Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Notability (web) (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 > 8 >>
Shortcut:
WT:WEB
This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics
Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging
Wikipedia:WikiProject Early Web History


Contents

Archives

Forums in the Notability Guidelines...

Recently engaged in a dispute, this guideline was refferenced to me. I was taken aback from it, and am in heave dispute about it. I wish to state my opinions, and have some things explained to me. These are all in the aspects of forums being notable, not the other aspects of the web-related content. According to the content, for something to be notable on the web, it needs multiple outside articles which mention it, or it needs to have won a well known award. Here are the issues with that:

  • There are no awards for Internet Forums which are well known. There is no Oscar for "Best Overall Forum", or an internet award. Thus, Internet Forums have no real chance to qualify here.
  • In an internet forum, most affairs remain internal. Members may occassionally leave a forum to spam up another one, but it never makes the news. In January of 2006, when YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world, it was the ugliest raid in history. However, the news did not cover the raid. Only widespread knowledge made the event notable. Thus, with outside events out, copyright and legal disputes are the only things that could get out to the news. The only exceptions are the advice forums, which have appeared multiple times for what they do in the news, which is unfair bias towards other types of forums. Teenhelp is an example, as it has been mentioned in the news before.

With these, all internet forums are subject to notability issues. Does anyone have any opinion on this? 68.192.25.106 04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the proper response would be: How do you write a NPOV, sourced article about a topic that has no sources? That's the essense of the verifiability policy (which is basically WP:WEB for everything); For any given topic, sources must exist. For forums, the only sources you have are first-hand accounts of its various members, and those aren't reliable. Nifboy 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Nifboy for president! Free sex!! The beer is on the house!!! Err... I mean, I support fully the statement above.
brenneman{L} 07:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You use primary sources. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 11:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Replied on User talk:Badlydrawnjeff. - brenneman{L} 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why this was replied to at my talk page, all this refers to is the ability to use primary sources at WP:OR. Why people continually ignore/forget/aren't aware of that, I may never know. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You can use primary sources to document what happened, you need an outside source to verify that the happening was of encyclopedic worth. You describe foo as happening with a primary source, but you can't quantify it as anything other than foo happening without a secondary source. So in the above example you can state "members of YTMND and many other forums posted to eBaum's world". you can't quantify it as anything else without another source. Therefore, you can't write an encyclopedic article on the topic. Please see WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which should be taken together. Hiding talk 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I do understand that outside sources are less NPOV, but the issue which I have with the whole notability of forums is that forums do not get much attention in the media to begin with. However, someone may be looking for information on a forum from this encyclopedia, to see if it is a drama place, a spammy place, or a mentorship place. To be notable, someone reading it would have to care about something. Notabiltiy guidelines are set to impose a guideline of what a reader may be looking for.
Also, primary sources are important, agreed. However, with multiple primary sources, the page becomes less and less POV, and more the general consensus. I just see that asking for a media article on a forum or an award a forum won to be incredibly limiting to the amount of information that should get out, and also creates prejudice towards mentorship forums. 68.192.25.106 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The current page makes no mention of media in its guidance, to wit: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. So you seem to be arguing from a flawed position. The argument you need to be having is elsewhere. We also seem to be crossing wires on our definitions of primary sources. But at the end of the day, what is questionable about a group of message board members posting to another message board is the encyclopedic value, not the sources. One must consider if the event is being given undue weight, as per WP:NPOV. Hiding talk 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I think I am getting a bit confused on this. I didn't comprehend that last message at all. Sorry. Could you please re-explain it?68.192.25.106 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Basically, if you want to post details of youth club members a going to youth club b in its own article, then you're giving the event undue weight. Similarly, if forum members a post to form b, you're giving it undue weight placing it in its own article. Your arguments regarding the media are flawed since no mention of the media is made in the guideline which you question, and what you consider to be a primary source may not be a primary source, but it is hard to tell since you don't cite specific sources. To refer to your original posting, basically, the guidelines are what they are: an article on when YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world fails the undue weight section of WP:NPOV; the event has been imbued with too much emphasis by being given an article. These guidelines merely reflect that policy by asking for multiple mentions in third party sources; this ensures no event or topic is given undue weight. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 09:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not refferring to something getting it's own article. Just a mention in a related article. Like, YTMND spamming would nto warrent an article, but it would in the ebaum'sworld article, as it is related to it's history. And that is where I have the objection. I mean, if a forum has an outside source mention anything about it, then it certainly is notable. But, using the example, ebaum'sworld is certainly notable, because I believe it has outside mentions in various sources. But the forum inside would not fit the criteria, and this is what I find unfair, that it is therefore not notable to be included inside the article. It is important for one reading to know that there is a forum they could join, and maybe provide a little bit of what had happened to the site. AKA, if someone was looking for it, it is notable to provide major details that don't warrent the need to fit these guidelines. Becuase inevitably, what is notable is what people find important when reading something on a site.68.192.25.106 20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case the pages you need to read are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Information which satisfies those three policies can be added to any article. Hiding talk 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That is what I was arguing about, and it seems that I was arguing for something already in place. 68.192.25.106 21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well for my money any forum which has been going more than fifty years and has in excess of seventy million members posting daily is notable. The rest are not... ;-)

Speedy?

  • Over at WP:DEP, most of the articles we are getting through these days are about non-notable websites. Where they are hard and futile to wikify, and where they are seemingly not worth the trouble of AfDing, since the result is invariably to delete, the most logical progression seems to me to be some kind of speedy deletion criteria for patent non-notability of websites (something akin to {db-bio} or {db-band}, maybe {db-site} or {db-web} i would have thought). are there any plans to introduce a criteria of this type? or does one already exist? Thanks. Jdcooper 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
People will resist speedying website articles, and for understandable reasons, I guess. Often website articles can be speedied, but for other reasons. If they consist only of an external link and a short blurb basically restating the title of that link, for example, they fall under A3. But I think it's a better bet to just use WP:PROD, which is now policy. No need to clutter up AfD, and these things are usually uncontroversial. It's pretty painless. --W.marsh 15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, will do, cheers. Jdcooper 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy!

Nonetheless someone else has had the idea to create {{Db-web}} halfway bypassing the real content of wikipedia:Notability (websites) to make a speedy delete criterion for web content (appended rather inappropriately to WP:CSD#A7)

That template is now up for deletetion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web. I voted for delete, while I think wikipedia:Notability (websites) doesn't fit all that well in a speedy deletion scheme, and while the template rather focusses on Alexa as notability criterion (which is not OK with wikipedia:Notability (websites) either), etc... (see vote commentaries when following the link above to the vote). --Francis Schonken 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

this guideline isn't really a guideline

Most wikipedians don't stick to the current version of this guideline. It's become more and more broad as time has gone by, and has had an increasingly smaller following. The old version, dealing solely with websites (as was intended by the name) has consensus. But not this.

Also, it has clearly overstepped its bounds. Its Notability (websites). It's cheesy to take advantage of that guideline tag to make it apply to all web content-- something it was not intended to do, and for which there actually is no consensus.

Also, notice how the guideline tag was propped up because there wasnt editing for a week(according to the edit summary). Huh? How about informing the community, perhaps asking for a poll to gauge consensus?

This is especially frustrating because I have been working on a notability guideline for memes at Wikipedia:Notability (memes), which actually involves what its title suggests. I completely oppose this policy being considered a guideline for anything except websites, as it currently is respected by the wikipedia community only for its purpose in judging the notability of websites. Not to mention that it severely needs a copyedit.

In conclusion, this entire page has changed too greatly and expanded to greatly from the subject of websites to be considered community consensus. It should be once again considered a proposal(since, after all, the community rarely uses it on anything other than websites and webcomics...i've only once or twice seen it used on a meme, out of all those hundreds of opinions in AFD's). I have marked it this way to reflect it. Thanks, --Urthogie 19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The old version didn't deal with websites, it dealt with webcomics, and has grown organically and been discussed many times. In three months it hasn't really been overly disputed, and is in use across wikipedia. It was advertised at the pump, on cent and at rfc, I think it's poor form to suggest any underhand motives here, and especially to accuse anyone of not informing the community. Hiding talk 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It actually has been disputed, as can be seen by this, which was only about 10 edits ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28websites%29&diff=40875093&oldid=40663958.--Urthogie 19:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hence my use of the word overly. So you'll find what I said was true, contrary to your edit summary. Hiding talk 19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Well I'm yet to find it being used for anything other than webcomics and websites. I'm unaware of it having consensus for memes, as you said on the notability proposal for memes. So that's why I, and Gerard earlier, removed the tag.--Urthogie 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
David didn't make it a proposal, and the tag has been restored since then. And it's got consensus for web content. As to the meme discussion, read the section above, Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)#Guideline for internet memes. At the moment it's all there is. NBow you want to propose WP:MEME, and good luck to you. If it is accepted, then no problem. But at the moment it isn't, and I think it's bad form to edit this to fit around your proposal, which is what I think you are doing. My opinion is that we don't need anything more, but if consensus goes against that, that's fine. But the status of WP:MEME and discussions there should have no impact on the status of this page. David removed the guideline tag for a whole different issue, and the tag was subsequently restored. And being used for webcomics and websites is a lot more than being used for websites, which was your original assertion. The expansion was to cover both those things and expand to cover the whole of web-content. Whilst you seem to disagree with that, I would ask you to respect the fact that consensus was sought on the issue through advertising the proposal in various high profile pages and that a consensus was reached. Hiding talk 20:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The concern that this guideline inadequately addresses memes is perfectly illustrated by the previous discussion of memes on this talk page[1]. Clearly, there is a problem with this guideline's way of addressing memes-- thats why its rarely invoked in AFD discussions of memes. I think its fair to say that while most of this guideline has consensus, the part on memes doesnt, as evidenced by:
  1. The community wide interest in a better policy on memes.
  2. The fact that this is never used for meme AFD's, and that meme AFD's continue to be evil exercizes in voting/democracy.

--Urthogie 20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The guideline template (which was applied to this guideline after proper procedure and sufficient consensus, I can confirm Hiding on that point) says: "[...] please use the discussion page to propose major changes"... downgrading from "guideline" to "proposal" is a major change. Urthogie's one-person proposal in this sense is, as far as I can see, not accepted (aka rejected). --Francis Schonken 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rejecting something means nothing if you don't give a reason. We're discussing merits, not bullying.--Urthogie 21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
No, we're discussing consensus. And despite the numerous citations of WP:WEB on AfD, I can count the number of objectors on one hand. That sounds like consensus to me. Nifboy 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm simply pointing out that there's a better policy required for memes. Many people have requested this, not just me. Ignoring it isn't just isolating a couple of people-- its bad for the project. Also, please note that consensus is not a static thing.
I happen to notice you're involved with webcomics on wikipedia. That's great, and I'm sure this policy has helped very much with that. I'm just trying to establish a better policy on memes-- something which is requested and needed.--Urthogie 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
There isn't yet a better policy for memes, and I'd add that Wikipedia:Internet phenomena has redirected here since the 30th October with no great concern. That's a nod here. There's more consensus invested in this proposal than any other regarding memes at present. Hiding talk 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen used. Could you perhaps help me make a better one?--Urthogie 09:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Above, Urthogie suggested to talk about merits, not bullying:

  1. IMHO it's no "merit" to try to discredit an operational guideline, out of some sort of jealousy because it is perceived as "competition" to a new idea (the meme proposal);
  2. Replacing {{wikipedia subcat guideline}} by {{proposed}} on an operational, accredited guideline is *bullying*. So, don't.

Please see the possible merits of the meme proposal independent of the merits of the "website" notability guideline. If that is not possible, and if the primary "merit" of the meme proposal would be that it tries to push away the "website" guideline out of some misguided competition idea, then I suppose it would be better to dunk the meme proposal ASAP. --Francis Schonken 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't perceive this as "compteition". In fact, I barely knew about it because of its name, which to most rational people suggests "websites". Thats why it was frustrating when I found some stuff on memes hidden in here, despite never being used on AFD's for memes. And I'll continue to try to get consensus independent of this. If consensus fails so be it. If not, we'll harmonize the two articles. Peace, --Urthogie 10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
tx. Note that I already adapted {{Notabilityguide}} (included in several notability-related pages), the link to this Websites notability guideline now reads Websites and web content, instead of previously Websites (so, that might better attract attention to the full content of this guideline)
Also, above I made a link to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web - I still think a CSD template for websites and web content based on the present Wikipedia:Notability (websites) is not a good idea (while this guideline is not really written in a speedy aproach). That might be a possible merit of the meme proposal: a (future) meme notability guideline might be more suitable for being used in a CSD approach. Might it be a good idea to keep that in mind when developing the meme notability proposal? (just an invitation) --Francis Schonken 10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we should move this page to Wikipedia:Notability (web), though?--Urthogie 10:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, and have done so. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tentative rule for notability

I've been seeing a few web comics deletion nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Thievery (webcomic) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of webcomics) and I think we could use some sort of rule. Here's my humble suggestion:

I think the threshold of notability for web comics that would serve Wikipedia best is that the author makes money out of it (other than a few token from online advertising). Otherwise, we run the risk of having a flurry of vanity articles from anybody who draws.

Tell me what you think of this. Tony 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good enough for me- except that it might be difficult to verify who's making money. Borisblue 04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, did you just reply to yourself? What happened? ericg ✈ 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. Is there a perceived shortcoming with the current guidelines? Do you feel there are web sites which don't meet the current guidelines that ought to be included? Or do you feel that there are web sites which meet the current guidelines that ought to be excluded? This sounds like a bad idea to me, not only because of difficulty with verification, but also because notability has little to do with profitability. A completely free web site covered by The New York Times and Washington Post is still notable. -- Dragonfiend 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Sorry for the confusion. I started the discussion somewhere else and was told that it was not the appropriate page for this so I copied the thing here. No reply to myself yet. I wasn't suggesting this guideline for only websites that display webcomics. I feel the current rules creates too many useless articles that have to be deleted. Tony 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Changing the notability guidelines won't stem the tide of articles on non-notable subjects. It's not the case that people are creating these articles because they think they do meet our notability guidelines, but rather they're not even aware the guidelines exist. We don't need to change the guidelines. We need to figure out a way to let the newbies know what they are. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually it's because the guidelines blow, and there is no concensus to apply them except within the rulecruft fandom pages like this one. 165.254.38.126 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Since this guideline simply restates the three key policies, I'm not sure how it blows. As the three key policies have the consensus of the community, I'm not sure how you state there is no consensus to apply them. Hiding The wikipedian meme 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
If it simply restated them then there would be no need for it. It does not - it introduces the concept of "what I like". It's bogus, and should be dropped before it does more damage to the principle of a neutral point of view. 165.254.38.126 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a bald bad faith assumption. Perhaps you can show me where it does that. It simply states that articles require third party sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Hiding The wikipedian meme 13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a bad faith assumption to assume that that was a bad faith assumption! Notability goes far beyond verifiability, and introduces the idea that what one person thinks is unimportant should be deleted. For great justice. 15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Request

Let's nip it early - the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it. If people here show some interest in actually dealing with memes, it might be worth it further, but past discussions haven't been fruitful. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Could you go into more detail on how WP:WEB "fails to deal with" internet memes? The memes cited as examples throughout the WP:MEMES proposal and its discussion generally seem to be covered by WP:WEB, and I don't see much difference between the two guidelines -- WP:WEB's "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms," is extremely similar to WP:MEMES's "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture." --Dragonfiend 02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The "outside sources" is merely one of many ways to glean notability. The problem with WP:WEB in that it fails to note that internet-only information is less likely to be noted in "mainstream" culture. Thus, things that are overly popular on the internet (Icy Hot Stuntaz, The Juggernaut Bitch), have little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper. WP:MEMES attempts to seek a balance for that, while WP:WEB is there to set a guideline that's got websites and not memes in mind. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Does your idea that Icy Hot Stuntaz has little chance of being noted in a newspaper take into account articles like "Are the Icy Hot Stuntaz real, or just a stunt?" from the July 20, 2002, Dallas Morning News? -- Dragonfiend 05:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
        • You'd be the first person to note that it's been there since I've been trotting it out as an example. Even then, one article isn't "multiple, non-trivial works.," unfortunately. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Depending on your interpretation of "multiple, non-trivial works," you may be interested that Icy Hot Stuntaz was the Financial Times' "Investrend Website of the day" for October 3, 2005, and is also discussed in the East Bay Express' September 1, 2004, article "Take Off All Your Clothes." It took me less than hour to find three reliable sources for a topic I have no interest in, so I'm not sure what you're getting at when you write that I'm the first person to note these sources. I doubt that my library is that much better than other libraries, so I'm guessing that the reason these or other reliable sources weren't brought up in your previous conversations is that nobody really bothered to look for them. Or was there actually some serious group attempt made to research Icy Hot Stuntaz and nobody found these or any other reliable sources? -- Dragonfiend 15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, I've been hunting for months, and hadn't seen them, and no one else has noted them. So that's a plus. Bully for them. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Has your position on this at all changed? Scrolling up above, I see that back in March we had a similar conversation where you had written that memes on the web such as The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and Badger Badger Badger don't have "a shot in hell of ever reaching the absurd standards of the guideline here." I then pointed out sources for them like The Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and MSNBC's Countdown. Now it's May, and you had written that Icy Hot Stuntaz has "little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper," after which I pointed out sources in three newspapers. So, have I managed to change your view that reliable sources for notable internet memes cannot be found? -- Dragonfiend 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
                • No, I haven't, because the problem still persists. I want you to look at the AfDs for thesr types of things, the problem is "nn," and WP:WEB is consistently ignored. I've had plenty of time to think about it, and I still think we require a separate listing, especially for ones that are notable but don't recieve coverage. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • OK, I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. You haven't managed to convince me that internet memes "that are notable but don't recieve coverage" exist, yet alone in sufficient numbers to warrant their own guideline rather than possibly being a few exceptions to this guideline. And it doesn't appear that I'm going to be able to change your mind with any further amount of finding you reliable sources for articles which you believe it is impossible to find reliable sources for. I am also unconvinced that trying to determine notability without reliable sources isn't going to run afoul of WP:V and WP:NOR. I still believe that this guideline and the WP:MEMES guideline could be easily merged together by simply adding "memes" to this guideline's paragraph on "Web content includes, but is not limited to." I am not going to make this change right away without some people beside you and I weighing in on this discussion, though it does appear that several people stated their opinions two months ago up above that WP:WEB adequately covers internet memes. -- Dragonfiend 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • That's fine, and I don't think one of us could convince the other. I do, however, implore you to read the prior discussions at WP:MEMES as well as in my userspace (User:Badlydrawnjeff/Meme. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a fundamental issue with the concept of notability. Because what it really means is 'I don't like it', there is no way to codifiy it. Better would be to use verifiability - the memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are verifiable. For great justice. 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, that's just your point of view as to what it means. Your opinion suggests you believe WP:MEMES should be merged here, since these guidelines aver that any web related content which has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is notable. The memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are notable. Hiding Talk 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that all 'notability' material be deleted as 'not notable'. I reject the concept as institutionalization of POV, which is against current policy. For great justice. 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence makes no sense to me. The second is an oxymoron. If current policy did oppose institutionalization of POV, that would represent an institutional point of view. Hiding Talk 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's simple. I think all of the rulecruft associated with 'notability' should be deleted. Current policy says that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and which articles get to be written is also a matter of NPOV. The articles on Democrats and Republicans need to be written from a neutral point of view, but you must also not exclude articles based on your pov. You can't not have an article on the democrats just because you don't like them or are not interested in them. Ergo, a guideline that enshrines a small groups POV as inclusion policy is in breach of WP:NPOV. For great justice. 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB failing at afd for memes

I discovered something I wrote in the archives of this talk page which is germane to badlydrawnjeff's assertion that the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it.

  • It is worth remembering these guidelines are just that, and that if consensus at afd doesn't agree with them, that is unimportant, as they are only here as guidelines on whether to start an article or not.

That these guidelines aren't used at afd is not wholly important. That they exist and people can be pointed to them is. Many afd's are not closed properly by admins, who seem to forget that WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV are non-negotiable. No consensus at afd can trump the three policies, and, if we take those three policies as they read, any article which cannot be verified in outside sources should be deleted. Whilst that is not happening all the time, it doesn't mean those aren't the goals, it means that admins get it wrong, or that good faith in the project is extended, or that afd is broken. Eventually, all articles that exist now will be of the standard detailed in those three policies, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and also, there will just be newer ones that don't. That these guidelines are currently ignored for memes isn't a reason why they don't apply to memes, it just means that they should be applied to memes. Hiding Talk 21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand our aims. We don't want to ignore verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. We wan't to add new requirements for notability, not subtract old policies.--Urthogie 10:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand my position, which is that this guideline is enough, and already applies. People should start using this in afd's rather than build more guidelines. If you agree with the three policies then I'm not sure why this guideline fails, since this guideline is based upon the three policies; it states that a meme is notable if it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. That's the position of the verifiability policy. Perhaps if people could illuminkate me as to how these guidelines fail, I'd change my position, but as yet all I've been told is that these guidelines are too tough. That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what our policies are. WP:V states that if an article topic cannot be verified in third party, reputable sources it shouldn't exist. A primary source is not enough to write an article from. Now people have attempted to argue that this is a bias against online sources, but I fail to see that since this guidance offers no evaluation of sources. It's a redundant argument, and one that the people espousing it fail to follow through on. When I have asked what they would consider reliable sources, they fail to provide them. There's no sense that anyone is attempting to communicate on the issue at all, rather we sit on two hilltops firing broadsides. Hiding Talk 13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right that there will never be agreement on this, since notabilty inherently means 'What I Like'. What you like will always be different to what others like. You may get apparent agreement of the people in the room about 'What Slashdot Editors Like', and be able to get that passed a process, but it does not represent 'What Islamic Historians Like'. It's enshrining a POV. For great justice. 15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So you say. Actually I think it's a rough and ready guide to whether there is likely to be enough independent interest to ensure that we can verify that the subject is being covered neutrally. Too many people think that notability relates only to WP:NOT (indiscriminate). It doesn't. Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just enshrining one groups' view of what is important. For great justice. 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion that WP:MEMES be merged into WP:WEB

I suggest that the proposed guideline being discussed and worked on at WP:MEMES be merged into this one at WP:WEB. I don't think this would actually take much work; simply adding "memes" to the list of things which "Web content includes, but is not limited to," would probably do it. -- Dragonfiend 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is worth considering, but first we should wait and see the results of the Notability proposal.--Urthogie 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dragonfiend that WP:WEB applies. Adding that one sentence would take care of memes. Brian G. Crawford 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve the issue, I think. People ignore WP:WEB because its too overarching.--Urthogie 09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Really, I don't want to see any internet fads in Wikipedia. I tolerate a few of them like AYB because it's made news, but I find most of them to be juvenile, stupid, far from funny, and a waste of brain space. I'd like to see them barred outright from Wikipedia, but I suspect that won't happen. I don't like the current proposal at WP:MEMES because it's too inclusive and allows secondary-source commentary on a primary source published only on the internet. I also want to make my ideas clear so that when someone quotes policy at me in the future and declares it to be "consensus" I can say that I disagreed when I had the chance. Wikipedia isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica, and shouldn't aspire to be. In fact, it should try not to be like Encyclopedia Dramatica. There. I'm done, so thanks for reading. Brian G. Crawford 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Which further explains why we need a policy. You're on the far end of exclusionism, I'm on the far end of inclusionism. So what do we do to reach a middle ground that makes sense. I don't know if I've seen you over at WP:MEMES yet to give your two cents. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was over there too. I was trying to get across the point that pages on meanspirited internet fads like Brian Peppers should be excluded. Of course, I'm in the minority on that, but perhaps WP:OFFICE actions will take care of some of that. I've publicly shamed people in writing as a newspaper reporter, because I had to do it to get paid. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it for free. Brian G. Crawford 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The middle ground that makes sense is to dump 'notability' for the problematic POV that it is. Get back to the basics of verifiable, well sourced articles, and these issues disapear. For great justice. 17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
To quote andy warhol, in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Let's not make it 16.--Urthogie 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Your point?! For great justice. 21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been mentioned in match reports in the South London Press, my photo has appeared in another local paper, my birth date, marriage date and addresses are matters of public record, my blog is a reliable source for content about myself, the schools I attended can be referenced online, where's my article? Hiding Talk 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, someone could write an article about you, if there's enough to say to make it more than a phone book entry, and did not consist entirely of local news reports, and if they did, then I don't think there'd be any harm. But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy. Again, no problem, no need for rulecruft! For great justice. 00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Great justice, your view has been proven impractical-- you've essentially admitted that, under your system of bare bones verifiability and npov, a janitor mentioned in a local newspaper could have an article. I think I can easily make the following generalization of that view: the community, for the most part, doesn't agree with it.--Urthogie 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it hasn't. One: 'The community' agrees with me enough that every time 'notability' has been voted on as proposed policy it has been rejected - obviously, on a page working on more of it, there are more people in favor. Two: my view has not been 'proven' anything. Everytime I show you common sense, you bring out more and more bizarre examples. I show you why you're wrong about you being able to have an article, you bring out a mythical janitor that doesn't have an article. Please. Let's stick to the facts. For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even going to let you off that easy. You say "But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy." Prove it. Cite me the policies. Hiding Talk 13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can't prove a negative - there is no article on you, so I can't speak to particulars. Write one, and we'll see, but I would imagine that there is simply not enough information that is actually verifiable to write more than a phone book entry. But, having said that, I don't know you, there may be a lot of verfiable information, and a great article to be written - if it bothers you - write it and we'll see. One of the problems is that all you are doing is speculating on cases that might exist at some time in the future if people acted in ways they never usually do. For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll do it for you. It's a speedy deletion criterion, namely article criterion #7, An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Notability is already enshrined in policy despite your arguments to the contrary. And I'm not speculating on what might exist, I could cite any number of articles that did exist but were deleted under this criterion. You seem to believe short entires should be deleted. I take it you are aware of the stub concept. Hiding Talk 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
?How do you know if it should be deleted if you havn't written it?! That's just silly. For great justice. 21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Worth considering, however I think that the guidelines in WP:MEMES is too easy going, so to speak. I don't think that Wikipedia should really be adding things like Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten to its pages because although they may be very notable on the internet and in internet culture, is an image that quite a few people visited for a few months about god killing kittens when you masturbate encyclopedia content? Beno1000 14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't like it, neither do I, but thankfully that will never be criteria for inclusion! For great justice. 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion that Wikipedia:Notability be merged into Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense

I sugest that the proposed guideline be deleted, and that we all get back to the business of editing and writing articles. 165.254.38.126 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, agree - it should go - see Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability. For great justice. 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

lets make some things clear

Vote support or oppose if you agree with the following:

Please note that [Polls are evil http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Polls_are_evil]. For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The core wikipedia policies cannot be nullified by any new policies.
Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course not - that's why notability' has to go. It is blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV.
  • Verifiability alone is not enough. People are written up in verifiable local papers all the time.
Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: WP:NOT deals with news reports. Existing policy is enough if people read it. For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The AFD should treat articles consistenly with regard to policy.
Support.Urthogie 10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • AFD decisions should be grounded in policy (not random rulecruft), but should also take into account common sense. For great justice. 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)