Wikipedia talk:Notability (Places and transportation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Inherent notability of places

Stemming from this Afd and a subsequent discussion with EJF, who pointed me in this direction. I have a good question about the inherent notability of places. Per the procedural question I posed in the AfD, to what extent is any map dot have to be notable. I don't think it's a question of bias, but rather there's no way we'll ever have every single map dot covered so why keep one that's almost impossible to verify other than one article calling it a stronghold, yet isn't even listed on the census page? I think inherent 'it's notable because it's X' is a slippery slope along the same grounds as the ideas presented in WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's not about Blathur, I have no interest in that article (other than hoping it's one day not the mess it is), it's just an example I'm familiar with. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere. But almost any place, no matter how small, has its own distinct identity, at least to its residents, along with a unique history and culture. This may seem insignificant on a world-scale, but it does matter when comparing one neighborhood to the next. What I have found is that within a major city, most neighborhoods can have at least some information written about them, and often enough to fill up the entire computer screen, thereby making the article worthwhile. In a smaller town or suburb, however, this is not always the case, and therefore, it would be more appropriate to list or write about the neighborhood within the article about the town. Nevertheless, there may be notability in every town. One possible way of drawing the line is to establish few criteria for inherent notability. Some of these may be:
  • A division defined by the local or national government
  • A mailing address to the location
  • Notable landmarks in the area, such as schools or shopping centers, are given the name of the area
  • Something else unusual that makes the area notable.

Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few thoughts

Firstly, at the moment, this proposal seems to be written in a US-centric manner. Yes, I live in the UK (although sometimes I wish I didn't), so I'm able to identify that right away, and it may not be easy for you to cater for the needs of non-US locations. The point is, though, that this guideline should really take into consideration the whole thing from a worldwide perspective, so that it can be applied to locations anywhere in the world as of course Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, no matter what language it is written in. There are places in developing countries which lack the reliable source information to write about, that similar small locations of the same size may have in North America and Europe, for example, making the former fail WP:V and the latter pass it. Also, is being named as a location on a map equal to notability? To get a UK perspective, the national mapping agency is the Ordnance Survey. To use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilton, Argyll and Bute as an example, many named locations on OS maps are clearly non-notable. It picks up individual farmhouses and cottages which are clearly non-notable, little more worthy of an article than your home. However, if they are a hamlet (place) then they should be kept if they pass WP:V using something like (in my case when creating articles about Scottish villages and hamlets) the Gazetteer for Scotland or equivalent. One article that I'm currently not sure about is Allanaquoich although I'd say it would pass notability... barely - the coverage is trivial but it clearly has a history. Also, in the UK, the system of parishes means that sometimes articles about small villages or hamlets seem to get merged to the parish's article. For example, Kirkton of Skene just redirects to Skene, Aberdeenshire.

Also, the whole thing with streets and roads is US-centric too. Not all of the roads in the world's major cities are shaped in that interlocking perpendicular manner where several horizontal roads bisect several vertical roads. In most of Europe, that seems to be an unusual pattern due to the existence of things like medieval city centres that obviously don't exist in the United States. To be honest, I have not decided where my opinions on the notability of roads lie at the moment. Thanks anyway and I hope you can get back to me and address these concerns - this is to the author or anyone else who wants to voice their opinion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True, most of the examples I gave here are within not just the United States, but the region of the country where I live. But many of these concepts of places and transportation are pretty universal. Just about everywhere in the world are streets and roads of all different levels, ranging from major streets in the center of town, to side streets away from the center, to roads connecting different areas. Not all places have superhighways, but all inhabited parts of the world have some travel routes. And public transportation is quite universal too. In fact, there are higher levels of it in other countries - the United States has the highest per capita car rate in the world. Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update (based on above discussion)

The point of this proposal is to define which places and modes of transportation should have inherent notability. Here is a possible proposal, which may be discussed and modified as need be:

[edit] Jurisdictions

  • A government-defined jurisdiction (e.g. a country, state, province, county or equivalent, city or town) would have inherent notability regardless of size or population. This includes a place with a government of its own.
  • An unincorporated city, town, or other named place would have inherent notability if it has some officially-drawn lines defining its boundaries. An example of what would make such boundaries official could be a U.S. zip code or equivalent for other countries, or a U.S. Census-designated place or equivalent for other countries.
  • A neighborhood would not have inherent notability, as the boundary lines are often not official, and are defined only by the community itself. In order for a neighborhood to qualify for an article, it would require something notable, such as a distinct identity of its own, being home to a notable landmark that is either named for the location or else described as being in the area, or being the site of a referenced event that occurred in the location and is described as having occurred there.

[edit] Streets/Roads

The following types of streets and roads, numbered or not, would have inherent notability

  • A limited-access highway
  • A non-limited access highway that is the main route connecting two or more cities or towns
  • A non-limited access highway that backs up a limited access highway connecting two or more cities or towns, and is used by motorists for that purpose
  • A large commercial boulevard
  • A major street in the center of a large city
  • The main street or road in a town or suburb that is above all the rest
  • A street or road that plays a role in popular culture (such as being featured in a movie)

The following types of streets or road would not be notable:

  • A side street
  • A short secondary road that plays no signifigance in connecting two or more notable locations
  • A large but short road, often with no outlet, that is designed to serve a business park or equivalent, but has no other function.

[edit] Public transportation

  • Companies and agencies providing fixed-route transportation on a published schedule would be inherently notable
  • Urban bus routes in a major city with a long history would be notable, and in some cases, an article could be devoted to a single bus route. The routes of a smaller agency, though, should be described in the article about that agency.
  • A transit service operating solely for those with special needs or for a limited group of people and not open to the public would not be notable

Sebwite (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] economic bit is not right IMHO

"A city/town/village must show a noticable economic effect upon a region (jobs and/or raw materials usage/production), " -this would prejudice against poorer or even just smaller areas. Also, why should this one criteria be vital, as opposed to any other criteria? Others would confer more notability IMHO, for instance, history, etc, etc, this list could go on. We're not a commercial encyclopedia, in the other notability guidelines for instance how many copies of something have been sold isn't what determines its notability, but whether it's discussed in WP:RS. I know you've said that anything else of importance can give something an article, but I don't see why economic effect needs to have a different status of its own. If a person with different opinions wrote this article, they could require "a notable historical effect", or a social one. So this criteria shouldn't be mentioned separately and on a different level to the others. Also, as I said, it would prejudice against economically disadvantaged areas.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 03:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] multiple atlases

A city/town/village must show a verifiable notation in multiple atlases. -- given that the atlases used for this purpose nowadays are based to a large part of each other and on satellite imagery, I know know that the multiple is particularly is pertinent. DGG (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, why multiple and why atlases? Why would just one atlas meeting the WP:RS criteria not suffice? How many is "multiple", anyway? Why restrict this only to atlases (there are plenty of sources of other types that can be used to verify that a location really exist/existed)? Why add this instruction creep at all when this can well be handled through the regular WP:V process?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lombard Street

Lombard Street (San Francisco) doesn't seem to meet the present requirements. I think that's because this street has unusual characteristics. There may be similar situations, such as a small street which has its own bridge, is paved with gold, or the Indy 500 is run on it. The present requirements seem to use technical or transportation oriented definitions. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Though the length itself of a long street or road may make it the main road for an area, being short does not count it out in terms of notability. There are many possible reasons why a small, short street, even a dead-end side street could be notable. The example given here, Lombard Street (San Francisco), is very unusual compared to other streets around the world. If a street is a part of household vocabulary because of some major landmark located on it, or a movie was filmed there, those are just some examples.

Or you could look at the one I created more recently, Gates Pass. This road does not run through a developed urban area. But it has a history dating back 125 years, and action has been taken over danger the road has posed to motorists. Factors like these can make a street or road notable.Sebwite (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other sorts of places

I've noticed that this guideline doesn't yet address geographical features like mountains, valleys, streams, and the like. Is there any intention for such to be addressed in the future, or is this proposal limited to only populated places? John Carter (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verbiage?

The Wikipedia:Notability (Places_and_transportation)#Streets_and_roads section contains some wording which I would like to point out:

  • I have created many articles on roads where I live - Who created?
  • In my opinion - Who's opinion?

There are a few other places where the first-person is used. Doesn't seem proper, especially for something that's being considered for policy. Yngvarr (c) 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inhabited places

If this proposed notability guideline is expected to get off the ground, it needs to recognize that all inhabited places are inherently notable. It is the community's norm, and while agreement may not be universal - nothing at WP is - this is about as close as it gets. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. While we may never have an article about every dot on the map, we aren't going to delete any based on notability. The irony is obvious compared to the schools compromise - all secondary schools are notable, and those pushing this are saying the towns/villages that such schools are in may not be. It'll never be more than a proposed guideline.... If you think that community feeling is that an article on a village/town can be deleted on notability grounds (as opposed to lack of sources, copyvio, irremediable POV, etc.), show me where that's happened. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, and what I have tried to inject into this proposal, there have been several deletion of Mall related Articles that would have greatly benefited from this proposed guidelines existence. I do believe several Articles have lost the Notability argument when they should not have, to a select few that unchangeably feel 'Malls will never be notable'. Road related Articles don't so much get deleted, but merged "by consensus", then later edited out by well intentioned Editors. In essence a soft deletion. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Malls, roads, schools, etc., are typically parts of inhabited places; this proposal fails to even recognize the inherent notability of all such inhabited places (cities, towns, villages) regardless of how many atlases they may appear in - noting the inherent WP:BIAS of such a requirement as blatantly disfavoring places in the 3rd world or not located on paved roads as would be found in road atlases. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Even unpaved roads are shown on some map somewhere. Just as long as a road is used by some members of civilization, someone will print a map of it. Sure, there may not be malls or schools in undeveloped areas, but such places, in general have fewer landmarks worthy of Wikipedia articles - fewer landmarks period. It's as simple as that.Sebwite (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that statements and views like "all inhabited places are inherently notable" is something we should specifically avoid in this kind of proposal because it is a view that some will argue on the "notability is not inhereted" point. We should aim for a balenced view, that has a likelyhood of gaining acceptance, even if it does not get in all that we would hope. It should be something that we can live with, even if not perfect. Critics and acclaimers alike. If we want to assure some items are in, we need to allow some items room to be left out. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And, notability is not inherited. We either have sufficient independent reliable secondary sources to write a real article about a subject, or we do not. There is no such thing as "inherently notable". Perhaps we could utilize "List of villages in Somewhere County" (replacing "county" with an appropriate designation for the particular country) for those who require "completeness", but 10-person villages, unless they are exceptional, should not have a full article. That is placing undue weight on that village's importance and significance, and that is a violation of one of our core principles, neutrality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that the best way to gain acceptance is to endorse the widely-supported status quo, which is essentially to include every inhabited place. A departure from existing practice, such as you propose, seems less likely to gain acceptance. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it is the community's norm (and regardless of whether it is already done in other policies), I do not think it is a good idea to declare, merely by administrative fiat, that a broad class of topics is inherently notable. This amounts to an abdication of responsibility for the quality of the encyclopedia. Consider how notability can be proved absent such a declaration: given a topic, one consults first primary sources which document it, and then secondary sources which, in commenting on the primary sources, relate it to other ideas and provide the crucial aspect of notability: human commentary. This is why Wikipedia is a tertiary source, merely weaving together the contents of secondary sources as a unified testament to human interest in a subject. The insistence on secondary sources is at the core of two of our core policies: no original research, and notability. By requiring that we rely on secondary sources, we force our articles to incorporate only documented facts and opinions, preventing us from being what we can never successfully be: a forum for the original publication of new ideas. But it also ensures that we only write about topics which have been demonstrated to matter outside themselves: that's what the existence of secondary sources (commentary) proves. That's the basis for our notability criteria. By declaring something to have inherent notability, we give license to circumvent secondary sources and, therefore, sacrifice true notability. Essentially, a permissive notability policy is original research. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that there is obviously a community assumption of notability as there is discussion going on here on having a bot generate stub articles for all places which currently have no article - up to 2 million new articles. Suggest people on both sides of the fence join in there rather than try and create a guideline which this could effectively nullify. Keith D (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with Ryan. Existing policies already cover his worry. Even when the place is notable the content must be verifiable/sourced. If we work from maps/census lists we have enough information to created a stub article that will have everything you need to quickly identify the place. Anything above and beyond can only be added if there is a source available. Yes you will always get people with local knowledge, residents or travelers. But those type edits will quickly get reverted. Agathoclea (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If the content must be verifiable, then there is no need to declare inherent notability; the articles would follow the usual pathway. What you're saying is, however, that even before there is any real content, and when the article contains only geographic coordinates and possibly population data, this policy would protect it from notability complaints. This is the situation that I don't like; why defend articles with no encyclopedic content? This data alone is mere enumeration, essentially dictionary definition for locations. We should not condone turning Wikipedia into an atlas; in fact, sites with this particular geographic information already exist (indeed, the bot which is proposed to add all towns in the world would get its data from them). You seem to be suggesting, as I've heard before, that the presence of these stubs will encourage their growth; however, for most places there is little evidence that notable information exists in a reliably-sourced form. We do not grant clemency to articles on not-yet-notable people, though for such people there is often some indication that they may become notable; for places, a stub article with no sources and no distinguishing content, even this indication is lacking, yet we should enshrine in policy the presumption that every spot on at least two maps is worth talking about? Ryan Reich (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
All places have a series of characterisitcs for example a location, a size, a history, a climate and a geology that may be recorded but, above all, every place has the possibilty that it will one day be notable. Who can say where the next hijacked plane will crash or where the next multiple killer will strike? - that is when the readers of Wikipedia will want the information, not later when Wikipedia editors react to the events by adding the place. The comparison with not-yet-notable people is false, people last for six or seven decades then vanish but places go on for ever and have a history going back centuries or, if not, have a reason for being created that itself is worthy of record. Obviously de minimis criteria will apply but placenames of tiny settlements in dispersed communities are easily handled by redirects to the nearest village or town. There has to be a presumption that all places are notable. Saga City (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What are we going to call this concept? Anticipatory notability? A place becomes notable because multiple independent sources have written about it directly and in detail, not because it has shown as a speck on multiple maps, or a line item in multiple lists. Even in your plane crash example, the city wouldn't become notable as a result of a plane hitting hit ... we might get an article about the crash, but no reason to have an article about the city.Kww (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. It is possible, though, that as a result of the plane crash, multiple independent sources become available about the city (eg., "Random City: an in-depth look at the city shaken by the crash"). But if that's the case, then the city is then notable, and an article is warranted. The important point, though, is that we shouldn't gaze into our crystal ball and speculate about the possibility that it might be notable in the future: we react to sources that exist, as and when they come into existence. Jakew (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects for route numbers of roads that are still under construction?

Although the Intercounty Connector is clearly notable, for example, should the redirect of Maryland Route 200 to Intercounty Connector wait until the construction nears completion (or the highway opens to traffic?)

(On a different topic, see the Deletion Review for Nevada State Route 805 for a discussion of whether Nevada State Route 805 should redirect to the USA Parkway or not. There is a key difference between Maryland Route 200 and Nevada state route 805: Maryland route 200 is the correct number for the Intercounty Connector, whereas Nevada state route 805 is an unofficial and possibly incorrect designation.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suburbs or simialar

I think it should be added to establish notability of areas that have an independent history to the main town. E.g. in Germany there have recently been a lot of amalgamations of villages into town or even of towns, where the original articles of those entities still stand on their own in the context of history. Agathoclea (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commuter Train Stations

The proposed guideline wants to let some stations drop below the notability threshold. I think the same approach as in WP:FOOTY makes sense where if the majority fall in the notability bracket then all are classed as notable. (WP:NOTPAPER) Agathoclea (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rules & Guidelines Overload

Oh, goody! More rules and guidelines. Bureaucracy wins the day. Wikipedia has enough rules and guidelines to cover the topic of notability. There is no need to beat a dead horse, and I am sorry to even waste time commenting on this. --Nricardo (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] N-American bias?

I think this guideline is too much from a North American point of view (e.g. each single example is; and the downtown grid map is pretty much unique to the US). I think to be usable this guideline should be checked by a wordlwide body of editors; and calibrated against international situations before being brought into effect. Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought along similar lines looking at the street maps. In most European countries for example it would make more sense to distinguish between local and state/country maintained roads. Agathoclea (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
To me, the whole document reads as if written from a North America viewpoint. If an article were written in a similar manner, I'd be tempted to put a {{globalise}} tag on it. Bluap (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In total agreement with the North American bias I have some comments related to how things must change to incorporate a more global perspective (my proposals are probably again biased from my European point of view):

  • The term "continental railway" is almost explicitly North American; any continental railway is so absolutely inherently notable that leaving out the whole concept would probably be better. Though the term "intercity" is not used in North America (partially because of limited availability), it would probably best describe interurban, mainline rail services, which is what the meaning of "national/continental" is, especially related to passenger transport and stations.
  • The term "services" is not particularly clear; while in North America it is common to have a vague distinction between the railway line / operating company / service, there is often a lot clearer distinction in Europe. This is often because jurisdiction may be split up, and a tradition for giving each sector or branch its own name.
  • The term "commuter rail" is used incorrectly here. Commuter rail is a heavy rail service with "lower frequency" than rapid transit; though definitions can be vague, a more general term like intraurban or urban rail should be used.
  • The term "subway" in British English means a path under a road. The correct term is rapid transit (per sort-of consensus on Talk:Rapid transit).
  • The term "light rail" carries different meanings in North America and Europe; what Americans call a light rail Europeans call a tram, and what Europeans call a tram Americans call a streetcar. What is called "light rail" in Europe is sometimes considered "heavy rail" in North America. In Asia there are different meanings to this. Stay away from the term light rail; the term "tram" seems to be the least ambiguous globally. Conversely use a phrase like "commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail and tramway."
  • By "municipal bus service" i presume the idea is urban bus services; these are typically provided by counties, regional governments or metropolitan transit authorities in larger cities. Perhaps the term "urban bus services" is better, alternatively "regional bus services".
  • As mentioned by others, not only are all examples from the United States, but also all from the Northeast. If examples are provided, a more global sample should be incorporated. This is particularly problematic on the section about streets in Washington and New York, where there seems to be no general rule, merely vague claims based on naming of those cities. I fear that had I not been to those cities I would not have any idea what was meant by the examples; for instance are only roads with bus routes and no parking considered notable? Reading between the lines may make it seem like that.

Arsenikk (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Being listed in an atlas is not enough to be notable

If you consider that many online atlases list several million locations, many of which don't even exist anymore, this is opening up a pandoras box of worthless content. These guidelines need to be more stringent about what makes a location notable. Specifically, I think a location should be required to be mentioned in a source other than an atlas in order to be considered notable. Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with this statement in principle (i.e., a listing in an atlas does not constitute notability), I am nevertheless curious as to where the statement that the information on settlements which no longer exist constitutes "worthless content" comes from. Data on patterns of geospatial distribution (modern and historical), with the ability to drill down to as small pieces as possible, are extremely useful in quite a number of applications (geography, economy, political structure and divisions, genealogy, etc.). And since the subject of populated places is clearly encyclopedic, how can it be "worthless"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The subject of populated places is encyclopedic, but each such place need not be. If the atlas doesn't make the analysis of "geospatial distribution", then for us to do it is original research, and for us to write an article about a possibly nonexistent location purely on the basis of it being mentioned in an atlas is indiscriminate. What you have said is precisely the point: the ability to "drill down" is useful; it is not, however, the goal. It furthers the goal of writing encyclopedic articles. Ryan Reich (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but now you kind of lost me :( You say that writing about a location based purely on the basis of it being mentioned in an atlas is "indiscriminate". But why single out just atlases? Having looked at my (quite extensive) collection of reference materials I pulled out one at random, I am now holding in my hands a book called Administrative and Territorial Division of Murmansk Oblast in 1920-1993 (it's in Russian). The book does not have a single map (so it is not an atlas), it does contain a lengthy history intro (so it's encyclopedic), and the bulk of the book is composed of the lists of oblast inhabited localities and their basic stats. All in all, it's a very descent reference material, which I hope to borrow from when working on the subject in future, and which most certainly qualifies as a high-quality secondary source. But in essence, all those tables with stats boil down to the same idea as atlases and maps do. Could you clarify your position on this, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Already, just about every place does have a Wikipedia article. Some are stubs, but they may get expanded one day, as Wikipedia is not complete. There are a small percentage of places that don't, but that is only because no one has created them yet. The bottom line is, no one has challenged these articles. Many small towns and villages with only a few square blocks of area and minute populations do indeed have articles.Sebwite (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am challenging them now (at least, on general grounds; I'm not going to AfD). The precedent set by their creation seems to me to have been based on a violation of our notability guidelines and no reason other than "potential for future expansion" has been asserted, which given the lack of notability claims in those articles, is the same as this bogus argument. Going by the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot, a lot of other people agree that "inherent notability" is not a principle here, so in fact, these place articles hardly represent a consensus. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, looking at WP:PSTS, a book such as yours — some parts of which are quite encyclopedic, analytical, and secondary-source-like, but the bulk of which (though not an atlas) contains factual information alone, which is primary-source-like — is pretty clearly a tertiary source. According to WP:N, only secondary sources are suitable references for notability claims, presumably because they are (by definition) value added to the raw data of a primary source. It seems to me, especially going by the comments in footnote 1 there, that a book such as you describe, which is an archetypical directory, is a good example of why tertiary sources are not mentioned in WP:N, because although they combine elements of primary and secondary sources, they do not necessarily improve on either (aside from cataloguing them), and in particular, the primary material that's in them may be just as "raw" (see footnote 2 to WP:PSTS, the Reno definition) as it was in the primary source itself. (Just to clarify something that's implicit here: I am saying that although sources are "ranked" in what seems like a linear order, just because secondary sources suffice for notability claims doesn't mean that the "higher-ranked" tertiary sources do; they might, however, contain secondary-source elements that suffice.) In your book, the "bulk" information is of course quite useful, perhaps in combination with the historical introduction, but only if the commentary there supplements the raw statistics. Basically the same explanation holds for atlases not being notability sources. As for "indiscriminate"; well, a directory is by definition an indiscriminate collection of information, all of the same sort, about every single member of a particular cagetory; for example, oblasty. It gives no reason to value one over another, or even to distinguish two of them, because its purpose is not to distingish; it is to unify. That unification may well be a notable fact, but the particular items are still indiscriminately included. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I was half-expecting to hear something like this. If you re-read your own reply, you'll see why a discussion such as this one will never have consensus (although it may have a majority skewed one way or another). The current inclusion criteria are just too complicated for most folks. I've been with Wikipedia for over four years now, and I am still occasionally having difficulties when notability criteria are involved—especially in situations involving sources which are, simultaneously, primary, secondary, and tertiary, and when the subject is in the "grey area of notability". We need to either dispose of the whole notability concept altogether (and go with reliable sources and verifiability alone), or to streamline the inclusion criteria so they make sense to the majority of people (i.e., narrow the grey area). But, of course, good luck reaching consensus if any such proposal ever takes off. Anyway, just ranting here. Thanks for your time and thoughtful responses!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think notability is too important to dispose of, but you're right that if I have to go to such lengths to apply it, the standard is not clear enough. Hopefully, the standard is "use your common sense: do any of your sources care in particular about this subject?". But people get very defensive about their special interests; I can't promise that if someone like me came into a huge debate over mathematics articles that I wouldn't be as resistant to accepting that some things are sub-notable. Anyway, thanks for the rant! Ryan Reich (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afd

Some of this is already covered in a one-liner at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places. Agathoclea (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contextualise

I think there is a need to start this guideline off on the right foot by including the context of the existing guidelines and policies which have general community acceptance. most importantly, we need to include this bit from WP:N:

  • If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

Q: Does inclusion as a dot on a map in an atlas constitute "significant coverage"? I would suggest not. A page in a guide book, on the other hand, probably does. Are census returns "secondary sources"? I would suggest not - these are primary sources.

AndrewRT(Talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This guideline is far too weak, and grants notability to places that are not notable by any reasonable definition of the word. WP:NOTE calls for a direct and detailed examination in multiple independent sources. Lines in a census tally and specks on a map don't cut it. To make the grade, a place should meet the general standard. Places that people are likely to find direct and detailed examinations would be histories of regions and places. Even guidebooks could count ... if Lonely Planet describes a place like Tennant's Creek in the Northern Territory (which it does), and provides a description of the town, what one should do there, and a brief history, that counts towards notability. That every map of the Northern Territory shows a speck on that location doesn't count at all.
The purpose of having this secondary guideline is to flesh out the general standard, not to attempt to bypass it. This guideline should be detailing what kind of references count, and which do not.Kww (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ships

Where might I find Notability Guidelines for ships, such as this one?J293339 (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)