Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Subsidiary Notability and Articles for Deletion

"Notability (science)" mentions in its introduction, "failure of a topic to meet this [scientific] guideline's criteria does not automatically exclude it, as it may attain notability through WP:N itself or another of its subsidiary guidelines.".

  • Perhaps this should be mentioned in all the subsidiary notability guidelines?
  • I would like to suggest that Articles for Deletion should not be advertised in subsidiary notability guideline talk pages, since it might give the false impression that notability is not being considered in all subsidiary notability categories. --Iantresman 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think that your suggestion should be implemented. Quite the opposite, we should actively encourage editors with specialist interests to become involved in deletion discussions: who better to help the community decide whether an article about (say) WWII is worth keeping than those who work and use those articles? semper fictilis 16:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely we should encourage editors with specialist interest. My point is that we don't get editors with just ONE specialist interest to judge an article for notability, we get as many as possible.
  • To advertise an article for AfD in just one group, does not give editors with other specialists interests to judge it.
  • An article on WWII might require the view of historians, social history, science, people, etc etc etc. --Iantresman 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

I haven't been following the entire debate, but it seems from Steve's comment that this page used to be a descriptive guideline, but has been liberally reworded in an attempt to make it prescriptive, and as a result is said to no longer reflects consensus. Indeed, I note this page was far less controversial one or two months ago, so controversy seems to stem from recent changes. A reasonable suggestion then would be to revert to a version from one or two months ago that lacks these liberal rewordings. >Radiant< 07:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Well, basically, I can see this going one of two ways:
We make notability in effect prescriptive (policy rather then guideline, etc.), in order to have objective standards on article subjects like we do on what goes into them (V, NOR, NPOV, etc.).
We "downgrade" notability into an essay or something like it, and rely on the vagaries of individual AfD debates. In this case, we probably should also eliminate any pretenses to eliminating systemic bias-in this case, "what do we write about" will be determined by "whatever we feel like that day".
V, NOR, and NPOV are prescriptive, and that's the only way they work-they wouldn't work if they were "Well, you can be a little non-neutral if you really argue well for it and put some original research in sometimes if you really do it well", because that way everyone would want their pet thing to be that exception, and pretty soon it would be meaningless. Just like what we write in articles is determined-prescriptively-by what can be reliably sourced, we should-prescriptively-determine what we write on at all, by what can be reliably sourced. So basically-one way or the other, where it was was meaningless. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
If the notability guideline is downgraded to an essay, then would "ILIKEIT" and "IDON'TLIKEIT" become valid reasons for advocating keeping or deleting an article, given that it had NPOV, met WP:BLP and WP:ATT? Would there be some other reason to cite for wanting to remove an article about something real but also really trivial? Edison 07:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Well, to some degree, I'm hopeful at seeing this text in WP:ATT:

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it
  • the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article.
(emphasis added by me)
This would seem to logically imply that primary sources may not be used for an article unless independent ones do exist and are the main basis for the article. That still wouldn't work to clear all cruft (it doesn't, for example, go into the depth of sourcing or actually state it must be a secondary source), but it's a start. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Hundreds of article about TV/radio masts were deleted with a pretty clear consensus. The articles never relied on self-published, questionable, or primary sources, but repeated what was in official government databases. Articles about minor city streets have been deleted even though they had equally verifiable independent sources (city data bases, directories, Google, maps). The lack of independent sources would as you say be enough to support deletion of many school and church articles where no one bothered to go to the local newspaper files to find stories about the erection of the building, expansion, controversies, awards, or curriculum. Edison 08:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Actually Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts found that those pages should be merged, not deleted. - SimonP 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
I'm not sure city databases and such are secondary sources. Secondary sources seem to emphasize analysis as well as compilation, which city databases, map data, directories etc are not. The fact is that towns (esp in non Western countries) are a pure systemic bias issue we have consciously chosen to give an exception to. Of course, there's a bot generating articles on minor towns from US census data, but no equivalent for any other country, so I wonder how much more systemic bias we're introducing. ColourBurst 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Systemic bias is my exact problem, and the reason I'd like to see notability made prescriptive. We should never have "notability by class", each individual subject's sourcing should be evaluated. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • The point is that removing the guideline won't actually accomplish anything. Whether people like it or not, deletions for lack of notability happen quite frequently. We can ignore or deny that fact, but that has the effect of shifting AFD discussions from the article they're about ("notable because X - not notable because Y") to whether or not notability is grounds for deletion ("not notable because Y - you can't use that argument! - yes I can - no you can't"). That is clearly not helpful; the former leads to article improvement, the latter to bickering and meta-argument. On the other hand, long-standing guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC have provided guidance to people about where the border lies, and that is a productive solution. People must simply stop trying to use this as legislation. >Radiant< 08:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • Radiant, the only way this would work is prescriptively, and without "carved" exceptions like WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. We only write article content based on sourcing. Why should we not, with equal vehemence, say that we only choose article topics based on sourcing? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)
'AFD for non-notability happens all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop it'? POV pushing happens all the time too - we try to stop that. I really don't see much difference. Trollderella 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

The whole argument stated over whether this guideline supplants the other subject-specific guidelines, which have been around far longer then this guideline. This guideline seems to be treated as a sacred cow that is equivalent to policy.

I mean, why are some editors so opposed to renaming the PNC to something that is more inline with why it was created? If this guideline is suppose to be descriptive of how notability is used in AFD discussions, then a change in the criterion's name in this guideline wouldn't matter.

If someone was also go in to return the counter augments to this guideline so that the guideline more fully descriptive of the process, would those edits stand? Probably not as those same editors who oppose the renaming of this guideline's criterion will feel the counter arguments will weaken the prescriptive use of this guideline.

Notability is subjective. There is no denying that. But relying on only one criterion to determine notability for all topics is like putting a square peg through a round whole. There is more then one reason why a subject can bee deemed notable, but multiple, non-trivial, independent sources is not always one of them. That was why we have the subject-specific guidelines in the first place.

In the end, I do think this page should be returned to the essay that it once was, describing the notability debate on AfD and serve as a central "hub" for the subject-specific guidelines. And contrary to the hysteria of a few editors, Wikipedia will not implode and give birth to squirrels if this page is no longer a guideline (to use an old a.f.sm joke), nor will the notability argument become invalid and go away in AfD either. --Farix (Talk) 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC-8)

This last bit I do not feel comfortable with. What happens when there is no subject-specific notability guideline available? Just use policy (especially WP:NPOV and WP:ATT)? If there is no "defaulting" criterion, then we are inviting it to be totally subjective in those areas -- which means personal home-baked criteria like "I like it", "I don't like it", "Delete. 370 members? Really. Non-notable.", "It only garnered 15 hits on Google so it's obviously not something most people give a darn about" would be 100% valid! You can't run an encyclopedia like that. If we're going to let that type of hypersubjectivity become totally valid for wherever the rules don't cover, we might as well not have any rules at all -- we might as well throw out all the subject-specific notability guidelines, throw out our deletion policy, and give everyone admin powers to delete and undelete at their whim! That is obviously unacceptable -- so we need some sort of fallback criteria, be it the present criterion lited on the WP:N page itself, "stick to policy", or something else. Either that or write and approve waaaay more subject-specific criteria so every subject is covered, and if not that I'd suggest to ditch notability altogether and rely only on policy-based AFD arguments, with anything based on someone's subjective personal home-baked notability criterion regarded as null and void (in fact they should be null-and-void under any system -- unless of course they're something like "by notability I mean <insert real policy here>", ie. using "notability" as a bizarre synonym for some policy. I'd consider that a policy-based argument though, of course, albeit a strangely-phrased one!). Another thing I'm wondering about is where you said that multiple, non-trivial, independent sources is not always a valid notability criterion -- are you saying then that we may delete articles that are neutral and have lots of sources for failing some other notability criterion? Which of course, begs the question as to how having such articles would harm Wikipedia. If they are well-sourced (like 10 sources or more) and neutral, I don't see the harm. Could you explain this please? 74.38.32.195 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Getting a mite hysterical? That is not the issue at all. I might point out that a comic which is available both in dead-tree format and on the Web, is fairly widely read, has sufficient audience support to allow the artist to buy a house, even though the comic is their sole source of income, etc. What's the issue of notability here? What makes this work notable is because it is good! Yes, that is a subjective statement for which there is no perscriptive criteria. Sometimes such things happen, it's an imperfect world deal with it. For me, Errant Story is notable because it draws sufficient audience. For you, it may not be. However, a plain IP address isn't very notable either. Slamlander 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Newspapers

Can college/university newspapers be used to establish notability or are they solely limited to usage as a reliable source?--Crossmr 07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

  • I have pretty much argued against using the presence of sources as a measure for notability at any rate, but never mind. To answer your question, it very much depends of the nature of the newspaper. At the University of Bergen the main student newspaper Studvest is a newspaper with a paid staff, and operates much like any other newspaper. It would in my view be as valid as a regular newspaper. The department newspaper for the science subjects, "Q.E.D" is operated by volunteer students and has a fair percentage of in-joke articles, like an extensive 2-page report on "kadonk tiles" outside the main science building, in other words, an article which maps out which of the ground tiles outside the building which are loose thereby making a "kadonk" sound when somebody walks on them (this was the front page headline once). I think that newspaper would be less reliable and not a good way of determining notability. In any case, I think you should use your head instead of the number, type or presence of sources when you consider the subject's notability, and instead consider the quality of sources when you decide if it meets WP:ATT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
    • That's generally why we prefer multiple sources -- a single source may get it wrong or write an in-joke, so we'd prefer some backup to check against. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
  • I think the number of sources is only important in so far as establishing that the topic has been discussed multiple times over at least a minimal time span. If there's only one reference, then even if that reference is valid it doesn't necessarily demonstrate anything beyond very transient media interest. So it's important to have more than one source spread out somewhat over time to establish that the topic has resulted in some back and forth analysis and that it is more likely to have some longer lasting usefulness to the readers.
Now that being said, even when you have multiple sources you still need to evaluate their reliability. Some publishers are more reliable than others. I don't think you can come up with a hard and fast guideline for measuring reliability of a publisher, so this becomes a matter of case by case discussion by Wiki editors. It's possible the consensus on some university newspapers would be that they're reliable, while for other papers the consensus might be they are not. Thus deciding whether an individual source is reliable is beyond the scope of this guideline, and so the best WP:N can do is to say that editors should probably disregard references they consider unreliable when they look for multiple, independent sources for verification. Dugwiki 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
I'd tend to agree that school newspapers should be used very cautiously, especially if their content is not corroborated by another source. Student editors are not (yet) professional editors or journalists, and may also be writing about topics of very limited interest for which other reliable sources may not exist. However, like anything, a case may arise in which an exception could be reasonably made, I would think that would be up to consensus on a case-by-case basis (as is the reliability of any source, really, we generally would not use an NYT article written by Jayson Blair.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I agree with Night Gyr that multiple sources are the most important criterion. One source, however reliable, is not usually enough to demonstrate notability. For instance, imagine if X, a non-notable student from East Nowhere, Idaho, were to be the subject of a single human-interest story in a daily newspaper because of his unusually vast collection of Pokémon cards. Even though the newspaper article is a reliable source, that doesn't make X notable - all it means is that the newspaper needed to fill up some space. On the other hand, if X's collection of Pokémon cards were to draw widespread media attention and be mentioned in several newspapers, then he would be notable. If some of these sources were student-run college newspapers, then he would still be notable - but if the only source was a college newspaper, then he wouldn't. Walton Vivat Regina! 12:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

To create a good article? Yes. To establish notability? Of course not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
Multiple sources are good, and the more the better. When I'm writing an article, I look for as many sources as I can find. But if I only find one, and I'm writing about a real thing that is not controversial, then one authoritative source is sufficient. Someone else can add more later, but there should be no need for multiple sourcing for everything. Dhaluza 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
I think the general point to keep in mind is that we're talking about a general rule of thumb, not a hard and fast policy per se. Having only a single source is an important red flag that the article probably isn't living up to the normal standards for inclusion. Not only is a single source article less likely to be "notable", since it might only have ever been written about that one time, but it's also more likely to be biased toward the opinion of the author of that source since there hasn't been any back-and-forth published discussion or debate. So while there are going to be some exceptions of articles that only have a single source but are considered ok for Wikipedia by most editors, by and large most of the articles with a single source will probably fail to be kept in afds. Dugwiki 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)
It all depends on the context. If you are dealing with a social phenomenon, where there is a lot of subjectivity, then multiple sources tend to average out the biases, and that is a good thing. But if you are transcluding appropriate public domain material, dealing with a non-subjective technical topic, then the public domain source is sufficient as the single reference. Naturally if you can integrate multiple sources, that's even better. But we should not set that up as a hard and fast wall that is completely unyielding. As an example (at risk of some misguided deltionist AfDing it again) have a look at Machmeter. What's not encyclopedic about this? It had lots of inbound and outbound links, so it supports WP:BTW. And it covers the subject in detail, working from a single authoritative public domain source. Dhaluza 16:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Am I right to question this article then on notability: Amiworthit. The two sources from what I'd considered more notable media outlets really consist of trivial coverage, very brief, and really only describing the features of the site. While there are a couple of sources outside of that that offer actual detail, they're from student run papers (and I think from the same school the creator attends/attended).--Crossmr 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC-8)

There was an argument above that one human interest story in a college newspaper that a student has a large Pokemon card collection would not be sufficient to prove sufficient notability for him to have an article. This is a bit of a strawman argument, since the same article in the newspaper of the small town the college is located in would likewise fail to prove notability. Many of the criticisms of college newspapers as being too "local focal" and prone to boosterism and promoting the activities of friends and associates apply equally to small town newspapers. (This is not to say that Fox News, the New York Times or CBS News are infallible sources of truth either). I would treat a student run college paper as a possibly reliable source, to be examined. If it were the house organ of a diploma mill with articles ghostwritten by the college president to promote his activities, I would reject it. If it were the main paper at Harvard or Columbia, I would treat it with more respect. If it were certain small town or big city papers which have an agenda or engage in "yellow journalism," I would question it. Edison 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Notability is generally permanent

I have tagged this section as disputed. I do not believe that it is widely known that this section was added nor that this section would receive clear support if/when it became more widely known.

My core concern is that in the current editorial environment, it creates a loophole within our policies and systems. A number of our "notability" decisions are based on the short-term coverage that a topic receives. That coverage may not be continued or followed up. The coverage may, in hindsight, have been the subject's 15 minutes of fame. The wording of this clause creates the strong impression that once a consensus has been reached that a topic was notable, however transitory or borderline that decision was, consensus can not change.

The primary reason to measure notability is as a proxy for our ability to find enough independent sources and a critical mass of informed and interested editors to ensure that our article on the subject will be neutral, verifiable and permanently monitored for vandalism. If after the passage of time, there are no longer the sources necessary for an online, all volunteer encyclopedia to find and use and/or if there are no longer any interested editors, then we will be far better off without the article.

Wikipedia can not be a permanent archive of all possible knowledge. It is not structured for the kind of historical preservation and research that would be necessary. We write about what we can and leave historical archiving to projects which have the necessary tools and capabilities.

I strongly recommend that we remove this section from the guideline. Rossami (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a start, but it isn't enough. Turning the white noise of routine news reporting into the refined stuff from which encyclopedia articles can be written is a job for experts. Irrespective of what the wording of WP:ATT may currently be, an article which has nothing but news reporting to attribute the content to is original research, or indiscriminate information, or both. Writing this into a policy somewhere (WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is not about news", just as n:What Wikinews is tells editors that "Wikinews is about news") would be a step in the right direction. We may not be able to transwiki existing news material, but we can and should persuade editors who submit news reporting to Wikipedia in the future to resubmit it to Wikinews instead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's actually a dispute, but it's important because it keeps people from saying "well, they're unimportant now." Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Unless there's a way to make sure that content isn't lost because people falsely believe notability disappears, I'll be strongly against such a removal, assuming this "guideline" stays as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Removal of such a guideline sets a dangerous precedent for editors who don't like an article subject to simply say "Well, I haven't heard anything about this in months" and make it disappear as if it never existed in the first place. WIth the removal of this criteria, articles of entities like one hit wonders, cancelled television series, long deceased business people, military leaders, politicians and artists can be removed. For example:not every composer was Mozart. Classical era composer Johann Baptist Gänsbacher was famous during his lifetime, but none of his music is part of the contemporary standard repertory, nor are there recordings available of his music that had wide distribution. Without such an affirmation of permanant "notability" this composer's article would be doomed for deletion. As above, I would also be strongly opposed to a removal of this guideline. --Oakshade 04:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this section is one of those I have the least objections to on the notability gudeline. Generally because I think that "this thing no longer exists" is a poor rationale for arguing that something is non-notable. (A person doesn't become less notable becuase of death for instance.)
I want to respond to two of Rossami's objections. First, you say: "If after the passage of time, there are no longer the sources necessary for an online, all volunteer encyclopedia to find and use and/or if there are no longer any interested editors, then we will be far better off without the article." I'll concede that "no longer any interested editors" after some time can be a problem, mostly because vandalism targeted at such pages will have a fair chance of being missed because nobody has it watchlisted. Still, that problem is not one of the encyclopedic merit of the subject, but rather an inherent problem with Wikipedia in general (would stable versions help here?). No longer any sources is something I have greater trouble with. If a subject was described in a newspaper, then even 50 years afterwards, newspaper archives will still exist where the source can be retrieved. The sources don't go away just like that, although sometimes they may be harder to retrieve. Second, "The wording of this clause creates the strong impression that once a consensus has been reached that a topic was notable, however transitory or borderline that decision was, consensus can not change" is something I don't quite agree with. We have seen consensus change, or at least shift somewhat as the event moves further into the past (JetBlue Flight 292 produced a strong "keep" consensus the first time on AFD, the second time it was still kept, but only because there were some curiosities about the flight which convinced some people, including myself, that the incident was more notable than a mere news story). When consensus changes about something in the news, the reasoning is not that the event has become less notable over the last few months, but that the previous "keep" consensus got it wrong, perhaps because the consensus was dazzled by the media presence at that time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm also kind of confused as to why you felt it was important enough to tag while the page is still in full protection. Was this an oversight on your part? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There have been some well-thought-out comments and I am taking a few days to consider my responses. In the meantime, I wanted to address this direct question. This particular clause is suddenly being referenced widely. Yet I could find no evidence that this particular clause was much discussed prior to its inclusion in the December rewrite and I remember many discussions held in other places where this premise was hotly contested. My suspicion is that this particular clause was overlooked and that it needs this detailed discussion of merits and risks. Rossami (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm generally in favor of keeping this section as is. Plenty of historical topics may lack recent coverage, but that's no reason to remove their articles. Similarly, I agree that it's almost inconcievable that the passage of time will remove sources. It may make the sources harder to find, but that's a research problem. Also, changing this would lead to the undesirable result where we would write a good article on subject X, then delete it several years later. For example, see Seraphine de Senlis. Are we going to delete her article every few years, re-write it when someone publishes a new paper about her, then delete it again a few years later? The underlying problem - that most local news stories with a few days of coverage can satisfy the "central notability criterion" - is a flaw of the criterion, not with the remainder of the guideline. TheronJ 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Support inclusion of this section. If an article satisfies a consensus of editors that the subject isn't a mere news article rewrite, but has merit as an article in an encyclopedia, then that decision is good enough for me. What's of interest in 2007 to editors in 2007 may not be of interest to readers in 2017, but that doesn't empower editors in 2017 to presume that this lack of reader interest in 2017 is assurance there will be no reader interest in 2027 or beyond.

The Wikipedia is an almost real time filter of what news or facts have the character of permanence. After a while, it becomes of interest to researchers to know what editors thought people were interested in at the time. A interesting exercise for people who consider this to be a serious endeavor is to go to a library that has some annual encyclopedia supplements. [1] and see how they incorporated current events from 20 years ago into their paper-based encyclopedias. patsw 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support this section. One of the primary values of an encyclopedia is to help in researching topics that may not be covered in recent reliable sources. If reliable sources are available (even if they are difficult to obtain), no matter how old they are they support notability. If I read a book from the distant past which references a subject presumed to be common knowledge at the time (which would also presume that there were reliable sources covering that subject), but has now faded into almost complete obscurity, I want there to be a Wikipedia article about that subject. I certainly don't want it to be deleted because someone searched Google and found no hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors, and so for that reason decided it was non-notable. DHowell 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I, too, favour the statement that once something satisfies the PNC, then (short of a major book-burning exercise to remove all copies of the published works that exist in the world) it continues to satisfy the PNC, even if the published works that cause it be satisfied can no longer be easily obtained from newsstands. Having read some of the AFD discussions where this issue comes up, it appears that the major concern here is the continual pressure to devolve from an encyclopaedia into a news service, with articles becoming (in Wikinews terms) news summary pieces for individual events, sourced from news agency coverage of those events.

    As such, I think that the important thing to address is not the idea that notability is permanent, which is uncontroversial in this regard, but when an event actually reaches the bar of notability in the first place. This is where the "multiple" and "independent" requirements are important.

    Another important thing to address is the way in which current events are presented in an encyclopaedia. Clearly, articles should be encyclopaedia articles, not news articles, and that should be reflected in their scopes and their titles. For example: Glasgow Ice Cream Wars is an encyclopaedia article title and scope, whereas "Convictions of Glasgow Ice Cream wars two quashed by court of appeal" is clearly a news article title and scope. Uncle G 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank everyone in this thread for giving serious consideration to the question. I remain concerned that, as currently worded, this clause will do more harm than good for the encyclopedia. If I may, I'd like to address some of the concerns above.

  • I don't think that either the inclusion or exclusion of this clause will affect the decisions or comments of people who misuse the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Invalid arguments need to be shouted down whenever they occur. This clause doesn't help (or hurt) that action.
  • Oakshade's example of Johann Baptist Gänsbacher is well-stated but, in my opinion, a strawman argument. Whether or not he is still in the standard repertory, sources clearly still exist about the composer. Likewise, it is very clear that we still have the necessary critical mass of informed and interested editors who are willing to maintain and protect the article. By the only definitions that matter, he is still notable. Personally, I consider it unlikely to the point of improbability that this would ever change. The same can not necessarily be said for the garage band that happens be getting their 15 minutes of fame right now.
  • Several people argued that sources never really go away. I'm not even sure that's theoretically true. I definitely have concerns with that statement as a practical matter. If someone writes an article and "sources" it to an 1890 newspaper story that has never been reprinted or subsequently quoted, can Wikipedia really consider that to be functionally verifiable? What about on-line sources that aren't backed up? How does any future reader have any confidence that the source was not fabricated? How will future readers be able to trust the edit you just made if the source is no longer available? Assume good faith is important but it has limits. The assumption that currently-available sources will always be available is impractical. So how should we deal with the problem of articles for which we can not verify the source or content?
  • Several people argued that, as TheronJ said, "The underlying problem [is the assertion] that most local news stories with a few days of coverage can satisfy the 'central notability criterion'". If we were on track to correct that problem, I would be much more comfortable with this clause. The discussion at WP:NOTNEWS, unfortunately, does not encourage me that this will be a realistic solution.

This last point really gets to my core concern - as a community, we have shown a rather poor track record at sorting out truly encyclopedic content from the subjects which are currently getting their 15 minutes of fame. If something is encyclopedic, yes, it stays encyclopedic. I have never disagreed with that general principle. That's not how the clause is being interpreted, though. This clause is already being misused as an argument to keep topics which were never encyclopedic and whose 15 minutes of fame are clearly up. The clause reinforces the rampant confusion that already exists between Wikipedia and Wikinews.

Good article's won't get deleted if we remove this clause. (It was only added in December. We were not over-deleting before that.) Bad articles, however, are starting to get harder to clean up because of this clause. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is God to say what is and is not "notable material" If you're creating an article that is widely-popular to your local area, or even your county, perish or burough, your input is deemed "unnotable" by the forces that be here, thus rendering your otherwise very informative article nonsense in the eys of the community. I believe this is almost as bad as China's great Firewall of sensorship...but then again, you have the power to have others agree with you, making this just an ALMOST losing battle.

I just can't help but think the ones with power are misusing it by sticking so tandem to cold and thoughtless guidelines. --Omnislash89 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The main time people complain like this, in my experience, is just after they have been told they, their friends, their band or their friends band is non-notable. Which is exactly the case here. The Kinslayer 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that notability is generally permanent, but at the same time we should be able to look back at a news story which made a big splash for a short while a couple of years ago, such as a cute animal stuck in a tree, or a scout who wandered away from camp and inspired a huge search, and decide that we were mistaken in the first place about its notability. The notability didn't go away, it just wasn't really there in the first place. This is one point of the proposed/tagged as rejected guideline WP:NOTNEWS. As a reality check, do you want to see articles about watercooler stories of 100 years ago, which were sensationalistic at the time but of no real consequence? There are countless such buried on the newspaper and magazine files of that era which have the same WP:ATT quality and quantity of stories having substantial coverage.Edison 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic houses

Hi all. A new user is adding articles for a lot of historic Tennessee houses. They're all on the National Register of Historic Places, but does that mean they're notable? I was wondering if there's some kind of guideline about this. Thanks. --AW 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The obvious answer is yes. The Wikipedia answer is a little more complicated - if there's enough information to establish an article, I think the articles are safe. See the discussions above and at WP:AI, because we're trying to establish how to deal with these better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree with Jeff. Some, maybe even most, are appropriate but some might not be. Being on the National Register would certainly be strong supporting evidence and would create a presumption of notability but we still must have independent, verifsources on which to base the article. If the only thing we have is a registry listing (which merely confirms the existence of the building) and a bunch of original research written by people who claim to have visited it, that article has to go. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as the national register is independent of the building itself, it's an independent source that establishes notability. Most towns and cities have historical societies who also write and discuss these buildings, so the existence of such info is possible. Of course, using the self-published materials about it in these cases are not bad things - most of those documents are written after the events that are being written about, using primary and secondary sources from that time. So, essentially, everything published about the places as historic houses are secondary by nature. Speaking only from personal experience here, which I have a lot of in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you visit it and report what the tour says, is that OR? - Peregrine Fisher 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically, that would not be original research. But any edits made based your recollection of what was said during a personal tour would be viewed with justifiable scepticism since they would be functionally impossible for any future editor to verify without going to the site and taking the tour as well. Published sources are always better. Your personal observations, on the other hand, would be original research. Rossami (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you accurately reported what the tour guide said, that would not be original research, but it would be unpublished and so unverifiable. If you published a transcript of the tour guide's statements, it would be verifiable but not in a reliable source and people would be rightly skeptical whether your transcript is accurate, whether the tour guide made an error in oral communication, and whether the tour guide is actually an expert rather than someone who read a book about it two weeks before—a book which you should very well read and cite instead. —Centrx→talk • 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What objective criteria are being proposed here for including or excluding a house listed in the National Register of Historic Places? Read the article on the registry -- it is not merely the confirming the existence of the historic place, but there's a formal process for getting on the list. If there's enough information for an article, and motivation on the part of an editor to write an article on the historic place, it should be included. Certainly, they can all be included. patsw 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure everything on the register can be included, many would be permastubs. Of course, many such places may have quite a bit of secondary source material as well. The registry listing would be a secondary source mention, but only one and pretty thin. Additional material would be required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Not that permastubs are bad. Again, we can use primary source material, the secondary sources (for instance, the actual register) merely establishes notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • A common remedy to permastubs is WP:MERGEing them. Depending on how much information is available on these houses, it may be a good idea to start with a List of historic Tennessee houses. >Radiant< 14:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And, indeed, merger to articles with wider scopes is exactly what this page has suggested for many months. Uncle G 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems to me the best way to handle this is probably in two steps. First, create a list article that lists all the historic houses in Tennessee as listed in the national registry. Then, for each specific house which has an additional good reference outside just the registry list from which enough information can be culled to write a decent article, go ahead and start crafting an article about it. Houses for which the only reference you can find is the registry listing should not immediately have their own article, but should simply be included in the list article. This way you don't end up with perma-stub articles with extremely little info about a house in question. Dugwiki 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I suspect anything tourable would have citable material of some sort available for sale. Adam Cuerden talk 10:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. After all, if it's not documented in history books, there's no justification for calling it a "historic" house. Uncle G 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "non-trivial"

A lot of editors' arguments on this talk page seem to centre around the idea that words such as "multiple" and "non-trivial coverage" are in some degree subjective. I would therefore advocate the following specific definitions:

  • Multiple coverage is defined, for the purposes of this guideline, as coverage derived from at least two separate independent reliable sources, preferably not from the same author.
  • Non-trivial coverage is defined, for the purposes of this guideline, as coverage in external sources which solely or principally concern the subject of the article. For example, where X is the subject of the article, a news report solely or principally about X would qualify as non-trivial coverage, while a mention of X in a news report on another topic would not qualify as non-trivial.
  • All the above must refer to sources independent of the subject itself, and these sources must also satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.

I hope that will clear up one of the main issues of this guideline. I've never seen WP:N as anything other than a fair, objective test. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    • If WP:N is to exist long-term, the problem is "multiple, non-trivial" regardless of how we try to define it. I've addressed this numerous times already - that terminology fails to cover notable subjects, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "...coverage in external sources which solely or principally concern the subject of the article". Let me make a hypothetical example. A book about shipping history has a chapter about the steam ships which served a particular line. The chapter discusses four different ships, and jumps a bit between those, discussing them year by year, rather than ship by ship. According to your definition of "non-trivial", this chapter will not give any of those ships "non-trivial" coverage because none of them are the sole focus of the chapter. But let us say the book instead had four shorter chapters, one for each of the ships. The information we can extract from the book about the ships remains the same. Now suddenly, the coverage given becomes "non-trivial", because each of the ships is the sole subject in the chapter. Is this your intention? Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it wasn't my intention, and obviously any guideline has to be interpreted loosely at times, and treated with the occasional exception, per simple common sense. Unlike policies, which are often interpreted in a fairly strict and legalistic sense, WP:N has always been open to a certain degree of interpretation. However, in controversial AfD cases, subjectivity becomes a problem, and it is at that point that my wording would be useful. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonney Eberndu. IMHO, the sources provided for this article were non-trivial, as they included several news reports from the reputable mainstream media that were solely about this person. However, the majority of editors viewed the subject's claim to notability as inherently "trivial", and so ignored the evidence of non-trivial independent sources. This is an example of where subjectivity took over; if the wording were made clearer, cases like this would occur less frequently. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "...obviously any guideline has to be interpreted loosely at times". I agree completely, especially on notability guidelines. However, I feel this pretty much illustrates what I'm trying to get through: that any truly objective notability criterion will result in paradoxes and undesirable outcomes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • "Non-trivial" has never actually meant "sole focus to the exclusion of everything else" anywhere outside of the strawman arguments against it, notice. ☺ The purpose of "non-trivial" has always been to exclude published works that are no more than directory entries, since that simply results in articles that are themselves directory entries, and to exclude subjects that are only tangentially mentioned or superficially covered, in discussions that are actually about something else, from warranting entire articles. For example, this article (a source that I happened to be using today) only discusses Tom Hujar tangentially, whilst actually discussing something else, and so doesn't support having an encyclopaedia article on that person. Uncle G 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition offered here is unnecessarily complex and constrained. Non-trivial just means that the source talks about the subject directly (but not necessarily exclusively). The real issue is that WP:no original research or synthesis should be needed to use the reference. Whether it treats a subject singularly or as part of a set of related subjects is not relevant--we can discard irrelevant information to extract what is needed. What we can't do is put 2 and 2 together to make 5. I put a simple version of this definition on the page. Dhaluza 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In the event of a controversy, however, the complex and constrained version is necessary. I'm not a great fan of lawyering, but it pays to know the exact rules if there is a dispute. I learnt this when standardizing the spelling (american vs. commonwealth) of some articles to whichever had a majority in the article. Since so many people get ticked off that their spelling is ignored in that article, they go through the entire article and change all the instances... take a look at the history of Orange (colour) sometime. I found that (through people asking me to stop what I thought was good work) the rule for spelling is, for some articles, as arbitrary as "whichever spelling the first major version including a variable word used". It's ridiculous, but it's just. Nihiltres 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Non-trivial" depends upon the work. Being the subject of 5% of a 600-page book is unquestionably non-trivial coverage. Being the subject of 5% of a one-column newspaper article is unquestionably trivial coverage. Being the subject of 100% of a one-paragraph newspaper "blurb" is also trivial coverage. I think we should base it on depth, not on being the exclusive or main focus of a work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that the long definition drifts into WP:WL territory. We need simple definitions, and people who apply them with common sense. People without common sense are not constrained by overly complex definitions anyway.
As far as triviality, the core issue should be WP:NOR. WP covers a broad range of subjects, and references vary in quality and quantity in different areas. So a one-size-fits-none definition of trivial coverage is not helpful. Let's stick to making this guideline a reasonable interpretation of the WP core principles and policies, without trying to cover new ground, and maybe we can get consensus for this guideline after all. Dhaluza 10:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, this definition of notability is only indirectly related to whether a subject is notable. Notability is not, after all, whether or not a piece of information is properly sourced, it is whether a subject is sufficiently important in the grand scheme of things. The level of importance required in this project is, of course, up for debate, but the majority of important things will be referenced in published sources, that's certainly true. Some important things will not, however - and on the flipside, some things which are non-notable in the long term have many published sources regarding them. Therefore, any guideline which specifies two or more sources should not be called a 'notability guideline', but instead something more fitting; in fact I would suggest that it should be proposed for insertion into the WP:ATT policy. This point of clarification is sorely needed, in my opinion, as too many people misunderstand the Notability guideline, and it is being used as justification for deletion in a ludicrous number of deletions where people simply say 'Not notable' with little or no need to back it up. -Xiroth 07:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the proposal at WP:AI is preferable to merging this into WP:ATT, as they're fundamentally separate concepts. It's possible to attribute all the information in an article to a reliable source without actually establishing its notability/validity for inclusion; for instance, an article based on a single news story would be fully attributed, but would not establish notability. If you don't like the term "notability" (a viewpoint with which I sympathise) then let's go over to WP:AI. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary (but not sole) criterion

I edited the list of definitions below the primary criterion to make the intent clear, and to give each equal weight. Each is now one short sentence, with qualifiers in the footnotes. If you wish to tweak the definitions, please keep them brief, and do not add unnecessary comfort words that will only dilute the impact.

I also restored the note "This is the primary, but not the sole criterion, so the converse is not necessarily true. Alternative tests are used in some cases to establish notability", now in the summary, not the bullets. Alternative tests do exist, and they are used. This page is only a guideline, and to get it re-established as a consensus accepted guideline, it will need to cover a wide view of the subject, particularly since this is intended to be a parent to many children. Dhaluza 10:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed it to "general notability criterion" to help reduce the confusion that it is the most important criterion and overrides all other notability criteria. Yet it still retains the essence that the criterion is the most frequently used measure of notability. --Farix (Talk) 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to point out that this is not the One Criterion To Rule Them All. >Radiant< 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typo in the menu

In the menu at right of page titled: Notability and Inclusion Guidelines
Please Note the Selection: Organisations and Companies
It should read: Organizations and Companies
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robhuisingh (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 March 2007 --Robhuisingh 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)(UTC).

Actually, it shouldn't. Organisations is an accepted spelling under British English. The Manual of Style makes both acceptable and gives us the guidelines for when one may be preferred over the other. (The short version is if it's an article about a UK-specific topic follow British English, if about a US-specific topic follow American English, if neither follow the first writeup and for non-articles like Wikipedia pages, no one much cares.) Rossami (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rossami.--Robhuisingh 00:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School notability

I have a question to pose. Recently in AfD, many questions and heated debates have come about insofar as the notability of schools - in particular, high schools. There is a small yet vocal minority that dictates that notability is, at least as far as high schools are concerned, inherent (user:Noroton, for one, states as much on his opinions page); on the other hand, there are those who believe that these same schools are subject to the same notability criteria as per here in WP:N. I am, for one, among the latter group - and it is this debate that has caused much dissent. In short, who is right? I realize that this is what WP:SCHOOL was originally for, but maybe we can really use this? --Dennisthe2 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • With the primary notability criterion, all schools in Bergen, Norway would be notable, since they have all at some point been the subject of newspaper articles, and all have an entry in Bergen Byleksikon. Schools in other parts of the World would probably not meet the same criterion. One of my objections to the primary notability criterion is the systematic bias which arises from it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well...couple of things with that. First, the coverage must be non-trivial, so standard newspaper blurbs or human-interest pieces would be routine and likely trivial. (I don't know what Bergen Byleksikon is, but if it covers all schools, it's probably a directory, also trivial). Also, source bias is not systemic bias. We're supposed to work with sources, not to "correct" any perceived bias in them. "Correcting" perceived source bias is original research, and that applies just as much to determining what we should cover as determining how we should cover it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Bergen Byleksikon translates to the "Bergen City Encyclopedia". It is a single-volume book which has descriptions of all geographical features in Bergen, including schools and roads. A typical entry on a sn elementary school is pretty short, noting down which classes are taught, the year the school was built, the architect, and location. Some other articles are longer and more informative, and I used the book as a source when I wrote the initial revisions of Bergen katedralskole. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The former is correct in part because of the latter - all schools, technically speaking, have enough source material available to meet the standards of WP:N. The question is whether we can adequately find those sources, which isn't always possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • How do you figure? From what I've seen, most sourcing on schools (even when people have been trying like hell to find it on one that's up for deletion) are primary (government reports, lists of statistics, etc.) or trivial (newspaper "human-interest" pieces, reports of sports-team games, and the like.) I'm not sure all or even most schools do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If "human interest" stories are trivial, than the word trivial is even worse than I originally thought. And government reports are third party sources - third party sources need not be secondary to establish notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • IMHO, a government report would only be "non-independent" if it was published by the government unit that operates the school. (I.e., by the school itself or the school district, for most American highschools). A report by the state or federal government, or an audited report, would IMHO be independent. My guess is that it would not be hard to find two adequate non-trivial newspaper stories about any American high school if you had access to the newspaper archive for the relevant area newspapers. That leaves us with the question of whether "sources almost certain exist, but can't be found immediately" is enough to resist deletion. Generally, that statement has been enough to resist AFD, but concensus is probably still evolving. TheronJ 15:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Government reports wouldn't be third-party or secondary (except perhaps in the case of private schools)-it's the government reporting on itself. The fact that they're different departments doesn't change that, a corporation's report from its accounting department regarding the budget of its production department is still primary and certainly not third-party. (To add in a reply to TheronJ, a parent company reporting on a subsidiary is also primary/first-party, same with a parent government on a subdivision.) And of course human-interest stories are trivial, they're very narrowly focused and usually done as fluff or filler. (If you prefer insufficient, they're insufficient, too.) What can we say based on such pieces? "X School's women's basketball team won the Division 503Z championship in 2003. Mr. John Smith, who teaches history, won the district's teacher of the year award." That's newspaper fluff-let's leave it to the newspapers. We should only write an article if we have enough secondary source material to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject, and for most schools, that's just not there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Seraphim, what is your understanding of the purpose of the "independent" source requirement? Thanks, TheronJ 15:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I think there's plenty of discussion regarding the actual independence of a government report on schools - given the schools operate under the government, but are not actually part of it in the sense that the government exists, and the schools exist, and the schools have to do things to meet the expectations of the government. It's not all that clear cut for Wikipedia's purposes. But are "human interest" stories trivial? Absolutely not. We're looking for enough third-party material to establish notability - an article can be fleshed out by primary sources. --15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, I'll have to disagree with that: there are so many subdivisions of "governments", all with a large degree of independence (if not in policy then at least in process), that to consider it one whole is not feasible. Also, "human-interest" stories are not inherently trivial as long as a school receives substantial coverage in the article. It's already problematic enough to judge what is "trivial" or "nontrivial" coverage; let's not further complicate this by trying to judge what is a "human-interest fluff piece". -- Black Falcon 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Think about "independence" as a practical matter for Wikipedia's purposes: One government source is "independent" from another if its statements could not easily be changed by the other. If Schools Superintendent Dr. A wants to stick some information on the school's Web site, and state Education Department Secretary B doesn't want that information there, it's Dr. A who's going to make that decision, and Secretary B can't change that. To have that kind of formal power over a school district, a state would have to pass a law. Conversely, a school principal can be fired if that principal refuses to take information off the high school Web site that the Board of Education disapproves of. So high schools are not independent of school districts. These examples only apply to the United States, of course. Noroton 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • There are several purposes to requiring independent sources. It eliminates potential bias, as a primary source might be written to play up (or play down) its subject. We require attribution to reliable sources, and primary/first-party sources are only reliable to a limited degree, and only if largely corroborated by independent sources. Primary sources should be used for a bit of "fleshing-out" in an article based on secondary sources, not to base an article on. As to human-interest stories being of substance in themselves (as opposed to being used in conjunction with more in-depth resources), could someone please send me to a human-interest piece from which a comprehensive, neutral (and comprehensiveness is necessary for neutrality) article could be written? I just don't see it existing on most schools. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Kudos to Dennisthe2 for starting the discussion, although I think it will quickly overhwhelm this talk page. I'm not sure what better spot there is for it. A quick comment on the top paragraph: Is it a minority that is dictating to others about keeping high school articles? I don't know how you can judge who's a minority on this question, especially when those who show up for high school discussions have tended to constitute a majority more often than not. Back in 2005, when someone bothered to count, we're told that 85 percent of high school AfDs resulted in no deletion. I haven't kept track, but I think most high school AfDs over the past several months have been kept, and most people commenting have been supportive. Why wouldn't the pro-delete editors be a minority? Why bother characterizing voting strength at all other than to say "a substantial number of editors"? "Dictate"? C'mon, this language is distracting, and given the failed attempts to reach a consensus on policy so far, if we get too distracted we'll be wasting our time. Noroton

[edit] Why we should avoid "inherent notability"

I am writing this under a new subject heading as the discussion above seems to have progressed to a different topic.

I disagree with the suggestion to use some notion of "inherent notability" or "inherent non-notability". As editors, we shouldn't make that judgment. If others consider a topic "worthy of note" by writing about it, then we have proof that it is notable; if no one has written about a topic, then we lack such proof. We can make argue that X or Y are notable or non-notable all we want, but the only evidence we can present to buttress our arguments is the presence or absence of reliable sources.

Unfortunately, too often this definition of notability is misused. Specifically, I identify three classes of misuse:

  1. I like it. An article is unsourced and efforts to produce sources have ended in failure, yet people argue that the subject is "inherently notable". Putting aside the bigger problem of having a possibly unverifiable (i.e., original research) article, the claim of "inherent notability" is subjective and cannot be proven.
  2. Unresearched. An article about a subject has no sources, so people claim that "the subject is not notable". That's a fallacy! The problem is not notability, but lack of verification. Only after one has searched for sources and failed to find any can one suggest: "the subject does not seem to be notable". We can prove that a subject is notable, but we cannot prove the converse; we can only note that no proof was found to establish notability.
  3. I don't like it. An article about a subject is sourced with reliable sources, yet people argue for deletion based on the notion that the subject is "inherently not notable". This is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and/or WP:IDONTKNOWIT and is subject to the same criticisms applicable to the first class of misuse.

Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, I think, irrelevant. The only way we can prove that something is notable is by showing that others have deemed it worthy of being written about. Sources themselves do not establish notability, but they prove notability.

A final note. I think the main reason behind opposition to notability guidelines is their misuse, overuse, and overeager use in deletion discussions. Too frequently articles that lack sufficient sourcing to prove notability are nominated for deletion when the nominator has not even conducted a simple Google search for the article's title. Many topics can and are easily proven to meet our notability guidelines with just a little research.

Deletion should not be the first reaction to an article that does not prove the notability of its subject. The first step should be research. If an editor does not wish to research a topic, s(he) may contact the primary author(s) of the article and request that they prove the subject's notability. The article can be tagged with {{notability}} (although that usually doesn't help unless the article is on someone's watchlist). The article can be listed on a relevant WikiProject's talk page (this should usually be reserved for articles that have a lot of invested effort from many editors). I fully support the existence of the notability guideline (the details of "non-trivial", "substantial", "multiple" can be worked out), but am opposed to its inappropriate use.

-- Black Falcon 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points all--I was nodding in agreement as I read your very thoughtful post. I think this sums up the major objections to the (mis)use of Notability on WP. And in this, we can find the root cause of the controversy with this page. I posted a while back about the fundamental misunderstanding of consensus applied here, and the recent flare-up over substantial vs. multiple is another example of it. Guidelines on WP are supposed to represent existing consensus, not the contributors' wishes for future consensus. Regardless of how you think WP articles should be managed in the future, there is existing precedent reflecting consensus about how they are handled now on a case-by-case basis. That is what this page is supposed to reflect. Some people want this page to be a hammer they can use to pound flush any nail they think is sticking up. But that is not how things are supposed to work here. Dhaluza 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon makes some useful points. However, I do think it is useful to have criteria of things that are not notable. For example, at Afd right now there is Hoyland Common Falcons. Arguments used for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyland Common Falcons are similar to "way too far down the football hierarchy to qualify for WP" and "English football clubs are notable if they have competed in the top ten professional levels of the English football system". I'm not sure that the latter is still around in guidelines, but it was at one time and it is sensible. We do not want articles on every soccer team in England, let alone the rest of the world. Below 10th level is normally not notable and they should not have articles unless a special argument can be used. This inherent non-notability has nothing to do with sources, although of course sources would be needed to argue a special case. --Bduke 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly the trouble with "inherent (non)notability". If we can have a well-sourced, comprehensive article about a Little League team somewhere, we should have it. The reason we don't have many (if any) of those is because those sources don't exist. On the other hand, if we cannot have a comprehensive, well-sourced article about a professional sports player, we should not have that article. WP:NOT a sports team directory, and all these arguments I've seen for "comprehensiveness" flaunt NOT a directory. If we have enough source material to write a comprehensive article, we write. If not, we don't. It's perfectly fine if that leaves "gaps" in coverage-WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information either, and "How well can we source that?" is a fine measure to use in discriminating. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is to balance "well-sourced" with comprehensive. If we have lots of well-sourced articles in a subject area, and a few articles with weaker sourcing, deleting these is pointless. WP is a work in progress, and we can be patient and allow the weaker articles to develop with better sourcing where it probably exists, but has not been cited yet. This doesn't mean we should tolerate unsourced statements, just that we can accept a short article with sufficient sourcing for the limited content without worrying about notability in these cases. Dhaluza 08:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! But the point is "Can we source this", not "Is it sourced yet." If it's obvious that an article's subject can be sourced, the fact that this has not yet happened is probably not an argument to delete (unless it's been quite a while). On the other hand, "I can't find any indication that enough source material exists for a comprehensive article on this subject" is a perfectly good argument to delete. Of course, if some source material exists, but not enough for a good article, that generally indicates a merge and redirect to a parent topic (sports players under their team, albums under their parent band, etc.) Fourteen useful redirects to one good article is a thousand times better than fifteen permastubs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but to further nuance this, merging is often appropriate for weak articles, particularly where a subject area has lots of weak articles that can be merged into better ones. But where we have lots of strong articles in a subject area, merging the weak ones is not a good option. In this case they should stand on their own for consistency in the subject area, and they should not be picked off by drive-by deletionists. Dhaluza 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inherent notability?

I often see assertions of "inherent" notability in AfDs. What establishes inherent notability? Is there a list of things that are inherently notable? -- Mikeblas 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask that one to ten people and you'll probably get eleven different answers. Mine would be that there are certainly some things (for example, US Presidents, the basic chemical elements) for which everything in the category has sufficient sourcing for a comprehensive article. This isn't really inherent notability, per se, it just so happens that everything in the category really does meet notability. In the vast majority of cases, though, there are probably some things in a category that have enough sourcing and others which do not. Except for trivially obvious cases, like the ones I listed above, I don't think it's generally a good idea to try and state "Everything in category X is appropriate for an article." If that really is the case, that's trivially obvious anyway, if it's not so clear-cut we should evaluate case by case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there are quite a few things that are inherently notable enough for inclusion. For example, everything that has an article in every general encyclopedia would deserve an article in WP. Of course they are likely to all have sources, but that is not the point. Sources do not make something deserving of an article in WP. They merely allow it to be written. We should be defining notability without sources and not confusing notability with verifiability. --Bduke 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think listing all categories that are inherently notable as a continuous process would be an excellent idea. This would ensure that many case-by-case problems are avoided. This would go a long way to avoid wasteful debates of the popularity=> notability and non-popularity => non-notability kind. Shyamal 06:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that sometimes "inherent notability" can present a problem. For instance, geographical locations tend to be viewed as inherently notable, which is fine in principle but tends to lead to a lot of permastubs. IMHO anything which is "inherently notable", but can't have a decent-sized article created on it, should be merged into a parent article or list. This needs to be enshrined in this guideline. Walton Vivat Regina! 08:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think lists would be a fine way to cover stuff that a lot of people obviously think we should (schools and geographic locations come to mind), and on which there's some sourcing, but not really enough to support an article. And of course, if someone finds a ton of sourcing on a given list entry, it can always be spun back out. If it's a rather small location that may only have a few schools, they can probably be covered alongside the parent locality, or on a list of schools in the county. It would sure beat the current forest of permastubs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I continue to be worried by your view that you are sure that permastubs are a bad idea. I do not agree. All paper encyclopedias have them. Take a small location, a village for example. I think the reader just wants to know where it is, what its neighbours are and whether it has anything notable in it. A few sentences are fine. They do not want to get to a long list of villages and search for the one they want. Some topics need large articles. Some topics need small articles. Some small articles can be expanded to large articles. Some small articles should not be expanded. There is no "one size fits all" and we should stop using the term "permastubs" which sounds derogatory. --Bduke 08:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you'd prefer to call them? Everyone already hates the word "cruft" (which is not really derogatory either). It's a permanent stub. As to lists, no one has to search them, anchor redirects work fine! Just do a redirect to "Villages in X Location#Name of Village Subsection". Such a list would likely be more useful to readers anyway, quite often they may be looking for a number of villages, and bringing them straight to the list would be quite helpful. And for those readers who only want to find the one, they're served as well, without any need for searching at all! I'm a lot more concerned with the "small, unexpandable articles are alright" bit-by that, we should have single-sentence permastubs on garage bands if it can at least be verified they exist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to call them articles -:) --Bduke 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the term perma-stub is an oxymoron. A stub is a short article that needs expansion. People write stubs when they only have limited time or material to create an article (for example when a wikilink in another article is red). A short article can be written about a subject if it can be covered in sufficient detail without a lot of text. In this case, the article should not be expanded. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. Printed encyclopedias have some very long and very short articles. If a related group of short articles can be combined into a larger article, this is an editorial decision made on a case-by-case basis. We don't need to create an additional systemic bias against short articles. Dhaluza 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Things that are actually "Inherently notable" speak for themselves with mulitiple (or substantial) reliable sources. The term "inherently notable", as used in AfD debates, is the opposite of the term "cruft", really just an abstract justification for things that don't meet notability requirments but that people personally find notable. There is no reason why something should need an alternate means, or reasoning, of proving notability. NeoFreak 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inherently notable: has too often been a code for "miserably fails [[WP:ATT] , WP:N , WP:AI but WELIKEIT." The Roads project claims that every highway (state, perhaps county) with a number on it, however short and insignificant (1/3 mile is plenty) is inherently notable. High School and Middle School fanciers have claimed that those things are inherently notable. People in the talk page of the notability guide for royalty and nobility claimed that anyone who was given a British title or was knighted was inherently notable and so was their spouse. When you mention U.S Presidents or chemical elements, I can quickly give you as many reliable sources with substantial coverage about them as you want. For some of the cruft, all that can be found is that they exist (in their own website, on a map, as a directory listing in a government database of roads or schools, in a book of peerage, in a government or hobbyists's database). The benefit of a centralized listing is that it could be publicly displayed in a common forum and not in the gulag of a project or a special notability guide patrolled mostly by fans of the subject. It could also be proved by AfD results where or most such articles have been kept when their notability was questioned. It is meaningless to call things with multiple books and articles about them inherently notable, since they are notable as shown by being noted. Edison 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Things that are inherently notable have sources. Things that are labeled as inherently notable but are without sources are just mislabled. NeoFreak 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Patently false, and, I believe, a misunderstanding of the argument. Inherent notability comes from things that, when people hear about them, they know of their importantance regardless of what information there is. This includes roads, schools, nations, heads of state, etc. That most "inherently notable" subjects have sources is helpful, but there are plenty that generally do not to the ridiculous standards we have here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Patently lazy? Anything that people automatically recognize must have been learned about from the existence of sources. Short of divine revelation that means that anything that is just "known" has sources demonstrating their existence. If not then they don't belong in an encyclopedia. That's what makes an encyclopedia an encyclopedia and not the urban dictionary. I'm afraid if there is a misunderstanding here it is what an encylopedia is and isn't. NeoFreak 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary. Whether a subject is encyclopedic has nothing to do with the sources, and some subjects are encyclopedic with or without sources. Whether they can remain within Wikipedia without sources is a separate issue that is beyond the scope of whether a subject is notable enough for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that you jest as you've been around long enough to be familiar with WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. If you believe that wikipedia policy does not demand sources then I'm afraid you have your own agenda for this project outside of the broad scope and consenus that exists. NeoFreak 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't jest at all. Notability (i.e., a subject's importance for inclusion) is entirely separate in concept from those policies. Not everything that's notable is verifiable by reliable sources, and vice versa. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that opinion is really the heart of the matter when it comes to "Inherent notability". You seem to think that a subject that can't support sources, in violation of the fundemental policies that guide inclusion of information, is okay as long as you deem it to be important or "inherently notable". That of course is a position not supported by any of the policies we have here. NeoFreak 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no policy that contradicts my statement. If an article cannot be sourced reliably, it will be removed - that has nothing to do with its notability, which may clearly exist regardless of "reliable sources." --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something can be non-notable even with soures. Something that is thought to be notable without sources is going to be removed anyway, that's why we have policy on sources. So to say that something is "inherently notable" i.e. something that is notable without sources, is not allowed on wikipedia making "inherent notability" a non-issue for inclusion. NeoFreak 14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's where there's a number of steps that need to be taken to judge an article's worth. Sources are merely one of them. Inherent notability is an important concept if we assume that notability is a worthwhile concept to judge inclusion - it means that the subject simply is notable, no matter what anyone else would want to argue. It does not invalidate the important concerns of sourcing, which is a separate issue of bigger importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Something that is notable and sourced does not have to lean on being "inherently notable" because its notability is proven. Something that is not proven to be notable through sources is failing the criteria for inclusion because of that lack of sources. Period. NeoFreak 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) The point remains, that if we're writing a guideline to point people to that says "This is what we will accept", that guideline should mention adequate sourcing. It's begging for confusion if we say "Well, yes, this is notable, but wait, don't write an article on it because you can't source it." Notability in the context of Wikipedia has always meant "appropriate for an article." I believe that may not have been the best choice of words, and in terms of titling I far prefer "article inclusion" myself, but we've never meant "notability" in the terms of "how widely is it known." If we're going by that, the newest Youtube phenomenon is more "notable" then germanium. I also agree that "notability" is often (mis)used as an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, but that's more the problem of the title and misinterpretation. Notability, in our usage (and words do have different meanings in their context), means "How well can we source that?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Like everything else in wikipedia Notability is viewed through the paradigm of sources. Anyone an claim anything is notable but to say something is "inherent" in its notability to to claim that it is so outrageously notable that sources aren't needed, which flies in the face of every other policy we have. Wikipeia is, after all, a tertiary source. NeoFreak 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear this sentiment. But I'm troubled, because I so often read of editors insist that something is "inherently notable" when participating in AfD, for example. Does this mean that the existing policy is confusing? That some commonly-known precedent has set this expectation of "inherently notable"? Why isn't it obvious that both notability and verifiability are both required, and that they're independent? -- Mikeblas 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with badlydrawnjeff here. Notability and sources are different. If something is notable, it needs sources to write the article. In this sense sources are key. However, if it is not notable, it should not have an article, even if there are sources. It is in this respect that keeping notability and verifiability separate is important. The trouble is we can not agree how to do it and we can not agree that it has to be done. --Bduke 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we do not agree that it has to be done. I say it is a bad idea.

Notability and sources are very different. Notability is a poorly defined misused term associated with attempting to broadly define (read limit) others contributions according to you own precenceptions of what wikipedia should ultimately look like. Sources, on the other hand, are easily recognised, central to a core policy, and the most important when it comes to reliability.

Notability, whether inherent or not, should be neither a criterion for inclusion nor a criterion for exclusion. Notability, where it means with suitable sources, is a poor reiteration of WP:V, and should be abandoned. Notability, where it is defined distinct from suitable sources, is a confused idea, violates the principles of wikipedia, attempts to limit future contributions with insufficient consideration, and should be abandoned.

Rules of exclusion should be limited to WP:NOT, where they are required to be specific. Rules of inclusion should be limited to WP:5P. SmokeyJoe 02:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] "Generally notable" and complete coverage

The term "inherently notable" is not a good description. It implies that people can be lazy with sourcing, and many people will strongly oppose it based on this. There are some categories that are considered generally notable, so the more important concept is that if almost all items in a category are obviously notable, then there is value in complete coverage (avoiding petty disputes over notability of the few odd items). For example, heads of state are generally notable. Now there are a few minor countries whose head of state may not be all that notable, but there is no sense trying to draw a line dividing out just a few of them. The smallest countries will be notable anyway, just for being small. So we may as well allow them all in, as long as there is enough WP:V/WP:ATT material about them to create at least a brief article. So if someone wanted to fix Yury Morozov the only red-link on list of state leaders, it would be pointless to start an AfD discussion on the number and nature of sources, or whether the leader of South Ossetia was notable enough for a separate article, or should be merged under the country. In this case consistency should trump notability. Dhaluza 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure but the degree of notability of all the items you've listed can be established by sources. Every nation of the world is going to have a independant source about it, every head of state is going to have sources on them (in smaller nations often from goverment sources). Because of this they don't have to depend on being "inherent" or "general" in their notabilty. Inherent and general can be viewed as "common sense says". Being a big fan of WP:COMMON I would say that this is fine, as long as you can back that assertion up with sources. I hope this isn't confusing my position on the issue. NeoFreak 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so let's say I wanted to fix the red-link and all I found on the web was a bio published by the UN, and created a brief article using this source. Then let's say someone else tagged it speedy-A7 or nominated it for AfD saying the article fails WP:BIO. What would common sense say in that case? Dhaluza 15:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That your subject meets the criteria for inclusion because: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject per BIO. NeoFreak 16:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
A simple biographical sketch would not be a secondary source. In this case, we could assume that the UN provided editorial oversight only, so it would be a reliable primary source (which is OK to use in reference to the subject). And it is only a single source. So it is not enough to meet WP:BIO. But it should be sufficient sourcing to anchor a stub, pending additional content with better sources. Dhaluza 08:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Command notability?

What are the guidelines for establishing that a computer operating system command is notable? I see articles here on various commands in different articles, and they seem pretty silly to me; their coverage is superficial and almost never includes third-party references. -- Mikeblas 02:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd think this is something else that's probably better served by a list style article, why not merge them into, for example, List of Linux shell commands or List of Windows shell commands? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Or like this man page Ls ! Shyamal 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is not a how-to, the vast majority of that ls article seems like it's useless. The only part that interests me is the "history" section, which is completely unreferenced even though it is only two sentences long. The problem with the lists articles is that there is too much subsetting. As OSes grow and mature, they leave behind commands and add new ones. Should "DIR" be in the MS-DOS list, or the Windows Vista list, or the CP/M list?
It's hard for me not to conclude that computer commands are all inherently non-notable and should be purged. While WP:N and WP:NOT seem to support it, I don't see much support for the notion of removing these articles -- that is, few previous AfDs. On the other hand, I don't see anyone working towards completing articles for the vast list of missing commands. -- Mikeblas 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You probably won't get support for such a purge, which means that if WP:N supports it, then WP:N does not reflect consensus. As far as WP:NOT, how-to articles are generally written in the second person. The Ls article is properly written in a neutral fashion, simply stating the functionality. The history section should be referenced, but no doubt the references exist if someone would do the research. Frankly I don't see a big problem here--this is a specialty subject that WP can cover. You don't have to like everything here. Dhaluza 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My questions don't have anything to do with what I like or don't like, Dhaluza, and I'm not sure why you've implicated that as my agenda. While the ls article might be some of what we'd like to see in an article, I'm wondering why that class of articles is considered to meet the inclusion guidelines. A how-to article doesn't need to be written in second person, as the ls article demonstrates, and I don't see any reason for that kind of content to be developed. -- Mikeblas 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The debate about WP:N clearly shows that it does not have consensus. These commands are just one example of things that I imagine consensus would support retaining (I say imagine because I have only just realised they exist and I do not recall seeing any of them at AfD). I have plenty of books to look these things up in. However, I think our readership contains people who expect to find this sort of information in a web encyclopedia, so they are here and they should remain. They should be covered by a specialist guideline and WP:N, or whatever, should respect that. --Bduke 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have plenty of books that cover these commands in detail, then they would be notable under this guideline. —Centrx→talk • 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course. There are many many books on unix. The question above is whether they are "pretty silly", "superficial" or "a how-to". These may be seen as countering the argument from sources for inclusion. I disagree with that point. However, I agree that the argument that these articles are not referenced could easily be remedied from the host of computer books on unix and other operating systems as well as from standards documents. --Bduke 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Mikeblas, WP:AGF tells us not to speculate about hidden agendas, and I do not make any such assumptions. I simply point out (rhetorically) that if your assertion about WP:N is correct, then WP:N is defective. I disagree with your statement on how-to articles--they are written in 2nd person, and if rephrased into a neutral tone, cease to be how-to. I agree with the general prohibition on how-to articles, but do not agree with your suggestion that an article matter-of-factly describing functionality is equivalent to a how-to, and should be discarded. Dhaluza 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

I have posed a neutral notice to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability calling attention to the newly stable version of this guideline. Although a neutral wording is appropriate in that forum, let me state my support for the new version here. Although I previously expressed a sense that this guideline was destined to become a failed initiative, I kept it on my watchlist, and was favorably impressed with the progress made. So much so, that I decided to rejoin the effort. I think the new version is a more reasonable compromise, and more closely approximates the views of the larger community. Dhaluza 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually very well done, but for this:

Alternative tests are used in some cases to establish notability

I think this sets up the idea that the subject-specific guidelines "trump" this one-that if something meets one of those, but insufficient sources are available, we should have an article on it. That does need to be clarified. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of alternative tests that have consensus support for various special cases. For example, it is hard to find references on reference works, so the "university library test" is used in this case (if two or more university libraries list the work as a recommended reference). Therefore, in special cases, the subject specific guidelines may have alternatives, but these pages are only guidelines, no there is no trumping. You still need to make cogent arguments either way at AfD. Dhaluza 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The trouble there is, that violates a core policy (whether you prefer to call that particular policy WP:V or WP:ATT or WP:NOT a library card catalog). Even consensus cannot do that. "Difficult to find references" does not, not, not mean "You are excused from doing so", it means "If you want to write about this, you got your work cut out for you."Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If an article can't be supported by sufficient sources, WP:ATT would require its exclusion, so this shouldn't be a problem. Sancho (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia :Notability (films)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). This page has been rejected for some time, now several zealous editors are trying to bully it directly to accepted status without gaining true consensus. Whether it is valid or not, it shouldn't jump from rejected to guideline status instantly. --Kevin Murray 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was never rejected, that was just pure Kevin Murray fantasy. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) where it was 20 'keeps' and 3 'rejects' and 3 'indeterminate/undecided'. Hardly a rejection of the guideline -- more like a strong endorsement.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
A bit of spin from Morty in consistent fashion. The AfD was over whether to delete the page not to reject it. The resounding consensus was to keep the page and tag it as rejected. I felt that if the page was not deleted the controversy would never go away. It was marked for rejection, but not deleted. As I predicted it has been a perennial battleground ever since. --Kevin Murray 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Reader: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (films) and judge for yourself.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice; I've been called a Pharisee, a Zealot, and a bully in the last two days. It seems like if your argument would stand on its own you would not need to call names. Tom Harrison Talk 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty cool. I've always wanted to be elevated to Pharisee status. Kudos to your accomplishment. --Kevin Murray 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Personalities

People seem to interpret notable for sports people as "Has played for a team that's in a national league". This means that very many tiny stubs get created, with no links to / from those articles, and no projects linked to those articles to clean them up in future. They usually have no attribution. The problem comes when people (like me) trawl for typos and find these articles. I have no idea if John Doe is a notable soccer player in the Scottish League. I do know that proffesional is a typo. Should I be adding these articles to the bio project, or prodding them, or both, or just leaving them with improved spelling? DanBeale 00:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

As discussed on Wikipedia Talk:Notability (people) these fail WP:NOT#DIR, which is policy. Dhaluza 03:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

Sports personalities, like schools, are one of those areas in which notability is frequently disputed. Some users argue that they should be subjected to the same notability requirements as other biographies under WP:BIO - i.e. they must be the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources - while others argue that someone who plays for a major professional league is inherently notable. Personally I tend to steer clear of AfDs on sport-related articles, as it invites so much controversy. As a rule though, I'd suggest the following general approach:

  • Don't nominate a sports personality's article for speedy deletion under CSD A7, even if the article makes no other claim of notability than "X plays for team Y", where Y is a professional team. If the notability is doubtful, use a prod, or send it to AfD.
  • Do add sports personality articles to the bio wikiproject, and add infoboxes where appropriate. Correcting typos is also good (per WP:GNOME).
  • If the sports personality in question plays for a part-time or amateur local team, then they're probably not notable. Nonetheless, it's still advisable to use a prod or AfD rather than speedy delete.

Bear in mind that none of what I've said is a rule - it's just my advice for good practice. Some users will probably jump in and disagree. Walton Vivat Regina! 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

  • Generally, if it's just an "X plays for team Y", and I can find nothing else readily available, I'll prod if

Team Y is pro and nominate for speedy otherwise. (Most admins won't speedy it if it's a pro team anyway, they'll just tell you to take it to prod or AFD, so you may as well do that in the first place and not waste their time.) I fully agree that sports players should be the same as anyone else, though, and sourcing should apply just the same. Nothing is inherently notable. WP:NOT a pro sports directory, any more then it's any other kind, and that has nothing to do with notability-it's policy. If the article couldn't be more then a directory entry (directory entries might contain name, team, history of what teams the player played for, and statistics), it shouldn't be written; if it is, it should go. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC-8)

I have written several articles on first class cricketers on wikipedia and occasionally these have been nominated for deletion, often by people from countries which do not play the game. This is despite the fact that first class cricketers have been deemed notable by Wikipedia. Every time the AfD has been overturned or withdrawn but it wastes time to fight the same battles over and over again. Someone not interested in cricket might think a player who played a few games in the 1920s isn't important, but that isn't the point. If wikipedia isn't comprehensive then what is it? Such articles, when linked to a couple of sources of reliable statistical data and put into the right category should be acceptable by definition. Is there a list of sports and competitions which editors can refer to before they nominate an article for deletion? If there was some way they could check that a first class cricketer was a notable person it would save some of the people on the wiki cricket project a lot of time. If an article doesn't have the right references then flag it as such, don't nominate it for deletion.Nick mallory 12:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unilaterally editing guidelines

Please remember to discuss changes to a guideline page like this. I happened to notice a recent unilateral edit of the meaning of a guideline here. "Improving" is, I think, fairly subjective, so better to bring it here first, when it comes to changing a part of a guideline (beyond copy edits). Thx
"Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page — although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it.", Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Keefer4 | Talk 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother looking up wherever you got this from, but it is and always has been standard practice on Wikipedia to make reasonable edits to policy pages without making a proposal for every little thing. If there is objection to a change, it can be reverted and discussed, but if that were required for every edit nothing would get done. —Centrx→talk • 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, 'reasonable' like 'improving' is quite subjective I think, and guideline pages differ from regular articles, as detailed above. It's just a friendly reminder. And "wherever I got that from" is a policy page entitled Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, fyi. Thanks.--Keefer4 | Talk 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Take out the word "reasonable"; the statement is still valid. In all cases the only things that need proposals are changes that someone is absolutely sure to revert or that require a huge amount of effort, e.g. re-writing the entire policy, tagging it {{historical}} etc. Even then, these sorts of structural changes are still done without discussion, with little problem. —Centrx→talk • 02:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting points to consider. It may also be interesting to consider that major changes in meaning may be accomplished my altering a few words. Thanks for the feedback, have a good one.--Keefer4 | Talk 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the change from "at least one" to "multiple", which I changed back to the way it had been, but has been changed back to "multiple", which is NOT reasonable. "At least two" perhaps would work, but I don't agree as in the footnotes that "several" = "multiple". Multiple infers multiplicity, not small numbers; "several" works, but even it tends to make 3+, more like 7+, and of course "few" is just as hard. "At least two/three" seems best, but "multiple" is NOT reasonable, given that the text it replaced was "at least one" (and those weren't my words, I only restored them after User:Uncle G did a POV-based change as he's citing this page during the AFD re English language names for Chinese people. Changing guidelines while citing them - that's not very honest or principled, is it?Skookum1 03:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • First, I disagree with your interpretation of "multiple". Multiple means more than one - could be 2, could be 2000. Several means more than one but not many. Multiple is the cleanest way to say "more than just one". Second, this change about whether just one source is sufficient has been extensively discussed on this page. And we have not yet reached consensus. Changing it back to the older version (which was "multiple") is hardly a unilateral change. In fact, I would argue that Uncle G's edit is in compliance with our editing practices that the policy stays at the oldest wording until there is clear consensus to make the change - that the change to allow single sourcing was made without yet achieving clear consensus. Rossami (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a storm in a teacup, folks. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English language names for Chinese people for what has actually brought Keefer4 and Skookum1 here. It's nothing whatsoever to do with these guidelines. Uncle G 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple sources

It looks like we are back to the old edit war again over this. I've tried to include some recommendation that single sourcing should be used carefully and rarely, but without support. Could this be a compromise toward consensus? I'd like to see the disputed tag come down. --Kevin Murray 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just settle on the "multiple sources" standard. The number of times where a single source proves to be sufficient is so rare that we should manage those cases as the inevitable exceptions to the rule. Rossami (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this should be based on AfD results, because most articles are not nominated for AfD (at least not yet). So you have to look at the big picture, and not just the exceptions to the exceptional cases. Articles where a single source are sufficient should not be nominated in the first place. Dhaluza 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't agree that it is that rare. I've seen this several times at AfD. Usually we have a strong source establishing notability with other minor sources flushing out the article. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think requiring single sources to be "substantial" is a reasonable compromise, and further qualifying it as you did is probably excessive WP:CREEP. But I left it as is, and just moved it under "substantial". Why are two mediocre sources better than one really good one? And why is two the magic number (why not three or four)? When I am actually creating new content, the primary consideration on number of sources is WP:COPYVIO. When working from copyrighted sources, you generally need more than two sources to create a derivative work. But when working on a non-controversial subject like a technical item using a public domain source, I often transclude the relevant information and cite only the one source because this is sufficient to support the content in this case. Dhaluza 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dhaluza and Kevin Murray. Why are two 10-page academic journal articles qualitatively better than a 100-page book? -- Black Falcon 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it's a simple standard that lets us avoid the inevitable argument over whether a 5 inch article in the New York Times is "substantial" enough to qualify as a defensible single source. It's a standard that makes us reasonably efficient even if it's philosophically imperfect. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Dhaluza, I agree that what I put in is more than I would ideally want, but if there is some way to get this issue behind us, I'm willing to accept the CREEP. Maybe a footnote is a better solution. --Kevin Murray 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll again pimp out article inclusion - in the event that a subject-specific guideline that handles notability issues doesn't exist, we look toward sufficient verifiable source material to sustain an article. Looking for the sources to be "substantial" is barking up the wrong tree - we want the information to be of good quality, but counting sources and pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the exact problem though-you've got that backwards. We should look to sourcing first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone yet found an example of a topic that is notable in the colloquial sense but which has exactly one reliable source? —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been many examples given in this forum. The issue is not the number of sources that exist, but the number cited, because that is what is (erroneously) used at AfD. There are planty of topics whose articles can stand with one substantial source. Articles about places using census data are one case with a multitude of examples. Dhaluza 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not the number cited. Notability is about the number that exist, or perhaps that exist in at least the major world libraries. You reverted a change to the guideline that stated the distinction between an article actually evidencing notability and the topic being notable. If there are zero sources cited, a topic can still be notable, but that does not mean we change the guideline to say zero. There have been no examples where there exists only one source. —Centrx→talk • 04:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"In this case extreme care should be given to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible." - With only one source, how would we do that? Tom Harrison Talk 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • We are talking specifically about sources to establish notability (inclusion). This does not mean that there are not other sources providing or confirming background information. We require that the sources to establish notability be substantial, but we do not require that all information included in the text of an article comes from substantial sources -- only credible and for the most part independent sources. --Kevin Murray 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So there must be more than the one source? Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Tom, I think that you are right in that concise statement; however, I don't think that we should be rigid in requiring "multiple non-trivial." I am however skeptical of one single source providing all of the information. The hair-split at AfD seems to be over building substance from a multitude of minor informational sources. I believe that notability can be demonstrated in three ways: (1) several substantial sources, (2) one very strong source, or (3) many lesser but credible sources; however it is arguable that the latter crosses into primary research, such that regardless of demonstrating notability we have no basis for including the primary research in the text. --Kevin Murray 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • There must exist more than one source about the topic. This does not mean that every article must currently contain more than one source, though obviously progress on that article would be obtaining the more sources. One strong source in an article is a good indication of notability; it does indicate that there are more sources to be found. —Centrx→talk • 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I absolutely agree with your last sentence. I agree with your first sentence as long as it isn't qualified by the term "non-trivial." The middle sentence creates an article limbo, where evaluators would be put in the position of judging progress. --Kevin Murray 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • So you disagree that adding more sources to an article would be progress on the article? Every individual sentence of every comment does not need to find its way into the guideline. —Centrx→talk • 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
            • No I don't disagree, but I was concerned about setting up another subjective evaluation process, i.e., measuring progress to validate deletion. Concern is not opposition, and I'm anxious to find a middle ground where we can stabilize this guideline. --Kevin Murray 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with your first sentence as long as it isn't qualified by the term "non-trivial." — And that's one of the places where your error lies. A topic where there are multiple sources but none that are more than directory entries or incidental mentions can only ever result in an article that is either a directory entry or an original synthesis.

            Your other error lies in the second "way" mentioned above. Notability cannot be demonstrated by 1 source, because that only indicates that one person has considered the subject notable enough to create and publish a work of xyr own about it. One source is not enough. It isn't enough for journalists (who usually require at least three sources, it should be noted) and it isn't enough for encyclopaedists.

            And, as pointed out many times on this talk page, there has yet to be an example presented of where this bogus idea of 1 published work being enough is even needed. All examples presented by editors claiming that there is a need to water down the multiplicity requirement have turned out upon investigation to actually have been the subjects of multiple published works. Uncle G 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

How about putting Centrx thoughts into a footnote:

  • Note 1: There must exist more than one source about the topic, in order to fulfill the expectation of verifiability. However, this does not mean that every article must currently contain more than one source, though progress on that article would be obtaining more sources. One strong source in an article is a good indication of notability; it indicates that more sources probably exist.

If there are multiple sources for a topic but only one source for a particular page, the page with only one source cannot stand on its own. It should be merged into the topic's article, where its sole source can be presented in context. Having only one source is an excellent indicator not that something shouldn't be in Wikipedia, bu that it should be a section instead of a page. Anything that is going to have a page to itself has to have multiple sources. Tom Harrison Talk 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I see much validity to that statement, but I don't see it as an absolute solution in all cases. I would say that "if practical single source articles should be merged as sections of related articles where the topic has a broader scope." Or something like that. --Kevin Murray 18:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And that is saying what the text already said without before this recent attempt to modify the PNC began: An article that fails to satisfy the PNC should be merged into an article on a wider scope. No watering down of the multiplicity requirement is needed. There is no problem here that requires that the PNC be watered down, as has been repeatedly pointed out on this talk page to both of the two editors that are trying to do so, over a period of several months, now. Uncle G 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You say watered down, I say clarified. This has been continually rehashed without resolution. Your attempts to revert have been blocked for months now; why don't you work with us on a compromise and let's stabilize this guideline. Whether or not it was stable in the past is not relevant to the present. Clinging to past errors in the name of stability is futile. It seems that we've had a change of watch; many of us have joined the discussion because we saw the failure of prior policies and mean to redress them. --Kevin Murray 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, that it was stable in the past, before you started trying to change it, is quite revelant. We aren't clinging to past errors. We (and more than one editor has reverted you) are resisting your attempts to change a widely-employed, working, and useful formula of some years' standing, codified in several places, to something that is erroneous. Uncle G 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncle G, some of us are working toward a compromise but you just keep rolling back the changes to the same old failed policy. Your last edit wiped out both Tom and my efforts toward compromise. There are many opinions here and I think that some of us are trying to meet in the middle, but you are increasingly isolating yourself in the inflexible opposition. --Kevin Murray 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not a "failed policy". The claim that notability has failed, or that multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject has failed, is made by those that object to notability in toto. It is, however, false. The criterion as formulated here, for a fair while before you started to alter it, was in use long before this page ever even mentioned it. It's been around for years in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, as the footnote that you keep removing actually points out, and has been in widespread use. It is not I who is in isolation. Uncle G 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • G, the problem is that rather than working with the changes, you keep reverting back a lot of efforts to compromise toward your purpose; therefore, when we try to get back to the middle subtle issues such as footnotes get lost. I restored the footnote and hopefully have satisfied your concern about agreement among the bullet points. You seem to refer to me as the agent of change here, where I think that there is broad based support for the concept of a single-source establishing notability -- which differs from a single source for the content. You can work with me now and hopefully together we can keep this in the middle, or in a few hours all of our work will be reverted to the other extreme as my compromises have been before. --Kevin Murray 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to say that the longer this conversation goes on, the more sympathetic I am becoming to Uncle G's position. "Multiple sources" was the standard for a very long time and I don't know of any problems that were created by it. Do we in fact have an example of a clearly notable topic for which there is only one source? Because we have many examples of people already trying to bend the rules to define a "substantial single source" downward. "Multiple sources" are easy to measure - you just count them. "Single substantial sources" gets us into bickering over the definition of substantial. And I have to admit that even with all the footnotes and all the discussion here, I still don't know how to recognize a "substantial" source as different from any other non-trivial source. Rossami (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The underlying idea of multiple independent sources being necessary to support an article seems important and is pretty well established. It may be possible to adjust the wording to encourage merging over deletion, or to distinguish between pages and sections of pages, or between topics and material, but I think 'multiple independent sources' is going to have to appear. Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. If there were ever an unambiguously notable subject that was the subject of only one non-trivial independent source, we could undoubtedly decide to keep it, because there never has been a requirement to slavishly follow rules. That said, no such example has ever been cited. Several people have, however, commented about the potential problems that are created by implying that single sourcing is acceptable. I am sticking with "multiple" right up to the moment someone can give me a really compelling argument to support the idea that any meaningful number of articles on unambiguously significant subjects would be lost as a result. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Strawpoll at WT:AI

Just checking that everyone here is aware of the strawpoll currently going on as to whether WP:N should be replaced with WP:AI. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Article inclusion#Strawpoll. All editors are invited to comment. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up a second on the comments generated by the strawpoll over at WT:AI, there was a lot of constructive feedback. It looks like most of the editors that replied are recommending that we keep most of the text of WP:N in place, but change the name of the article to "article inclusion" and alter the wording to help avoid the confused notions of notability being "general fame" or "avoidance of trivia", etc. (Yes, I realize that WP:N talks about the differences, but the name change can help prevent people from misreading or misunderstanding the intentions of the policy.) There are also possibly some bits that can be taken from WP:INCLUSION and placed in WP:N.

I'll be taking a closer look next week at the comments and wording of the two documents, and will take a crack at constructing a second draft of WP:INCLUSION that will be closer to WP:N in format and post a link here on this talk page. That way people can examine the proposed revisions and comment on them here. (I think that process will work better than me posting about possible changes direcly on the talk page or making changes on the actual WP:N article page that someone might want to revert.) Either way, the bottom line is that both documents appear to have essentially the same primary criteria for inclusion - multiple independently published sources about the subject of the article. And they both present similar rationale for why that is recommended. Thus the changes are a matter of adjusting the guideline name and wording to try and reduce the incidence of misinterpretation of the principles of WP:N on afd and elsewhere. Dugwiki 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary notability criterion

The primary notability criterion is something which is now I think cited in ost of the guideliens, and is also often mentioned in debate. I have made a template, {{pnc}}, which will ensure that the wording used is consistent everywere, and when we change our minds on the wording, it is correctly reflected everywhere important. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Added an argument, so {{pnc|''foo''}} produces "A notable foo has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you stop forcing this? It's only cited because it was shoehorned, and it's still extremely controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly support what Guy has done in creating a template for consistency. Brilliant! However, the premise that there is no dissention is false and ignores the huge battle which was recently semi-resolved by compromise. The most recently stable form specifically included single sourcing and this seems widely supported. Yesterday's versions were an attempt to further compromise with the long standing position of Uncle G and Centrx, and I thought that we were making progress toward a neutral version. --Kevin Murray 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking back to late February, the single source validity has been acknowledged in this guideline except in periodic reversions mostly by Uncle G and Centrx, which were generally reverted very quickly by multiple editors. This concept is also recognized in the development of WP:AI, which is likely to either replace WP:N or be merged. To dispute this trend is simply denial. Please consider the compromise version as of this morning. Can we micro-tune rather than wholesale revert the hard work of several people yesterday. --Kevin Murray 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Based on recent reactions WP:AI is not exactly likely to replace WP:N. Other than that I have no particular opinion either way on this issue. >Radiant< 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I was unclear in what I said. It looks possible that the name "Article Inclusion" could replace the name "Notability." It does look like the group working on that project is avoiding the absolute "multiple." I think that the work on that project has taken eyes from this one. With that winding up and the new push for returning "multiple: to the central criterion, there is going to be mayhem here again. --Kevin Murray 15:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I do think we should say "multiple", or define specifically that single sources are very rarely acceptable. As it says, guidelines can be treated with the occasional exception, but it should be clear that an article with only a single secondary source should be accepted only in exceptional circumstances, not under normal ones. Also, it needs to be made clearer that subject-specific guidelines don't somehow "override" this one, or make an article acceptable in the absence of multiple non-trivial secondary sources, but are only guides as to when such sources are likely to exist. As to changing the title to article inclusion, I think that would be a great idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At one level the name does not matter too much: the notability guideline is an inclusion guideline, and whether we call it inclusion or notability is not really that important. The current WP:AI, however, seems to be little more than a POV fork, designed to quietly remove the "not a directory" parts of the notability guideline. Yes, Jeff, we know you don't like the fact that we routinely exclude directory entries, but I'm afraid the place to fix that is WP:NOT, not by pretending that there is no consensus behind notability. Far better to work this guideline into a wider inclusion guideline rather than set up a competing guideline and then remove this, which has been around for quite a while. As to the idea that a notabile subject might have a single source: I dispute it. We already have the Wikilawyers claiming that two is multiple, that is clearly against the spirit of the guideline and the long-standing consensus, going back to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, that we cannot verify the objectivity of an article unless there are sufficient sources to go on. Single sourcing? Convince me. Show me an unambiguously notable subject for which only one source exists. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not supporting single source articles. I am supporting the concept that an article's notability can be established by a single source, but that the article should provide information from other sources. There is a fine line difference between establishing notability and writing an article. --Kevin Murray 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned now that Guy is implying that two is not multiple; again a reason for clarification and correction of the "multiple" wording. --Kevin Murray 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not Jeff. I just happen to like "article inclusion" (the title, not the guideline itself) better. If we could move this guideline to that name, I think we'd be doing pretty well. I think notability can be confusing to a lot of people ("Half a million blogs commented on this internet fad, whaddya mean it's not notable???!!!"). As to single-sourcing, yes, you're right, that would be a very rare occurrence where such a thing would be acceptable (if ever), which is exactly why I advocated removing it. If someone thinks they've found an exception, they can argue to break the rule, just like anyone always can, but any such argument should be examined with a healthy dose of skepticism.
  • (EC reply to Kevin Murray) Generally, two is not enough, unless both are extremely detailed and unquestionably reliable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Recent objections are more of an educational one than a substantive one, reading the objections. Considering the rushed nature of the strawpoll, I wouldn't put much weight into it as of yet - the proposal's barely a month old and has enjoyed significant input and support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Addition - Crap Exist

I've never had to edit a guideline before - and I'm not really sure if there is a set standard for introducing and arguing for proposed changes, so I appologize in advance if ther is and I have not run parallel to that standard. I believe that another non-confirming note of notability would be if other articles exist that are just as bad (i.e. the classic -"You think this doesn't have sources! Well take a look at THIS!").While I can occasinally understand why some editors bring other articles up - frankly, they shouldn't - because if or if not an article passes the notability standard is completely independent of if or if not another article does - as one of the standards for notability is having multiple reliable sources talk about the article subject in question, and saying that another article exist on Wikipedia that is simmilar would be citing wikipeia as a source - which is not allowed. Is there any support/objections to the addition? If not (assuming no comments come in within, say 24-32 hours how bout?) I'd like to go ahead and add it to the page (don't worry - I'll phrase a lot better than I did here) as the frequency of which arguments like this are brought up is very high - and it'd be nice to cite something besides an essay in why that argument doesn't work.danielfolsom © 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My first question is whether this type of argument has been successful at AfD? Or is this just an annoyance? --Kevin Murray 19:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No it has def. not been successful.danielfolsom ©
Generally, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS gets shot down at AfD. "This other article needs to get deleted EVEN MORE!" is an argument to also list that article on AfD, not to keep the one in question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Notability is an attribute of topics, not articles, and is unrelated to arguments in AFD. I also oppose banning such arguments through policy for two reasons:
  1. Although we should discourage "bad" arguments, the inherent subjectivity of judging the goodness or badness of arguments precludes a policy ban against them.
  2. Such arguments are typicially discounted by closing admins, so it's not really a big issue. We should avoid instruction creep. -- Black Falcon 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is related to the arguments in an AFD - think about it. I could create one on this really cool teacher I have - but unless the teacher was notable, the article would be deleted. See: {{db-a7}} (importance = notability). And while this owuld concern arguments - it also concerns articles. Don't think that you can create X just because you saw Y.danielfolsom © 01:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge from Wikipedia:Notability (people)

The following text was removed from Wikipedia:Notability (people) and replaced with the {{pnc}} template. Some of the language in this version had value, in my opinion. I'd like to propose that parts of it may be useful as an expansion on the current wording of the template. In particular, the concept of independence seemed very helpful in certain difficult discussions. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
Note 6: Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

I'm with you on that. Check the latest version of the template which took the best parts of the WP:CORP preamble. I think I may have achieved your purpose with this --Kevin Murray 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC):

A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Such sources should be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source should be considered. Once notability is established, other verifiable and attributable sources can be used to add content.{{pnc}} version at 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with the "primary sources" in the text from BIO, which to me seems to advocate primary research. --Kevin Murray 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not sure, but the version substed above is good. Especially the bit about the sources being independent from each other. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed status tag

I removed the disputed status tag because the dispute is about the content, not about the status of the guideline. As far as I can tell there is no significant informed dissent from the view that there is some bar to inclusion, which we call notability. All disputes centre on how that is defined and the level at which we set it. Every day we delete articles for not asserting or not establishing notability. The vast majority of those deletions are completely uncontroversial. Check CAT:CSD any time. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That seems about the gist of it, yes. >Radiant< 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So, in other words, the tag should have been a section tag for the PNC, and not a full-on tag for the guideline. I disagree with your position on this, but if this is what you're claiming, you may have missed a step. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really, no. The "dispute" is restricted to a few hard-line inclusionists, as far as I can tell - most of the community has no problem with the idea that all articles should be able to draw on multiple reliable sources, whatever dispute we might have about what constitutes a reliable source for a given article. It's the basis on which most deleted articles seem to be deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The PNC is restricted to a few hard-line exclusionists, as far as I can tell - most of the community is not married to the idea that only "multiple, non-trivial" attention creates notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought the opposite of "inclusionist" was "deletionist". :) Walton Vivat Regina! 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] single/multiple source

Alright, I have an example: Beorn leggi. It is a species of invertebrate, of which there is a single fossil specimen, described in a single paper in 1964. As far as I can tell, it has not been the subject of any other source. (765 google hits, but again as I can tell all are either WP & its forks, or directory-type tertiary sources). Now, I am a born deletionist, and I think doing away with "multiple" raises lots of grunge band and other risks, but I can't bring myself to think that WP should not have this article. Thoughts? UnitedStatesian 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of topics which I remember from either AfD or article cleanup. In each case the article remained on WP.--Kevin Murray 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • General in the Egyptian Army 19th to 20th century – we saw minor mention in several sources which indicated notability, including a street in Cairo named for him, but only had one substantial source.
  • General in the US Army/Airforce - One substantial article in a book about WWII generals, but many references to postings for groups and facilities upon which he had influence.
  • Family of incestuous in-breeders which thrived in Nova Scotia for decades before being discovered by social services. Only one substantial source which was written by well respected writers, but trivially mentioned without much detail in many g-hits etc.
  • Yacht designer of America Cup winners – much mention of his designs throughout boating literature and the web, but only one solid independent biography online. Snipits here and there corroborating the biography.
  • Yacht manufacturing company – substantial discussion of the history of the company in a respected book on the history of sailboat manufacturing. Many minor references in articles which support the facts in the book.
  • African folk singer – substantial information and biography at a reputable online source. Definitely g-hits etc to support recognition. Lots of minor information to support the single strong source.
  • Playboy playmate of the month – is she notable automatically? Certainly not universal acceptance of this. But given that she is, the PB article is likely the only substantial source establishing notability.
In other cases, I'm sure articles have gotten deleted that should be kept.From the list Kevin gives, it sounds like some of those may need to stay, and others should have gone. It's really hard to offer any better evaluation without citing the specific sources. In the one specific case cited (the fossil), that looks to me like one of the few cases where one could argue an exception needs to be made to the rule. But the fact that exceptions do exist (they always do) don't invalidate the fact that the general rule should be in place. I'm sure I can find you plenty of articles that don't conform to WP:NPOV, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have NPOV, it just means we should get better at enforcing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
No; it's not correct to imply that Notability is on the level of NPOV. NPOV is a very important policy that all articles should follow, while many articles that should not be deleted do not pass "notability". NPOV should not have exceptions, while notability should and does. --NE2 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Beorn leggi is a good example of an article that doesn't satisfy the PNC, since it is not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, and that therefore should be merged, as per the section of these guidelines that describes how to deal with non-notable subjects (which all of the above editors seem to have forgotten, since they have all concentrated solely upon deletion), into an article with a broader scope that does satisfy the PNC. Looking at sources, especially the ones that imply that this one fossil specimen probably isn't actually a distinct family of tardigrades in the first place, makes it clear where it should be merged. Pages 96–97 of ISBN 0521821495, for example, give 1 sentence to Beorn leggi in a discussion of tartigrade fossils that is at the end of a section entitled "Tardigrada: The Water Bears". The sources deal with Beorn leggi as just one part of an overall discussion of tardigrade fossils, and therefore so too should Wikipedia.

The fact that limiting the scope of an article to solely Beorn leggi, and thus to the one source, excludes the sources that imply that there isn't in fact such a distinct family at all and excludes discussion of this one single fossil specimen in the context of the other fossil specimens that have been discovered, is a prime example of why one published work is not enough. Uncle G 12:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significance and quality of source

A question on the single-source issue: if only a single source is cited in a biographical article, would it make a difference if that source is:

  1. an obituary published in The Decatur Daily, local newspaper in Decatur, Alabama, or
  2. an obituary published in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society?

The Decatur Daily has (according to Wikipedia) an average daily circulation of 20,824. The Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society are almost certainly printed in fewer copies than The Decatur Daily but is probably more likely to remain on library shelves and still be regularly consulted by people outside its location of publication in a hundred years.

One could probably argue that the second obituary implies the existence of other sources, but that may not be obvious to everyone. For the sake of argument, let's say that, at least for the time being, the Royal Society obit is the only source actually cited in the article. Should this article on a fellow of the Royal Society still be deleted? Will it be deleted? Or will there still be a discussion where some people will say, "Hey, this guy was verifiably a Fellow of the Royal Society, which in itself demonstrates notability", and others will say "A fellow of what? Who cares? The article only cites a single source, so WP:N requires us to delete it"? Pharamond 05:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving my comment down to its own subsection, as the lack of indentation will make it disappear above Uncle G's comment (which did not directly address my question). Pharamond 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If an obituary is the only source that can be found after due diligence and investigation, then we definitely should delete the page regardless of who published the obituary. Obituaries are not written in an encyclopedic tone nor do they cover all the elements of a person's life which would be appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. A high-quality obituary can be a source but we will always need more in order to write a balanced and complete encyclopedia article.
Having said all that, I seriously doubt that we will ever be unable to find a second source for a Fellow of the Royal Society. Rossami (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] importance-s template

I just recently ran across the {{importance-s}} warning, and am a bit confused by it given WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article-content. Am I missing something? --Ronz 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary, General, Central or Main

We have a template pnc for primary notability criterion, which is displayed under the header General notability criterion at WP:N, and then is described as the central notability criterion. Should we fix that? --Kevin Murray 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It should read general. "Primary" is misleading language, central as well (although less so). --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Either central or primary works, but "general" will cause the same confusion about whether subject-specific guidelines "override" the PNC. "Primary" is the least ambiguous and confusing, and makes clear that subject-specific guidelines aside, all subjects must pass it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • No, WP:N is not overriding. This is a fallacy as explained in the past. "Primary" is an improper wording and that's an improper interpretation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, WP:N is overriding, because without satisfying the primary/central/whatever notability criterion, we cannot verify that the article is neutral and significant. Exactly the same requirement exists for any subject, to elevate it above the level of a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only is this not true, but this point of view does not have consensus across the subject-specific guidelines. You misunderstand how notability is judged. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't care less as long as we have continuity. It seemed that the least objection above was to central, but I goofed and changed it to general. Sorry Seraphim. Seraphim changed it to primary, to which I don't object, but I would suggest central aas a compromise with Jeff.

--Kevin Murray 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Primary does in fact imply that anything that does not meet it is non-notable, which is not true if "all topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia". --NE2 02:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If all topics are required to meet the same level of notability, then life at WP gets much simpler. --Kevin Murray 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, but that's unrealistic and untrue. This has been proven time and time again in discussion that's being soundly ignored. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Jeff the battle has been going on for months. WP:N is better for the efforts; it is time to find a middle ground and let things settle. It is time to bring the various aspects of the notability infrastructure together for continuity. If you are right you will be supported in the end. --Kevin Murray 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • yes, it has, and nothing has been resolved. How the hell can you talk compromise while forcing your version across the project without discussing it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • (EC)Actually, Jeff, the discussion above is pretty widely in support, and articles with insufficient sourcing are deleted all the time despite technically meeting a secondary guideline. We can't write without sources, no matter how much we'd like to or think X subject should be covered here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • There's no support for what's in {{pnc}}. That's what caused the problems to begin with, remember? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Your assumption that having sufficient sources is equivalent to meeting the "primary" notability criterion is false. --NE2 04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, has been actively sabotaging efforts to post the pnc template at all of the pertinent pages. I've reverted him probably to the point that I'll be getting some time off to read rather than write here at WP. But I think that good progress was made at WP today. --Kevin Murray 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • By your warring and forcing of will? I'm not sabotaging anything =- if you want to make a big change to a guideline, you seek consensus first, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion above nicely highlights why I don't understand Wikipedia's irrational aversion to voting. Clearly no one can even agree on where the "consensus" actually lies, or even if there is a "consensus". Personally, I will never understand why we can't just approve or reject policy changes by voting on them. Sockpuppetry is unlikely to be an issue, unlike at AfD; those commenting on policy talk pages tend to be established editors, and I think we're all too mature to try vote-stacking; anyway, a sockpuppet here would be spotted a mile off. So if it were up to me, we'd have a simple, binding poll to determine what the majority of Wikipedians actually want. However, I realise this isn't going to happen. Just me complaining. :) Walton Vivat Regina! 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Walton, I think that you should be bold and try to form a poll. I too am perplexed by the aversion to "voting" at WP. I am not advocating that a straight number count be used to evaluate a poll, but a process similar to XfD seems practical. The typical rambling debates are generally fruitless. --Kevin Murray 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say genral - primary implies that there are a bunch of other ones - and this is the most important, but general implies - most of the time this is the case - which is best suited for the page.danielfolsom ©

Good point. I'd agree that most of the time, the criterion is applicable to all articles, hence "general"; however, in certain specific cases other criteria from the subject-specific guidelines may be applied instead. To be honest, though, I think some of the subject-specific guidelines ought to be scrapped; WP:PORNBIO, for instance, should be merged back into WP:BIO, as the current situation gives us lower inclusion standards for pornstars than for anyone else, which is plainly ridiculous. Basically, almost every article should be judged according to the "multiple non-trivial coverage" test; I can't think of very many exceptions to this, except maybe geographical locations (but then again, I think we have too many articles on those, especially roads). To be honest (sorry about the rambling comment), it doesn't matter whether we call it the "primary" or "general" criterion, as long as we make it clear that it's the main one which should be used in most cases. Walton Vivat Regina! 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Walton...I think you may have just come up entirely accidentally with our solution. What would be wrong with "main notability criterion?" I think that's less confusing, while still fully establishing it as primary and overriding. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:pnc

I have directed discussion of changes to that template to this page. Unsurprisingly it has already been edited once to include the preferred text of those who favour widespread single sourcing. That (rather than the idea of multiple sources) is controversial and needs consensus before the text is changed. I remain of te view that single-sourced articles are likely to be a very rare exception, unless we foolishly change the guideline to encourage them, in which case we will be unable to rid the encyclopaedia of vast swathes of band vanity articles and other such crap. It is far far harer to persuade two places to cover you independently than to get one story placed in one paper. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I share your concern over gargaege bands and vanity spam. However, I think that there are better ways to combat this. Please read my comment in the last section, which more clarifies my position. --Kevin Murray 15:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Single sourcing? How did that idea get any momentum, multiple sources are the way to go. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree, but according to Kevin that represents "POV by a minority" [2]. Seems the minority at WP:AI is suddenly the minority throughout the project, despite the obvious fact that WP:AI is a POV fork of this guideline by people who want ot be able to include more articles which lack multiple non-trivial sources :-) Guy (Help!) 16:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I think that you are over simplifying the opposition to your position. Not all people who oppose your point of view are of the same POV fork etc. I oppose WP:AI in concept and name. I prefer notability and generally support this becoming a reasonable and strong guideline, with the hope of stemming the tide of WP:CREEP. However, I think that rigid inflexibility will only reopen the wound and bring on a return of the early March battle. --Kevin Murray 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the template is a great idea, but you are trying to do to much too soon. Please read back through the February and March discussion and history to see the objections to the inclusion of "multiple" in the PNC. Yes, there has been more opposition than support in the last 24 hours, but prior to that the consensus has been to ommit the word "multiple." --Kevin Murray 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And you read back through all the archives, and also see User:Uncle G/On notability. The whole point is that there are multiple sources. That's how we know it's notable, not a directory entry, neutral, verifiable and not original research. Far, far more pain accrues to encouraging single-sourced articles than would ever accrue to requiring multiple sources, especially since we can make an exception any time we want. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have read back through all of this. What is past is past. This is today. The reason why people are rebelling against this failed policy is that it is applied inflexibly by zealots at AfD. The roots and evolution of failure are irrelevant to progress toward a superior policy in a dynamic environment. --Kevin Murray 16:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The minority posistion is yours, Kevin. To write an encyclopedia article, and assure its notable, one must have multiple, nontrivial sources. Plain and simple. The idea that you could back-door this in is just laughable. -Mask? 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Mask, this is not new. Please don't accuse me of back-dooring something that has been present in the guideline for over a month and is just now becoming an issue again. I may be on the wrong side of the eventual conclusion, but I am supporting the recent status quo. To imply otherwise is deceitful. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 16:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems that most times the "multiple" criterion has been removed, it's been you doing the removing, Kevin. It also seems, from this discussion, that whatever your perception might be, there is no evident consensus for weakening the requirement at this time. Multiple is alreayd being used by wikilawyers to assert that two sources means we MUST keep, reducing this to one would be a Very Bad Idea (TM). Guy (Help!) 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a blatent falsehood! Smokey Joe, Black Falcon, Dalzula, Badly Drawn Jeff, and other people have worked on editing away from the multiple wording; this reflected the consensus of multiple straw polls. Albeit, in the last 24 hours I've been soley trying to come up with something short of what has been in place in an effort for compromise. If the concept of multiple becomes a demonstrable consensus then I will support it. --Kevin Murray 16:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems you have it devloping here and over at WP:ANI under "Sourcing". I look forward to your next statement of support here. -Mask? 17:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Jeff's best friend would accuse him of being anywhere close to the consensus position on notability. The list of editors you cite is very small. The list of editors and admins who use - daily - a requirement for multiple sources in considering inclusion of articles is very large. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
i think I'm closer than the PNC crowd, honestly. The PNC crowd, after all, hasn't bothered talking to anyone other than themselves here. Keep in mind, just to use a recent example, you did think that Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon wasn't worth having around recently. I'm very puzzled by your criteria, at least mine is clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If I may offer my own interpretation of the history. Apologies if I don't have all my dates exactly right.
The standing criterion was "multiple" for a rather long time. Early this year, a change to the standard was proposed to allow single sourcing if the single source was "substantial". Many people were unaware of the change as it was being discussed and some who did read the discussion thought that it might be a worthwhile experiment (even if they did not comment in the discussions at the time).
Now the community has had some experience with the new standard. As a result of seeing the standard in use and seeing the inevitable wikilawyering that any change to this page creates, more people are aware of the change. Several of those people are reporting that the change has had negative consequences.
No one is disputing that the prior discussions took place nor is anyone seriously suggesting that those discussions were in bad faith. But consensus can change - and often does change as more people become aware of the discussion or as the consequences of the decision become clearer. In my personal opinion, we have enough evidence now to show that the "multiple" standard was on the whole better for the project. But this new discussion will determine the community's will on this point. Rossami (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing the recent change in attitude as Rossami has clarified it; however, I think that a few of us have turned a blind eye to the consensus of MArch 2007. But, what appeared to be just a couple of people yesterday advocating "multiple" is a more demonstrable consensus today. However, there can be no dispute that a month ago there was a great deal of dissatisfaction being expressed about these guidelines. Regardless of the "multiple" position, I think that these are better crtiteria today than they were two months ago -- much clearer.

My concern over multiple is based on experience as a writer and participant at AfD, where I think that notability can be established by one strong source accompanied by several lesser ones -- but I do see the risks from the lawyering element. After reading through the history and listening to the various positions, I would prefer to redress my concerns elsewhere. However, I think that there should be a precise minimum stated such that we don't see arguments that two is not multiple etc.

We are involved in the most important project on the internet today. Protecting it from spam and other garbage is critical. However, the beauty of this project is the variety of topics and the collaboration of such a diversified group. Over censorship can spoil the product as much as a lack of quality control. --Kevin Murray 18:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That's rhetoric, the practicality is that by long-standing consensus we require multiple non-trivial sources for an article in order to satisfy ourselves in respect of core policy: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT a directory. You have yet to give a single credible example of an unambiguously significant subject that has only one source. Right now rules-lawyers are insisting that their band vanity article must be kept because there are two sources, and two is "multiple". You can make some progress in this argument by citing that elusive thing, the obviously significant subject which nonetheless has only one source. Until I've seen that there is a problem of good articles being lost due to only having one source, I'm not going to watch the guideline change to something that will encourage the pushers of invisible bands and other crap. I venture to suggest that the only reason only a few people challenged the single sourcing during the period it was in-and-out was because we didn't know about it; if anyone had noted at the admin noticeboard that such a change was being made you'd have seen a bit more input (although probably not to your liking). People have been actively quoting the multiple non-trivial requirement over most of that time, and it's been accepted both by other editors and by admins closing deletion debates and reviews. Consensus is not measured by the half-dozen people who turn up to a talk page, it's measured by canonical policy and what goes on day by day in the project. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Guy, you and I are both completely substantially in some parts full of shit! On the non-trivial issues --Kevin Murray 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So you say. But that might just be an evasion, because I note that you haven't yet cited the unambiguously significant subject which has only one source. We await your answer with baited breath. While we wait, we can check the recent histories of AfD and DRV to see just how often the terms multiple non-trivial sources are used - it looks like rather a lot to me. Like I say, consensus is measured by canonical policy and what actually happens day in day out, not by a half-dozen people on a talk page. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, I apologize and I've corrected myself above. You have a valid point that significant examples have not been provided. As we are not talking about clear cut cases, which seldom see AfD, the issue is over marginal cases. I am not going to call attention to the articles where my concerns developed so that they can become test cases for deletionists to disprove my concern. On another point when people start talking "canonical policy" this starts sounding like we are developing a dogma and someone might be running for Pope, or worshipping false gods. It also sounds like the admins with clearer vision are elevating themselves above we mortals. Which comes first the chicken or the egg? If the guideline states "multiple non-trivial" it's pretty likely that those words will be used at AfD; where is the logic in that validating your position. Regardless, I was trying to back away gracefully a few lines above, before you started spouting the party line. So let's agree to disagree. If no significant opposition arises, I'll concede defeat and move forward to support the consensus. But I would like to see some clarity of what "multiple" really means. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Multiple" depends on the situation. If two whole books have been written on a subject, both of which are widely accepted as authoritative and reliable, that's unquestionably multiple non-trivial sources. Two newspaper articles, maybe or maybe not, depends on how substantive and in-depth they are and what kind of an article can be supported by them. Two name-drops in a couple of papers with little or no additional information, definitely not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, that's clear as mud. You've set up an example set so broad that we can drive a train through it sideways. --Kevin Murray 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, what I'm attempting to say (apparently not too well) is that we need to look at the depth and quality of sourcing, and what kind of article can be supported by it. If the independent sources available go into significant depth and detail, and are widely regarded as thorough and reliable, two of them might very well be enough. With "news" type sources, probably a lot more are required, as newspaper and magazine articles don't tend to go into nearly as much depth as scholarly reports or books. Also, a lot of the time news sources effectively reprint one another, caution is necessary to ensure that the real source behind "30 newspaper articles" isn't really one story that 29 others got from AP or Reuters. However, sometimes, newspaper and magazine coverage is extensive enough on its own over a period of time to support an article. Finally, there are sources which are technically independent but print very little information (just mentioning the subject's name; provide directory-style information or raw statistics; short newspaper "blurbs" or human-interest pieces, and the like.) These are never acceptable except as supplements when more substantial sourcing also exists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm much too long in the tooth to give much of a damn about being told I'm full of shit - which I often am - but in this case I don't think that's a fair criticism. I am serious here - if you go and look at the deletion debates going on right now you will see many cases where editors, long-standing editors, are asking for multiple non-trivial independent sources. And the reason is, as described in User:Uncle G/On notability and elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, verifiably neutral, not original research, and not a mere directory entry. Unless you have several independent sources I just don't see how we, the generally non-expert editing community, can have any realistic chance of satisfying ourselves that those policies are met. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, me too and perhaps with longer teeth. I amended my FOS comment above. Clearly this issue has been overstressed and I'd like to put it to bed for now. It really may be much ado about very little. The more important task in my mind is to fine-tune your excellent template idea to provide continuity among the notability permutations. --Kevin Murray 20:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's consider an almost-real example. I am imagining a writer writing a biography of an individual who is not particularly notable himself, but because he is a representative member of a highly notable group. One example I could find is in our article on Miguel Barnet, who wrote about Esteban Montejo, not because Montejo is particularly interesting himself, but because Barnet wanted to write a biography of a slave; he would, no doubt, have written a similarly interesting biography of another former slave, he just happened to find this one. This is clearly a very important, single, source about Esteban Montejo, but note that his name is a red link. It's only an almost-real example, since I can't guarantee no one else has ever written about Montejo, but I certainly haven't found many, so let's pretend this is the only one. I found lots of peopel writing about the book, but nothing about Montejo without the book. If this really is the only non-trivial source, should we have an article about EM? Or only about the author and the book? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if the subject is known only because of the book, then the book is the logical place to cover the subject. A redirect would, of course, be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That's crazy, quite bluntly. There's absplutely no logic in a redirect, and our lack of coverage of Barnet is detrimental to the project currently. Please cease adding these to the individual criteria withouut discussing them there first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Jeff, but Guy's right. If the only knowledge we have about Montejo is based on a single biography, then we have no ability to confirm or refute the assertions of the book so we have no way to know that our article is balanced, neutral, accurate, etc. On the other hand, this example does turn up multiple sources about the book and details from the book could be appropriate to include in the article. In doing so, the reader automatically knows how to weight the content and assertions made by the author. Trying to write a "biography" article based on the one source, however, would force us to write all kinds of clumsy qualifiers in the biography about the lack of confirmability of the source information, qualifications of the source, etc. In this scenario, it makes perfect sense to me that any content about Montejo would be at the book's title.
A redirect is appropriate because it is an aid to readers, pointing them to the right place to learn about the subject. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. "Clumsy qualifiers" may be necessary, but are not a bad thing in making sure our breadth of coverage is proper. People looking for information on Barnet are not interested in information on the book only. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, please re-read the scenario. This isn't a question about Miguel Barnet, the author. It's a question about Esteban Montejo, a character in one of Barnet's books. Rossami (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my swapping of the names. The point still applies - people looking for information on Montejo are not interested in information on the book only. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Guy's quite right, and that often applies to fiction as well. Generally, unless characters have been covered by sources independent of the work or series of works they appear in, they should redirect to that work. In this case, if the only source of information on Montejo is that book, we well-serve our readers by directing them to that book and making them aware of that. We can give a brief, encyclopedic treatment of what the book says in the article, and if people want more in-depth coverage, an easy solution exists-go read the book! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with Guy on this one - it's nosnensical. Nothing is more infuriating to a researcher to be lead down a road that doesn't have any actual information on what you're looking for, or nothing of worth. No one looking for information on Montejo wants to read information on the book - if the article on Montejo says that all the available information comes from the book, that's infinitely more useful and proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analyzing the status quo at the various sub-guidelines

The following section shows the current status or last status before the introduction of the pnc template, for purposes of easy comparison. There are three categories: (1) inclusion of virtually the same language as the template, (2) inclusion of the early March version of the general criterion, or (3) no attempt at including the general criterion --Kevin Murray 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: BIO and ORG substantially contained the same generation of the general criterion, with text which I proposed in both places to be consistent with the early March protected version of WP:N as written by Smokey Joe – the goal was continuity.

WP:BIO A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

WP:ORG A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

NOTE: The following three sub-guidelines virtually restate the general criterion, and working in the template would not be a change in policy, but rather just reorganization of the paragraph structure.

WP:WEB Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on attribution to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on the following criteria. 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

WP:BK The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

WP:MUSIC A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: • It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

NOTE: The following three sub-guidelines do not restate the general criterion in any form:

WP:PORN Does not have a similar statement.

WP:FICT & WP:NUMBER These seem to be a different nature of guideline where inclusion of the template may not apply. Neither now includes a similar statement

One quick note - the wording at WP:MUSIC does not seem to match the discussion about the wording on the talk page. Furthermore, your "following three" do not elevate the so-called "primary" criterion above any other criterion for notability. That's important to note. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I should note that most of these "sub-guidelines" do not in fact derive from this page, but predate it. Hence it does not follow that a change made here must therefore be propagated to those other pages. >Radiant< 09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
WP remains dynamic in the early stages of evolution; it is premature to claim precedence based on age. In the evolution of societies, local laws generally predated national laws, but rarely do they now command primacy. Promoting continuity is a stride away from anarchy. --Kevin Murray 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And neither did I suggest that. That would be the other extreme, I'm in favor of neither. >Radiant< 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How are continuity and a logical hierarchy extreme? --Kevin Murray 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Very funny. You know that what I advocate is fewer rules, along with continuity among those which remain. --Kevin Murray 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Asserting" notability

OK, how does someone "assert" the notability of an article he just added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimBurnell (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Two or more

OK, two competing versions:

  • A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple published works.

and

  • A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works.

Now, I have a problem with the latter. "Two or more" is an open invitation to rules lawyers. It means they will claim a subject must be kept if there are two sources, regardless of triviality. Actually the later more nuanced text The depth of coverage of the subject by the source should be considered in determining the number of sources needed sums up perfectly how the judgeent should be made. Why use "two or more" when we then go on to say that the number is actually determined by their quality and depth? It makes no sense to me. A book with ten reviews, jolly good. A book with one review and an extensive critique in the Times Literary Supplement, also good. A book with two reviews? Not so good. Probably not actually notable if neither is more than a short paragraph. But a short one-para review may be argued not to be trivial. And perhaps it isn't, if the reviewer is a nationally renowned book critic, or the review is in the Booker shortlist press release. So: adding numbers encourages rules-lawyering and sicourages what we actually want (including Jeff, I think) whihc is a proper critical appraisal of the depth and breadth of coverage. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with both - it misunderstands notability. "Two or more" is probably the worst of the bunch, as it assumes too much. "Subject of non-trivial" is poor because "subject" is so specific and ill-defined that otherwise notable things get left in the dark. Something that recieved good support was "sufficient independent sourcing" - either sufficient enough to sustain an article, or sufficient enough to establish notability, I can stomach either, but it comes closer to defining what notability really is.
At the end of the day, however, what we have is not supported by the community at large, and certainly not as an overbearing definition among all of the longer-standing guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll let you finish before commenting further, but there are not only two competing versions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, yes, I forgot:
  • A topic is notable if it is all over YTMND, because Wikipiedia ought to be Google andinclude every type and variety of crap off teh internets even if all the sourecs are shit.  :0) Guy (Help!) 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to be serious about this, I'd appreciate the same. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, though, I think that is a valid point. In some rare cases, one in-depth source may be enough. In most cases, two good, reliable, in-depth sources would be. Two one-column newspaper articles, probably insufficient. Two reliable full-length books on the subject, definitely sufficient. Two books which are primarily about other subjects but devote several chapters to the subject in question, probably still sufficient. Two (or ten, or fifty, or a thousand) name-drops in other sources, with little or no additional information given, definitely not enough. It really is about evaluating the quality, reliability, and depth of sourcing, not just the number. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is why the depth, and not the number, is important. "Two," "multiple," "non-trivial?" They all lend themselves to the wrong questions, and fail to address the situation it's trying to solve. With the logic behind it, if a book is written about something, and the book makes the bestseller list (reaching hundreds of thousands of readers), but no one else writes about the subject, it's still not notable. That's stupid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, in that case, it may indeed be so. We can write about the book, as almost certainly other sources will have commented on it, but it would be a rare case that a single source would be acceptable, and popularity of the source holds no bearing. If that source is widely accepted as being an in-depth, balanced, and comprehensive work on the subject, very possibly. (In any case, such an occurrence usually leads to "me-too" coverage in things like newspapers and magazines, so the situation you're describing would be exceedingly rare). In rare exceptions, we can ignore the rules. But guidelines should reflect common scenarios, and in almost all scenarios, single-source articles aren't acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before, I'll say it again, for notability, none of this is true. In terms of notability, a single source is absolutely acceptable in many cases because of what the source entails. A two paragraph obituary? No. A feature-length cover story in a magazine? Undoubtedly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, you seem to be under the impression that our policies and guidelines work in isolation, or you're deliberately attempting to lawyer. If an article is unacceptable (whether that's because single-sourcing makes most things POV or whether it's because that doesn't establish notability or whether it's because WP:OFFICE said Do not write an article on this), it's unacceptable, and our guidelines should reflect that widely and in general. It would be confusing and counterproductive to do anything else. It's not at all productive to argue over "Well, it might be notable, even if it's not acceptable for other reasons." It's acceptable or it's not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Or it could be neither - that both concepts (notability and verifiability) are separate, but work together is where I'm coming from. Our notability guidelines should reflect what makes something notable. If you want to compromise and make it about sources, then make it logically about sources - the amount necessary to establish either an article, or notability, or what have you. The "amount" is not an arbitrary number, but rather the quality of what's available. I don't know why this is so difficult. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, which is why I support "multiple". The guidelines should reflect the normal situation. (Since you like not to use IAR, note that even the guideline tag says guidelines can be given the occasional exception). But we should make it clear that a single-source article being acceptable would be an exceptional circumstance, not a normal one, and that under almost all circumstances, multiple sources are required. From there, we do already clarify that the depth and quality of sourcing is the next thing to look at (though I'd prefer to clarify that as well, my suggestion was that enough secondary sourcing must exist to bring the article to GA or FA standard.) My main objection to "sufficient" was that it's meaningless on its own. Sufficient to write a sentence? Sufficient to write a book? Somewhere in between? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you support multiple, you're not supporting anything about quality, but simply attaching an arbitrary number that answers no questions. A single-source article isn't all that exceptional, it's simply rare, and we don't need to highlight that. Want to define "sufficient?" Good, that's a good discussion to have, but not in the context of multiple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I see your point but I don't think the Wikilawyers will be any more (or less) detered by either wording. "Multiple" or "two or more" will be interpreted by most people as synonymous. In both cases, any number should be weighted by the depth and quality of coverage. Personally, I don't see a difference. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to stop "wikilawyering," stop a) trying to make an overriding guideline, and b) stop trying to attach specifics. Quality, not quantity, will "fix" it in the interim. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufficiency

Jeff brought up that what is sufficient is important, and I agree, so here would be my definition.

Sufficient source material exists to justify an article on a subject provided that the following conditions are met.

  • The sources are sufficient to write a neutral article on the subject, and to give due weight to all viewpoints.
  • The sources available are independent of the article's subject, unbiased, and meet the other criteria for reliablity.
  • The amount of source material available would be sufficient to eventually write an article meeting the good article and/or featured article specifications, provided that primary sources are relied on only for limited amounts of supplemental information. (Subjects with some source material available but not enough for an eventual good or featured article may be appropriate to cover under an article on a related or parent topic.)

What would you write as a definition of sufficient? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would mostly accept this wording as a compromise, although I still think sufficient to establish notability is as far as a guideline on notability should go. The GA/FA requirement, however, is not good, and is unrealistic, especially given the arbitrary limitations that go beyond what WP:RS/WP:V look for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if this didn't go beyond what WP:RS/WP:V (or WP:ATT, everyone seems to have a different preferred flavor there) want, this would be pure WP:CREEP-we could just have those. It is verifiable that I exist, through perfectly reliable sources (such as government records.) Yet I think you and I both would agree it would be inappropriate for me to write an article on myself given only that (or, COI aside, for someone else to do so). It's verifiable that my Sourceforge project exists (you can go to Sourceforge and see it, you can even look at the code for yourself, you don't get much more verifiable than that!) Yet, again, I think you'd see pretty clear consensus an article on that would be inappropriate, even if not written by me. We do need something beyond RS and V, or we wind up with a directory. What we're considering here, in addition to RS and V, is NOT. Since we're not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory, "Can we have an article on this subject that lives up to our best standards?" seems a pretty good way of being discriminating. As to "sufficient to establish notability", that's circular-basically that's saying "A subject is notable if it's notable." Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This differs from being "creep"-y (not that anyone should care if it is if it's good) when it tries to define what's notable beyond what's verifiable. As whether an article can be made a GA/FA with "limited amounts" of primary source material is very "creep"-y and, in fact, is contrary to existing policy and guidelines. That's why it should be removed outright. If only primary sources exist, no one's saying an article should be kept. I'll even go as far to say that it's acceptable to say that if only non-independent primary sources exist, it probably shouldn't be kept (although I disagree). But to put that sort of limitation on how an article is structured? That's poor guideline formation, and doesn't mesh with how articles are built and what's considered acceptable sourcing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by both sides here. Most of the GA criteria deal with the article being well-written and properly formatted. Those criteria can be met with practically any amount of verifiable material, no matter how small. The only criteria that seemingly pertain to depth of coverage are 1) the article must be NPOV, fairly presenting all significant points of view, and 2) the article must be broad enough to cover all "major aspects" of the subject. As I see it, linking source material criteria to the GA criteria is basically circular. How much available source material do you need? Enough to write a GA. What do you need to cover in a GA? "Significant points of view" and "major aspects." How do you know what "major aspects" and "significant points of view" are? You have available source material that says so. Arguably, the less available source material you have, the easier it is to make the article comply with the GA criterion of stability (you quickly reach a point where there's nothing more to be said). What am I missing here? How does referring to the GA criteria really provide any guidance about how much source material should be available? PubliusFL 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't. That's the crux of the issue. SB (and s/he'll correct me if I'm misstating this) believes that the quality of the source material should be sufficient enough to create a GA-quality article, while I think (and you agree?) that whether the information can be formed into a GA-quality article isn't relevant to this. ---badlydrawnjeff talk 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I may agree with you, I'm just not quite sure what the point is yet. :) I just don't see that talking about an "amount of source material . . . sufficient to eventually write an article meeting the good article . . . specifications" is actually saying anything, because the good article specifications don't require any particular amount of information. PubliusFL 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Then our confusion may be mutual - it's my position that the ability to write a GA/FA level article has nothing to do with notability, anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, GA does have some criteria relevant here, especially that "it is broad in its coverage." A one- or two-paragraph stub (even if that is all that can be written, and covers all points) is not broad in its coverage (and if no more material is available, cannot be). On the other hand, some shorter articles potentially could be, and that's alright! GA was specifically designed for articles that might not have wide-ranging enough coverage for an FA, but can still be reasonably comprehensive and thorough. On the other hand, if you're looking at an article that's very short, and say to yourself "There's really nothing more that can be said here without original research, but there is some source material," that's a good indication you're looking at a great merge candidate. And once enough merging and consolidation takes place, the parent article can get to GA or FA! Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
(Also, as above, I'm trying to drop the "notability" issue, and speak to the broader topic of "When should we or should we not have an article on something?" The answer to that may have nothing to do with notability at all.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A one or two paragraph stub can be comprehensive. I know you're against the idea of "permastubs," but this is a solid truth. Otherwise, I think if you think it's alright, we should remove the GA thing to discourage focusing on the parts that matter least, and we're generally on the same page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Without that, I'm unsure what this would accomplish at all. If anything, that might let in more garage bands and three-sentence stubs, which is kind of not the idea here. I think what we need is a shift from quantity of articles to quality. Most of what I'm suggesting would involve merging rather than deletion, so that should mainly satisfy even inclusionists-nothing's lost, just moved. If we can have one good, comprehensive FA rather than five stubs, with nothing lost at all, that sounds well-worth it to me! Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think it would open any floodgates further - as it stands now, I don't think this would benefit inclusionism as a whole - it would reduce overall what could count as a source as it redefines what is worthwhile, while allowing other sources that may not fit this criterion. It certainly isn't going to help Johnny's Bar Band. As for stubs, why are we trying to dictate that here? At worst, it's an editorial situation and not one we should be governing via notability. I still think 5 good articles on 5 subjects is better than one where a reader is having to sift through information they're uninterested in, but that's exactly why we shouldn't be discussing it in this context - what's proper for one set of articles isn't for another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive compromise

I'm happy to see Jeff joining in by proposing new wording for the template. Maybe we can embrace his spirit and not revert him. Why don't we start with what he proposed, which looks to be what was at WP:N for most of March and the beginning of April. If it's not the right choice, let's not revert, but take baby-steps toward compromise. I think that having the continuity of the template is more important than getting the wording perfect right off the bat. We are dynamic so there is little risk to being flexible. --Kevin Murray 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can stop with the condescending nature of your comments toward me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff don't worry about condesending behavior from me. If I'm pissing on you your leg will feel wet. This is a genuine expression of appreciation; perhaps a new feeling for you. --Kevin Murray 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I need to change my pants. I'm asking you firmly to stop, this is my last comment here on the matter. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Last comment? Really? That would be refreshing. Cheers and here's to better times. --Kevin Murray 23:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As a friend of both parties, I would like to suggest that everybody in this discussion (including me) limits her/himself to 2 comments per day.DGG 00:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sage advice. I feel that contributors more adept than I at achieving compromise are now involved here. I'm really excited about Tom Harrison's latest version of the PNC template. I'd sure like to see as many people as we can get involved join the team. --Kevin Murray 01:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure that's a great idea. We don't necessarily get to a solution by talking less, and actually, there just might be a compromise solution forming here. (Or at least, if there's something Jeff and I have already largely agreed on, it's got to have a pretty decent chance of being accepted!) Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors)

People might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). This seems to be way out of line with other notability criteria. Question 1 is whether we need a separate standard which makes it easier for porn actors to qualify for articles than for other actors, and question 2 is whether the standards here are consistent with WP:N and WP:BIO. --Kevin Murray 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1) We do, because of the lack of mainstream attention given to porn stars notable in their profession. 2) Consistency with WP:BIO is irrelevant. 3) WP:N is under a lot of flux right now, and a number of us are working to replace it entirely with WP:AI, so please consider that as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If there are no good sources on which to base an article, then there can be no good article on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say, though, that I think the general criteria of WP:INCLUSION should apply. That is, there still should preferably be more than one independent reliable source published over time on which to rely for information about a particular person. Jeff above is probably correct that it is more difficult to find good sources about these people, but that just means we should think twice before writing an article about them which, because it is either unsourced or single sourced, has a high risk of unreliable or biased information. Dugwiki 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with Jeff, and would advocate the abolition of WP:PORNBIO. WP:BIO is adequate for this purpose. We shouldn't have articles on every porn star who is notable in their profession, any more than we should have articles on every garden-gnome painter who is notable "in their profession". Notability is a general standard that should apply equally to all biographical articles. A porn star only merits an article if she (or he) is notable outside the porn industry. Why should this industry be treated differently from any other? Walton Vivat Regina! 10:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out if I agree with you or not; but, as far as treating porn actors differently from others, we should not do it. PORNBIO is a bad idea, because it is non-NPOV (pornography is not always so easily defined; in some countries, what qualifies as pornography is freely sold by Amazon.com in others).
Now, by "notable outside the porn industry", are you also suggesting that baseball players must be notable outside of baseball, or astronauts must be notable outside of astronautics? I can't make any sense of that comment. Generally, notability comes from within one's profession/acumen. Neier 11:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, let me get this straight. You are saying that because porn actors are harder to establish Notability for in the conventional BIO sense you think that they should have seperate looser rules to facilitate inclusion? NeoFreak 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. I'm saying that notability for pornography folks is done differently than for your typical mainstream person - higher use of pseudonyms, typical lack of mainstream attention, etc. PORNBIO probably raises the inclusion bar for porn stars and their ilk - in terms of "reliable sources" for the subject matter, nearly anyone who starred in a movie would meet this criterion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't mainstream attention what notability is really all about in the end? Since the pornography industry is so self contained and cyclicly self-promotional you can establish notability for almost anyone within the porn industry with the current criteria. If they've done alot of work their "well known" or "prolific" and is they haven;t done alot of work then they're notable or prolific "within a specific genre niche" (criteria 4). In the end though working alot isn't a sign of notability. I'm just not sure that we should be holding pornographic actors to a different standard for biographical notability. Pornographic media is not mainstream and unless a pornographic actor has been covered in the mainstream I don't know why we would want to try and give them their own special inter-industry notability criteria. NeoFreak 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, mainstream attention has nothing to do with notability. Mainstream attention is a factor, but hardly the only factor. If something's notable within a given subject, we should be weighing it on those merits, not what the mainstream decides is popular or important. I've covered this in detail elsehwere on this page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Notability is not subjective and the only way to establish Notability is through reliable sources which are not contextual or genre specific. NeoFreak 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, none of that is true. Notability is inherently subjective, and is established by any number of things depending on what's going on. I honestly don't want to get into a circular argument on this when it's been repeated ad nauseum (and that's not a knock on you, it's just not a discussion I'm on board with anymore), but the perception that notability is somehow an objective measure is not sensible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to derail this totally but I think you might just have an issue with Notability being a guidline period. Am I wrong? I mean any policy or offical guidline that is subjective isn't a policy or guildline at all, its a toothless recommendation. NeoFreak 03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
With WP:N itself? Undoubtedly, this should have never been promoted in this position. Individual subjects? No problem at all, they handle it better. My hope is that the project matures enough where we don't need notability anymore, but that day is far off. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That really doesn't leave alot of room for discussion on what is or is not accetable in the Notability guidlines then. :) NeoFreak 03:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it leaves plenty of room in the individual subject guidelines. *shrug* --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
NeoFreak, when you say notability is not subjective, are you saying that the Notability guidelines can be applied mechanically? The "notability is not subjective" clause is the one thing that bothered me in the new version, but I thought the text supporting it was rather innocuous. I was afraid someone might draw the wrong conclusion, however. If you don't think notability is subjective, have a look at AfD where deletionists routinely dismiss otherwise reliable sources as "fluff" or "trivial" to support deletion. Dhaluza 10:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) has in the past been a "get-out clause" for those article subjects that simply don't satisfy our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Its long-term use in AFD has almost always been against the argument that the person doesn't satisfy our criteria for biographies, and in support of allowing biographical articles to exist that are sourced to the wholly fabricated biographies (usually made up by sub-editors and the like, and usually to suit their target market) that appear next to the picture sets in the magazines and on the web sites: "No, we cannot provide a reliable source where this person has actually been documented. Yes, this list of pseudonyms that this person goes under is the product of our own original research, from comparing two photosets and deducing that it is the same person. Yes, the reason that this person uses pseudonyms in the first place is because xe wants not to have information about xem known to the public. No, there's no way to have an article that will be anything more than a fair use picture, cropped from one of the copyrighted photosets (since we don't even know what country to look in in order to find this person so that a free picture can be taken), alongside a bare filmography. But xe's appeared in 99 films!" (The, now absent, number of films criterion was debated whenever it was actually applied, demonstrating once again that criteria that are based upon numerical thresholds, from numbers of employees of a company to numbers of films for an actor, are simply bad criteria.)

The bogus argument, articulated by Badlydrawnjeff above, that there's no "mainstream attention" to people who are "notable in the pornography industry", also comes up. But it wholly flounders when a simple question is asked: If these people are "notable in their industry", how come there isn't any reliable information about their life and works, created by that very industry, which clearly knows how to publish stuff, other than a pseudonym on the blurb that comes with a DVD? Of course, in reality, people who are notable in the pornography industry are documented by the world at large just as people who are notable in any other industry are, and satisfy our ordinary WP:BIO criteria. Ever more granular subject-specific guidelines, like this, are entirely the wrong way to head. As this shows, they most certainly do not "handle it better". They just result in a morass of contradiction and loopholes. Uncle G 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect to one of the top N people who made WP:N what it is... you haven't watched many deletion discussions. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion lists quite a few, and the criteria of WP:PORNBIO are, usually, used to argue for deletion. It's mainly used to have a specific place to refer to when people want to say "look, 28 movies, 1000 web pages with naked pictures and an IMDB listing is not enough". Note that we have WP:PROF for academics, WP:MUSIC for musicians, and similar subsets of biography articles. Frankly, articles on porn stars come up much more often than academics - and for an academic, 1000 web pages usually would be enough. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Music is mainly for the works of the artists. The section on musicians is just a redundant after thought which should go. It is interesting that one of the main arguments for PROF was if PORN exists, then why not PROF, fallacious in both directions since each is equally redundant to BIO. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Notability
Inclusion guidelines
Academics
Books
Films
Music
Numbers
Organizations & companies
People
Web content
Active proposals
Aircraft
Criminal acts
Fiction
Places and transportation
Schools
Serial works
Streets and roads
Toys and games
See also
Common deletion outcomes
Sure. And why isn't WP:BIO redundant to WP:N? Why should we have all of the guidelines listed in {{Notabilityguide}}? Let me drop it here so we know what we're talking about. The usual reasons are that these are all special areas, and they don't contradict WP:N, but they do need to be interpreted in more specific ways. Same here. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, writing "Music is mainly for the works of the artists." shows you haven't read WP:MUSIC. It's 90% about the musicians, and the small part that is about their work, says, basically: ... oh, and if the artist is notable, so is their work. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I will agree with you that for the most part BIO is redundant to WP:N, and I have little faith in the validity of special cases. However, if they must exist, let's keep them tightly trimmed and in few places. Yes, there is a lot of text about musicians at MUSIC, but it is mostly redundant to the text at WP where artists and creative professionals are already covered in depth, so if we can cut MUSIC by 90%, then all the better. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reflections ...

Not long ago there came to be, a thing I'd never though I'd see.
It shook me to the very core, and brought my muses to the fore.
I'll tell you now as best I can, of how this history began.
I only hope that what I tell, you shall not find to be unwell.

Some days ago, I know not why, I wished to see if this would fly.
But in a blink I was struck down, and left to ponder with a frown.
I passed the days with not a peep, and did not take another leap.
A couple places I did raid, but otherwise I just got laid.

But then a new day did arise, and with it came a great surprise.
As if to mark a turning tide, a fact arose I could not hide.
What shall I do to extricate, my poor soul from this sorry state?
How could it ever be that I, would agree with some random Guy?

It took not long for me to see, that this was just anomaly.
Eventually the fear did leave, and new thoughts did exist to sieve.
Could it be that this event, would release all tensions pent?
In that hope I turn to you, and offer this for you to view.
A topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
So I now bid you farewell, and wish the world to go to hell.

-- Black Falcon 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh...what? Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh ... (note to self: never try to rhyme when exhausted). OK, short version: what do you think of using the 5th paragraph as the text of the PNC? The long version: User:JzG (i.e., Guy) and I actually (possibly accidentally) agreed on the main text of the PNC; given the exceedingly low probability of such an event (based on our prior behaviour), I though there might be something to the version to which we both agreed. This exact wording doesn't seem to have been discussed here before, so I thought I'd mention it now. For a longer version, click the links provided. -- Black Falcon 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I do believe I could go for that. (But just the prose, not the poetry, inventive though it may be. :P ) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't fix the problems we're discussing above, so no. "Multiple" and "non-trivial" are not tenable here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A topic that
Has but one external source
Is not notable.

How's that? :P >Radiant< 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, 5-7-5, not 4-7-5! :P

If you find only
One source for the subject you
Wish to write on, don't.

There, how's that? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nah, sentence doesn't flow well.
To express oneself
In seventeen syllables
Is very diffic-
>Radiant< 09:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This, then?
If only one source
Can be found for your subject
No article here.
And maybe for Jeff -
At least one good source
Must exist on your subject
Before you may write.
Are we getting somewhere? ;-) PubliusFL 14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we're getting somewhere! >Radiant< 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Huzzah! I've added WP:V and WP:NPOV. PubliusFL 15:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I am of the opinion that counting the number of sources to determine notability is a bad idea. All the roads and streets in my home town all have an entry in Bergen Byleksikon (Bergen City Encyclopedia), and in many cases a fair amount of coverage in newspapers (human interest section often has coverage on a street per day, I remember one on the small road with the name "Galgebakken" ("Gallow Hill..."). The consequence would be that streets and roads in Bergen are notable, while those in some other town without a city encyclopedia are not. That just does not seem like a fair conclusion (WP:BIAS and so on). The sources are needed to determine verifiability (I would say this is more important than notability), and for that, I'd say one reliable source is sufficient. (My apologies for not writing in verse.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that sources "establish" a subject's notability; a topic is "worthy of note" or it is not. However, I think the presence of published works is the only way we can prove a subject to be notable. -- Black Falcon 17:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

How about -

Independently
Multiple sources discuss
Notable topics

Dugwiki 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back on topic...

Jeff, I can offer a revised version that mitigates the inclusion of "non-trivial" and "multiple" (I provide two different wordings, but they convey essentially the same idea):

A topic is notable if it has been the primary subject of at least one substantial or received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
A topic is notable if it has been the primary subject of at least one substantial reliable published work that is independent of the subject or has received non-trivial coverage in multiple such works. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.

This version still preserves the "multiple non-trivial" requirement, but creates an exception for those cases where a topic has been the subject of (and not just received non-trivial coverage in) a substantial published work. On the one hand, I feel that these proposed wordings do not loosen the definition of notability (as long as we interpret "substantial" stringently) and still exclude garage bands, community activists, and store directors. On the other hand, they create a provision for reasonable exceptions to be made in certain cases. Is this a more acceptable alternative (to you and everyone else)? -- Black Falcon 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Better than what's here, but it still creates most of the same problems people have said they want to avoid. BF, could you tell me what the problem with the version bandied about in the secion above this one regarding sufficiency? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to your question below (and also reset the indent). Could you please briefly note what the specific problems are? If you would just briefly summarise them, I can then search for the more detailed discussions in the archives. Thanks, Black Falcon 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of sufficiency in principle, but have two problems with the version proposed by Seraphim.

The first is the GA/FA requirement, with which I have two issues.
How do we judge in advance whether there is enough source material available (but not necessarily in the article) to write a GA/FA?
Why should we only have articles that can be meet the GA criteria? I specifically disagree with requiring all articles to meet (in the present or eventually) criteria 3 and 5.
Criterion 3. The possibility of providing "broad coverage" of a topic is contingent on the availability of sources beyond what's required to prove notability by current standards.
Criterion 5. Some articles on important topics will never be stable: think of articles on political conflicts and moral issues.
The second problem is the part requiring that "sources [be] sufficient to write a neutral article on the subject". Again, I have two issues with this.
Neutral coverage may require "broad coverage" (and thus long text and many sources); most if not all stubs fail this criterion.
The requirement conflates neutrality with notability, which I view to be distinct concepts, even though both can be said to be extensions of WP:ENC.

To summarise my arguments above, I am not convinced that idea of "sufficiency" can be practically implemented. Please correct me if I have misunderstood the proposed idea. -- Black Falcon 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we could judge stability in advance. (Though you'd be surprised, the article on Abortion actually is a GA, so contentious topics can get there.) It would be presumed that articles could reach a stable state someday (and actually, being well-sourced is a tremendous help to stability too.) We can, however, look at how much source material is available on something before writing. Also, keep in mind that the guideline would be "could one day reach GA or FA standards", not "is there right now." Many stubs out there today could reach GA or FA. Of course we keep those around. Many others could not, you're right, and those are the ones that need merging or deleting (generally merging, if some source material is available). Yet others may be merged, but as they sit in the parent article, the higher number of eyeballs on that article find that there really does exist enough source material to do a GA, and split back out, where had the article sat on its own it would've languished. In yet other cases, maybe the merged material eventually helps its parent article get to FA (or featured list), where that never would have been possible had all that been spread over a forest of permastubs. Basically, right now, we have a glut of articles, not a shortage. Now we need to start consolidating and improving and focusing on quality, and cool down the creation rate a little. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As for article creation, it will slow down when we run low on things to write about. If we're trying to be comprehensive, you shouldn't be trying to limit what can be created if they meet standards, and you're giving the appearance of setting the bar higher not because it's making gains for the project, but because of your point of view regarding the speed of growth. I'm implying nothing here, just letting you know how it looks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 :: I agree with you in theory, but the inertia of an organization can't be turned on and off like a throttle on a car. We need continuity between our past and our future and need to recognize that the core of this project is virtually uncontrollable volunteerism. Our standards must be reasonable, understandable, and practical. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It can't be controlled like the throttle on a car, true, but (to extend the analogy until it screams) more like a "choke" mechanism. We certainly can work at shifting focus from "rampantly create new articles" to "focus on existing ones". (From the current state of Special:Newpages at any given time, it looks like we are running out of things to write about.) And as I've said many times, our goal should not be to be comprehensive. That's the goal of a directory or an indiscriminiate collection of information, which this is very specifically not. Our goal is to be an encyclopedia, which covers some topics in a full article, covers others as part of a broader treatment, and does not cover others whatsoever. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Our ability to be a comprehensive encyclopedia is not to be a directory, although many tend to use that as a reason not to be comprehensive. Being able to write what we can write about doesn't fall in conflict with anything you said, and shouldn't be retarded by an artificial attempt to lower creation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Now "comprehensive encyclopedia", I can go with. But even a comprehensive encyclopedia would exclude material on which little or no source material is available, or if needed, cover such items briefly as part of a larger topic. And certainly, we can take measures to limit new article creation if that's required. If so many articles are being created that they can't be adequately checked for appropriateness, improved for comprehensiveness, or checked for vandalism, that is not to the benefit of the project. That's doubly true when we don't even have stable standards for what is or is not appropriate yet, and right now, we have to work on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but an encyclopedia wouldn't have that as a top-level directive - they'd look at what was available and, if they wanted to keep the information, make a decision as to whether to keep the "stub" or move it elsewhere. As we already have working mechanisms for that, why worry about addressing it here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the two issues you've noted are essentially the same I have with it. If we remove the GA requirement, the "neutral article on the subject" part doesn't bother me because it's not really stating anything new to me, but I'm not thinking it's essential, either. If those are gone, how do you feel? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While I remain in support of Tom's version from last night, I would also support the Falcon's alternative. I see the specific mention of a single source as soliciting objections, but certainly not from me. I think this is well written, concise, and considers the broadest consensus. I don't object to what SB and BDJ are working on, but it seems a bit like reinventing the wheel. --Kevin Murray 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)--Kevin Murray 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, we have a square on an axle, not a wheel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Sometimes, the wheel needs reinventing. Or would you like to be driving your car around on wooden ones? :P Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you both in terms of remaining flexible and I think we must remain dynamic. But, weight should be given to the status quo if it is of equal merit to the change. I don't see the problem to be as acute as do you both. However, I see the problem in the lack of continuity and will support any reasonable wording which brings consensus to the notability infrastructure. --Kevin Murray 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you can desire to give weight for the status quo and still support the things you've supported the last few days, but okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I said: "weight should be given to the status quo if it is of equal merit to the change." My position elsewhere has been in opposition to a failed policy scheme (in my opinion). --Kevin Murray 22:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Weight should sometimes be given to the status quo, if it appears to be working. In this case, it does not, and has seemed to lead to a deep divide between those who think it excludes too much and those who think it excludes too little. There are a lot of AfD discussions coming out as no consensus. This, too, indicates that something is wrong and that we need clearer and perhaps different standards-"no consensus" should be a pretty rare outcome in the very occasional borderline case, not a likely outcome of many discussions. The ton of stub articles that are never likely to improve should also be a warning flag, as should the number of stub articles that could be improved but haven't, in months or sometimes years, and the tremendous cleanup backlog. Finally, the fact that most new articles coming in get speedied should be a warning sign. All of these things indicate that the status quo has a lot of problems. We should still carefully consider what changes to make, but it does mean we need to change something. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that we are a bit off point on this particular soapbox. You might have noticed that I'm advocating quite a few changes. The question I posed above could be more precisely phrased as: should we scrap what is here and start a new or modify what we have in place. There is no right answer, but the constant jumping from utopia to nirvana is just postponing practical progress. Let's get something done and move on to another area. --Kevin Murray 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet forum notability

How large does an Internet forum have to be to be notable? I am an administrator at a 160-member forum, and am under no illusion it is notable. But I thought almost 1600 members (such as Anime and Video Game DID Board) or over 16000 members (such as Transformers World 2005) was enough. However, both have been branded non-notable. Does the number of users have to surpass a million for the forum to be notable because of it? JIP | Talk 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not about the number of members, it's about the level of reliable sources that are about the forum. If a page is based entirely on self-reporting statements by the forum or its members, or other unedited or non-professional websites, it is not a proper encyclopedia article. If there are no published third party sources about the forum, then a proper encyclopedia article cannot be created about the topic. —Centrx→talk • 17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You'd want to check our notability guidelines on web content for information on a forum's notability, but it never has anything to do with the number of members, which is easily fudged. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to peruse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which gives some specific guidance based on the results from debates on the merits of other articles. These debates are called Articles for Deletion or AfD. --Kevin Murray 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single source establishing notabilty

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Hussain Bokhari (2) seems to be another example of a single source subject which may have notability. --Kevin Murray 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Or he may not, judging by the responses at the AFD you linked. It sounds like the editors are in disagreement over his notability. Either way this looks like a borderline case. As an aside, he'd also be a borderline case for WP:INCLUSION (the article is of marginal substance, and it's not immediately clear the references are from "reliable publishers" per se.) Personally I'd probably recommend a weak keep on the article and give him the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather err on the side of including a slightly questionable article than deleting an article that might turn out to be useful for readers. Dugwiki 22:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I've probably punked this fellows chances at AfD by mentioning it here, but this is very typical of a lot of academics that get a pass at AfD. I don't see the harm to the inclusion. It might be intersting to see if this is a reasonable test case. Too bad his bio is a bit light in source and content. --Kevin Murray 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it either has no substantive sources or it has multiple paltry or unreliable sources. It is not an example of an article (let alone a topic) with only one single source. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Without passing judgement on the quality of the source, this is the only source in the ballpark of establishing notabilty: [3]. The others are supporting of information, trivial, etc. --Kevin Murray 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
And that would be a self-published extract of his CV - failing the independence requirements. The university has such a page for all their staff including their administrative assistants. Rossami (talk)
In other words, there are zero sources establishing notability, not one source, an example of which has still not been found. —Centrx→talk • 04:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The debate is at the AfD. Please don't take shots at the messengers. --Kevin Murray 05:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logistics of using the template at sub-pages

Please see the example at PORN [4], where using the PNC template along with the lead paragraph from the special cases section at BIO seems to make the concept of special cases more palatable. This would also make PORN very consistent with BIO and only a matter of providing somewhat greater detail on the special conditions. If PORN has a valid purpose, it should only be to clarify some special conditions for a subset of actors. --Kevin Murray 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need Notability Guidelines?

Everyone is notable in some way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.140.114 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Trying to cut through the distractions and reach a conclusion

Okay. Enough poetry, enough shoehorning, enough ill will - we're coming closer than I think we've been since this became an issue months ago, and I'd like to try and tie this together. We have a number of competing ideas:

  1. The "Status Quo": A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.
    • Pros: It's long-standing in many of the individual guidelines. It sets a firm bar. Proponents believe it accurately defines notability. It was formulated by a number of long-term, well-respected editors.
    • Cons: Opponents believe it does not accurately define notability. A recent straw poll showed a clear lack of consensus for the wording. The wording does not address subjects of clear notability that only have "non-trivial" sources, or only has a single source.
  2. The "Compromise": A notable topic should be the subject of at least one substantial and non-trivial published source material which is both reliable and independent of the subject.
    • Pros: Stakes a midpoint between some beliefs. Sets a firm bar. Addresses at least part of the protests surrounding the "Status Quo."
    • Cons: Opponents still believe that it does not accurately define notability. Bar is still too high for the type of sourcing wording requires. Some believe the bar is not high enough. Explicitly allowing single sourcing may encourage rules-lawyering.
  3. Another Compromise A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible.
    • Pros: States the status quo, but explains options including the "absence of multiple sources". Sets a flexible bar. Addresses at least part of the protests surrounding the "Status Quo."
    • Cons: Opponents still believe that it does not accurately define notability. Bar is still too high for some.Some believe the bar is not high enough. (added by --Kevin Murray 16:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) as written by Tom Harrison).
  4. The "Redefinition": A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an article.
    • Pros: Proponents believe it best defines notability as it's understood. Focuses the discussion on quality of sources and material, rather than quantity. Proponents also believe it allows for inclusion of articles that are notable while not leaving the door open for non-notable information to be included.
    • Cons: Lack of a firm bar. Opponents believe it does not address notability properly, and does not require a ground-floor-basis for inclusion. Introduces the wrong debate.

Now, I know that there have been various permeations of this wording, with little caveats and whatnot at different times, but I believe I've gotten to the core of the three major beliefs being held here. I also think I've covered the pros and cons properly, but feel free to add more to whichever side or correct me if I've misrepresented an argument - this is not my intent.

Let's not have a straw poll on this. Let's have a firm discussion on the merits of these wordings, and see where it takes us. Most of us here have the good of the project in mind, so let's see if we can't end this becoming-ancient-in-wiki-time struggle, shall we? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There is definitely a fundamental problem with encouraging people to believe that a single source is sufficient; no example of an unambiguously notable subject for which only one source exists has ever been provided, despite this being raised many times. Therefore, multiple sources should stay in. The fundamental problem is actually the word "notable". "I love this! Of course it's notable!" is often in direct conflict with the requirement for sources for reasons laid out by the original Uncle G essay: verifiability, neutrality, and not being a directory. So we probably should redefine the terminology. And the word encyclopaedic springs to mind here. A subject which has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial coverage may well be notable by some definitions of the word - including obsessive fandom - but it remains unencyclopaedic. So. I propose we go back to the original unambiguous wording and change the terminology to "a subject is considered encyclopaedic if..." Guy (Help!) 22:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Forget Uncle G's essay for the time being and think about it in terms of reality and usability - at this point, it's safe to say that Uncle G's essay does not carry the type of support that folks may have originally believed, so we need to realize that something may have to change. An unambiguously notable subject with a single source has been presented before, as have a number of unambiguously notable subjects with multiple trivial sources without being the subject. They exist, even if we trot them out and you decide to say "not notable" - even you'll admit your bar is much higher than most. The original wording is flawed, it has nothing to do with the term "notability" and everything to do with the artificial bar we set for the "notability"/"encyclopedicness" discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of individual athletic competitions (games)

The AfD for 2005 Texas v. Ohio State football game has created broader questions about the notability of individual games. Because nearly any game could theoretically yield a well referenced article that satisfies many criteria at WP:N, this does not necessarily make each game notable. How should this issue be addressed. I am posting this here so that the discussion at AfD doesn't stray of into other topics.

Some examples of articles which exist can be found at Category:College football games, examples cited include 1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game and 2005 Texas vs. Ohio State football game. IvoShandor 13:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Case by case? This might honestly be a better job for a newer set of guidelines for these specifically, since every sporting event meets the basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Case-by-case, but generally: There should be some reason for the game being notable. Involving top-teams (top 10 or 25), bowl game, a record set (most points, longest game, record comeback, most overtimes, etc) and be about the game. In a game where the longest field goal was kicked isn't notable for the game, but the event which could fit in the season article or player article. Well sourced and cited isn't notable, but an event or circumstances of the game involved can make it notable, for which I listed some above. An article about a game that was the record and is superseded by another record setting game shouldn't be deleted. MECU≈talk 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, this is another example as to why a simple "multiple non-trivial" standard doesn't work - you can't say that the single game isn't notable if it meets our standards for what makes something notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's an example of why it does work. If the game got non-trivial coverage (significantly more than a standard sports game usually gets), it's worth an article. Easy as anything! Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beating the dead horse of wording

Almost the entire discussion in March revolved around the wording, and while we have yet to reach a consensus on what the wording for the primary/general/force-fed/shared criterion should be, the "multiple" or "two or more" wording was one that was highly controversial and lacks consensus. Yet there it sits, and there it continues to be shoehorned into other guidelines with minimal - or no - discussion. So what is the wording we should be using in the interim until we figure out what's going on with the name of this, whether WP:AI replaces it, whether this sticks around, etc? This is a discussion that should have been going on before the formation of {{pnc}}, but better late than never, I suppose. So let's hash this out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, what do you propose specifically? --Kevin Murray 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, I'm still of the opinion that we need to go with "sufficient published independent information that demonstrates notability," or something similar. I'm still working on getting the kinks out of WP:AI, which would eventually replace this, but in the interim, I think that's closest to what we're trying to accomplish. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we are pretty close to each other in wording preference. I have been advocating "substantial" but "sufficient" is acceptable. But the consensus is not there for either of our positions without some compromise.--Kevin Murray 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The other major concern is whether the notability infrastructure should be consistent and centralized with broad consensus, or independent with specialized consensus. There are persuasive arguments in both directions. From the editing over the weekend at the various sub-pages, the concept is highly volatile and consensus is not yet present for either direction.--Kevin Murray 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems that WP:AI is not gaining acceptance and continued efforts to push that concept is a distraction from the main effort. --Kevin Murray 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Last comment first, let's not use a rushed, ill-advised strawpoll as "not gaining acceptance," especially considering the sampling bias. It's barely a month old, and it doesn't distract from anything - I'm the most vocal proponent of AI at this point, but I'm still helping things out here.
Some compromise is certainly needed, but some demonstration of a willingness to compromise would help. There's a small group who thinks that this "multiple, non-trivial" is the only way to go, even with massive opposition to the wording - what's acceptable there? Could the folks who favor a PNC chime in on this?
I think that there has been broad recognition of the need to compromise. Even those who insist on the "mutliple non-trivial" wording have allowed for further wording qualifying that text, albeit further into the bullet points. The issue with multiple is obvious, but the "non-trivial" issue is less clear. No better word has gained broad acceptance, and the difference in meanings may too obscure to warrant a change. --Kevin Murray 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the notability structure, the "structure," as it is, is only in doubt here, and even then, I'm not sure if making WP:N the top gun has strong support among the editors here, let alone at the individual guidelines. Attempts to make it so have faced fierce resistance by multiple editors, so that has to be kept in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It rather depends on what you mean. Most of the individual guidelines were introduced because nobody had thought of a decent general definition. We now have one. There are still some holdouts in the subsidiary guidelines, but most of them appear to be based on the fact that some topics which "we know" are notable to not have multiple (or often any) non-trivial independent sources. Me, I think that's a great reason for rolling them all into WP:N: the fact that the subject is a porn "star" does not make a biography without non-trivial independent sources any more desirable than it does for any other subject. The reasoning behind that requirement is sound and based on long-standing consensual policy. Verifiable, neutral, not a directory or collection of factoids. It should be trivially easy to amass non-trivial independent sources for any unambiguously important subject, no credible exception has yet been cited. We have, of course, legitimate debate about what constitutes a reliable source for pop culture articles, and that is the pace where the subject-specific guidelines can help. I suggest you work on helping those of us who are not subject experts to understand which sources are generally considered authoritative for your preferred areas. We also need people like Phil Sandifer to help with webcomics and the like. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think it's kind of hard to do so when there doesn't seem to want to be any discussion on the bar for notability? Yes, I'd much rahter the discussions be the same way you do, but when the bar is set to a level that is nonsensical, lacks support, and is being forced upon the guidelines? Furthermore, what about the confusion between what makes something notable and something verifiable, two entirely different concepts? I really feel like there's a lot you're not considering. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The definitions of notability and any of the alternate terms are subjective. Notability is a concept, but it can't be objectively measured, so we have two options: (1) evaluate each topic on a case-by-case basis or (2) develop a surrogate for what we choose to call notability, suitability, inclusion etc. What specific form of measurement do you propose? --Kevin Murray 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't view those as mutually exclusive. We can certainly develop a surrogate for each topic - in fact, it's what we already do to generally positive results. We can't objectively measure it, so why keep acting as if we can? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Jeff, if you were correct that this were nonsensical, you'd be right. But you're not. We have a decent (primary/general/central/main/pick your favorite) definition now. We no longer need the subject-specific guidelines. They still might be useful in an advisory role, to state when a subject is likely to meet these criteria, but as we've found time and time again, not everything that meets the subject-specific criteria really can have anything more than a stub or directory entry. WP:N is based on longstanding policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory or random collection of facts, we don't accept information just because it's verifiably true. (That is necessary but not sufficient.) An excellent measure, then, of "Should we take note of this?" is to ask "Well, who else has done so? Have enough writers of sources taken note of this to allow us to have a well-sourced, in-depth article?" If so, we follow their lead and write using their sources. If not, we follow their lead too, and give a brief mention in a parent article or none at all. Easy, no CREEP, and applies across the board! Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a decent definition, because it doesn't reflect reality. Nearly twice as many people believed that the wording should be reworded or scrapped than to keep what's currently here. This is simple fact. Your continued assertion that this is based on longstanding policies doesn't hold water. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template or not? - test case at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

The template has been submitted to most subordinate pages where it has met controversy at all but two pages. The most contentious was at Wikipedia:Notability (music), where the page has been protected by an admin. He is suggesting a 48 hour cooling off period for comment etc. after which he will evaluate consensus. This seems like a good place to test the acceptance of the template concept, and I invite all of us to join in the discussion there. --Kevin Murray 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you be posting this request anywhere else, or is this simply to get the supporting voices her eover there to overwhelm the discussion? I'm not accusing you of anything nefarious, but this sort of selective promotion can't end well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I welcome a broad distrubution of this request. Transparency will be the route to true consensus. --Kevin Murray 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think, honestly, that the template has been met with controversy at basically all the pages tells us all we need to know. Trying to include a canned paragraph on multiple separate guideline pages is a really bad idea: it's of the highest importance that the guidelines be written clearly and that the editors of those pages decide on the wording. Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that the controversy stems from multiple categories of opposition including two major camps: (1) those who are protective of their individual notability projects, and those who are opposed to the entire notability concept. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, makes for strange bedfellows. While I respect MJ’s integrity and dedication from our many past interactions, I believe that the concern expressed here over-weights the stylistic aspects of the individual sub-pages and under-weights the value of continuity. At sub-pages it seems that MJ supports the inclusion of the PNC message but not the concept of a template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
It depends. I oppose the template everywhere, it's just a bad way to write. I also disapprove of WP:N in general, because of two problems. First, sources should be necessary but not always sufficient for inclusion. Second, what about the wording of the pnc? Multiple, independent, non-trivial sources are probably necessary for some subjects (like, say, band articles) but single, semi-independent, or limited sources can be enough for lots of articles. I've always seen WP:N as the "high bar" - if met, notability is assured. However, I don't think that's what people are trying to say these days: instead, they want it to be the one and only test. Also, I actually oppose the uniformity effort. When it's correct, fine, why not simplify things. But WP:V already says that reliable sourcing is necessary and supercedes WP:N anyway since it's a policy. And in some cases there are compelling reasons to require more than sourceability - yes, that might result in a nonuniform policy, but it's much more important to me that the policy be correct. Mangojuicetalk 11:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Mango, I think that the current version of the template allows for conditions where multiple sources aren't avaliable. My gripe isn't that there aren't benefits from detailed guidelines, but I think the potential problems outweigh the benefits. The problems that I see are (1) inconsistency (2) confusion, and (3) obscure guidelines can be hijacked by special interests in dark corners out of sight of the mainstream. I also think that in the end most of these do very little since the teeth have been negotiated away in the compromises. --Kevin Murray 18:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative text for template

The following was adapted from what has been at BIO and ORG for some time, and was based on the early March protected version of WP:N:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Could this satisfy the concerns of the consensus builders? If not, could we fine tune this to address the pertinent concerns? --Kevin Murray 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Still implies that secondary sources of substantial quality are what constitutes notability. That's a failure - significant independent trivial coverage provides the same establishment of notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not. Trivial coverage proves nothing because it's wikt:trivial. I challenge you to find anything approaching consensus for the opinion that an encyclopedia article can be substantiated based on nothing but trivial sources. Rossami (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I've given numerous examples already, check the archives. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"Insignificant" is a pretty close synonym of "trivial." "Significant trivial coverage" is a contradiction in terms, it boils down to "significant insignificant coverage." Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Lots of "trivial" coverage can add up to something "significant." Source counting is the wrong way to go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that notability can be demonstrated through minor mentions in many places that collectively demonstrate notability. This is where the word trivial imparts a poor connotation. Appearance on a credible list of gold medal winners of the 1936 Olympics in Britannica, on a list of Nobel Prize winners at a Harvard website, and a list of governors of Nebraska in Time magazine would indicate notability of the topic. However, could we write an article? I think that we could by finding other information to fill in the gaps. This also would make me think that there is substantial published material, which we haven't yet located. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Notability, yes. Suitability for an article, no. (This is why I hate the term "notability" as much as any inclusionist.) Yes, something the NYT name-drops 500 times is probably notable. No, we should not have an article on it. What can we say? "The NYT name-dropped (subject) 500 times", along with a 500-line ref list? So, yes, source counting is the wrong way to go. Source analysis, asking "Could we write, at some point, a GA or FA with the source material that's available?" is the way to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, ignore the GA and FA requirement, and we may have a winner in the interim. Some articles simply won't go above a couple thousand words. Some articles in World Book or Brittanica would be stubs here. We should be aiming for comprehensiveness, and that often includes the use of primary/self-published material. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that independence and verifiability are not critical to all articles? --Kevin Murray 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
They're critical, yes. But as the only things to flesh out an article? Unrealistic, and doesn't reflect WP:V/WP:RS anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Once again, Britannica and World Book don't have anchor redirects. We do. Yes, they might be better to have stubs, but we would be better to merge and redirect. (In our case, a "redirect" doesn't mean that the person has to walk across the room or library to get a different volume, it means that they get sent to a larger article that places the material in context, while still taking them directly to what they want.) That's good for the reader. And if a subject really doesn't fit into a larger topic we can cover comprehensively, and can't be covered comprehensively as a standalone, that's a good indication that we shouldn't be covering it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anchor redirects don't matter - redirects aren't useful to readers except in cases of misnaming or alternative naming. If you search for X, and it brings you to greater treatment Y, it's nothing but a pain in the ass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that non-obvious redirects can be confusing, especially for those readers who are unfamiliar with the process. Why not allow a sentence of explanation with a link to the main article (e.g., John Pierpont Hopkins was the chief steward on the Titanic - see Titanic. --Kevin Murray 01:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Because a) that would make the pages excessively long, and b) we should probably have an article on John Pierpont Hopkins in that case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, you are a spirited guy, but I think that you might be more comfortable designing guidelines for Myspace or Youtube. I think that your vision is not that of building an encyclopedia. This is a place for facts, not a list of maybe it happened, or gee-whiz. No offense meant, but I think that WP is not the instrument for your vision. --Kevin Murray 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's do be civil, please. While I may disagree strongly with Jeff's opinions, he has every right to express them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If I may, I would like to express my wholehearted opposition to using the text at WP:BIO as the text of {{pnc}}. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of {{pnc}}, but if it is used, please use the wording at WP:N. The one that goes ... "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject". This is much shorter and (at least to me) much clearer than the 6-sentence version of WP:BIO. -- Black Falcon 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refocusing

It seems we're still getting nowhere with this. A wording that was soundly rejected months ago is still being pushed into the guideline. What are we going to do? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, soundly rejected by whom? It's been in daily use in deletion debates for months. Only the extreme inclusionists seem to dispute it. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • See the March archives. Of the people who supported your version, twice as many wanted it either reworded or rejected outright. Certainly, you didn't miss that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Consensus is measured by what the community actually does. And what the community does is to reject, with very few exceptions, articles that lack multiple non-trivial sources. Sometimes there is a noisy revolt by the small but vocal band of holdouts, but policy is pretty clearly behind multiple non-trivial sources, and policy has much wider input than any guideline. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you reject the current wording, because what the community "actually does" is measure notability not by the amount of sources, but by what actually makes them noted. Sources come into play on verifiability grounds, not notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability infrastructure

The chart below shows the current status of our notability infrastructure after several months of merging and pruning. How detailed should the branches become? There are compelling arguments for each page, but collectively it becomes difficult to manage and for our writers to follow. I believe that all of the examples shown at the "permutation" level could be rolled up to the sub-guideline level. At this point the physical objects column is empty, but there have been proposals for various categories in the past. --Kevin Murray 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Notable_chart.jpg

  • This is a false structure, because it implies that one guideline overrides the rest. Eliminate the hierarchy, and it becomes much less "confusing," not that it really was to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kevin. We started with one rulepage (WP:BIO) which rapidly fragmented into sub-guidelines. At the same time, we saw some benefits and created parallel rules for other situations (like WP:CORP). Now that we have a few years experience with them all, we are starting to see the commonalities and can consolidate the best aspects of the individual experiments to create a simpler, more universal rule. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If we can combine some of them into one, we should. I don't believe that's possible to do with all of them, however - there are too many caveats to notability depending on what the subject is about. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd be open to see where this will go. --Kevin Murray 18:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, for one, books and films could possibly be merged together. People has to stay broken apart due to the large amount of types there are, and that there's no way one overguiding situation can possibly deal with them all. Music should stay apart because notability in music is such a fluid concept. Corporations and organizations need to stay separate because of spam guidance. Science is structured in order to leave our crankery and shouldn't be touched. Numbers I haven't dealt with, it may be more of a historical need at this point, as I think we've pretty much covered numbers at this stage. Fiction is more of a subset of WP:NOT and may be mergable, but I wouldn't personally recommend it due to the amount of drama it would create. So, honestly, there are a couple that could be merged, and thus expanded (why couldn't books/films be the same, and add TV and music albums and songs to that as a "creative works" guideline, for instance?) but the rest exist for very important reasons. They're certainly not confusing for the average reader unless a specific guideline for the topic doesn't exist, and they don't demonstrate any sort of instruction creep unless you're trying to push this guideline to be overreaching, which it is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I can agee with Jeff on some of this.
            • I have mixed feelings on science, as it stands it adds very littel, but I can see it as a valid stand-alone. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I would separate music from musicians and include music, books, fiction, websites, film under "Creative Works" --Kevin Murray 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Jeff and I remain far apart on the need for special cases by professions. I agree that there are special cases, but I think they can be addresses within BIO similarly to the subsections now at that page. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Websites wouldn't work under a "creative works" because not all websites are "creative works" the way books generally are, not to mention the entirely different way web content is handled on a meta level. BIO doesn't handle the subsections well, which is why there are notability guidelines for those specific instances. Science, I give it a wait-and-see approach, but it seems necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Web issues may take some thought, so I won't dispute you there. --Kevin Murray 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                • People is not clear cut. I do see some value to PROF and PORN under the premise that niether seem to get much mainstream coverage. However, for almost any profession there will be compelling arguments for special standards, but can these individual goods outweigh the evils of confusion and contradiction? --Kevin Murray 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Actually, I agree with Rossami. They all can and should be merged together, and we should just say "Look at the sourcing available, see if the article could one day be a GA or FA. If so, write it or keep it if it exists. If not, don't write it, write about it under a parent topic, or merge if it exists." That's much less byzantine, confusing, and subject to lawyering than the current maze of "Well, X website which no one's written about at all won some award, so we got to have a two-line stub on it that'll eventually get stuffed with OR!!!!" Much easier to say "No comprehensive article to at least the GA standards can be written? Then no article can be written." Actually, that's even in keeping with the current primary guideline. If you couldn't even write a GA (and the standards for a GA are not ridiculously high) with the source information that's available, then obviously that source coverage is thin and trivial. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • You may be right, but how about taking some baby-steps and maybe we will find a happy middle ground along the way. --Kevin Murray 19:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • (In reply to Kevin) Nope, no value in PROF or PORN either. Basically, if sources aren't covering profs or porn stars frequently, we shouldn't either. If you believe it's a terrible travesty that sources don't cover such things, contact your favorite newspaper or magazine, and tell them that's what you want to read about. Or cover one yourself and submit a story, or write a book on them. But this is not the place to correct such a lack of coverage. Now, that being said, we could use independent specialized sources. For example, if Playboy runs an article on a (non-Playboy, of course, which would make it independent) model, sure, we can use that for a source. If Academics Monthly (I'm making that up, I have no idea if there really is such a thing) runs an in-depth story about Professor Plum, about how he was once wrongly accused of a murder in the Ballroom with the Candlestick (and how it was really that despicable Mr. Green with the revolver), that's fine, we can use that, as long as it's independent of the prof. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • I'm not an advocate for the level of porn coverage which is being protected by PORN. I don't think that it should be a special case, but there is a strong lobby for that cause and their opinions matter too. I wouldn't want to see a battle over PORN and PROF stand in the way of other progress. I've been trying to get both of them merged into BIO for months with little support at the page level, and some support at the WP:N talk level. There are some thoughful and articualte people defending both of those pages. --Kevin Murray 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • Strongly agree. I don't see why we should go out of our way to make it easier for professors and porn stars -- and not, say, trial lawyers -- to get articles in Wikipedia. PubliusFL 06:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • i thought we had somewhat moved forward from the GA/FA thing. This is disappointing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • What would you suggest in its place? There seems to be a lot of confusion over what "B" represents (and whether we should use that at all). The requirements for GA really aren't that tremendously high, if you can't even get to that, it probably does indicate that coverage is pretty thin or trivial. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • Why worry about article classes. Please, some input above would be useful for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Well, I suppose we could just state a length, but I think that would just encourage unnecessary verbosity. The article classification system also takes into account the quality of an article, and basically, what I'm trying to say here, is "We want quality articles of a decent length, not just a few random bits thrown together." We're not an indiscriminate collection of information, and quality standards are exactly how you discriminate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this chart reflects what is agreeable from the above? Books, fiction, films and the music itself would be governed by Creative Works and Science would specifically include math (numbers). Musicians would be renamed from music, and PORN and PROF will remain independent from BIO. Is this workable? --Kevin Murray 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sub-guidelines would be helpful, so long as they're all clearly marked as advisory rather than prescriptive. (For example, "A subject is suitable for inclusion if multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources are available to write an article on it. Please see the primary notability guideline for details. Below are some cases in which such sourcing is more likely to exist.") The current problem is that people take them as prescriptive, e.g., "Well this album stub was released by the Barely Notables, and they scrape by the two gold records, so we got to keep it!" If we can make clear that is not so, I think the sub-guidelines could serve a useful purpose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's probably even worse than most ideas floated around right now. Again - the "primary notability guideline" fails to address specific issues, that's where it fails and that's why it was so soundly rejected last month. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charting the discussion

Image:Target.jpg

This new chart is a horrid idea, and doesn't seem to address a single point mentioned above as to why they should stay apart. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's funny. I based most of this chart on your suggestions at [5]. Leave BIO and its subpages alone, leave musicians separate but music (CD’s etc.) in with the "Creative Works" category which you suggested. "Doesn't seem to address a single point," how can you say that within any measurement of integrity?--Kevin Murray 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pnc template use in current infrastructure

I'm sorry that I don't have more time right now to be involved with the discussion, because this is a major shift in the notability guidelines may have consequences that are not being considered. I can't help but be skeptical about what is going on here. It came to my attention as the result of an edit war on WP:MUSIC intiated and largely sustained by an editor with no prior involvement there. ("...months of merging and prunning"?) It is also difficult to judge a structure when many of its components have yet to be proposed. E.g. how can one judge whether moving album notability from WP:MUSIC to a "Creative Works" guideline yet to be drafted would be a good thing or not. Currently, album notability is based on a single criterion that has everything to do with notability of musicians. Subjecting individual albums strictly to the pnc at this point would be disruptive and there are good reasons not to change it.

I still don't see the need to strong-arm specific wording of the primary criterion into other guidelines with {{pnc}}. None-the-less, here are two suggestion that would make pnc more acceptable to me:

  1. Include a statement that acknowledges that exceptions may occur under subject specific guidelines. To paste the {{pnc}} into the current "infrastructure" without this is to disregard long-practiced solutions to specific problems worked out in these guidelines (I realize that this may be exactly what some editors would like to do). The end of the statement might read something like: "Further definition of this concept is provided in the primary notability guideline and possible exceptions for specific types of articles may be noted within secondary content specific criteria." (One would need to prune or divide the linked category a bit to include only official, accepted guidelines)
  2. The note on the bottom of the template page should also be altered to read: "This is the primary notability criterion as defined in the notability guideline and refined over time by the community. Proposed changes should be announced on all talk pages of guidelines to which this template is transcluded and be directed to a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability." The idea here is to provide a "right to know" for editors of specific guidelines that the primary guideline is changing.

I appoligize in advance for being slow to respond to discussions of the above. -MrFizyx 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for trying to keep up, in any case. I also question the motives in some places here, but any input is good at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • MrFizyx is not alone in his suggestion that the template language allow for special cases and that the template language be more complete; I support this as well. There have been longer and shorter versions and what is written now is a good compromise. However, I suggest that the authors of the template visit the discussion pages for the various sub-guidelines to understand the concerns expressed there. There is strong support for inclusion as is, but there would be much broader support if MrFizyx's concerns were addressed. There are definately many people who are willing to compromise and only a few with absolute objection to the inclusion in any form. --Kevin Murray 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I will state that, on the contrary, there isn't strong support for the inclsuion. As it stands, the transclusion of the template has only stuck without problem in one of the guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Substantially due to Jeff's reversions and scare mongering. I find most people pretty reasonable in terms of acceptance if a compromise can be reached on the language in the template or in a paragraph following it. --Kevin Murray 20:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The template has received no objection at FILM and ORG, and is now featured at two other subpages, one being protected and another after Jeff's reversions were overturned by multiple editors. Jeff is the master of propaganda and a failure in sincerity. --Kevin Murray 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:FILM is still in the proposal stage, and has little discussion. The two other subpages only have it there because you've continually added it there, your not-too-thinly-veiled attack notwithstanding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry if I was unclear. There was no attempt to be veiled. Let me make it clear that you are an unscrupulous liar, sir. --Kevin Murray 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, that's useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You should both tone down the unproductive language a bit. Let me be clear about my position. While I have been willing to put forth a compromise, I'm still very much resistant to the inclusion of the current template. Count my name with Mangojuice and Poorlysketchedgeoff on that point. Also, I resent the behavior of some editors of this page who have thrown their weight about on guidelines where they have had little or no prior involvement. I don't know how editors of other guidelines feel, but if there is no middle ground to be found, it will be removed again from WP:MUSIC. -MrFizyx 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
          • MrFizyx, here is a copy of the existing text at the template. Why don't you add to it in bold and subtract from it in strikeout to make it more acceptable? Personally I like your ideas so far. --Kevin Murray 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.

[edit] Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the debate. Mangojuicetalk 18:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of recent points of view

I am seeing the following general positions being stated here and at the talk pages for the sub-guidelines.

  • WP:N has superseded the sub-guidelines and these should be discarded.
  • WP:N is the primary rule and the sub-guidelines should clarify and support it
  • WP:N is the primary rule but the sub-guidelines offer special exceptions (stricter or looser)
  • WP:N and the sub-guidelines coexist without a hierarchy.
  • WP:N is invalid and only the sub-guidelines are legitimate
  • The entire concept of notability is flawed and should be repaired.
  • The entire concept of notability is irreparable and should be discarded.

It seems that an acceptable scheme should be adopted by consensus before we try to fine tune the language much more. --Kevin Murray 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, we can't come up with an acceptable scheme without knowing what the language is going to be here. If the language here continues to fail to reflect consensus, we'll run into the same problems. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The two processes can certainly continue in parallel. However, resolving the scheme will definately affect the language in all locations, more so than the language affects the scheme of the notability infrastructure. Of course this is opinion, and I support moving forward productively on each. --Kevin Murray 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It might not affect the language anywhere but here. One can't assume that the structure is going to change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Other view points:
  • Regardless of how one feels about WP:N, an unprecidented use of the template space ({{pnc}}) is an unwise way to implement it.
  • The "top-down" approach is unwise. Rather than drafting idealistic hierachies and flow-charts with non-existant components try working from the "bottom-up". E.g. if you want a guideline for "creative works" propose a merger of guidelines for films and books. Once that is acheived approach editors of the music guideline regarding the transfer of album notability to your new guideline. This seems like a more reasonable approach to building consensus and you will better involve the needed editors in your discussions.
I advocate baby steps... -MrFizyx 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to baby-steps as long as there are steps taken, but there are variances of opinion on the process. I don't think that there is a universal agreement that the traditional editors of any of the guideline pages have special rights to control policy in that corner of WP, and that a past consensus to adopt those structures guarantees the continued acceptance of these. This almost seems like the classic US struggle between federal control and states rights -- never has been resolved. A problem that I perceive in your suggestion is the "ownership" perception of editors at the guideline pages, who have vested interest in the continuance of their projects. --Kevin Murray 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In my view, the sub-guidelines are the really important and legitimate ones, and WP:N should support them, not the other way around. Also, there's too much focus on this "primary notability criterion," it needs more flexibility. Everyone should agree that with multiple, significant, independent, reliable sources, a topic should be notable, but the implication doesn't run the other way -- to any specifically describable level of sourcing. The only way I can see for WP:N and the sub-guidelines to exist harmoniously is for the PNC to be one way to establish notability, not the only way. The subguidelines may need a little reworking, because the criteria in them should either (1) imply that enough sourcing exists for an article to be feasible (which may or may not be meeting the PNC) or (2) overtly admit they don't imply this, but explicitly mention that the core Wikipedia policies must also be followed, including adequate reliable sourcing. Trying to make things more uniform than that will probably try to cut away needed specificity. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N/A to article-content (again)

I was pointed to the following section:

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other Wikipedia guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by the notability guidelines.

This section appears like needless legalism to me, and it also feels rather wrong. It implies that article content is not governed by notability, in particular that articles on any celeb could have a lengthy treatise on their unremarkable family, and that articles like "List of English Writers" need not restrict themselves to notable writers. I believe this to be false, that that in practice we do prune such articles to remove those non-notable parts. The second part of this section appears to define this page as automatically superseding others, which isn't de facto true either. Thoughts? >Radiant< 09:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that's trying to say that every single paragraph or sentence doesn't need multiple nontrivial sources. I don't know if that's a likely source of confusion, though. —Celithemis 10:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, then perhaps it should say that :) However, this is not actually a problem to my knowledge. >Radiant< 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I can see why that can be confusing - I think the point is that while it's believed at the moment that the multiple non-trivial language is for inclusion, you don't need the same for facts - i.e., you don't need to find two references for every fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That bit was hammered out and added by consensus. Please leave it be. -- Lonewolf BC 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How about a shorter more direct version? "Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable enough to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of the articles which is governed by: reliable sources and trivia." --Kevin Murray 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Television episodes

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Television episodes. Note that it's not a "new proposal". >Radiant< 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt number #424

Because I don't see fine-tuning so much as fundamental disagreement over what articles should (not) be included (nor am I particularly attached to any of the available options), here's yet another attempt at approaching this from a different direction:

The most widely used method of demonstrating a topic's notability is by assessing the available sources.

Full stop. This can be broken down by asking for sources that are more reliable, comprehensive, independent, etc, without establishing baselines for how much, how reliable, how non-trivial, because, if nothing else, we can't seem to agree on what baseline to use. Nifboy 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I like the simplicity (which is the idea here, at least for me), but I'm afraid that might be too simple. That seems to be in effect asking "Well, do you like the article, or don't you?" Some type of objective standard is needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you replace those links to go to WP:GA and WP:NOR, respectively, you have something close to what I'm trying to get at. AfD (particularly large, controversial ones) is at its best when, like PR or FAC, (sourcing) concerns are being addressed, rather than a batch of users simply making a one-time judgment and never again considering the issue. Nifboy 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "can this article reach GA standards at some point?" is a standard I proposed earlier in the discussion. (Don't blame you if you missed it, it's a big chunk of text to say the least.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Can reach GA standards is probably a bad standard because... well, ... how can we know? As a way to decide, that would be too subjective. As for Nifboy's proposal, I don't like that it says that this is the "most widely used method" - I'm really not sure that's true. Most often, sources are discussed in AfDs to help address whether the article can be sourced, which is a separate issue from the topic's notability. Sometimes, when notability is a question, it is addressed via sourceability. Many other times, it is addressed via other evidence that a topic is notable. I might support saying "The most general method of demonstrating a topic's notability is by assessing the available sources." Mangojuicetalk 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict: Reply to Seraphim) I saw that, but "GA-worthy" is a standard I don't think has traction. I'm referring more towards the process, where, if everyone's satisfied with the sources (or whatever method is used to determine notability), the article is kept. That everyone interprets FAC, GA requirements differently is to me an indication that we can't make everyone see N the same way. Nifboy 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Mango) I knew, and am blaming the English language for, that "widely used" was going to cause problems; I said it because I felt sourcing was the most common issue brought up in AfD, and the one applicable to pretty much all articles. "General" is okay, and I might go with "widely applicable" depending on my mood. Nifboy 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there some other way of demonstrating notability other than assessing the available sources? The only alternative that comes to mind is personal knowledge, and I think we should prefer "here's a source" over "I've heard of it." The subject-specific guidelines don't really contain methods other than assessing sources, they just contain specific guidelines for how to analyze the available sources to determine whether the conclusion should be "notable" or "not notable." To sum, I think you could achieve your goal by just saying A topic's notability is demonstrated by assessing the available sources. PubliusFL 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am intentionally distinguishing the method as described here from pretty much everything else listed at {{Notabilityguide}}. Nifboy 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't see how it distinguishes. Is there anything listed at {{Notabilityguide}} that doesn't rely on assessing the available sources? Seems like all the sub guidelines just talk about what types of sources are particularly relevant and how to interpret them. PubliusFL 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually kind of like this. I'm not sold if we're trying to make it have primacy over the other guidelines, but this is probably a better wording than what I've been talking up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The first draft I wrote had a second sentence: "At right are some other methods used for assessing the notability of specific classes of articles." I'm sure that people will !vote based on one, the other, or both; more power to them. Nifboy 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The most widely used method of demonstrating a topic's notability is by assessing the available sources is a true statement, but that statement alone is too vague to be useful as a guideline. What about the sources are we trying to evaluate? How do editors go about assessing sources to see if something is notable? There's no actual guidance in that statement at all. So while it might be a good starting point, you need to go further into detail on just what it is you're looking for when you assess an article's potential sources. Dugwiki 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't completely planned out how the rest of the page will look with a new criteria, but I imagine it's going to be one part liberal references to WP:RS and one part the criteria that are already there only with the implication that the more substantial, independant, etc, sources are, the more likely the topic is notable. Nifboy 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Could go for that, to some degree, but we need something objective to use as a guide, be it GA or otherwise. Something like RS gives criteria for how to determine if a source is reliable, we could certainly provide some criteria to determine if it's substantial. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I could agree that enough for a stub may be enough, and enough for a GA is definitely enough. But I doubt we can be much more exact than that, and yet represent the broad spectrum of community opinion. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, what is "enough for a GA"? I still don't understand how that tells us anything. GA says the article must cover all major aspects of the subject and all significant points of view. But you can only tell what the "major aspects" and "significant POVs" are by looking at the available source material. In which case any amount of reliable source material is enough for a GA. It's circular. GA talks about how broadly an article addresses the source material that's out there, not how much source material must be out there. That is, the purpose of the GA criteria is to compare an article against the available source material and see whether the article covers the subject well. If the article adequately addresses whatever can be sourced about the subject, it's a GA. I think it's a misconception of the GA criteria to try to bring them into the process of establishing notability. PubliusFL 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't necessarily have to be the GA criteria specifically. I do think, though, that criteria similar to the GA criteria would help to say "Unless enough source material exists to one day write an article to (insert standards), it must be merged, redirected, or deleted, as appropriate." Now, of course, that wouldn't mean articles not currently meeting such standards would be deleted. But if there's good reason to believe that a thorough, comprehensive, well-written, non-stub article can never exist on a subject from the amount of source material available, we shouldn't have that article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "reliable"

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.

Does it really? Frankly, I don't understand a word of this, and especially not how this can be a definition of "reliable". --91.148.159.4 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All that means is that an article should provide references that can reliably be counted on to verify the information in the article. If no reference at all is provided, there's no obvious method for editors to verify the info other than doing their own original research. If a reference cites a source that has questionable independence or has questionable fact checking or overall accuracy, then that reference likewise would probably not be considered reliable. For example, since anyone can post anything they like to an internet forum with no regard for fact checking or accuracy, you can't normally consider internet forums to be "reliable" sources of information. Likewise you have to take with a grain of salt information on a subject that is self-published, such as relying solely on a company's own adveritising and website for information about the company itself.
So it's simply saying that when you are trying to assess a subjects notability, you should look at the sources in the article that could be considered generally reliable. Dugwiki 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining this! What you are saying is very sensible, and I'm sure everybody agrees that this is what the text should be saying. My problem is that I don't see how the current text is saying it. The sentence starts as a definition of "reliable" (when applied to a source), and ends as a call for "integrity"? Maybe I'm missing something, but if we look up the word "integrity", it seems to be defined as "moral soundness", and "honesty and consistent uprightness of character". So it appears that the text is saying: " A source is "reliable" ... if you need to be honest in order to use it " ? --91.148.159.4 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to agree that some of our wording gets a bit inbred to the context of the debate. A fresh look from an "outsider" is a very good idea. I've had some nice discussions with User:91.148 today and looked at his contributions which are diversified and substantial. We need some fresh blood here at the WP:N wasteland. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you're very kind! Which doesn't mean I want to plunge in the endless and convoluted debates surrounding policies. But I hope my remarks are useful in a way, as a reminder that while the process of writing a text is cool, it should also be good for reading in the end of the day. :) I hope you can address this sentence somehow. I guess I would understand perfectly well what the author meant, why he wrote it like this and how it might be clarified if I were to study the "evolution" of the sentence in the page history, but I don't have any eneregy left for this today. --91.148.159.4 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unpublished Texts

This conversation about an AfD seems to point to the need to consider adding guidelines about unpublished texts. Fixer1234 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufficient? Necessary? Both?

I think a lot of confusion is going on here because it's not even clear what kind of rule people want to be working towards. Without going into detail, could people just chime up and say which type of rule they'd like to see here? I don't mean for this to be a poll to settle the future of this guideline, but I think this may uncover some disagreements that aren't being made clear to one another. Please choose: Sufficient - a rule of the form "If topic X has these properties then it is notable," Necessary - a rule of the form "If topic X doesn't have these properties then it is not notable," or Both - a rule of the form "If topic X has properties Y then it is notable, and if topic X doesn't have properties Y then it is not notable." Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I support a sufficient rule. I don't support a both rule. I'm mixed on a necessary rule. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sufficient is the only sensible, realistic one. Necessary puts up too many arbitrary, unrealistic roadblocks, and both doesn't seem to shift from necessary much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Given that articles on non-notable topics are regularly deleted, and the requirements are necessary for the possibility of an encyclopedic article being created on the topic, and that there is a tag at the top of the page that a guideline is not set in stone and has the occasional exception, so pasting a certain word here is not going to change the fact that they are necessary, the only roadblocks are to prevent unencyclopedic articles, and they are not even roadblocks, they are more like inspections after the fact which do not require anyone to stop and which can be easily waived. —Centrx→talk • 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • For notability, they are not necessary. This is a fact that seems to get glossed over a little too much in these discussions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Find a better name if you want, but the fact remains. —Centrx→talk • 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Necessary Considering the amount of content added and the ease at whtch it is done rules for inclusion must demand "X". There must be a clear minimum threshold that is easily understood esp by new editors. Guidlines for something as rocky as Notability must show that if an article or subject does not meet certain standards then it is subject to deletion. If not then a cyclic argument canbe made that it "could" be notable. NeoFreak 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Such cyclic arguments are best answered through two words: "Prove it." I don't feel its necessary to add arbitrary and undoubtedly controversial requirements. -- Black Falcon 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure but remember that articles are really only subject to deletion at AfD if the consensus is that they are irreparably in violation of policy for the foreseeable future. Therefor we need a definite criteria i.e. "if you don't meet X it is non-notable". NeoFreak 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • If the article for a topic lacks sources, it does not logically follow that the topic is non-notable. We simply cannot definitively state that a topic is not notable unless we are aware of the content of every reliable published work in existence. If an article lacks sources and we are unable to find sources for it, the only thing we can logically conclude is that "we cannot prove that the topic is notable". If we cannot prove that a topic is notable, we should not have an article on that topic (thus, we either merge or delete).
        • The critical step to overcoming objections of "could be notable" is to carry out a good-faith search for sources. I will hazard a guess that over 95% of AfD discussions where the article doesn't prove the topic's notability and the nominator makes (and provides evidence of) a good-faith effort to find sources would result in deletion. The few exceptions will be cases where the nominator didn't have access to certain resources (e.g., JSTOR). The only question that remains is: what consitutes a good-faith search? I'd say a search of Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar suffices. Browsing through those results should take a few minutes at most, but can avoid a lot of headache and resentment when people do poorly-researched nominations. -- Black Falcon 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:N, by itself, Sufficient. In conjunction with {{Notabilityguide}}, Necessary. Nifboy 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In his two sentences, Jeff has succinctly captured my view. Thanks. I also should note that a guideline based in necessity that relies on the presentation of sources is not logically possible, unless we add other arbitrary criteria. We can prove that a topic is notable if we find sources. We cannot prove that a topic has no sources ... maybe we just can't find them. -- Black Falcon 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Your last sentence is pure genius as well, I wish I had thought of it myself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Necessary, with {{notabilityguide}} being advisory only as to when something is likely to pass N, no subguideline in itself being either sufficient or necessary. True, we can't prove that a subject has no sources. However, at some point, we can apply the rule of reason, and say "I tried this, this, and this in order to find sources, and came up (empty handed/only a few name drops/etc.)" By that logic, we shouldn't remove unverifiable information either, because no matter how ludicrous it may seem, we can never prove there's not something out there verifying it. However, as WP:V has always said, the burden of proof is on those wishing to add or retain information, not on those wishing to remove it. The same is true here. It's not "Prove that this article can never be given a decent, encyclopedic treatment." It is, instead, "Someone doubts that this subject can ever receive a decent, encyclopedic treatment. If you disagree and wish to keep it, prove them wrong." And we can always allow recreation, in the occasional case that we're wrong and someone comes back and says "Look, I found 12 whole books and two articles in Nature about this!" However, it is not necessarily sufficient, although in most cases it would be so. A lot of things may technically pass N and still fail NOT or NPOV (as in POV forks, where the POV is reliably existent but the article exists simply to "spotlight" it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note my response to NeoFreak above. You seem to have misinterpreted my position. Inability to prove that a topic is notable after a reasonable search (or, as I've termed it above, a good-faith search) is a reason to merge or delete. I never would wish to see a standard of "Prove that this article can never be FA" or something similar. That is an impossible task. However, I also don't want the standard to be "You have 5 days to source this or it's gone". A less antagonistic and more collaborative nomination would state: "The article unsourced. I tried to source it, but couldn't. If you can't source it either, then delete." Unfortunately, the second step, which takes only a few minutes, is too often skipped. I agree with your last sentence, but don't think anyone on this page has challenged it. An article must pass WP:N in order to merit inclusion, but that doesn't make it exempt from other policies like WP:NOT (i.e., it's a necessary condition). The confusion, I think, results from the conflation of two issues.
  1. Are sources sufficient or necessary to prove notability? I believe the presence of multiple reliable sources should be "sufficient" to prove notability.
  2. Is conformance with WP:N a necessary or sufficient condition to inclusion in Wikipedia? Here, policy dictates that conformance to WP:N is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. -- Black Falcon 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was more stating my own position than responding to yours (or anyone's). However, I would say that your approach is a good one. It's certainly a good idea to check for sources before nominating for deletion, and in many cases when I've been initially considering nominating for deletion, I have instead found that a good number of sources exist. And that's fine! My only objective is to keep articles on subjects which can be given a good, thorough, encyclopedic treatment, and to merge or delete the rest. I think the main issue is just to make a good guideline as to what does indicate that a subject can be given such treatment and should be kept (or alternatively cannot and should be removed). Multiple reliable sources are certainly one consideration, but if the amount of source material available allows no more to be written than a three-paragraph stub, we've still got a problem. Some consideration needs to be given to depth of coverage as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It really would help this discussion, which is about the guideline, if you recognised that "if the amount of source material available allows no more to be written than a three-paragraph stub, we've still got a problem" does not have consensus support. There are many editors who are quite happy to follow all paper encyclopedias and have short articles. Your continual assertion that stubs are bad and should be merged or deleted is not helpfull, as it is not central to this discussion and just makes people irritated. --Bduke 23:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The last I checked, everyone is allowed to express an opinion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but you assert it as if it was obvious and not an opinion. I merely asked you to recognise that there is no consensus for your opinion and perhaps recognise that we might reach agreement on the central point if you stopped going on about stubs being bad. It is not helpfull. It is difficult enough to keep up with this debate unless one spends all of your time on WP here. --Bduke 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think you misrepresent my position a bit. Stubs are fine. I have no trouble with stubs, a lot of wonderful articles started out as stubs. What I have trouble with are permastubs, basically articles that consist of a few paragraphs (some not even that!) and cannot be improved, because there's just nothing to improve them with. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not misunderstand your position. There is no consensus that short articles which cannot be lengthened are a problem. Some material is fine as it is. You are implying that lengthening a stub makes it improve. Yes, in some cases, even many cases, it does, but not in all. What you call permastubs and I call short articles are fine in many cases. What is important is that discussion of notability or article inclusion is different from discussing whether these articles can be improved. Once we decide to have an article, we write it and then improve it if there are good sources. My opinion is that the inability to reach a broad consensus here is because people are confusing inclusion criteria for articles with verifiability of content and sources. --Bduke 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe there's any "confusion" there at all. I'm stating that "how far can it be improved" (or, if you prefer, "how much quality source material is available", the two are essentially the same question), should be the question asked when deciding whether to keep an article. There's no confusion there-the two should be one and the same. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but that is not a product of confusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeing with the very first comment on this talk page:-

== Notability is not needed by particular article-content ==
These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. Although issues of article-content are sometimes discussed, on talk-pages, in terms of the content's "notability", that is not exactly "notability" in the sense of these guidelines, which do not directly apply to such matters: "Notability", in the sense of these guidelines, is not needed in order for particular information to be included in a Wikipedia article. For such article-content issues, see the guidelines on verifiability, reliable sources, and trivia. (Note also, though, that within Wikipedia's guidelines, generally, the term "notability" means what it means in the notability guidelines.)

I think we are trying to do too much. Notability is about whether we write an article. It is not about whether it can be improved or all the other things that core policies speak to. We should stick to that. The confusion is that some people want to do essentially what I am suggesting and others such as you want to deal with sources and all the other things about writing and improving articles. We are never going to agree. --Bduke 07:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well...actually, we may already agree to some extent. Notability has always been a way of dealing with the question "Under what circumstances is it appropriate for us to have an article on something?" This guideline already deals with sourcing, in requiring multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. Basically, what we're doing here is discussing two questions-"What if such sourcing does not exist, but it is verifiable that the topic passes a sub-guideline such as WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB?" (Alternatively and perhaps just as importantly, "What if such sourcing is available but the topic does not pass its applicable sub-guideline?") and "What exactly does constitute an appropriate level of sourcing, anyway?" Those are questions very relevant to a discussion here, and to the guideline's purpose. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political parties

I propose the construction of a separate subpage for judging notability of political parties. Notability in politics is clearly different from the procedure when judging notability on companies and commercial chains. A significant difference lies in that political parties (generally speaking) contest elections, a criteria that is widely different than presence in a market. --Soman 08:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability for murder victims

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. The problem is that there are multiple sources about this person specifically. It's obvious that these sources have written about her to put a human face on a tragedy by choosing a victim to write about, rather than because she's famous or important on her own, but the notability policy says that fame and importance are irrelevant. According to the policy, this murder victim is notable merely because of the multiple sources, regardless of why they are written.

I won't be surprised if the article does end up being deleted anyway. There have been a lot of comments saying she isn't notable. But by the definition in WP:N, she is, and if it's deleted, it will be deleted by ignoring the policy rather than by following it.

I think that WP:N should be fixed to not count such people as notable, so we don't need to ignore the policy to get rid of problematic articles like this. Ken Arromdee 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the proper discussion would eventually occur at WP:BIO, which covers biographies, but, as a rule, this is probably a poor idea. These really need to be handled case-by-case - a murder victim who gets only local coverage probably shouldn't be considered notable. The murder victim of a story that's become a major one internationally probably should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This murder is the Virginia Tech shooting. It is a major story. But I don't think every person killed deserves an article. Besides, adding an "and got lots of coverage" requirement is still a change in the policy; currently it only requires multiple independent sources. Ken Arromdee 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm familiar with the AfD. I don't think every person ever murdered should get an article either, but certainly some should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Something else to keep in mind here is note 3 of the guideline - "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." This note is intended to help weed out things like biographies of murder victims of otherwise possibly notable crimes by recommending that we should examine the time span of publication for the references and whether the references are actually relying on the same basic sources. A biography about a murder victim runs the risk of falling afoul of this technical part of WP:N, because it's likely that a) the references will all be published in the same very brief time span, and b) the references will rely in great part on the same underlying sources.
Now in this particular case I actually recommended a "weak keep" on the afd. Mainly it looks like it might be very borderline notable, so I'm giving it a margin of benefit of the doubt. But frankly I also wouldn't mind seeing this and similar articles compiled into a single article directly related to the event because individual articles on all the victims seems a bit unnecessary. Dugwiki 17:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Dugwiki. The article is a case that basically passess the notability guideline, but I also favour a shorter mention in the main article. In response to the comment by Ken Arromdee, I do not think the notability criterion should be modified specifically to exclude such cases. I think it's clear in this case that those who wish to see the article deleted are choosing to ignore the notability guideline. I also wish editors would explicitly recognise that they are invoking WP:IAR and that "delete per WP:N" is inapplicable in this case. Such cases are best handled on a case-by-case basis. -- Black Falcon 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not a guideline; essay is appropriate

How is it that WP:N is considered a guideline? It is not a guideline, because it does not offer guidance. It has not been shown to have consensus, recently, or ever. However, it is obviously important, not actually wrong, and so it should not be marked as rejected. The main problem derives from its status.

WP:N should be tagged as an essay. As an essay, it can serve its purpose at least as well as it has ever done. As an essay, without attempting to claim official status, it is less likely to confuse. A problem with the hint of official status is that WP:N gets referred to in place of core policies. Pages should be deleted due to sourcing problems, not due “non-notability” per se. SmokeyJoe 13:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. I've also noticed a shift in interpretation of "notability" over the last year. It used to mean "verifiability" (objective), but now means importance (subjective). The problem is that a group can reject an article because it is not important to them, even though it may be important to a minor group.
  • For example, WP:SCI can reject an article for not meeting scientific notability, even though it may meet minority notability elsewhere
  • Jimmy Wales used to say that the the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (notability).[6], and that singular views can have their own article pages.[7]. Not any more. --84.9.191.165 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if this is the right move yet, but there's plenty to suggest it may end up being the right one. The consensus of various parts of this have always been tenuous. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You're confusing "guidelines" with "official policy". Policy claims official status, guidelines do not. >Radiant< 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I am not. The confusion has already occurred and is systemic. SmokeyJoe 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, guidelines are to some degree prescriptive. They're basically policy that IAR might apply a little more often to. However, I've generally seen a broad consensus behind this, that we should have multiple non-trivial sources about a subject to have an article on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Where? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Hang out at Afd's or any of the 9/11 conspiracy theory articles for awhile, and you'll see that it's widely cited. Please don't mess with it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I spend a good deal of time there. I wouldn't at all use a consistent Truther barrage as evidence of much, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think one way to look at this is that if an article fails to meet the primary notability criteria then that is a "red flag" that the article, in fact, probably has serious problems with verifiability and bias and run into problems with the policy WP:NOT. Failing to meet WP:N isn't necessarily as serious an issue as failing to meet a policy, but when an article fails to meet WP:N the burden of evidence to keep the article can shift to those who want to keep it. It is easier to convince editors in afd to keep an article intact which meets WP:N than it is to convince editors to keep an article which fails WP:N. And since in the bottom line it is editorial and admin consensus that determines whether or not an article should be deleted, failing WP:N is a strong indication that an article could potentially be deleted by consensus if nominated. Dugwiki 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
None of this requires WP:N to be a guideline. I might agree with your statements, but the reality is that many refer to WP:N simply as a criteria for deletion. SmokeyJoe 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand what guidelines are. Please read WP:PPP. >Radiant< 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tag

The disputed tag was removed without concensus. The guideline tag was added repeatedly without consensus. Past discussions have failed to demonstrate concensus, and indeed demonstrated non-consensus. The main contributors here are trying to extend policy under the guideline tag. I say it is instruction creep that is obscuring core policy, confusing to anybody not already well versed in its nuances, and a key culprit in the "there are too many rules" argument. There are plenty of comments showing that the wider community are not nearly so impressed with WP:N, or are confused. The absence of contributions by those who consider notability to be ill-advised cause should not be interpreted as meaning that they have chainged their minds. Where is the argument justifying the guideline tag? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

When Minderbinder reverted my essay tagging, he referred to it as a "demotion". I think it shouldn’t be looked at it this way. A guideline and an essay are quite distinct things (I am using real-world usage here, which is the usage a newcomer would assume).

A guideline should be straightforward and easy to follow. Unlike a good guideline, a good essay may contain logic, reasoning, arguments and recommendations. An essay, unlike a guideline, tries to be persuasive.

WP:N is not straightforward and easy to follow. It is tortured. The clumsy word sequence “multiple non-trivial published works” should be enough to demonstrate this. What it says, and what its authors think it says are two different things. Possibly, the reason it is tortured is that it is an essay trying to be a guideline. It argues that non-standard definition of notable is an important criterion that should be followed, but in trying to be a guideline, it tries to do this assuming that its central argument is an established fact.

As an essay, I believe WP:N will have the freedom to evolve into a coherent, readable, widely supported opinion that is more likely to be understood that the existing version.

SmokeyJoe 08:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a long-standing guideline. If you have issue with it, perhaps you should considering adding a straw-poll here to judge if consensus exists against having it considered a guideline. Please do not, however, take it upon yourself to re-label this page an "essay" when consensus for such a change has clearly not been established on the talk page. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
“Straw-poll”?: We had a very well publicized, very well subscribed straw poll recently (February?). The result was unambiguously not consensus in favour. “Discard” was a leading response. However, there undeniably a lot of well intentioned, sensible work behind WP:N, and marking it as {{rejected}} or {{no-consensus}} just didn’t seem right. And so it was left as disputed for several. Disputed is not a sensible tag to be left indefinitely. I, like others, have argued that it should be labeled {{essay}}. As an essay, it can still be referred to, used, improved, but will no longer be so likely to be blindly cited as a criteria for deletion.
“Long standing guideline”: During the widely subscribed straw polling, it was noted that WP:N NEVER had consensus.
“Please do not, however, take it upon yourself”: Am I not senior enough? Is there some heirarchy of authority that needs to be followed?
“consensus for such a change has clearly not been established”: Here, you are wrong. In the straw poll, consensus for change was apparent. Consensus against the status quo was clear. Consensus for the guideline status was NEVER established.
SmokeyJoe 00:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Joe, what happened during March? When the good-old-boy crew returned to WP:N to delete the progress from early March few people remained to maintain the progress. It is good to see so many people involved again. With the current interest it might be a good time to work together for a middle ground which won't just be deleted when people lose interest. I'd like to see some agreement on wording at WP:N and a decision on the purpose and need of the notablity subguidelines. Do we have the energy? --Kevin Murray 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. March? I have a busy life. I can’t promise to contribute a lot of time. I think wikipedia is fantastic, especially on providing information on obscure topics. My problem with notability is that there is a tendency for it to be misused, particularly where it is stifling wikipedia’s growth in obscure areas.
I don’t actually have much of a problem with the intention of WP:N, though I think it is awfully structured and written. I don’t see a need for WP:N; existing policies suffice; but, if it is to exist, then I’d like to see its misuse reduced. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and my considered opinion is that the root of the problem is that WP:N is an essay trying to fit into the mould of a guideline. Maybe, if it is freed from being in the wrong mould, then it will be able to improve, become readable, coherent, and less prone to misinterpretation.
SmokeyJoe 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, by reverting the disputedpolicy tag, do you mean that you are insisting that there is not even a dispute? SmokeyJoe 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There doesn't appear to be one; rather, there appears to be confusion over what "guideline" and "essay" mean. All this talk of "I'd like it to be labeled a <foo>" or "this needs to be a <foo>" is irrelevant; what matters i whether it is a <foo>. See also WP:POL and WP:PPP. >Radiant< 08:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Radiant,

The dispute is that on one side, I argue that WP:N is not a guideline, but an essay, and on the other certain editors insist that it is a guideline.

If it doesn’t really look like a dispute, it is because no one is answering my challenges.

You state: “what matters is whether it is a <foo>” I agree, it matters. WP:N is an essay. It is opinionated (not based on fact or policy). It asserts the opinion “All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability”. This opinion is not followed. I suspect that you are well aware that many existing pages fail WP:N’s test, even pages that survive AfD.

Would you like to dispute that WP:N functions as a guideline?

I am familiar with WP:POL, I accept it for now, although regarding the section “The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc”: it is not very good, I think it is unclear, a refinement is warrented, and I disagree with some of your contributions. Leaving that for another day, and working with today’s text:

“A guideline is any page that is … and (2) authorized by consensus”

  • WP:N has not been authorized by consensus.
  • I find no inconsistency between WP:N and the description of an essay.

I hadn’t read WP:PPP before. It might help me if you could tell me its relevance to this discussion.

SmokeyJoe 00:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it is based both on fact (WP:AFD et al) and policy (WP:NOT, WP:CSD). That there are exceptions is not the point, because both the definition of "guideline" and WP:IAR explicitly allow for exceptions. The page is both actionable (per its text) and consensual (per this talk page). >Radiant< 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My arguments seem to have no traction at all. Am I off the mark, on my own, or is groupthink at work? If WP:N is consensual, let's demonstrate it with a poll (below). SmokeyJoe 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshell

Taking my cue from Jeepday (talk · contribs)'s great suggestion at the Template:pnc deletion discussion, I'd like to spur a discussion on a WP:N {{Nutshell}}. A well-developed nutshell could provide a solid middle ground for both sides of the {{pnc}} debate. My first suggestion for nutshell text:

Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a vehicle for advertisment, articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using verifiable claims from reliable, external sources.

Thoughts? — Scientizzle 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't mind a nutshell, I do mind whatever's in the nutshell being carried over to the individual guidelines without consensus at those places. That's really the crux of the {{pnc}} argument at this stage. As for a nutshell, I'm not sure if we can agree on a wording for the nutshell until we agree on a wording for the part in dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As at least a couple of people like the Nutshell idea, here is a proposed version. Notice that I have borrowed from the text suggestions of both Scien and Kevin Murray Please feel free to make changes. Jeepday 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell:
  • A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.
  • In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible

I'd move the third point to the top, since, arguably, demonstrating the importance or significance of the topic using proper sources is the most important message to get across to newbies. — Scientizzle 04:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell:
  • In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible
  • A notable topic should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject

“using proper sources is the most important message to get across to newbies” is exactly where I am coming from. Point them to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS. Don’t talk about WP:N when deleting newbie pages. Remember that AfD is an intense learning experience for the newbie seeing his first article torn down. What’s my problem with WP:N? In attempting to encapsulate key policies, it confuses. I am not saying that WP:N is wrong in theory, just that in practice it does more harm than good. SmokeyJoe 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That is a rather big nutshell. Can we trim it some? >Radiant< 08:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask - what is this trying to accomplish? We couldn't agree on a PNC, so we abandon that and try a template that has the no-agreement PNC in it. The PNC template may be headed for deletion, and didn't catch on in most places, so we abandon that and try for a nutshell that has the same problems? What are we trying to do here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one, PNC template or no, see a greater need for simple clarity on all the notability guidelines. A nutshell is a simple way to outline a take-home message for newbies who have not experienced the depths of notability discourse (or may not have the grasp of English through which to understand the verbosity and endless caveats of this page) and need to know if their favorite __[whatever]__ merits an article. This isn't the PNC template; I'm proposing this only here, though I would be happy to see a consensus version adopted across all guidelines for the same reasons I just stated, and making no claims that this is to be foundational. Rather, it's a distillation of what this page already says, and what seems most sensible to express in broad strokes. That said, here's a slimmer version for Radiant... — Scientizzle 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using verifiable claims from reliable, external sources that are independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a neutral point of view.
  • That looks pretty good Scien, if nobody complains about for a couple more days lets put it on the Guideline. Jeepday 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This nutshell is untrue for notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Care to elaborate? Properly asserting notability should be, I'd think, a primary directive of this page. WP:CSD clearly states that no such assertion is grounds for speedy deletion. Weak assertions (whether in language or substance) are what leads to prods & AfDs. This page, and all the notability guidelines, give a framework for effectively demonstrating notability. Incorporated within the nutshell are are links to WP:V & WP:RS, the foundation upon which article claims are ultimately judged. What is "untrue"? — Scientizzle 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The entire basis, that the use of WP:V and RP:RS sources are what constitute notability. This is the same issue this continued conflict is based off of, and just a reworking of language that has been rejected recently. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready to post to Article

This page in a nutshell: Articles should clearly demonstrate the importance or significance of the subject using verifiable claims from reliable, external sources that are independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a neutral point of view.

This nutshell has been discussed and appears ready to post to the main article. The concerns of most editors have been addressed but User:Badlydrawnjeff remains in opposition, his opposition is not to the nutshell's representation of the current policy, but to the current policy it's self. NutShells reflect current policy they don't set it, so I have posted the template to the article. Jeepday 13:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet the nutshell doesn't actually reflect current policy - you've effectively nutshelled a disputed section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Badlydrawnjeff your participation in this discussion appears to be limited to trolling you have not added a single helpful addition in spite of the fact that you started your involvement in the Nutshell talk with "I don't mind a nutshell, I do mind whatever's in the nutshell being carried over to the individual guidelines without consensus at those places." The nature of Wikipedia is that everything is in flux all the time we can not wait to "agree on a wording for the nutshell until we agree on a wording for the part in dispute" because it is always going to be subject to change. If/When an agreed upon change has been made to the policy we can update the {{Nutshell}} if/when it is required. Jeepday 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's an absolutely wonderful response. Thanks for that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't completely agree that Jeff hasn't made a single constructive comment, but it might be better not to toss in so many comments which do tend to disrupt the flow. Please try to learn something from the 57 critical comments at your RfA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Badlydrawnjeff 2. Following the letter of the rules is not always following the spirit. When people get pushed to the edge of civility, you might ask yourself why you bring out that reaction.--Kevin Murray 14:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest the same of you. Thanks for not continuing your disruptive line of commentary toward me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we consider the following modified version of the nutshell. I had a problem using the word "important", and "external" seemed to introduce a word not used in the guideline.

This page in a nutshell: Articles should clearly demonstrate the encyclopedic suitability of the subject using verifiable claims from reliable published source material that is independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a neutral point of view.

--Kevin Murray 14:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I like Kevin's rewording and agree that it would seem to be more in line with the current version of the policy. Jeepday 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This is great! Jeep and the Falcon have been bold and gotten the discussion primed. Now we are all thinking together to build a consensus. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me there's an [unintended] cart before horse problem with the language: it's encyclopedic because it verifiable through reliable sources, not because those reliable sources verify the subject as being encyclopedic in nature—the construction above logically implies that there is something not listed in the nutshell that is required in those reliable sources to make it encyclopedic; we're back to confusion over whether it is subjective and whether notability means fame and importance. I'm not sure if that 100% clear but I would rearrange the language as follows:
This page in a nutshell: Articles should clearly demonstrate the encyclopedic suitability of the subject by verifying the article's claims throughreliable published source material that is independent of the subject, preferably using multiple non-trivial published works that present a neutral point of view.

--Fuhghettaboutit 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Falcon rather boldly suggested the following
This page in a nutshell: A topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
I reverted his boldness, because he had not talked about the changes and his suggestion does not include wiki links to supporting Policy. I have invited (User_talk:Black_Falcon#WP:N) Falcon to join us here in talking about proposed changes. Jeepday 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling of déjà vu here ... I mistakenly thought I'd already commented on the nutshell. Anyway, I'll comment now. I must disagree with the wording of the nutshell above. First, it overemphasises the relationship between importance and notability. Second, "non-trivial" was never intended to apply to published works themselves, but rather to the quantity and quality of coverage. Third, I feel it's a mistake to conflate NPOV and notability. It's a requirement that Wikipedia articles be neutral, but not necessarily that all of their sources be neutral. Also, I don't see the point of having a nutshell on a guideline page where the wording of the guideline is still under dispute. A nutshell can and should be introduced once the wording of the notability criterion has consensus support, but to do it before then just creates two sentences within the guideline that fall under dispute.
The version I introduced is simply the wording I support. I considered removing the nutshell itself, but decided not to do so without discussion. As for the wikilinks issue ... it was carelessness on my part, for which I apologise. Here's the text with wikilinks: -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: A topic is notable if it has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
I'm not against removing the nutshell at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Falcon, you make a good point about WP:NPOV while an important policy is not as boldly discussed in WP:N but your suggested changes remove all Policy links from this guideline nutshell and replace them with other guideline links. Both WP:V and WP:NPOV are core policy. You are correct in that merging is a large part of the guideline as it currently is. user:Fuhghettaboutit also made a suggestion for wording change but as I see it the change from "using" to "by" in his suggestion deflates the need to actually list the reference on the article. So I am doing the wiki thing here and taking from Falcon and Kevin to propose this joint nutshell. It leaves the policy WP:V but removes the policy WP:NPOV and replaces it with suggestion to WP:MERGE. While leaving the guideline WP:RS that everyone seems in agreement should be here. Jeepday 18:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Articles should clearly demonstrate the encyclopedic suitability of the subject using verifiable claims from reliable published source material that is independent of the subject. Lack of such coverage may suggest that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic or deletion.
The problem is that none of this is factual. Maybe people don't care about that, but I do - 1) Articles, for notability, do not have to use those things to achieve them. 2) Lack of coverage does not mean that merging is the more suitable solution - sometimes the answer is merging, sometimes it's deletion, sometimes it's neither. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a substantial improvement, but I still don't think it effectively captures the essence of "notability". A topic is notable if it is the subject of non-trivial coverage ... that's the only thing needed to claim a topic is notable. Notability applies to the topics of articles and not to their content, which is where WP:V is relevant. I think this is what Jeff was getting at in his 1st point. However, I disagree with his 2nd point. Lack of coverage implies either merging, deleting, or redirecting ... there really is no other option. If a topic has no sources, it fails both WP:V and WP:N. However, I wouldn't mind if people considered merging before deleting. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I addeded "or deletion" to the end of the nutshell above. Now life is calling have to go. Jeepday 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the implication that there's only one option is not true is more my point, and there's nothing saying that if someone encounters such an article that they have to do one of those three things if they believe that there may be ways to source it even if they don't know how. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, in that case I do agree with you. I think we should remove the nutshell for now. Putting aside the issue of what it should state (I still disagree that WP:N and WP:V should be conflated), there's also the issue that WP:N is currently disputed. We can't have an acceptable consensus-supported nutshell until the dispute is resolved. However, I don't want to remove it (as it essentially constitutes a 2nd revert) without discussing it here first. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been my position that the nutshell shouldn't exist until we resolve the wording dispute anyway, so you have my support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the clear phrasing of "importance or significance of the subject" to the rather muddled "encyclopedic suitability of the subject." --Dragonfiend 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)