelled observing this fact (originally intended as humor on my part) the fallacy of "argumentum ad Jimbonem", which is amusing too. But WP:POLICY states very specfically and categorically that Jimbo's "declarations" are in fact a source of Policy, and even outside of the consensus process. This is reinforced elsewhere in some other Policies (I believe WP:DEL is one of them). Don't WP:N supporters see this as problematic? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

But only when they actually become official policy (stamped) are they. Jimbo could say tomorrow, "NPOV is hereby void, go and bias to your heart's content", but if the COMMUNITY does not accept that then NPOV is not void. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I can see that. I did phrase this one as a question, after all. It just seems likely to me that Jimbo and ergo likely other outside-of-consensus policymakers here on WP might oppose this if it went too far. The question was an honest one, not just in the sense of "don't you fear you might get overridden", but also in the sense of "don't you feel that maybe he has a point, and he really, really, really had a good sense of how this entire operation ought to work?" I've found myself pleasantly shocked by some of the things he's said (and turned into policy, in fact, esp. with regard to living persons) that were counter to the general flow of things, but were coming from such a "meta" point that when you shook your head and looked at it from a more outside perspective make utter sense, contrary as they were to the internal logic. "The Lord of the Flies" is only a plausible story because of the lack of a "Jimbonian" benevolent dicatory influence on the outcome. The more that Wikipedia is left to evolve in its own microcosm of internal regulations the more, I suspect, it will diverge from sanity. However much I could care less about copyright this-'n'-that lawyerspeak wanking, because I just don't go uploading other people's stuff here, I'm really thankful for the frequent copyright-related warnings/notices that pop up; they remind us that this is a wild experiment in the middle of a much more settled world. PS: I will disagree on your codicil; if Jimbo or WikiMedia Foundation as a group said that WP:NPOV was no longer valid, then I don't think the community could do anything but simply ignore it and continue to operate as if it hadn't been said. If it came down to admin (or higher up!) enforcement of something, Jimbo/WMF's word would necessarily trounce that of consensus views. That's just how this organization is set up. No amount of anti-I.P. activism, for example, could get rid of the copyright related policies here, or undo the handling of potentially defamatory unsourced material about living persons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What's Jimbo's position on notability more recently? Wikipedia is pretty different from what it was three years ago, and Jimbo's priorities - and the community's - have evolved. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Heck if I know! I have not yet gone through all the talk archives here. Would definitely like to know. That said, if after all the known talk archives on the subject-in-general are plundered and nothing new comes to light, then the logical assuption is that his views on the subject haven't changed since the last testimony we can dig up. Standard investigative procedure. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what definition of notability he was referring to before, but recently he has repeatedly stated that any unsourced information about which there is any question at all should be removed (rather than putting on {{fact}}). Note also that, with the exception of fictional topics, the high sourcing standards of WP:BLP and libel issues in general apply to all usually non-notable subjects, such as persons, bands, and companies. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed in whole as to fact (see above; I was just talking about the same stuff but hadn't even read your post yet), but I don't see the relevance. As people keep trying to bang into my head, WP:V is not WP:N, right? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I rescind that partial agreement; he was talking about unsourced information about living people. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This is no longer relevant, as evidenced by more recent posts on the subject by Jimbo and Brad (e.g. Jimbo's endorsement of CSD A7, Brad's call-to-arms against self-promotion, etc). (Radiant) 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sources? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: My question is answered to my satisfaction, though I'm curious about the uncited assertions at the end. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale supportive of other policies, not WP:N

9. WP:N's Rationale section, apart from being down near the bottom for some reason, is simply a reiteration of other Guidelines/Policies with the word "notable" tacked on, and doesn't actually appear to provide any rationale for WP:N. It also, incidentally, should be citing WP:OWN, one of its sources, but doesn't. And it is simply incorrect that notability prevents article monopolization; while many non-notable topics will of course by WP:OWNed by someone, possibly the only person, who cares enough about the topic to work on the articles, many more popular articles suffer from the same miswikipedianism. It's a broader problem, and to the extent that it applies to allegedly non-notable topics, it is already addressed by WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:AUTO, WP:COI and of course WP:V. Deleting, merging or clean-up of such non-articles certainly doesn't need the extra "force" WP:N could supposedly provide. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe WP:N should perhaps be reduced to more of a clarification of these policies. Why don't you go and draft a new proposal, and float it here? 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Already answered elsewhere. I think WP:N should be reduced something like that. It's what I've mainly been arguing for weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:N provides no extra "force", nor should it. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure it does. It adds that if the article doesn't have multiple independent sources that it can be deleted as NN, an addl. requirement not found in WP:V, WP:NOT, etc., etc. Cf. #Consensus conflict with existing guidelines above; this is the crux of the argument that 74.something and Radiant and someone else seemed unable to understand at all, and kept calling it just "supporting" or "supplementing" WP:V, et al. Cf. also the so-called "legalistic" argument where I explained this in more detail. At this point I'm not necessarily certain I still think this extra force is "wrong", but it is clearly there and should be handled appropriately so as to prevent policy-interpretation conflicts (i.e., this is an edit suggestion to take up later). Analogy: If Daddy says Little Johnny can go to the park after he does his homework, and then Mommy and Daddy go out and leave Big Sis to babysit, and Sis tells Little Johnny he can't go to the park when his homework is done until he eats three worms and cleans her bike and does all the dishes and gives her his favorite magic marker, then Sis has overstepped her authority and controverted parental policy, and is going to be in trouble when the parents get home. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Once more it is not problematic for a guideline to supplement policy, refer to policy, or clarify certain cases of policy. Indeed, that is one of the major reasons we even have guidelines. (Radiant) 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Already addressed elsewhere multiple times. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: Completely unaddressed (the debate that ensued was really just a continuation of #Consensus conflict with existing guidelines above and didn't actually get to the point of this WP:N problem), but mainly a concern for editing the article text, so I'm not too concerned with it right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with WP:DEL and its progeny

10. The apparently almost entirely non-controversial topical notability Guidelines imported into WP:DEL demonstrate an existing consensus that some topics or types of articles would benefit from notability criteria, that groups of experienced editors who work a lot on such topics can and should create such narrow guidelines, on a topical, flexible basis, and that after they have reached consensus there is already a fast and easy process for making them part of Policy in WP:DEL. Nothing about all of that suggests that we need a new Wikipedia-wide notability Guideline like WP:N is trying to be. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There IS a consensus that Notability, in some form should be a Wikipedia-wide criterion for inclusion and deletion as so many editors use it. The cactions of the community reflect the state of the community. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't mean that those criteria should come from here. We have WP:DEL and it's notability criteria for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
But how does WP:N claim it is a deletion criterion, and not a definition of the notability concept, as you claim it should be, below? Is it because of the "notability as a reason for deletion" section? 74.38.34.192 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Any response? Are you saying there is no such consensus? That's why I suggested a poll earlier, to get some hard numbers here! 74.38.34.192 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what the referent of "such" is. If you mean the consensus mentioned at "There IS a consensus...in some form" above, I've already answered that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to once more misinterpret this page as superceding other pages. One might argue that to have notability guidelines in the first place, one needs a page to define that term. (Radiant) 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And you see to once more misinterpret me as opposing that notion. :-) I've already said many times here that I think the legitimate purpose of WP:N should be to do precisely that (in a way that guides Wikipedians in the creation of topical/typical notability guidelines that can be applied with "local" criteria editors can actually use, and which WP:DEL relies upon. The disagreement between us appears to principally be that you seem to believe in a one-size-fits all set of notability criteria as well as a site-wide definition, while I only support the latter concept (and am not too sure I agree with the present implementation in WP:N, but that's a different issue.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: The concern raised remains unaddressed, but at least we've arrived at where the difference of opinion may lie. And I'm actually moderating my opinion on this issue anyway, in light of genuinely consensus-buiding discussion that's been ongoing lately. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWNership

11. WP:N appears to be "owned" by a small cadre of singleminded shepherds who have gone out of their way to prevent substantial change to the Proposal, to undermine other, competing Proposals (a recent RfAr did not address much of this, since the topic was WP:NNOT and its promoter, but was critical inasmuch as it did so, labelling these actions "exacerbating of dispute" and "aggressive", noting that one of the partipants in the dispute is elsewhere promoting yet another "Guideline" that others maintain is simply an Essay, and reminding everyone that Guidelines are only arrived at by clear consensus; I submit that it should be looked upon as subtle warning), and to obliterate milder proposals (Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments has quotes from Wikipedia:Importance which no longer exists, having been replaced by a redirect to WP:N; these quotes show a lot more sensitivity to the concerns raised by WP:N critics; the continued existence of the original Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance talk page also demonstrates a lot more open dialog in times past; meanwhile, its article page too has been destroyed instead of retained as a failed proposal, and it too redirects to WP:N. While everyone wants to assume good faith, there seems to be fairly strong evidence of a lot of wikipoliticking going on here, and the result has been a reduction in discussion and consensus-building. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not push for "politicking", rather what I do is try to find out what goes best with the Community. 74.38.35.238 04:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You keep using that term as if doing so ends the debate, but I don't find comments like this very substantive. What is it you are trying to convey? How are you addressing the points raised here (by any party, not just me)? I'm not getting your point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It means I'm trying to offer input that will eventually lead to a Community Consensus, not "politicking", and to try and find a viewpoint/position that best agrees with consensus. I think that is a worthy goal, don't you? 74.38.34.192 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Wasn't meant as an attack, just an indication that your point wasn't getting through. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
False (and also an ad hominem fallacy), you can clearly see from the page history that it has changed a lot since its conception. If you must cite ArbCom precedent, note that you are misstating the case you cite from, and that this recent case specifically endorses notability. (Radiant) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the ad hominem? I've not attacked anyone's character here. I've only talked about a pattern of activities. If one wants to debate that the pattern is only a correlation without evidence of causation, or question the existence of the pattern at all, that's one thing, but it's quite another to suggest that I'm simply character assassinating anyone. I haven't said anyone acted in bad faith, only that assumption of good faith is harder to maintain in the face of what appears to be a pattern of actions that can be interpreted as wikipolitical rather than consensus-building. That's not an accusation, it's a description of effects. And what part is "false"? Note also that I have not said that the ArbCom are anti-notability, only that what they have said in the RfAr on WP:NNOT aside from the parts that directly addressed WP:NNOT and its main proponent, can be interpreted as critical of some of WP:N's major proponents a.k.a. WP:NNOT's major detractors, or more to the point their actions, not their character (and further I did not say that they were critical of WP:N itself). I do not believe that ArbCom would have mentioned in their Findings of Fact terms like "exacerbated the dispute" and "aggressive", and remarked upon a pattern of promotion of disputed Proposals/Essays as "Guidelines", and then practically lectured everyone about how consensus is formed here, unless they were making a very clear point that was intended to be heard. WP:NNOT and it's main author bore the brunt of the criticism, but everyone majorly involved on both sides was criticized. If it were even possible that the ArbCom were criticizing me, I think I would look very carefully at what I was doing... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the full title of WP:OWN is "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles". This is not an article, it's a project page. And yes it's more than a semantic difference. --W.marsh 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a curious assertion. Do you have any evidence to back it up? I just re-read every word on WP:OWN and there is nothing anywhere in it to suggest it does not apply to Wikipedia:, Template: and other namespaces (other than User: of course). Cf. the other Policies that relate to editor behavior: Behavioral standards, Assume good faith, Bots, Civility, Editing policy, No legal threats, No personal attacks, Sock puppetry, Three-revert rule, Vandalism, etc.; all of them are applied on a daily basis outside of the article namespace. There are policies such as WP:V that don't rationally apply to a lot of Wikipedia: namespace materials, but WP:OWN is clearly not one of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion: Utterly unaddressed, but hopefully moot since there are an increasing number of participants here and actual consensus-building going on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denoument

Feel free to break the above up to respond to specfic numbered items; please just copy my attribution below to the bottom of the text being split, so that the attribution remains clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How would you propose a better definition anyway? What would you define notability as, that wouldn't be as "subjective" at all? Also, doesn't the widespread use of this in deletion debates indicate consensus (see my thread "Consensus check" here)? 74.38.35.238 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Already addressed both of these questions above. Short version: I don't think notability can be made objective at all when applied as a set of WP-wide criteria. And even the topical, narrow ones have problems in this area. But they could be made arbitrary (in the legal sense, as in "arbitrator", "arbitration" - impartial, basically). Next, the widespread (ab)use of "Delete - NN" is a symptom of WP:N, not a justification for it. Only a few months ago, the use of notability in AfD was much more controlled and thoughtful, because it depended on WP:DEL and what WP:DEL says are actional notability criteria. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I just want to say, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this, and though I don't know that I agree with you completely, I do think you've made some good points. Mister.Manticore 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; my intent here is to get people thinking and discussing and improving. I think my ideas for improvement may be more radical that some, but consensus building is a compromise process; radicals are necessary on both sides to determine what the middle ground is in the first place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
NB: That was meant as a hint that those with views radically opposing mine might think about trying some compromise too. <nudge, nudge> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd ditch it. It has no value - it's confusing and counterproductive. Trollderella 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Even I don't go that far.  :-) I think there's good material that could be merge into other policies/guidelines and/or that WP:N could become a guideline on how to create the kind of notability guidelines that WP:DEL depends on. Having drafted one, I find the lack of guidance rather hindering, actually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it's easier, from a pragmatic perspective, to get people to shift their definition of "notability" to a source-based one, or to get them to stop thinking about it entirely? Think about it - it doesn't matter how right you are if you can't convince people. Can you get consensus to delete this guideline? If you demote this guideline, will it stop people saying "nn-delete"? The sad irony is that you and I agree completely that the "nn-delete" attitude is bad, but we're here arguing with each other instead of both being in AfDs speaking with a united voice that says "if you want to argue for deletion, you have to talk about sources." Silly, isn't it? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so much thinking about what's easier, as what's right. I'm not sure I agree with you about which is easier, but certainly it would be easier to get thieves to only steal from some people rather than all. The easier path is not always the right one. Trollderella 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Trollderella, what's "right" eventually has to deal with what's practical, if it wishes to be at all effective. Anyway, since my goal is for everybody to understand that at WP, "notability" means nothing more than "existence of sufficient sources to write a WP:NOT article", can you explain exactly from whom we'd be stealing, if that's achieved? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[outdent]We're stealing from the people who are looking for free and open, factual, neutral and verifiable information that someone deleted because they had some axe to grind about what they think is important. Trollderella 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not an answer to the question I asked. In reciprocal spirit, I'll say, "So, you advocate throwing away WP:NOT? I disagree." -GTBacchus(talk) 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you asked "can you explain exactly from whom we'd be stealing", I must have misunderstood. I don't see how opposing this multiplication of unnecessary rulecruft logically leads to throwing away any other piece of policy. You'll have to explain that leap of logic a little more. Trollderella 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't explain myself very clearly there. You did quote my question, but without the "if" clause. From whom would we be stealing IF people ditch subjective ideas of notability in favor of simply looking for sources, and only getting rid of articles that can't get past WP:NOT? Since you seemed to reply that, by adhering to WP:NOT, we're stealing from people who want access to verifiable information, I was driven to the conclusion that you want to keep all verifiable information, disregarding WP:NOT. Perhaps we're somehow talking past each other? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that WP:V, and WP:NOT provide all the creiteria we need. They are objective, and sufficient. If you replace the subjective 'I don't like it' with those two, then you're not 'stealing' information from people who might want it, since the things that you're throwing out are things like directory entries. I probably would tend to keep most verifiable information, but see my userpage for a more in depth discussion of my position on that. My argument here is that V and NOT are sufficient, and more rulecruft only serves to obfuscate the situation. Trollderella 17:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Any my argument is that WP:N isn't "rulecruft", because it contains no new rules, and it's a very useful explanation of how WP:V and WP:NOT work together in practice. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
GT, You seem to be writing to Trollderella, but I'll weigh in too. I agree that the concept is ingrained enough that just "stop thinking about notability" is a non-starter. I do think this document needs to be "demoted" to a Proposal or Essay Disputed without the Guideline tag because its nature is far too in-flux and its consensus is to debated to be useful as a Guideline or to validly be a Guideline. I agree it would be a Good Thing to spend more time in AfD correcting abuses of NN, but that doesn't mean this debate is silly. I think it's quite important because of the effect it can have on the future of WP for some time to come. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know you're concerned about how this page is labelled, which I think is a shame, because it distracts from the important topics. I don't care much whether it's called a guideline or a policy or an essay or nothing at all, because I think all those labels are for chumps. The point is to write a free, neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia.
The guideline is "if there aren't enough sources for a topic to write an article satisfying WP:NOT, using WP:V facts, then we can't support an article on that topic, and any such articles should be merged or deleted." When I say that's what the guideline is, I mean that's what it has to be, and if whatever it says doesn't boil down to that, then the text is wrong, and should be fixed. If people apply it to mean something other than thatm then they're wrong. If calling it something other than "notability" will get everyone on board as to what it needs to mean, then let's rename it. I don't see that we've come to that yet, because this PNC is pretty new, and I think it's a significant step in the right direction, and I'd like to see how it goes.
Here's a thought, SMcCandlish: There are three kinds of Wikipedians: those who reject "notability", those who embrace "notability" as meaning "existence of sufficient sources to satisfy WP:NOT and WP:V", and those who embrace "notability" as meaning something subjective like "importance" or "significance". You're type 1, I'm type 2, and let's say Joe Bloggs is type 3. You'd like for Joe to drop the idea of "notability" and just focus directly on WP:V and WP:NOT. I'd like for Joe to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT by shifting his idea of notability to point directly at them. If either of us succeeds, Joe stops applying the bad criteria that we agree are wrong, like "have I heard of it or not?", "does it sound interesting or not?", etc. I'm trying to get the text of this page in a state that I can point at it and say, "see, Joe, it says right here at WP:N that it's nothing more than WP:V and WP:NOT. Now about those sources..."
It's like Aikido. If someone throws a "notability" punch, you're going to do better by using that energy to throw them at WP:V and WP:NOT than you would by trying a "no notability" block. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I'm emphatically not your "type 1" (I've been a supporter of the NN criteria enumerated by WP:DEL, remember? I've just had issues with this particular document and the way it's been handled!), I get the analogy, and am in <soundeffect type="martial arts" class="Asian" volume="loud" tone="ridiculous Bruce Lee immitation">violent</soundeffect> agreement with you on this. PS, re: "I know you're concerned about how this page is labelled, which I think is a shame, because it distracts..." — It matters to be because WP:N is being cited as if it were policy, and it's vagueness and overbreadth issues are leading to bogus deletions; without it, people would have to rely on the very particular NN requirements enumerated at WP:DEL if they wanted to use NN at all (and I think that would be a better situation than the current one). I think I managed to derail an improper (by my book) AfD by strenuously reminding people that WP:N is a guideline (disputed at that) and that the NN arguments being raised were not responsive to anything recognized as actionable by WP:DEL. All of a sudden the NN "me-toos" stopped, and someone even changed their argument with a comment to the effect "oh, I didn't now WP:N was disputed; I'll try something else". Problem with that approach, to continue with your martial arts metaphor, is that it's like Neo fighting an unending stream of Agent Smiths. I don't have the time to do it (ten of me wouldn't!), and am now solidly in support of the idea that WP:N could define and quantify what the @#$% notability actually means from an AfD-actionable perspective and resolve the problem. Ah, the power of consensus-building. PPS, re: "that's what it has to be" — Abso-infixed-epithet-lutely. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So you suggestion is essentially that WP:Notability should read "See WP:V and WP:NOT"? I'd vote for that, but more than that is counterproductive. Trollderella 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. I think WP:NOT is written in such general language that something should be said regarding its application. I'm suggesting that WP:N should be a page explaining how WP:V and WP:NOT are applied in practice, in the context of deletion discussions. I'd be pretty happy with renaming it to that end. If it's the name "notability" that's bothering people so much, and forcing you to believe that we're talking about some subjective idea of "significance" or something, then by all means, let's get a new name. I think the PNC is good content, by whatever name, because it gives us a very useful, simple, and objective criterion with which to make decisions at AfD. I think we should provide such a criterion, and make it very clear that merging is always the preferred solution for topics for which we have small amounts of verifiable information, but not enough to satisfy the PNC. WP:NOT is a very abstract statement of mission. The PNC is a concrete litmus test for applying that mission statement to particular topics. I think you would rather have people thinking about the PNC than about whether or not they've heard of a topic. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be that simplistic, Trollderella, but should guide (as in "guideline") editors in the application of WP:V and many other criteria as they apply to the question of "notability" as it is (presently?) called. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I still have yet to get what I asked for, which is a real world example of a case where this is needed. Without that, I'm having a hard time understanding why it isn't unnecessary, damaging, confusing, duplicative rulecruft. Trollderella 17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've said more than once that the Notability guideline is never needed to delete an article. It contains no new rules of any kind. I contains exposition about how WP:V and WP:NOT are applied in practice, and it's very useful for summarizing an argument that has to get repeated a lot, and it's handy to have it written down in one place. As someone said somewhere else on this page, it's nice to be able to send people somewhere to explain to them why some article they wrote was deleted. Sending them to WP:NOT isn't the best, because that page is written at a very abstract level, and it's nice to have a place where it's unpacked and applied. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
A major issue with the above is that most supporters of WP:N do appear to be arguing that in fact WP:N is needed, indeed that is principal purpose is, for the deletion of articles that otherwise would survive. Agreeing more and more with you (GTB) that I may be, I don't think this has been adequately addressed and I remain supportive of Trollderella's unanswered challenge (for my part not as a demonstration that WP:N is useless but against the "gahhh! we have to have this or Wikipedia will wallow in junk articles!!!" mindset. I don't think that mindset (demonstrably) infects anyone in the present debate, but it's common nonetheless (albeit not with my exaggeratory mocking characterization) throughout the Talk archives here and on every defunct version of notability proposals. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I fail to understand why you want it then. You admit it is not necessary, and that is a restating of existing policy, with some obfuscation that presumably goes beyond it. Better to reffer to the actual policy that supports your contention that the article needs deletion. Of course, this is where the problem comes in, because many times on AFD 'notablity' is invoked in cases where deletion is not supported by existing policy. Bin this rulecruft! Trollderella 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I sure as hell didn't agree that WP:N contains "some obfuscation". Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
I'll say it again - WP:N very useful for explaining what people mean when they say "notable", and it provides something to keep people honest with that word until you succeed in convincing people not to use it. You called it "harm reduction" below. I call it operating in reality. Fact: people are citing "notability" as a reason for deletion. You can either stick to "notabiliy isn't a valid reason for deletion," and you get ignored a lot, or you can tell people "if you're going to cite 'notability', at least read the guideline," and we can have it tell them that "non-notable" is not allowed to mean anything but lack of sufficient sources to clear WP:NOT. I support this guideline because it's a lever that we can use to make sure that every time someone says "notable" they're not talking about anything beyond WP:NOT. As far as I can tell, your approach is impractical, and involves wishing the world were otherwise rather than reacting to the way it is.
You say that many times on AfD, "notability" is cited for the wrong reasons. That's why we're trying to get this page in a state where it only supports citing "notability" for the right reasons, namely WP:NOT. People are citing "WP:N" right now. Unless you know how to stop them quickly and decisively, I'm in favor of a page that explains what they'd damn well better mean by it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I may now be fully on board with this conceptualization of what this page is (well, could be) for, with the caveats I expressed elsewhere about unresolved problems. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
My conclusion (with regard to #Some of the problems with WP:N as a whole; this is the denoument after all): Most of the issues remain unaddressed but are resolvable, as long as everyone works for consensus, in editing WP:N to deal with its problems. I'm no longer an opponent of WP:N's continuance, though I remain concerned with the effects of its present labelling as a Guideline until the issues are resolved, and maintain that until it is substantially fixed it remains Disputed — a situation I've decided I'd like to help resolve. I remain intensely dissatisfied with some of the responses (more to the point, patterns of responses) the concerns raised have received here; they seem like Usenet-style argumentation-for-sport with no regard for consensus-building purposes. But, hey: <plonk!> — there are enough people who want to make progress here that it seems very likely to me to now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Why do topics/articles on wikipedia have to be about notable things? Isn't the goal of an encyclopedia to gain all knowledge about everything? An encyclopedia is an infinitive piece of work that shouldn't limit knowledge. If the goal of wikipedia is to only gain knowledge about notable things, then it should not be called an online encyclopedia, but a website that has information about notable things that it thinks is significant. Encyclopedias shouldn't be opinionated! --M79 specialist 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is contradicting it's own definition of encyclopedia. --M79 specialist 01:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal of an encyclopedia is not to gain all knowledge about everything. If that were the case, we would allow original research, for example, and WP:NOT would not include such statements as "Wikipedia is not a web directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Our definition of what it means to be an encyclopedia is to cover in an encyclopedic manner all things that can be covered in that way. We can't cover topics that we can't get information about from reliable sources, so we restrict our coverage to topics that are documented in reliable sources.
"Notable" isn't a matter of anybody's opinion about anything. If you'll check the guideline, all the word "notable" means here is "having non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources". There's nothing in there about opinions or what we "think is significant". It's just a question of whether source material exists or not. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Notability ignores the thing that sets Wikipedia apart from the other encyclopedia's out there: freedom. There is a strong role for Wikipedia as a FREE repository of the world's knowledge. We cannot say it is the web's job to keep track of 'non-notable' information as in general the web is not free and cannot provide the safe haven for information that Wikipedia does. If Wikipedia is to information what animal welfare is to animals then notability is like the animal welfare declaring that only brown dogs are worth protecting.

It we arbitrarily limit our scope to mirror that of competing encyclopedias we become "a want to be Britannica" instead of carrying out our real mission of freeing the world's information, a cause far more noble than competing with Britannica or Encarta.

A better criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is information/misinformation. Wikipedia's role is a free haven for information but not for misinformation. Misinformation can often be distinguished by its lack of sources. John Dalton 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, our definition of "non-notable" is simply "lack of sources". It sounds like you support the notability criterion, at least, as it's currently written. All it says is, in order to have an article about topic X, there has to exist sufficient source material about topic X.
It's true that some people misuse the word "non-notable" to mean "I haven't heard of this" or "I'm not interested in this", but the solution to that problem is to correct those people's misuse of the term. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why not merge Notability with Verifiability if sources is the only criteria? I support Verifiability, but I don't support Notability (unless you are prepared to state straight out that they are one and the same). Notability seems to be Verifiability with some magic dust, of undetermined composition, sprinkled on top. Of course if you state V==N my next question will be "why do we need N?"
If "as it's currently written" non-notable is simply "lack of sources" in what way is it different from veriefiability and why do we need it? Until it develops an identity separate from verifiability notability seems to be merely a place holder. The way to develop an identify is for it to emerge naturally from the Wikipedia community. Natural emergence means someone says "hey how about this" and everyone else says "yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking" and it becomes a guideline with virtually no debate. Natural emergence doesn't mean "hey let's do this" and furious debate ensues to try and find a consensus. Unless it develops naturally from the community a guideline is in danger of being foisted on the community. There seems to be an awful lot of debate about notability.
We don't need a place holder, waiting for an idea to develop. Put a guideline in place once it has developed, without the need for place holders. An ill defined place holder provides an avenue for abuse. "Want something deleted, but can't justify it under Wikipedia's guidlines, why not play the Notability card?" Better to do without the place holder. John Dalton 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say V==N. I would say N = V + NOT. When one is considering whether a topic can support an article, one has to ask whether we have verifiable information on that topic, and if so, is it enough to get us past "not a directory" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information". If it passes this hurdle, of having enough WP:V information to sustain a WP:NOT article, then we call it "notable". -GTBacchus(talk) 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So N = V + NOT, but you also say 'our definition of "non-notable" is simply "lack of sources"'. Logic seems to dictate that currently NOT=0. That is precisely my argument: that currently NOT=0, so the notability "guideline" is simply serving as a placeholder for some yet to be determined guideline.
Until NOT>0 notability is at best a synonym for verifiability. Actually it is far worse than this as notability is currently undefined (ie. it is internally inconsistent in that you are saying verifiability is not notability but in the next breath the only criteria for notability is lack of sources). As an undefined quantity notability is free to be redefined by individuals to suit their application, acting as carte blanche for arbitrary deletion decisions. Until it has a clear definition notability doesn't deserve guideline status and is open to abuse.John Dalton 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't mean that NOT=0. In fact, "non-notability is lack of sources" is a slightly abbreviated statement. Non-notability means "lack of sufficient sources to write a WP:NOT article with WP:V facts". (I've definitely said that on this page, although perhaps not in this conversation. Please pardon my laziness with including each detail each time I repeat it.) The policy WP:NOT is certainly more than zero, because it contains such important content as "Wikipedia is not a directory", which is not implied in any way by WP:V. When I said "non-notability is simply lack of sources", I was pointing out that there's nothing about notability that relies on opinion or subjective ideas of "significance" - it's entirely a source-based concept.
As to whether or not "notability" has a clear definition, why not address what's written in the guideline as more important than my phrasing in this exchange? Do you find the definition on the page to be inadequate? Is it not clear from the definition that "Notability" means "having sufficient sources to write an article compliant with WP:V and WP:NOT"? Can we clarify that in the guideline? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Notability is not equal to verifiability. We can verify, for example, birth dates and addresses from civil records, but that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, note that we could verifiability say "Joe Smith's website states that Joe Smith is in fact the rightful President of the United States". We could include verifiable statements about every website online, in the third person, but the proper domain of an encyclopedia is to say "Joe Smith is the President of the United States", if that in fact is corroborated by multiple reliable sources. There are an endless number of examples similar to this and also several other reasons why notability is important and is beyond verifiability. Also, you are mistaken about notability not arising naturally from the community; simply look at WP:AFD to see all the articles deleted every day for lack of notability. —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thankfully, we already have guidelines about what makes a good source. No rulecruft required. Trollderella 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians referencing a source that borrowed misinformation indirectly from Wikipedia

Suppose unsourced rumor material appears on Wikipedia first, then suppose after many obscure exchanges, the media eventually used the material by referencing the alledged source of the material (some dude in whateverville). Then we can use the media sources involved as a reference. How about that. A reason why things we reference may itself consist of non-notable material by wikipedians (even by a reputable source that doesn't make all their references public)... Connect with reality man!Kmarinas86 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If, as in the case you described, you have a good reason to believe that a source's information is erroneous, then the best thing would be to not use that source, and indicate on the relevant talk page how you know the source's information is in error. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
See my proposed guideline - Wikipedia is not a place for Wikipedians to reference a source that borrowed misinformation indirectly from Wikipedia. It's important that we make this clear, because a common sense reading of existing policy... oh, wait. Sorry. Trollderella 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability should be a criterion for neutrality

"Neutrality issues" is not a criterion for deletion as they can be resolved before the article is deleted.Kmarinas86 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not if the only sources available are non-neutral ones. ColourBurst 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a misunderstanding of the meaning of neutrality in the Wikipedia sense? My understanding is that neutrality means Wikipedia article should reflect what the sources say, even if the sources conflict. For example, if source 1 says "A" and source 2 says "B", A not the same as B, the wikipedia article should say something like: "There are two points of view on this 'A' and 'B'". The wikipedia article should not make a decision to present only one of A and B. It should also not make any attempt to present a compromise of A and B by telling half truths.
In short wikipedia neutrality is about accurately reflecting sources, and specifically not about trying to tread some fine "neutral" line as judged by an author. If it is the only source, by definition it is the neutral point of view for Wikipedia, so there can be no such thing as "the only sources available are non-neutral ones". You are not allowed to make personal judgements of neutrality so the only way a source can be non neutral is if a second conflicting source can be found. John Dalton 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles do not simply consist of he-said she-said statements, and decisions must be made about how much weight to give to different topics in an article. You cannot stack up 50 sentences from mediocre magazines against 2 sentences from books by major historians. —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there an undue weight clause in WP:NPOV? We are making a de facto judgement on the sources. ColourBurst 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that assessing the reliability of sources is part of writing for Wikipedia. My point was the "neutrality" must be drawn from the sources. If all the sources are saying "X", and you can't find and sources that say "not X", the only logical conclusion can be that "X" is the neutral line. One can have a gut feeling that "X" is wrong, but to express that gut feeling without a source to back it up is prejudice. Hence my claim that it is illogical to have a single non-neutral source under the Wikipedia neutrality rules.
If you have conflicting sources I think it is fair to judge one as more reliable than the other, but I do not think it is fair to simply eliminate the conflicting source without a very good reason (recorded on the discussion page). That would be like a statistician removing outlying points without good reason. (The way I normally handle it is to write "X is the commonly held view{ref}, but some people think Y{ref}".)
I've always viewed Wikipedia as a form of "creativity with constraints" rather than a robotic job. The constraint is that every fact presented (even the 'obvious' ones) must come from a source, and you cannot pick and choose sources to back your own views. The challenge is to produce an informative, entertaining and readable article within the framework defined by the available sources. John Dalton 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
However if there are neutral ones, then it doesn't matter if it's "notable" or not. Unless "notability" is defined in terms of that and does not demand "fame" as an absolute requirement, which has nothing to do with neutrality at all. 74.38.34.192 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This brings up the question of "Verifiability vs NPOV", see WT:NPOV#Dispute - Verifiability or NPOV? for more, where something like this actually happened. In order to maintain NPOV in such a case, we would have to add unsourced original research, violating not one but two of Wikipedia's core content policies. On the other hand, if we were to stick to those, we would violate NPOV, which not only a Wikipedia core content policy but also "non-negotable" by Jimbo Wales and a "foundation issue". What a dilemma indeed. It is these types of situations that show inadequacies in present policy. 74.38.34.192 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake. You can't write a set of rules about what a good article looks like. Editors will make good sense decisions at some point about what gets more weight. The idea that you could a prior write and immense set of rules that would always produce good articles is just bogus. Rulecruft has to stop. Trollderella 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'See also' section improvement

There's been LONG-standing consensus on this page, since way back when it was just an essay/proposal, to reference other related proposals, guidelines, essays, etc., on this topic. Today I expanded on it a little by rediscovering some "lost" proposals and such, and then organized it carefully and topically. I not only had all of those edits reverted with practically no explanation, the reverts went even further and removed material that's been there for over half a year. Given that the material in question provides information about the nature of the Notability debate, pretty much its full history on WP in fact, I find the reversions totally unfathomable. If there's disagreement that such wikilinks are needed at all, disagreement on one or more of the wikilinks in particular, or disagreement about the arrangement of the section, then let's discuss any such issues and try to work out a compromise, rather than engage in borderline edit-warring right off the bat, OK? I've restored my edits because their reversion was not justified. I'll go first:

In the case of the bulk of the deletion, nothing was said at all about the rationale, though a question was asked: Why bother linking to old proposals at all? The answer to that is blatantly obvious: Because this is a heavily debated and disputed topic, from what I can tell the single most so on all of WP, and has been for 3 years or more, with a lot of relevant material and viewpoints on the issue available at the links that section provides, and has provided for a very long time. The other reversion just said that the deleted items were already mentioned in the main article content. Well so what? The 'See also' links to WP:DEL and the notability criteria category were put in there for a reason (self-explained by the text that went with them). They highlight resources that are not debated. The fact that WP:DEL is mentioned somewhere else isn't of much significance, and the usage of the sidebar template is outright misleading, because not all of those guidelines have the same weight (in fact many are not guidelines at all). The two usages have entirely different purposes. The sidebar is a "roadmap" to current work on notability; the 'See also' subsection that listed the cat. and DEL is saying what is Policy and authoritative on the topic as opposed to dubious or in-progress. Admittedly the cat. link isn't much use in that regard, and I won't mind losing it; it may well be too duplicative of the sidebar. But the link to DEL is important in that particular context, whether or not it is also linked to in the main text and in the sidebar. The subsectioning is justified by how messy and jumbled the section was; I'm not utterly wedded to the subsectioning I chose, but I've not heard any logical objections to it. Please note the great deal of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF I'm bringing to bear here. But if I get blatantly edit-warred with, expect that to become strained. My patience is wearing thin enough, with the goings on in here overall, that WP:DISPUTE mediation channels are beginning to look pretty good. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying "vandalism" and "violence" isn't helpful and is certainly not the WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF you say you're bringing here. You added a section; several people edited it and removed parts; why is that a problem? Generally if a new section turns out to be disputed we discuss it on the talk page before adding it again. (Radiant) 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Which is what I initiated and which you just ignored a couple of minutes ago in another unjustified revert. Your only rationale so far amounts to "I have a right to Be Bold", but you have to do so within some limits which I believe you are exceeding. You have not addressed one single point I've raised on this topic. Since you have not done so, I'm re-reverting my edit (which changes that I hope may mitigate some of the issues with the original version), and really hope you don't re-re-revert it without actually discussing the issues you have with the material. As for my words, "violence" used in this sense is a legal term-of-art (as in "upholding the lower court's decision would do violence to Miller v California"), often used outside of the judicial context; it's colorful, but not intended as offensive. Rather, it is descriptive of the harm to the recipient (in this case my good faith efforts to improve the article), not of the mindset of the source of the harm (in this case, inexplicable or at least unexplicated wholesale reversion.) And I did not call you "vandal"; that's a straw man; I said "near-vandalism", and I think in the context it is entirely applicable because of the lack of logical (or any, really) justification of your reversions. It's not a personal insult at all, it's a warning that another editor thinks you are crossing (another) Policy-dictated boundary or are hazardously close to doing so; "near-vandalism" in this context is not random ad hominem name-calling, it is a clear reference to specific WP policies with regard to editing practices. Lastly, your characterization of your edit is inaccurate; you did not just revert my changes, nor (to use your words) are you "rewording [SMcCandlish's addition] and removing parts [I, Radiant] consider irrelevant", but lopped out all of the new material and even used the opportunity to remove extant material that has been in place for well-justified reasons for a very long time. And I've already made it clear that I strongly dispute the notion that the bulk of my addition was in any way irrelevant (nor that the other, pre-existing parts you deleted were). Please note again that I am not imputing any motives or agendas. Come on, feel free to disagree, but at least discuss the points of disagreement, huh? PS: It wasn't "several" editors, it was two, and the discernable rationales at this point for the reverts, and why one might disagree with them, are wholly different (and half of one of which I've already yielded on). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: I'm really surprised at how much you are (without explanation) resisting these efforts to consolidate NN-related information here, given how much work you've done over the last 6 months to make this page the "one-stop shop" for the issue. Do you want to move this stuff into a more narrative ==History== instead? My goal is to not lose the information or have it become buried in such an obscure place it is virtually lost (again!). I don't really care whether it is a 'See also' section, or whether it has longwinded full-internal-URL wikilinks. Totally irrelevant to me; it's the significance that counts. I have a long day tomorrow, so I'm taking a break from this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, my rationale (as stated in the edit summary) is that I don't see the point in linking to a set of historical proposals. Indeed, many policy pages have an assortment of (semi-)related proposals and such, and generally we keep such lists in the archives. A guideline is not a treatise on wikihistory. I find it ironic that you make revert other people's edits while telling other people not to revert your edits. (Radiant) 13:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not a rationale, that's "I don't like it". I've already argued against this reasoning above, anyway, with no substantive response from you. To continue, WP:N is not a Policy page. It's not even really a Guideline, it's a "disputed Guideline" (i.e. about one proverbial hair away from being demoted back to Essay or Proposal or even Rejected Guideline, though I think that would be going a bit far), and it's abundantly clear from the debate on this and every other related page that the history of the debate, and all of the pro vs. con arguments contained in it are closely bound to coming to consensus on the issue. You are also arguing with a straw man here; I've already said I don't care that the materials be a "list", only that they not be swept under the rug. Lastly, I'm not calling the kettle black, just defending this page from destructive reversions that are not justified and which seem almost if intended to violate WP policy — I'm trying to impress upon you that you are failing to WP:DISCUSS and seek WP:CONSENSUS and are instead trying to impose your personal will and point of view without comprehensible reasons (to the extent any have been expressed at all). This is not your personal page. It is a highly contentious piece of nascent Wikipolicymaking that will affect everyone here. Again, can you suggest something other than a 'See also' list that will still preserve the material in a highly visible way, at least until the notability issue is no longer contentious? If a year from now no one argues about this any longer, I could care less about the historical links. But they're of serious, ahem, notability in the present. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So you can't hold/discuss/push a personal point of view on the talk pages??? Or are you referring to an edit of some sort to the WP:N page itself? 74.38.34.192 01:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The latter, if I understand your question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: Another way of looking at it: Saying "I don't see the point..." is not a rationale, it is a question, which I've already answered, twice, and which you have not refuted (successfully or otherwise; you've simply ignored it). Reverting again is simply edit-warring, plain and simple. I've been actively seeking your input on a compromise. Please respond to that, constructively. If you think one of the essay examples is lame, say so and why. If you hate the list format, suggest another. If you honestly think it's possible to demonstrate that the notabilty history isn't of relevance and value, give it shot (good luck!). But please do something other than just repeat your non-rationale again. And I haven't even gotten into questioning why you keep supporting and promoting paritcular essays and ignoring others. That could use some explanation too, though for now I've just been tacitly supporting is, as you should note from the ordering that I put things in in the "list". I've gone way out of my way to represent your preferences rather than mine in that regard. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you wish to write a treatise on the history and development related to the term "notability" over time on Wikipedia. The best way to go about that would be to create a page Wikipedia:History of notability and write it there. A guideline such as this one is not a treatise on history but a description of the status quo. Your words about "demotion" imply that you are unfamiliar with how policy/guidelines work, since there is no such thing as "promoting" or "demoting" pages; see WP:PPP and WP:POL for details. Your accusations of ownership don't hold water considering the extensive input we've had here and the fact that this page accurately reflects the status quo. (Radiant) 14:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Straw man. I didn't say a "treatise", I said either a "list" as you called it (it's actually a pretty routine 'See also' section, which aside from frankly rather minor changes to it by me today has been in this document for months, and in its erstwhile competing documents, several of which predate it), or alternatively a narrative reformatting of it (heck, it could actually be done in one sentence, e.g.: "The [[...|oldest extant]] page on the topic was followed by [[...|an early proposal]], and a [[...|replacement]], all originally using terms like "fame", "importance" and "significance", until the [[...|"notability"]] term was arrived at, eventually spawning a [[...|"rejected counter-proposal"]] and the present Wikipedia:Notability." Quite simple really. How do you feel about that draft wording? And (second man o' straw in this one) I didn't say it (whatever form "it" takes) would be "on the history and development related to the term 'notability'"; I said I want to preserve prominent references to these pages — why? because they are the rest of the notability debate, of direct and immediate relevance here and the consensus impasse we seem to be hitting. As for actually writing up a real "history" page and putting all of this on there, the idea's certainly occurred to me, but my experience with you today suggests that actually having it referenced prominently from this article, and staying that way while WP:N remains contentious, could be a dicey proposition. I don't see any advantage to genuine consensus-building in allowing half of the debate and its historical backing to likely become marginalized or effectively vanish (too much of that has happened already with the long virtual disappearance of WP:INT and WP:FAME); silencing opponents != consensus, no matter why/how it happens or what motivates it (again, no accusation; I'm just observing effect regardless of cause). As for the rest: I put "demoted" in scare quotes for a reason. Please don't be over-literal. I think this is the third time in a week-or-so that you've not detected when I'm being humorous or ironic; I'm not sure if that's because you just don't get my humor, or because I'm poor at conveying it adequatedly. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I study WP policy processes. I don't particularly use them to get something done unless really, really strongly motivated to do so (cf. my low level of participation in AfD and DR and zero in RfAr) — I'd rather talk things out than demand deletions, overturns, arbitrations, etc. — but I follow them pretty closely. I think the WPspace pages outnumber the articlespace pages in my watch list... Next, I have to completely dispute (and please note carefully that I provide thought-out reasons why, I don't just declare that I don't agree) the ideas 1) that WP:N reflects any status quo as to consensus on policymatters (EVERY talk page even vaguely connected to this topic is rife with debate; see also the ArbCom's recent WP:NNOT RfAr Finding of Fact with regard to the widespread nature of the disputation on this topic); 2) that the status quo of "Delete NN" me-toos, and more substantive NN's that do not reference the notability criteria in WP:DEL (both of which have actually declined since this debate was reignited) in AfD are supposedly causative of WP:N being a valid consensus guidline (rather, they are a direct causal result of WP:N being labelled a guideline in the absence of anything aproaching WP:CONSENSUS; I've already addressed this several times here, with no substantive contradiction that I can find here); and 3) that your and my involvement with each other on this talk page has resulted in any change; the best that can be said for it is that it simply highlights that the disputes and lack of consensus on this topic are lingering, but that it has not devolved into a flamewar — we both do appear to be making honest efforts at being WP:CIVIL. Perhaps some of the fault is mine, but I can't help feeling that when I explain my rationales and concerns in detail but do not get substantive responses from you, that you need to change your understanding of and appoach to what talk pages are for and how consensus works. Speaking of which, I note that you still have not addressed any of the concerns/issues I've recently raised (and few that I've raised, period). Handwaving strawmen at me doesn't make me change my mind (or cause anyone else to do so). Especially when you combine that tactic with ignoring every point, sometimes dozens, but the one you've handwaved at. I detect that technique from miles away. It does not work on me or anyone else experienced at debate. I'll simply refute the handwave (or concede the point if it's not a handwave and valid, or continue the debate on the point if it's not a handwave and but I still question its validity), and restate the unresolved issues, as many times as is necessary to get them addressed. Surely you've figured that out by now? [*] The concerns raised by people who have unresolved issues with WP:N do not go away simply because you choose to ignore them, and until they are resolved consensus has not been reached. I can and will continue to raise the unaddressed concerns, indefinitely. I have almost unbelievable patience in this regard. [*: I am a little behind on catching up with the "#Some of the problems with WP:N" thread in this regard; I'll get there, don't worry.] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would like to see some evidence or statistics for your allegations that (1) abuse of the term NN on AFD is the result of this guideline, and (2) that this usage has recently declined. Note that the existence of lengthy debate on the topic does not in and of itself prove anything; the talk pages of just about any policy page are "rife with debate" because that's what they're there for. Debate that took place a year or two ago is not generally representative to the situation we're having now. (Radiant) 10:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-revert in the interest of peace

Well, I couldn't sleep, so I'm back at it. I'm reverting my own edits, and putting the article back exactly as it was before this all started, including the deletions of extant material that you made while reverting my changes (but excepting edits that don't have anything to do with this particular dispute.) Another sign of good faith, remaining calm and various other sensible guidelines, and evidentiary I hope of intent toward conflict resolution. If it takes us weeks to discuss it out, then fine. The last thing I want is for this to force me to feel cornered into going into WP:3RR-complaining and the like. "Let's not go there." The self-revert will take a little while, but it should be done shortly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished the self-revert. Afterward I did a removal of a useless item (as per Centrx's observation that the topical notability guidelines are already covered in the sidebar), and a factual correction (two previous proposals were labelled — by me, 6 or so months ago, if I remember correctly — as "rejected" when they were actually simply surpassed and went historical; so even that part's a self-revert, just a delayed one.) I do not think these trivial changes will be controversial even in light of the debate a subtopic above this. Now, can we talk and work this out? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "one of the more contentious issues" deletion

Radiant, at this diff [1] you removed the sentence "The use of notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" with the explanation in Edit Summary, "incorrect statement (see AFD logs)". I have to challenge this deletion, on the basis that not only does the fact of some usage of NN in AfD, or the fact that said usage has increased, not say anything at all about whether said usage is contentious or not, it is strongly arguable (and has been argued here and not that I've seen refuted — even unsuccessfully, simply not at all) that it is the very fact of the rise of use and alleged abuse of NN in AfD that makes "the use of notability in the deletion process one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia" in the first place. Your edit's rationale is totally tautological. In the interest of cooling off I've not reverted it. But please. This edit's rationale to date defies logic. I'm not sure why your edits always appear to be in the direction of removing any hint from this page that WP:N is anything but the most consensus-agreed and respected guideline on the whole system, but it isn't. That it isn't is so starkly clear it's almost painful; it's the very reason that I and various less patient editors have been engaging in these debates, not one of which is resolved yet. Can't you see that WP:AGF credulity is being stretched to the breaking point here? You appear to be (note: expression of perception of the results of actions, not an accusation of demonstrable intent or motives) defending your particular take on notabilty at all costs and without any yielding? All I'm doing by contrast is raising issues, shared by many others, and expecting them to be addressed. I'm just asking you to thoroughly discuss, not give up. If you take an hour break and read my history on this page (and its archive) over the last week or two, you'll see that my position has very significantly moderated, in my places, based on compromise and consensus-building; why hasn't yours? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? You and TD claim that using notability in deletion discussions is controversial. However, analysis of those deletion discussions shows that claim to be incorrect. For instance, yesterday's debates show about 438 instances of the term "notability" or "notable" (not counting "nn" or the multitude of links to WP:BIO et al). Last time we did statistics on the topic, over two-thirds of the debates were about the topic. There is the occasional controversy about whether a particular article is or is not notable, but there is no controversy about deleting those articles lacking notability. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure there is, and has been for years. Wikipedia talk:Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Proposal, Wikipedia talk:Notability_proposal, Wikipedia talk:Non-notability, Wikipedia talk:Importance, Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance, as well as Village Pump present and past Village Pump discussions, etc., etc., etc. No one here that I've seen has said that use of "NN" causes much controversy in AfD commentary (though it is not without its detractors even in there), because AfD is not the place to debate policymatters in general, it's the place to debate the fate of the particular articles under discussion. Please stop miscasting mine and others' arguments. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Using "nn" in AFD commentary causes no controversy because deleting articles on grounds of notability is not controversial. That's all there is to it. Trying to get an article related to, say, Islam and Judaism deleted will cause a lot of controversy on AFD itself. "Policy matters" are generally created by precedent, and that is why we have a guideline that says we can delete non-notable articles, and not a guideline that says we can delete religion-related articles. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative language

On a hopefully less contentious side-topic, I would suggest that the language of the passage, while arguably "true" in the broad interpretation, isn't particularly useful to anyone. I would say it should read, perhaps, "The use of Wikipedia:Notability in the deletion process is one of the more contentious issues in Wikipedia (and a minority still dispute the use of any notability criteria in AfD despite Wikipedia:Deletion policy to the contrary), as of this writing." Or something to that effect - i.e., separate people with concerns about WP:N's scope, etc., from super-extremists on the more general notability issue. That is, the original sentence isn't "incorrect", but it can be misinterpreted in ways that are not favorable to WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While it seems to be true for every policy and guideline that a minority disputes it, I fail to see the point of writing that down on the policy and guideline pages themselves. Indeed, WP:CIV doesn't state that in spite of the policy, some people take pride in their incivility; WP:NPOV doesn't state that there have been several coordinated efforts to deprecate it; and neither does WP:BLOCK say that some blocked people have gone so far as to try to get the blocking admin arrested by police. (Radiant) 10:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Specious apples-and-oranges examples; WP:CIV and WP:BLOCK have not been the subject years of raging debate that hasn't substantively changed in three years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, blocking people is often controversial and subject to raging debate on e.g. WP:ANI. (Radiant) 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple non-trivial sources?

I'm not sure that we really want to require this - after all, we presumably don't mean secondary reporting of a primary source (or maybe we do, but that would be kind of strange). What about astronomical discoveries that have only one primary source, and then secondary discussion in papers that reference the first? Surely one credible source is enough if that source is above suspicion? Referencing things that reference the first one adds little, it's just a game of Chinese Whispers. Trollderella 21:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Touche!Kmarinas86 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Touche!Kmarinas86 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
? Trollderella 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I always thought the second source was to maintain some semblance of WP:NPOV. ColourBurst 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the functions of "multiple" is multiple secondary sources, which which evaluate the authority of the primary source for us. This is more of an issue under "independent". Clearly, "independent" includes being independent of the subject, but for the highest reliability we would indeed want independent secondary sources looking at independent primary sources. However, for topics that are truly important historically or if the primary source is of the highest reliability, the independence that is for measuring reliablity becomes less important. (Also note that for an astronomical discovery, there will be future discoveries to corroborate it; so, while it might currently be of merely good reliability, there is a high level of certainty that it will soon be of very high reliability.) —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my understanding is that multiple goes to show that something has a lasting or wide-spread notability. Thus, a subject that gets a single, though lengthy, treatment in ONE source may have only a fleeting notability. The fact that a subject is seperately covered in different sources shows a bredth of interest, while the fact that something is covered multiple times by even the same source shows that it has a longer-term importance. If an event if picked up by only one newspaper and covered only one-time, even if extensive coverage for that one event, it may not be notable enough. Also, the multiple/independant criteria ensures that the facts can be verified better. A fact that appears independantly in two or more sources, that did NOT use each other as sources is more likely to be "true". --Jayron32 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're wrong - see below. Trollderella 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is true of both multiplicity and independence, and both add reliability. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the "multiple" element, while it perhaps should be applied with some flexibility, should be kept. To restate Esperanza32's argument, we do not want to be giving undue attention to minor 15-minute local celebrities on Wikipedia. But if something is covered again and again and in multiple independent sources, then it is definitely something notable and worth drafting an article on (plus there will be lots of sources to cite to as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). --Coolcaesar 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any discovery with only a single source writing about it is going to be of dubious notability. If your astronomical discovery is only reported in a single paper, you might as well merge it with a larger topic where the paper will add data, since it isn't likely to stand on its own. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So you think we should delete articles like Wow! signal (and many others like it)? Only one source, from one researcher (other papers comment on it) and little chance of ever adding more data. I'm a little hesitant even to bring articles like this to attention, in case things have got so bad that you do. Trollderella 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously more than one source has written about the discovery; there are six different references cited, plus inline mention of an X-files episode. If he had written up a report on a signal and no one else cared, citing that report alone would be an example of only one source, and probably be best off merged into a larger SETI article. The data that we add need not be direct observations on the event itself, since we strive to provide context with things like the popular response. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So it is the Chinese whispering that's important to you? Trollderella 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't straw man me. The other sources document other facts. If there was just the one fact, we'd have "there was an astronomical observation. He wrote a paper about it. These were the specifics." The other coverage allows for "There was an observation. It was a BIG DEAL. People are still trying to figure it out. By the way, these are the specifics of the event." Notice that not all the information is even things that would be included in the primary source. You can't establish importance of a primary source with the source itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change it back?

What would happen if I changed the "guideline" tag back to a proposal since this is so disputed? If it sticks, could this prove a lack of consensus? 70.101.146.27 09:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. This guideline exists and is used all the time, thus is not really under "proposal" as the concept of notability has anchieved consenus, and continues to enjoy consensus. That the minute details of the guideline continue to be debated and updated does not make it a "proposal". It makes it exactly like every other established wikipedia policy and guideline. --Jayron32 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Great idea - the 'guideline' status implies a legitimacy of process that this simply does not have. It's dressing this up in consensus, as if that makes it so. Trollderella 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur on "bad idea" (and only that phrase), for completely different reasons. If the status of this document changes, it should be changed to (not just augmented by, as it presently is) the "Disputed" template. If in a few months if it gets even more disputed, it should be marked "Rejected", or I don't see any particular reason that is proponents couldn't "demote" <HUMOR ALERT! I got castigated for using this word a few days ago> it back to Proposal or even Essay, to avoid a Rejected label. I don't see that happening. I personally feel that the "Disputed Guideline" status is sufficient enough to warn people from relying upon WP:N as consensus/authoritative until such time as the disputes are resolved, and to attract them, albeit slowly, into the consensus debate. I think we should all try to remember that we're here for a consensus, not engage in Usenet-style fighting for its' own sake. Heck, if the ueber-inclusionists actually won the debate in the long term, WP:N should still exist, as a page explaining why "Notability" isn't a valid deletion criterion. Not going to happen, but the point is, this isn't about "deleting" WP:N, as a post below seems to suggest, it's about coming to consensus about what it should say, and more importantly what it should mean (and why, in what contexts, to what extent, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So, you're saying that this page should still exist, but just be different, contrary to some statements you made aerlier that you'd like to see this thing gone? (Did you make any such statements? I can't quite remember... this thing is getting so involved! I think I'm going to quit this discussion soon...) 74.38.34.192 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I reserve the right to change my mind. See the thread-mode disclaimer on my talk page. I've actually been saying WP:N should exist and serve somewhat different purposes for several weeks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There appear to be two people who simply have contrarian, unmoveable views about notability, and there is nothing that can be done about that. They are not able to change the deletion process, and without this guideline it is often difficult to explain to people why their articles are deleted—and they are deleted for notability. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
They are deleted because of systematic bias, dressed up as 'notability'. More rulecruft is not required. Trollderella 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, that's unadulterated balderadash, Centrx. By my count, even the issues raised on this current talk page as of the date of my timestamp [make that -1 hour; someone did an archival refactoring before I could save this, resulting in an edit conflict] not counting material that was very shunted off into archive pages, sometimes while the debates were still in-progress — a move I may still revert — demonstrate a majority of editors on this page having issues with WP:N and its purpose, effect, meaning, scope and existence (i.e., not its niggling particulars, like this word or that). I started counting and got bored less than 1/3 through the page, and came up with 7 people with unaddressed concerns about WP:N, and the same 3 WP:N supporters (Centrx, Radiant and an IP). But, sure, WP:VOTE comes to bear; fine by me. Ignoring your specious headcount, let's turn to the substance of the arguments. Those with unresolved concerns about WP:N who have spoken up here don't just outnumber WP:N's proponents, they are out-debating them, by a long, long way. WP:N proponents issues' get addressed logically (for the most part; I definitely concede there are some exceptions here and there, but which have already been dealt with) and often refuted completely without rebuttal, while WP:N opponents and questioners get their issues largely ignored, or at best replied to by the proponents with highly fallacious and only partial responses, which ignore most of the issues they raise. This pattern is getting very, very predictable. PS: I really hope you are not thinking of me when you write "unmoveable views"; if you even skim the last month's worth of debate about this proposal you'll see that my views have in fact shifted, quite a bit, and entirely in your favor; it's unwise to smite a potential ally just because they didn't start out as one. As for "contrarian", look in the mirror; by my anecdotal count, the overwhelming majority of commentors here lately have been con not pro. (Which lest I be tarred with the feathers of the guilt by association fallacy here yet again does not mean I agree with all of their points.) And contrarian can be interpreted more than one way; WP:N as it stands is contrary to both WP:V and WP:DEL, a contention I have not seen successfully controverted, only handwaved at. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Technically, if Radiant and others were correct in marking WP:NNOT as "rejected by the community" it stands to reason that this article should be similarly marked - as it has the same symptom: not having a supporting consensus. Fresheneesz 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is in line with current practice; WP:NNOT was an attempt to completely reverse practice. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Fresheneesz has shown by his comments that he fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia treats policy, and how it is created. He has stated that guidelines need not be reflections of common practice". (Radiant) 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Even *if* I "just don't understand wikipedia", its obvious that there is a large number of people who dispute notability critera (and has been for years). If I were talking to anyone else, i'd say this is simply an essay (and it was simply an essay a couple months back). But since i'm talking to Radiant and Centrx, I think they're holding a double standard - kill the proposal NNOT when it had no consensus, but make Notability a guideline when it's been disputed for years. Now, maybe I just can't comprehend the intricacies of wikipedia policy - but it looks to me that some people around here just won't own up to the fact that *this* page does not have community consensus. Fresheneesz 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, the current practice is (and has been for long before WP:N was outright edit-warred into being labelled a Guideline instead of a Proposal), that WP:DEL references as deletion-actionable those topical/typical notability Guidelines that have achieved actual consensus enough to be recognized by WP:DEL. So, yes, Fresheneesz isn't on the mark here. But my compromise of simply adding a "Disputed" template to this projectpage instead of replacing the Guideline one with it was really more generous than WP:N deserved. I'm actually still OK with it being this way for now, but I'm very disappointed at the lack of progress in the last few weeks. Not ONE issue raised by anyone with concerns about this proposal has been addressed by its proponents such that consensus has been reached even on that issue alone, much less on the overarching issues with regard to WP:N. If WP:N proponents would simply acknowledge that Wikipedia already has a consensus, Policy-backed, notability guidline creation process that works and has worked for quite some time, and write WP:N to support that process instead of supplant it (i.e. WP:N as currently written is not in line with current practice, but could be made so), I think that the entire debate would simply go away. Consensus can be achieved, but only if both sides are willing to let it happen. There are entrenched parties here, so entrenched that they seem unable to yield on a single point, no matter how insignificant. On both sides. I believe that the debate is not progressing, one inch, toward resolution because of their unwillingness to address the other side's concerns (and often unwillingness to even recognize that they exist), and come to a compromise that helps build consensus so we can all go do something else more productive. A (not this) WP:N could be a really valuable tool in standardizing and spawning WP:DEL-recognized notability criteria, but instead it is presently just this "thing" out here causing a lot of strife and confusion because it conflicts with the WP:DEL process and with the language of WP:V. Just fix it" and let's move on. Heck, I'd just do it myself at this point, but every change I attempt to make to the page is almost instantly reverted with no or insufficient justification. If I get some indication that I won't be edit-warred with, I might be willing to try it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's all very well to assume bad faith and jump to conclusions of ownership, but I note that since you outright edit-warred this page into being labelled "disputed", you have made precisely one edit to the text of the page that wasn't a revert. That edit was adding a bunch of links to outdated pages that hardly seem relevant, and was discussed somewhere else on this page. All the issues you have pointed out on this talk page have been addressed and responded to, and I should note that most of those issues amount to incorrect assumptions (e.g. that guidelines may not be subjective), spurious logic (e.g. appeal to authority) or mere handwaving (e.g. the unsourced assertion that this page has resulted in AFD becoming a cesspool). (Radiant) 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You ignore all those people that agree with that "spurious logic". You're still not a consensus of one Radiant. Fresheneesz 09:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA. (Radiant) 10:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What's the personal attack? I just see him addressing you by name and making a point about consensus level. <fzzt spark pop> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please check that arbcom case and read the parts on "Fresheneesz edits policy disruptively" and "Fresheneesz is uncivil", and the evidence for "Fresheneesz engaged in harassment". He appears to be going back to his old tactic of badmouthing people who disagree with him, e.g. here. (Radiant) 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Radiant views any good argument against him as a personal attack or assumption of bad faith. He's also using completely irrelevant attack against me - any arbitration is irrelevant to whether or not my above comment was a personal attack (which it isn't, obviously). Fresheneesz 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Radiant, I don't have time right now to address all of this, but I do have a few responses: Read WP:OWN more closely; not all cases of WP:OWNership are exercises in bad faith action, some of them are just mistakes or forest-for-the-trees issues, so referencing WP:OWN is not categorically a failure to assume good faith. Whether I've edited the main text of the project page (and I've already explicitly stated why I didn't) is of no relevance as to whether this guideline is disputed. For the record I've concentrated on trying to get all sides heard, including the locally unpopular ones that are finally coming back out of the woodwork now that they think they might actually be addressed, so that reaching consensus is actually feasible in the first place. The fact that I'm talking more and more about consensus now instead of dispute is not a coincidence. I have plenty of WP policy/guideline material to back that approach, instead of barging in and changing everthing to my own personal ideal WP:N (and I do have one, the general shape of which I've already described, several times), or marking it just an Essay, or whatever. And I've lately been expressing quite a bit of willingness to moderate my stance. As for the rest, the really short version is I don't believe that the bulk of the issues I've raised have been addressed, but because I'm behind on responding to the main multi-part topic about them, I can't really deal with that in this post. I don't know what app. to auth. you refer to. I remember asking whether proponents of WP:N thought it problematic that Jimbo's (last known?) sentiment on the topic was negative and that WP Policy says his word can be binding. I seem to recall finding the answer to that question satisfactory, actually, though I may not have written so here yet. And, I simply don't agree with you that the addition of the historical material to the "See also" section was irrelevant. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Heck, I even supported Centrx's reasoning for the deletion of one of those "See also" things. See my last comment under the self-revert heading. Not all of this is entirely fresh in my mind; I've been working on actual articles, especially Albinism, and on non-WP things, for a while. PS: I am I to take away from your message, in which you recycle most of the logic terminology I've used back at me, that you find the use of such terminology offensive or uncivil in some way? If that's the case, it wasn't my intent. If it's just irony, good show. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus building attempt

Simple questions to attempt to return the discussion to reaching consensus:

[edit] Is verifiability enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?

  • I say no. Many things are verifiable but not enough for a minimally encyclopedic article to be created. --Jayron32 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are several policies that conflict with this statement (not to mention multiple guidelines and strong precedent), so the answer is a firm no. Also, this is not something we can decide on this page anyway; people who think the answer should be "yes" should go to those policy pages and propose to amend or deprecate them. (Radiant) 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully there are already several other policies. Those are enough. No more rulecruft is needed. Trollderella 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I say no. Verifiability is enough reason to keep a fact, if there's an appropriate article to put it in, but WP:V does not address any threshhold for having an article on a topic. Facts are verifiable, and verifiable facts are collected into articles on notable topics. The policy addressing what makes an "encyclopedia article" is WP:NOT. That policy is too abstract to be useful without some kind of unpacking and application-oriented text, which is precisely what the PNC is. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The answer is self-evidently "no", but the question is leading. We already KNOW it isn't enough, because we have the WP:NPOV, etc. The complete question is "Are existing policies and guidelines, apart from WP:N, enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?" That appears to be Trollderella's main point, and one I raised myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. There's a difference between "Does it exist?" and "Can I verify that fact in the source?" If it can be verified, having an aritcle on it won't make Wikipedia explode. -- Chris is me 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    There are reasons to do things besides preventing explosions, of course. There's lots of things wouldn't make Wikipedia explode, yet we don't do 'em. Throwing out any particular clause of WP:NOT wouldn't "make Wikipedia explode", but it would make it into something else. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are existing policies and guidelines, apart from WP:N, enough of a minimum requirement to keep an article?

  • Comment: I've argued "yes", and remain unconvinced that the answer isn't "no", but I have my own ideas about how WP:N could be genuinely useful, that echo some of the things others have said here, with regard to defining and guidance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've collected my thoughts on this and say "no, but..." I think the existing criteria (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, etc., combined with the WP:DEL process of incorporating well-crafted and noncontroversial subject-specific notability criteria into Policy) are sufficient, technically. But it's not very user-friendly. If WP:N can be made to provide a better "user interface" for notability, that would probably be a Good Thing. The devil will just be in the details - keeping WP:N from interfering with WP:DEL and its existing SSNC's, etc. I'm coming around to this viewpoint after giving WP:NFT and WP:NOT some hard thought. Both are in part (and to differing extents) restatements of other policy with a notability-related frosting on top, but are undeniably valuable in maintaining WP's encyclopedic nature. If anything, WP:NFT may go a little too far in spots (the entire thing is written in a pretty snotty tone and arguably violates WP:BITE), an effect that could be moderated by WP:N being well-crafted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. Very yes. -- Chris is me 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If verifiability is not enough, how do we provide enough guidance so that we can create a minimally encyclopedic article?

Note: substitue "If existing policies and guidelines, aside from WP:N, are not enough" for "If verifiability is not enough" in this subheading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I say that we need a standard that says that an article must show that it can be referenced to multiple sources that deal with the topic in non-trivial ways and where such references appear in reliable sources that are independant from the article itself. Now, you can put these statements into a guideline called "Steve" for all I care. If the contention is that the word "notability" contains too much baggage to ever be objective, then fine. But the above standards I list ARE objective, and need to be able to be found in a SINGLE location that we can refer people to so that they can find them and use them to write better articles or comment on AFDs in constructive ways. --Jayron32 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thankfully, there are already policies in place that let us do this. Again, I will ask for a real world example of an article that should be deleted, but cannot be based on existing policy. No one has yet provided one. No more rulecruft is required. Trollderella 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Any page that fails to meet WP:NOT can be deleted based on WP:NOT. When someone asks why it was deleted, if you have nowhere to point them but to WP:NOT, they're going to get a piss-poor explanation, giving the impression of much more subjectivity and capriciousness than this page gives, even in its current imperfect state.
You seem to be assuming that the reason for having this guideline is to facilitate deletion of articles. That is incorrect; do you understand why? One good reason for having this guideline is to prevent deletion of articles. If someone says "delete, non-notable" about a topic that has enough sources to get it past WP:NOT, then you can point to this page and say "You can't argue non-notability, for this article, by the guideline itself." Why are you against that? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[NB: Did you really mean WP:NOT up there? I get the impression you mean WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ]
Um... it amounts to the same thing, right? If we're arguing that WP:N should basically say, in clear language, that any article that has enough sources to satisfy WP:NOT is "notable", then "enough sources to get past WP:N" = "enough sources to get past WP:NOT", the difference being that WP:NOT isn't terribly clear about what it's requiring. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Wasn't criticizing, just asking for clarification. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I'm in favor of whatever will make it clearer to more people, really. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you read the discussion here with this question in mind, the focus — including on the pro-WP:N side — has been very much on deletion. That said, the reasoning that "one good reason for having this guideline is to prevent deletion of articles" is one of things that is causing me to shift my position on the issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's true that we've been focusing much more on using notability for deletion, but having an objective definition certainly cuts both ways. WP:N can be used to combat the "I've never heard of it, delete it" mindset quite effectively, I would think, because it provides a concrete way to establish notability despite what people may or may not have heard of. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I had always assumed this arguement was for the utility of notability guidelines BOTH ways. I am sorry my arguements did not make that clear. The problem is we have bad, illogical, faulty, non-evidentiary, and not-policy-or-guideline based arguements from BOTH sides. Keep people tend to argue: "This information is useful, keep it" or "Me and my buddies have heard of it, so keep it". Delete people tend to argue: "I have never heard of it, so delete it" or "This topic shouldn't be famous" or other such poor arguements. The goal of notability from MY point of view has ALWAYS been to return the arguement to policy and evidence based discussions. I tend to be quite active in AfD discussions, and if you check my posts, I personally always either cite policy or evidence or both (depending on the nature of the article) and I would venture that I come down pretty close to 50/50 on the keep/delete thing with my votes. A guideline such as this could greatly improve such discussions EMENSELY. Also, we use notability in many other ways, such as the {{notability}} tag, and people who see articles they work on so tagged need to know what we mean by notability. That has nothing to do with deletion; it is a clean-up issue. --Jayron32 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. So, how do we get to objective and concrete? (cf. #Objective 'cause it says so and #Two-fold subjectivity.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the record...

I strenuously object to today's archival of posts from this page, which relegated a lot of material to an untouchable dustbin — material that was still under discussion. Rather than revert it, I'm just going to resurrect some of it verbatim. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All of it were topics that, judged by the timestamp, had not been edited for a week. Pages that fill up rapidly tend to be archied rapidly. (Radiant) 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Noted, but please see #Topic resurrections for closure below. There was great material from you and several other parties in there that simply hadn't been gotten around to yet. If anything, it may be the best (from consensus-building p.o.v.) content there was. I'm not a fan of time-based archival, because it makes the questionable assumption that prolonged silence equals... well, anything, other than people have lives and they're busy.
[Recovered from archivial as an unaddressed issue; it is a response to my (SMcCandlish) objection to Werdnabot, following on someone else's, I think it was Centrx's.:]
Actually, I think you misread events. I have been actively unarchiving the discussions because I felt the archiving was being mishandled. I was looking for a more equitible way to reduce the size of the page, without effectively ending discussions before they reached their conclusion. When you quote me, be careful to attribute all of my positions to me. It was other users that moved discussions to talk pages that caused active discussions to stop before resolutions. It was my actions that returned the discussions here to allow them to remain open. I support your position 100%, and am against archiving active discussions. My proposal to bring in Werdnabot was only to allow archival of dead discussions; one cannot accuse Werdnabot of using archival as a way of intentionally killing a discussion they disagreed with the way that one could accuse a human editor of doing the same. not that I am doing that in any way. It was intended as a preemptive strike against such feelings, which could have occurred if human-editor-archival was allowed to continue. --Jayron32 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Jayron, I did not mean to feather you with the tar. There were (still are) some legit issues with the human-moderated archival going on, and the sudden introduction right at that moment of bot-mediated archival seemed part-and-parcel. If you're saying that Wernabot would prevent such issues from arising again, then I for one am all for it, and retract any objection. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic resurrections for closure

[These are a few topics recovered from the archives that weren't done with. Others should feel free to pull back more of them if necessary; these were just the ones that struck me personally as needing recovery. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]

I have already explained that the situation has changed in the past few years so we cannot rely on old quotes; the wiki evolves. To cite myself, "we have literally exploded in size, and this has all sorts of nasty side effects such as OTRS, a "shoot on sight" order regarding advertisements and libel, and an influx of both undesirable editors and undesirable articles which led to stricter ways of dealing with both. One might say that eventualism is losing grip because we have already crossed most bounds most eventualists figured we would eventually cross." I do not see how this guideline contradicts or otherwise conflicts with DP and/or V, but have no objection in principle to rewording. (Radiant) 12:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it has changed, pretty much as you describe, though I think it has changed in additional ways that are detrimental, and directly related to WP:N being labelled as a Guideline. I do agree with your point that eventualism is pretty much a moot stance. I recognize that you disagree with my stance that WP:N is in conflict with WP:V and WP:DP (and hope to resolve that disagreement in some way), and am happy to hear that you're open to re-wording. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that you think that (it has changed in addional ways etcetera, but I would like to see evidence of that. Other than that we seem to mostly agree. (Radiant) 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm too sleep deprived to get into it now, but this sounds good! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Me too. You explained the subjectivity thing and I understood your argument, but this contradicting thing you've never seem to have put to rigor. 74.38.34.192 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Look for where Radiant said he thought I was being too legalistic. It's in the material just above that (as well as about 15 places in the archives, but I think I explained it better at the "legalistic" spot than elsewhere.) Oh, actually it's just about a screenful below this, beginning with "I've tried apparently insufficiently to explain this"... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, it pains me to see you guys talk past each other. Regarding the old quote, SMcCandlish brought that up to make one simple point "the present resembles the past, in one particular way." An old quote is an entirely reasonable way to make that point - show us where someone in the past was saying the same things that are being said today. [...] GTBacchus(talk) 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with using a quote to make a point about the past - however, as I stated in my above comment, the present is significantly different from that past. Thanks for clearing up the 'contradiction' part of WP:V, but it is clear that being verifiable has never been the only criterion for inclusion. For instance, content must also be NPOV, encyclopedic, and not a copyvio. (Radiant) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That [What GTBaccush said] is a large part, but not all, of it. My review of the once nearly impossible-to-find "ancient" materials on this topic (now restored to WP:INT and WP:FAME) have lead me to the conclusion that the really substantive issues at the core of this debate have not changed or been dealt with since 2003 or so, maybe even earlier. The thing is, I don't think that makes the issues unresolvable, only indicatory that they've not been yet addressed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[...]As for how this guidline "contradicts" WP:V in SMcCandlish's way of thinking, I agree that it's counter-intuitive, at least to my understanding of the word "contradict". I would think a direct contradiction of WP:V would look like, "there is some material that we can include without verifying". When SMcCandlish says "directly contradicts" in this context, he means that it goes beyond what's required by WP:V, that it extends that policy. The only part of WP:V that's "contradicted" in the sense of the word that I understand, is an implication that a fact being verifiable is the only requirement for inclusion. This guideline does indeed suggest a higher bar, in a way. Facts must not only be verifiable, but must be included in an article on a topic that has enough verifiable facts about it to sustain an article. GTBacchus(talk) 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried apparently insufficiently to explain this from a legal-based, "rules of order", perspective (which appears to be what Wikiepedia Policy is based on, as well as other processes WP has, especially the ArbCom which uses a structure and procedure and nomenclature borrowed wholesale from the US legal system). If Rule A says "the criteria for X is 'snorkel'", and a subordinate (i.e. Guideline, not Policy) rule B says "No, actually the criteria for X is 'snorkel + weasel'" — i.e., a more stringent requirement — then the lesser rule (the Guideline) is definitively and categorically wrong (i.e. inactivated and countermanded) because it conflicts with a higher-level mandate (i.e. the Policy), in the same way that a conflict between US (or Canadian or Botswanan or whatever) Supreme Court caselaw trumps more-provincial court decisions. Where two WP Policies (which appear definitionally to be of equal weight) come into conflict (e.g. the broad and permissinve WP:V versus the narrowing and limiting WP:DEL), then there seems to be no problem with the narrower and more limiting competitor (e.g. WP:DEL with its roster of Policy-recognized notability criteria) superceding, within its narrow field, the more broad "law" (in this case, WP:V); the narrowing was clearly the intent. My "beef" with WP:N is that it assumes the power to trump both and set a new system-wide standard that seeks to supersede power and precedence of not just WP:V but WP:DEL as well. WP:N simply is not Policy. Guideline or not, it is just "too big for its britches" as my grandma says. I think this is reparable, which is a point I've been trying to make for some time but not successfuly doing so. Maybe I just suck at getting points across or something. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: To clarify further: "goes beyond" and "extends" are (limitedly) synonymous with "contraverts" or "violates" in this particular context, because of the hierachical relationship between Polcies and Guidelines. It's not some kind of accusation of impropriety, just a description of hierarchical validity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
But what if Rule A says nothing about weasels. It only mentions snorkels. The absense of Rule A even mentioning weasels does not mean that it forbids them. It takes no stance on weasels. Likewise, Rule B confirms Rule A by itself saying that snorkels are required. However, since Rule A is inadequate in that it was not designed to handle weasels. To restate it: The scope of Rule A does not include weasels... it was only designed to handle snorkels. Weseals, however, are not being dealt with in any way. So Rule B is subordinate to Rule A in that it confirms everything that Rule A says about snorkels, but it ALSO adds additional restrictions on weasels. There is no problem with this addition, because Rule A only deals with weasels, and also makes no mention that other rules could not add to it. It only says "Snorkel". If Rule A said "Weasel and not snorkel" you would have a case. Since Rule A only says "Weasel" and Snorkel is left undealt with, Rule B is necessary and justified. --Jayron32 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to think on this for a while, after I back-convert your conversion of my metasyntactic variables for mass nouns relating to concepts into widget-referent count nouns. <fzzzt spark pop>. I think I see your point, but I also think it doesn't entirely address mine, but I'm not totally positive of that without some further gedankenin' for a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I believe you look at things too legalistically. Nevertheless, would it help if we added a statement that the topic-specific guidelines trump this one? (Radiant) 15:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds very good actually. PS: I'm not aiming for "legalistic" but strucuralist; if we're given a Western-law-based structure (which it seems we clearly are), then working within that structure can seem legalistic (and necessarily is, at a procedural and logical level), but isn't necessarily so in every respect. The consensus nature of Wikipedia breaks from the legalist paradigm, which is mostly majoritarian-based, the one exception being the jury room; but even there, the concept of "consensus" is far more strict and unfruitful. It really is a new territory here. Rockin'. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: "but isn't necessarily so in every respect", Cf. WP:WL — obviously some aspects of the legal system are eschewed. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To bring this elementary discussion back to the realm of Wikipedia, we need WP:N because WP:V is inadequate. Verifiability is a neccesary but insufficient criteria for encyclopedic content. The level of coverage that a topic garners in reliable sources must be considered. WP:N is an attempt to achieve consensus on how much verifiable content is needed before an article can be written Calling it a policy or a guideline or calling it "Steve" redirects the discussion in a way as to obfuscate the issue. We need a clear written "code" that we achieve via consensus as to which articles are "worthy" and which are "not worthy" and that code needs to be adequate AND objective. Verifiability is inadequate and leaving it to personal opinion is subjective. Have a clear external standard we can apply an article to, where that standard is only based on measurable objective qualities like number of sources and depth of coverage, is what is needed. THIS DOCUMENT IS TRYING TO MEET THAT NEED. To debate the validity of the document by pushing the discussion into a semantic tangent is disingenuous. This document exists to meet a shortcoming. If you can improve the document to better meet the shortcoming THAN DO SO. If you feel that the shortcoming is NOT being fixed by this document, THEN PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE. Meta-arguements like "the nature of this arguement is invalid because the arguement argues abotu something it shouldn't argue about" is obfuscatory. Fix this document or propose an alternative. All other discussions are only taking us away from fixing the problem. --Jayron32 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Jayron. Criteria are meant to be additive. For instance, WP:V says we want our pages to be verifiable - it doesn't mention other criteria. If a page is verifiable and also a copyvio, we don't want it, and one can't claim that we should keep a copyvio because it's verifiable (or indeed, an unverifiable article because it's not a copyvio). (Radiant) 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Two very good points. I want to address them (and not even in a particularly debative, but more like clarifyingatative, way), but only after some sleep. My eyelids are literally sticking together. <yawn style="gape: huge;" /> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
AWESOME POINT!!!!!! You really hit the nail on the head with that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And drove it all the way into the wood too.) 74.38.34.192 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to scream at us, BTW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I know. I was just so impressed. 74.38.34.192 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We ALREADY HAVE all the rules we need on this. Please, please, provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of this policy. There is too much rulecruft already, and no towering mountain of articles that shouldn't be here, waiting for this policy. Trollderella 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:IAR may be helpful for you. And note that this page is not policy in the first place. (Radiant) 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I know this is not policy, I meant 'waiting for this page to become policy. Please, provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of sufficent rules. Trollderella 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This page isn't becoming policy either. I've heard rumors of groups of people that love deleting articles, but I am not part of such an alleged group, and I don't recall having spoken to anyone that is. (Radiant) 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories aside, if WP:N goes forward I would frankly be surprised if it did not become Policy at some point. That's one of the reasons I've considered the debate so important. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real world example in favor of WP:N?

Can anyone provide a real world example of an article that you would just love to delete, but can't because of a lack of sufficent rules? I keep asking for a real example of why this is necessary, but nothing is forthcoming. Anyone? Trollderella 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered roughly three times that, since WP:N contains no rules that aren't already present in WP:V and WP:NOT, your question contains implicit, incorrect assumptions. Those of us arguing for this guideline aren't defending it on the grounds that it's needed to delete articles. On the other hand, it contains information about how WP:V and WP:NOT are applied in practice, and as such, it's very useful, especially since WP:NOT is very abstract and doesn't contain any guide to application. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess that given how damaging it is, I can't really understand why, if you agree it isn't needed, you're still so keen on pushing it. Trollderella 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
We probably would disagree about just how "damaging" it is, for one thing. As to why I'm supporting it, I'm actually arguing that we should fix it to make it less damaging, while it seems you're tooth and nail against any attempt to make it less damaging. It's like it's all or nothing: kill it completely, or let it be as subjective and crappy as it can be. I can't see that any previous effort has been made to fix it, before last month, but you seem to be against that effort. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Same here. It is necessary as long as the notability concept is used anywhere, in order to explain it. It might be somewhat crap at the moment but that doesn't mean it is irredemable. 74.38.34.192 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I am finding myself concurring strongly with both of the above two comments (74.38.34.192 and GTBacchus). This isn't a swipe at Trollderella, with whom I agree on various other issues elsewhere on this page; but we are not entirely of one mind on all of this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I honestly appreciate your harm reduction approach, and would certainly prefer your version to the one that is most used. However, I can't actively support more redundant rulecruft. Trollderella 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you would prefer if WP:NOT were edited to make it more concretely applicable? That's one option that's occurred to me during these discussions. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds very interesting. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you could provide an example of some articles that cannot currently be deleted without WP:NOT being edited to make it more concrete, I might prefer that. I'm still stuggling to understand what problem this is supposed to solve. Trollderella 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm thinking about it. The trouble is, a lot of examples I think of fall under subject specific notability criteria, like WP:CORP or WP:BIO. I don't know whether you consider those to be redundant rulecruft. The thing about subject specific criteria is that we can't cover every subject that may come up. I think of WP:N as a safety net, to catch anything that falls past all of the specific notabiltiy guidelines. Anything failing to satisfy WP:NOT, and not already covered by WP:WEB or one of the others would work as an example, though. You take any article that could be deleted by citing WP:NOT - it's pretty likely that, in an AfD today, more people would say "non-notable" than would say "delete, per WP:NOT", even though the second is accurate and more direct.
This guideline, as I'm seeing it, is a place to explain what some us of already mean when we say "notable", and what we would like to hold everyone to mean, if they're going to use that word at all. If you'd like to convince people to cite WP:NOT instead of this guideline, then I wish you luck, but until you succeed, we're going to provide a way for you to keep people honest. If someone says "delete, non-notable", and yet it's a topic that has enough verifiable information to get past WP:NOT, then you can say, "I don't even agree with that concept, but if you're going to cite it, at least read it; per the guideline, material is only 'non-notable' if...," and don't let them get away with using some "I've never heard of it" criterion. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a goal for WP:N that I could support (though it doesn't yet go as far as I'd like, in helping ensure consistency in the subject-specific NN criteria themselves.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Think about it: if you say "non-notability is not a valid reason for deletion," you probably get ignored a lot, or written off as a rabid inclusionist. On the other hand, if you throw the very guideline they're citing back at them, you're in a much better position, and if they don't like it, they can come here and argue with us.
How's that, for a pitch? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Got my attention, FWIW. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Three issues for Trolldella: 1) Notability is being used as a rationale for all kinds of decisions at wikipedia. To pound on the wall and wail "it should not be used" is counter to reality. To not want notability to be an issue is one thing. To claim that it isn't an issue is something else entirely. The problem exists. The guideline is needed to deal with it. To remove the guideline is to ostrich ourselves and say "la la la no one ever needs any guideline on what a notable article is". Apparently, they do. Even if they shouldn't, they still do and we are here to meet that need. 2) Show me another guideline or policy that clearly describes how much verifiable information is enough to write an article from The issue is that no other policy or guideline addresses this issue Yes, we can coble together 3 or 4 other policies and guidelines and maybe interpret a few of them to also justify deleting articles that were deleted for lack of notability. But that does not bely the fact that no other guideline or policy exists that serves the purpose this one is trying to. It is not redundant as you claim because no other policy or guideline is currently meeting the need this one is. 3) Wikipedia is about consenus. You have been argueing by yourself that the guideline needs to be removed wholesale. Everyone else here is argueing for ways to change or improve the guideline. Arguements to improve or change indicate consensus that the guideline is needed in the first place. I have been on the losing end of a consensus, and I have been adult enough to admit that, while I still hold my feelings very strongly, I see that the preponderance of Wikipedia users sees otherwise, and so, while I disagree, I let it drop. --Jayron32 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Post article

The WashPost article that was added then removed then reverted: I'm with Centrx on removing it; it's a very one-sided article, and while I can even sympathize with some of what it says, I don't think it adds to the debate much less improves the proposal. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Concur. We have other pages for "what newspapers say about Wikipedia". (Radiant) 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm done.

Hi.

I wanted to say that I'm done here with this debate, at least for now. I think I've had enough discussion, and this thing has gotten so long and convoluted it's turning into a chore for me. I think I've provided enough points, arguments, and questions for you all to consider & dispute, and hope that eventually a consensus will be achieved on this issue, although I'm not going to hold my breath on it (this has been going for what, 3 years? 4?). I guess one reason I kept going was because I found this to be very addictive, but it's starting to get in the way of a lot of other things I want to do, and thus I'm letting it go for now. 74.38.34.192 03:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and for SMcCandlish: You said that you had softened up a little ("10-15 percent") on your "WP:N should die" stance. Did any of the points/arguments I brought up factor into this? The reason I'm asking is because there are some people on the net that are so rock-solid in their opinions that they won't budge even a tenth of an inch. 74.38.34.192 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heck, at this point it is much larger that 10-15%; I think WP:N is actually salvageable in some form; I would have laughed at that proposition two weeks ago. No one person's post changed my mind; it's been a very synchretic process, with a lot more to do with others' willingness to play ball than to do with any particular point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to know if any of my posts contributed to it, even though I was far from the only one involved. Did my posts play a part in you coming to this new conclusion? Ie. did you think I raised any valid points? It's just that I've argued with some people about other things who are absolute shut boxes that don't want to see _any_ points I make. Especially consdering that "two weeks ago" was about the time I started to really involve myself in this thing. 74.38.34.192 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I imagine they must have, but I can't think of any that have tremendously stood out for me from the rest of the debate. I'm not really sure why you're a) trying to get some kind of yea or nay out of me, and repeatedly mentioning how closed minded some people are. I think I've demonstrated that I'm not closed minded, since I've, well, changed my mind, on quite a number of things here. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess because that I had a lot of experience with closed-minded people that weren't quite so fun to argue with (they were particularly "rabid" in their opinions), and after all that I wanted to see if I had found a person/group that was better than that. That's why I asked. 74.38.34.192 06:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. Well, yeah, because WP has built-in safety valves like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc., and a process for blocking problem user, and most importantly a community willing to enforce, it largely prevents Usenet-style endless flamewarring. I took a look at Usenet a few months ago and it's just a wasteland of noise. I'm surprised anyone even still runs NNTP services on their machines any more (I would hazard a guess that the binaries traffic is the only reason Usenet isn't as forgotten as FidoNet.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. But anyway, I'm done here. Thanks a lot for the response, though. It answered my questions. 74.38.34.192 21:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
74, I've appreciated your contributions here. Thanks for maintaining civility and a solution-oriented approach. You've definitely been helpful. I look forward to seeing you around the wiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I'm going to or want to be a true Wikipedian, ie. someone that devotes himself to this thing. I don't really edit the actual WP itself that much (any edits I do make are very, very small indeed), and aside from the stuff I said here on this discussion page, I don't really have much else to say or do with Wikipedia right now except to read it. I have way more things I want to do than Wikipedia, but I thought I'd just give this obviously highly-contested thing a little more debate to help it out. I'm sorry if I don't have any more to do, but I guess some people just "come and go", and I'm one of them. Glad to hear though that I at least did something positive, after all the negative crap I've gotten in other forums on other websites. But I doubt you'll "see me around the Wiki", at least for a while, as I'm signing off on Wikipedia and moving on. I will say that I found at least some of your community much more open-minded and willing to change than other groups out there. So, goodbye, and good luck with the project! 74.38.34.192 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability in AfD

Idea: This could be a section for reactions people have to real AfDs in which notability-type arguments play a role. If we're trying to have this guideline reflect current practice, let's put some examples of current practice on the table and look at 'em. -GTB

I changed the header of this section and added some italic text at the top, partly to make it less pointed at one person, and partly so we can easily include other reactions to AfDs here. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Further idea: At next archival, archive these 3 comments and a copy of the subheading, xref back to the "live" version, and refactor the above 2 comments into a new anon, section-descriptive intro here, and just keep this section, archiving moribund posts to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Hilton

Radiant, I'd like to request explanation of your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hilton. You said "not elected = not notable". I'm asking here, because you're involved in this discussion, and... why would you say that? I feel like we've been working hard here to establish that "not notable" means "not covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources". Why would you, while this discussion is happening, imply that it's something else? Clearly many failed candidates are notable for various reasons. What about multiple independent sources? Aren't those the acid test for notability? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And according to WP:BIO not just WP:N, that is an acceptable criterion. 70.101.145.209 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. WP:BIO: "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles...This is not intended to be an exclusionary list...Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." This is a criterion for inclusion, stating that winners of the elections are likely to be notable by definition. This has nothing to do with whether or not losers of major elections are not notable (and even if the Candidates notability guideline draft eventually says that they are not notable, categorically, this still would not speak to Hilton's notability particularly, since he could be still be notable on other grounds. Anyway, WP:BIO definitely does not say that losers of elections are categorically non-notable; it does not speak to this issue at all, one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose I shouldn't have used shorthand there. There was, in my opinion, not enough information available on this person to write an article about, and this is, in my opinion, usually the case about not-yet-elected politicians. Note that the article contained such trivia as "he cannot spell the word millennium", which is hardly encyclopedic. I suppose redirecting him to an article about his party would be nice. (Radiant) 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    I don't necessarily disasgree with deleting the article. His claim of notability was not that he ran for office, but seems to be related to his internet activities - apparently he runs some popular UK political blog sites. I just think it's important to emphasize in AfD that "non-notable" !votes are source based, because a number of people seem to think otherwise, that notability has something to do with fame or popularity. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AboutUs.org

The admin's close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AboutUs.org was heartening, I thought. We have got a link to WP:ILIKEIT in this guideline, buried under a bunch of historical counter-proposals in the "See also" section. A benefit of SMcCandlish's /historical subpage suggestion below would be to focus readers' attention on value-adding links like that. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to this section

This seems to belong as a Namespace file (like Wikipedia:Notability/AfDs. To include it in the main talk page seems counter to the purpose of the talk page. The whole point of this talk page is ways to improve the guideline, not to call out editors for their perceived faulty arguements, or any of the like. I don't deny that this information MAY belong, but having it as part of the talk page seems wrong to me. It is certauinly useful evidence as to what consensus notability is, but this seems like it opens itself up to abuse too easily. If you have a comment on an AfD, make the comment AT THE AfD discussion. If you have an issue with an editor, take it to their User Talk page. This current discussion doesn't really seem germain to what this talk page is supposed to be for... --Jayron32 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward: History

The first thing I'd like to do, moving forward and working on the projectpage, is move all of the historical materials relating to the topic and consolidate them into [[Wikipedia:Notabilty/Historical]] (already have a draft index page for it; it would refer in kind to [[Wikipedia:Notability/History/*]] where * = various dead proposals), and that all the historical links be removed from the article and replaced with one link to this Historical page. I think this would simultaneously satisfy me and other "disputatious types"  :-) by preserving the very difficult-to-fully-find history of this wikitopic, with the compromise that the extent of the history (and the contentiousness of that history) will be a lot less promiment; and satisfy Radiant by cleaning up the article and making it less disputatiously worded, with the concession that the history would be findable clearly (e.g. in "See also" or some other obvious place) from the WP:N page, just in a lot less detail. Oh, and I chose "/Historical" to avoid confusion with the WP:N "history" page. I could just Be Bold and go do it, but I'd rather make sure there's at least some level of buy-in first. As for why I want to bother, I strongly suspect that even a few years from now debate will continue to flare up and that the archive will be of value in demonstrating (eventual; I don't think we're there yet) consensus, and both preserving various viewpoints that may have value not yet recognized, but also preventing reintroduction of rejected ideas. I also just kind of want to tie off this "insufficiently understood history" debate point, fix it in time as a museum piece, and get on with more substantial work on this. Any thoughts? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it. "Those who cannot remember the past...," right? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. (Radiant) 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and the 'it is on a non-English Wikipedia' test

If this has been discussed, please point me at the relevant archive listing. I came across an interesting AfD discussion a few minutes ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aigle (company)). A statement made in a couple of forms during this discussion was "being on French Wikipedia makes it notable". What do you think about this? Does the existence of an article on a non-English Wikipedia constitute sufficient notability for inclusion as a separate article in the English Wikipedia? Thanks for the thoughts. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would depend. If the article is a stub, or is up for AfD, or covered in fix-it tags, or the English article is bunk and was posted by the same person that did most of the work on the French version, — i.e., see WP:RS — I would think not, but if it's non-stub, sourced article in good standing, I do not see why it couldn't be evidenciary, as one of the "multiple independent sources". I do not think it could be a "guarantee" of adequate notability for the example reasons just mentioned and because we don't, as a community, have any idea what the inclusion standards are over at fr.wikipedia.org. All that said, any sources cited in the French article count toward en.wikipedia.org notability establishment (and if the English article is insufficiently cited, and it is kept because the French citations qualify it as notable, then it should be tagged with one or another of the verifiabilty-related header or inline templates. If it remains uncited, it could be AfD'd again. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur with the above, mostly. Wiki articles aren't reliable sources, and so they are not sufficient as an indicator of notability or anything else. However, they certainly should give us pause for thought (in this respect, the interwiki test is perhaps similar to the Google test). If created independently from the EN article, an article on another language WP is a very strong indicator that an article is notable/sourceable. -- Visviva
If the French version is properly sourced, then those sources are indication of notability; if not, then that doesn't tell us much. If the sources themselves are in French, that shouldn't stop them from establishing notability, but we might need help with translation. Fortunately, it's not hard to find francophones around here. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] historically fluid

Please see this. VigoDeutschendorf 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Two things... first, it is obviously true that anything famous ten or a hundred years ago should still have an article even if nobody's heard of it any more. But second, we tend to overemphasize the importance of current or recent events (WP:CSB) - and as such we shouldn't blow the current hypes and memes out of proportion and think that they really are famous for all time. In particular, I'm referring to any number of internet fads and YouTube movies that are the talk-of-the-moment but ultimately forgettable. (Radiant) 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. However, keep in mind also that we have page count limits. We aren't bound by being in 26 printed and bound voumes, A-Z. Per Jimbo, this is the sum total of human knowledge. What is notable to 500,000~ people today may be notable to 10 people researching it 10 years from now, and the few minutes work documenting it today and the 10kb of data space it takes on our servers is neglible. VigoDeutschendorf 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "notable to 10 people"? Notability isn't a measure of how important people think something is, but whether it's been documented non-trivially in independent sources. If it has, it doesn't matter whether anybody thinks it's notable - it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely! I see a user has just removed my additions, which I feel should be put back in. My point is simple: if something qualifies as "notable" today, why should it not be in one month? One year? One decade? I posit that once notability is established, there is no reason not to keep a permanent article thus on that subject, going forward. If something/someone is covered appropriately in 2006, why should it be possibly unnotable in 2008, simply because RS sources do not continue to cover it then? VigoDeutschendorf 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if notability could actually be distinguished from importance. If people would actually use that measure of notability then it would be a much smoother ride on wikipedia. Alas, they don't! Notability on Wikipedia distinctly seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Ansell 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. Importance is irrelevant and not ours to decide. What is important to an American may be trivial to an Indian, and what is important to an Indian may be irrelevant to an Englishman. VigoDeutschendorf 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's only been a couple of weeks that we've had anything close to an objective definition written into the guideline. All it takes it promoting it now, and repeating a few hundred times that "notability" is a question about the existence of sources - no more, no less. As more and more people start saying that over and over, we'll have a cultural shift underway. It takes a little while, but like you said, it's be a smoother ride, the closer we get. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. VigoDeutschendorf 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real world example

See John Mark Karr. Arguably, he will be a footnote to the larger story of Ramsey, but still is clearly beyond meeting any qualification for notability. How many news articles or books will cover him in 2-4 years? This is a prime example of the need for the new passage I added. Remember again; we have no limits on the number of "at one point" notable topics we can cover. VigoDeutschendorf 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way to handle cases like that is to just focus on sources. If he's documented non-trivially in multiple independent published sources, then he's "notable" by definition. As long as that documentation exists, it can be used to verifiy the information in the article, and we're good. There's no need for talking about when something is or was notable - that just distracts from the real question: does there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
My concern is observing comments that "concensus" can change. Notability, once established, cannot change or decrease. The idea is absurd. And again, importance is irrelevant. VigoDeutschendorf 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is little to indicate that Wikipedia is going to suddenly decide that articles with copious references in reliable sources will suddenly become unworthy. Yes, consensus can change, but I doubt that "We just don't think this belongs because we think it isn't important" will ever reach consensus as a valid arguement. once something has valid references, those references do not disappear, once-notable always-notable. Remember, wikipedia is not paper, so we have no compelling reason to delete a well researched and referenced article. --Jayron32 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hmm. What to do about this?

I think all of this may highlight another problem - some of the subject-specific NN criteria aren't so limited in scope as "multiple independent sources", and make a lot of "this is categorically and this is categorically not notable" type of judgements, which do in fact appear to be guages of "fame and importance"; indeed, this seems to be at least the main purpose of most of those topical NN guidelines (cf. WP:MUSIC as a good example). So what do we do about that? The difference between the WP:DEL-style NN guidelines (some of which have the power of Policy due to their enumeration in WP:DEL as deletion-actionable) and WP:N is likely to cause a lot of cognitive dissonance and hinder the spread of, or just plain contradict, the more objective interpretation at WP:N. WRT putting in to WP:N's text a "once notable always notable" clause, I'm going to abstain for now. It doesn't strike me as necessary, as part of the definition, since the definition (needing work though it may be) already subsumes the issue by virtue of the fact that it doesnt's say there is a time limit, but I don't see that it would do any harm - lots of guidelines have explanatory passages that deal with misinterpretations/misconceptions about their meaning. I suggest that it could be helpful to WP:N's full acceptance if WP:N enumerated common (i.e. derived from AfD) fallacies about it, such as the "was notable last month, isn't notable any more" kind of reasoning pointed out here, "I don't like it", and nother nonsense, and might help prevent future edits to WP:N that harm its objectivity (that is, if WP:N does not address these subtopics at all, it may look ripe for "clarification" by people who do not understand it, by way of addition of new sentences that reflect their pet misconceptions about notability - misconceptions that may be quite common (i.e. popular on AfD) at the time and thus might seem like "consensus" to the editor. Whereas, if WP:N already had a short clarifying passage on the subtopic in question, reversing it without consensus being arrived at on this talk page would be discouraged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the material from WP:ILIKEIT could be merged in here, in some form? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of historically fluid

Does anyone object to this being included in the guideline, who is a participant here? It has been twice removed by people who have not previously contributed to these pages but that appear to be following my edits from other pages. VigoDeutschendorf 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea should be included in some form, but I would be sure to put it in terms that are consistent with the definition of notability we're working with. It should be clear that "notability" never means "fame" or "importance", and that the reason something remains "notable" over time is that the sources verifying the article's contents don't go away. It shouldn't me presented as anything more abstract than that. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also support including it in a list of "common misconceptions about notability", perhaps along with some material from WP:ILIKEIT. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind redoing a quick edit of my paragraph to these ends? VigoDeutschendorf 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we'll see how this works. Is it close to what you were thinking. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
See the version I did below (edit conflict). I'm sure the ideas can be merged. Re: "NN is not 'fame' or 'importance'" above - I think it's also important to say that it isn't 'popularity' or 'currency' either. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In general it's not so that any thing once noted is then notable forever. The web is full of nine-day wonders that are famous, then forgotten, then are listed for deletion. This is as it should be, or the cruft would grow forever. Tom Harrison Talk 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "notable". According to this guideline, "notable" means being covered non-trivially in multiple independent sources. As long as there's enough WP:RS material to write a verifiable article that is more than a directory listing per WP:NOT, I don't see the problem. Are we to subjectively determine whether something is "famous enough" to keep an article, based on some standard other than sourcing? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Tom, see below; I believe I addressed this in general. To be more specific in response to your post: WP has no cognizable definition of "cruft", and no hint of a policy that subjects that are not popular right now should not be included. It is good that articles exist on what you call "nine-day wonders" (as long as they really are notable, not just WP:NFT stuff), such as All your base are belong to us and Mahir. These articles are of great encyclopedic value, precisely because their subjects are no longer popular or current, making it hard to find any reliable information about them other than at Wikipedia. Related anectdote: Mahir was flown to the US by a dotcom in 1999 or 2000 and feted with a huge party at the Hamm's Building (which I was working in at the time) in San Francisco. Net.notables from all over were present, as if Mick Jagger were making an appearance. This entire odd little chapter in the dotcom weirdness of the late 1990s is both exemplary of the very weirdness of that subculture and period and (more to the point) difficult to explain or understand without the Mahir "fad" article existing. Even I didn't fully understand what was happening at the time (and I was pretty net.hip) or who this guy really was being given an almost manic welcome; if I had only heard about it today, I would have no idea at all what it had been about without such an article; the topic would be far too difficult to research alone, as most of the publications that mentioned Mahir on paper are long since defunct after the dotcom crunch. Articles like this are not "cruft" they are meaningful, enclopedic material (if they satisfy the PNC and WP:NFT and WP:NOT and WP:NPOV and...), collectively made of encyclopedic (WP:V, etc.) quality by editors all over the world. Their value goes up not down as time goes on. Any such article that would not be of such value is highly unlikely to every survive AfD in the first place. This "cruft" stance smacks of crystalballing and especially of terriblizing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[Edit conflict; this is in response to the first post on this subtopic and does not address anything else between that post and this reply] As stated above, I remain presently neutral on the need for such a passage, but I think your extant text is too long and the title a bit too... "philosophy major"; It should use plainer English and just state the point in 1-2 sentences. I think you are getting reverted in part because of this and in part because people in general don't like to see changes made to Guideline pages that haven't been discussed on the Talk page. WP:KETTLE.  :-)
First stab at a rewrite (though again I'm not advocating this be inserted until the need for it has been established:)
===Notability is not "popularity", and does not expire===
While multiple recent instances of independent coverage relating to a subject can be used to establish its notability, lack of continued frequency of external references cannot establish non-notability for subjects that can satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion with older sources.
(NB: I think it's important to note that this is not just about news media coverage, and it is not just about deleting extant articles because their topics are not popular any more. This rewrite fixes both of those issues.)
On the larger topic of whether we need this, see above. I think a case can be made that we need some solution(s) to a) the multiple meanings of "notability" within the current WP context, and b) the likelihood of misguided attempts to modify WP:N to suit fallacious abuse of notability in AfD. Whatever "Notability does not expire" is part of that/those solution(s), I'm not sure just yet. As for the claim someone made somewhere that without notability having a "no longer notable" expiration clause, we'll be overrun with "fad" articles, I say a) stop exaggerating, and b) so what? Wikipedia is not paper, and documenting fads is in fact an encyclopedic task (though again I don't think this necessarily means we need a "no expiration" clause either. I consider that an open topic.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
NB: Given the new "Misconceptions" section, I'm no longer neutral on including some version of this idea, but am now for it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made some changes that I think better describe actual practice at AfD. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of them did not seem to reflect current thinking. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:GTBacchus#Ephemeral sources 
My point is that one doesn't necessarily know in advance whether a source is ephemeral (WP:NOT crystal ball).
WP:V says nothing on the point.
Note that from other existing guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead") it is clear that media that afterwards (because one doesn't know in advance) prove to be ephemeral *can be used for source citation*. --Francis Schonken 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've defended this point with alacrity today, but you seems to still want to insert more verbiage. I do not undersand why. If this document takes longer than about 2 minutes to read it will be near-useless. I has to be concise. That doesn't mean sloppy, it means really, really pithy, without asides and what-ifs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Notability

There is now a new wikiproject aimed to clear the huge backlog (nearing 5000 articles) of all the CAT:NN articles. However, it is in its early stages and very low on members. If you would like to join, please add your name to the list. I will take any suggestions on how to improve this page. The backlog needs to be cleared somehow, and I suggest that a WikiProject would be the best thing to do. Diez2 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb and confusing typo of mine in Edit History

One of my edit histories read "Heading fix; as "Avoid misconceptions about notability" implied that "Notability is objective" and "...is not ephemeral" ARE said misconceptions! D'oh!)". This was meant to read "Heading fix; as "Misconceptions about notability" implied that "Notability is objective" and "...is not ephemeral" ARE said misconceptions! D'oh!)". The "Avoid misconceptions about notability" is what I changed it to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability cannot decrease.

I'm at a loss, on this--how can the idea of notability, once established, ever decrease? Based on the very idea and assumption we would only cover things currently relevant/heavily covered. Simply put, by applying this ideology, Father Claude Sicard, Kristin Lavransdatter, and Roger of Salisbury would have no articles--because we have no current or ongoing sources. Importance, and relevance, can change, but neither are factors for inclusion nor should they be. I could care less about the subjects of either of my three cited articles, but they warrant inclusion--because, at a time, they were notable. And still are, today. What wording would best accomplish this? And, if anyone disagrees with my statement--could you clarify for me why? VigoDeutschendorf 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First, there are ongoing sources for these major historical figures. Anyway, I think the only issue with notability decreasing is if something is characterized as "notable" in an AfD, despite there only being weak sources, which are later found in retrospect to be lacking. That is, at the time the subject was merely popular or a fan-craze, but there really were not multiple non-trivial independent reliable published sources. —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a perfect example. Look at the silly lonelygirl15 thing--in 5-10 years, no one will really be (let's be honest :)) talking about it. But, for a good portion of 2006, it was covered by a variety of media/independent non-trivial sources. That is my concern--once someone hits the threshold of notability, it really can't ever in reality and common sense go away. All the various articles about her were published; the television shows about her were broadast. They aren't "ephemeral" or any other silly adjective because we can't link to them via the web on-demand. Her article will be just as valid 5-10 years from now, or 100 years from now. Hence, the policy needs language to prevent people from using "notability" as a crutch in other aspects. If I have a dozen newspaper articles in major media markets cover me, and I am interviewed extensively on television shows, but only in 2006, and qualify, why would I not qualify in 2009 if I drop off the map immediately afterwards? I am thus a historical footnote. Which is what encyclopedias cover. VigoDeutschendorf 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
What's silly about "ephemeral"? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Current (as of 1 hr. ago) version already addresses this, and more than that has well (for example, if no such article existed, ever, but you wanted to write one in 2015, you'd be able to do so and have it survive, because the sources would exist to demonstrate verifiability and notability.) I don't see what your argument is; it's like you're fighting with us because we already agree with you or something. <bzzzt pop spark sizzle> DOES NOT COMPUTE! <bang!> — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, if we mistakenly find something to be notable, then we can later determine that we were in error, but actual notability is the sort of thing that doesn't go away. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Which is fine, but such cases will be rare. Once the "multiple" threshold is covered, it can't be really undone--the encyclopedia should reflect true reality, not concensus reality. VigoDeutschendorf 19:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they will be rare. We're all (here, so far as I can tell) in agreement. Now let's move on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: >[...]how can the idea of notability, once established, ever decrease?
Not a valid question. That's like saying "how can the concept that the earth is not flat, once established, ever decrease?". Notability as (finally!) being objectively defined in WP:N isn't something that expires after a while.
Re: >[...]idea and assumption we would only cover things currently relevant/heavily covered[...]
Such an idea/assumption is not one being posited by WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verbiage

...so, what language can be put in to prevent people from misusing this, in simplest terms? Perhaps, simply, "Once a subject is covered by multiple non-trivial sources, and achieves notability, this qualification does not change in the future, and is not dependent on the subject's relevance and importance." VigoDeutschendorf 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the current language is perfect on this version & section. Simply, clear, immutably true. VigoDeutschendorf 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The current (noon-ish, US Mountain Time) language (the merge between my and GTBacchus's restatements of your initial take on it, unless someone has edited it to be something else) struck me as entirely adequate (and then some, as it addressed issues such as time flow and new vs. extant articles that the VigoD. version did not address, in a shorter length to boot.) Vigo, don't bite your conceptual allies here without good cause ... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad, gentleman. I was misreading based on the insertions by other people that had snuck in, and been removed afterwards--the ones that left big fat loopholes. GT, SM, your revisions are ace. VigoDeutschendorf 19:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus cannot change notability

'Concensus can change' need not be mentioned there--if something is covered in multiple independent non-trivial sources, "concensus" irregardless of how large, has no bearing on that. Simply put, if Dan Jones is covered extensively one year, but never again, he was notable for a time. Ten or one hundred WP users cannot undo, change, edit, or modify that fact, ever. Therefore, while POLICY can change, notability once established can never be communally changed.

Can we get a line or two of simple wording to reflect this? VigoDeutschendorf 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if "consensus" is spelled correctly. That aside, I agree that notability has nothing to do with consensus; it has to do with the existence of sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[netiquette grumble goes here] — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Who, me? I only mentioned the spelling because I was correcting the header text in this topic, and it's a pet peeve of mind, and... you're right. That was impolite. Vigo, I'm sorry about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, ur right, i spelt well. :) VigoDeutschendorf 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone thinks that consensus can change facts. Consensus could change the meaning of notability, however. —Centrx→talk • 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
True, this policy can always be changed; but policy is harder to change than anything else. My goal was to ensure policy protected content, moreso... VigoDeutschendorf 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Vigo, I am dead certain that the current (as of half an hour ago from the sig below) version already cements this. I think the issue you are raising here is long since addressed, and then some. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Loss of source" issue

A number of the flurry of "add an entire paragraph or three" edits today have been basically circling around the issue of "what if the source isn't available any longer? I think this is more a question for Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, but to the extent it affects notability (and to the extent that edits relating to this issue are being made, rapidfire, and in radically different language, right here...), it ought to be at least briefly addressed here, too. Personally, I think a) this question belongs in WP:V (as noted); b) if the source was cited and verified (or at least not challenged) by anyone before its disappearance, then WP:AGF applies for the nonce (i.e., don't AfD the article on that basis); and 3) there really isn't truly any such thing as disappearing sources (unless we are speaking of original research), just hard-to-find ones, and regardless, there are almost certainly other sources (which may or may not be easier to find; the issue is categorically indeterminate.) NB: I'm not certain that I can "legally" deal with any more of the these edits in the next 24 hours. WP:3RR and all - the influx of "add in this whole block of newly thought up text" edits have overlapped so much, I find myself skeptical that I could revert anything at all without, at least on the technicality of "or in part" violating 3RR: I leave it to others to deal with, while I go to sleep and then go futz with WP:CUE. Laters. PS: If any of the string of 20 or so edits-in-a-row (I made them one at a time so they could each be examined in the context of their edit summaries) rankles anyone go ahead and revert them WITH A REASONED EXPLANATION. If I disagree with the explanation, I'll bring it up here. I've had enough of competitive editing for one day. PS: I suspect that the "what if the source isn't available any more" question can be dealt with in an edit of 1-3 words. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so the "misconceptions" section should basically enumerate misconceptions and explain that they're incorrect, with a minimum of fuss, right? One misconception is that notability is a function of current relevance, or something. The quickest way to say that's wrong involves noting that notability is just about sources. We can then refer the reader to WP:V and/or WP:RS for discussion of source loss. How's that? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/t/Wikipedia_talk%7ENotability_71e3.html"