Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Significance

Inspiration

I took as my inspiration Jimbo's statements at Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance: "Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion." and also "When I say 'verifiable' I don't mean 'in some abstract fantasy theory' I mean actually practically verifiable by Wikipedians". Hiding talk 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I've basically tried to write a guideline or policy which gets around the thorny issue of notability or importance or significance by rooting it in the main policies which govern Wikipedia. I hope it can be accepted as a base level from which we can move arguments over encyclopaedic value on, so that we instead have arguments over sources, or points of view, or original research. To me, those are the issues a community building an encyclopaedia should be debating. Hiding talk 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort, Hiding. IMO these aspects are already incorporated in our content policies of WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV AND WP:NOT. In fact, if you take the "policy in a nutshell" of each one of these, you cover all main points:

• NPOV: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals.
• NOR: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.
• V: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
• NOT: Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Please avoid the temptation to use Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as something it is not.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. Again, you seem to make the point that this is already policy. I therefore fail to understand why having one page which elucidates an already existing consensual position spread across five pages is a bad thing. Hiding talk 12:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because we already have Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is, Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in eight words, Hiding ? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Which doesn't prevent us also having Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Lists and so on and so forth. Policy and guidelines are meant to be descriptive, this is descriptive, you clearly agree it describes policy, there clearly is a need for this because we have individual guidelines on topic areas. As I have mentioned below, this description of existing policy/guidance is necessary because it's hard to point someone to five different pages and get the dots joined up when you're discussing the issue on an article talk page. I guess if you feel this is unnecessary then we just have to agree to disagree. Hiding talk 15:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Hiding, no disagreemnt that this is well written and maybe useful. Just that maybe, just meaybe, it does not add much value to what is there already. In any case, see what others have to say about this. I will not oppose this as a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this supposed to add?

This doesn't seem to define any sort of concrete standard of notability/significance to replace the existing standard of "no consensus to delete this article == sufficiently notable." What do you envision coming from this policy that doesn't already come from existing policies? This really seems to be more of an essay than a policy proposal. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• What I envisage coming from this is a consensus that this is the consensual position at the moment. At the moment there is no explicit consensual position on this idea. There really does need to be one. At the moment it is all implied from the policies with which this was drafted. As you rightly state, this policy already is policy, so I see no need to label it an essay. During many discussions on many talk pages I constantly have to reiterate the framing of the three policies, and it would be nice to have one page which elucidates this specific idea, rather than three pages which don't iterate the idea except in unison.

• Secondly, the concrete standard of significance is also explicitly defined: it has to be verifiable in third party sources. That's the base level across wikipedia already, this proposal merely seeks to quantify it. At the moment we have articles which make no claim of significance at all: this page elucidates the need for a topic to have significance within its field attributed by a third party source. You can't set arbitrary rules for levels of significance: Jimbo's point on Qubit Field Theory comes into play. Therefore, individual subject areas need to assess and create guidance. This proposal would be the platform from which to build.

• Since you seem to accept this page articulates the consensual view, I fail to understand your objection to it being a guideline or policy page. Hiding talk 12:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • My objection is that it doesn't add anything useful to our existing policies; as far as I can tell, if you are following all the policies we already have, you are following this one as well. Our set of policies and guidelines should ideally be as small as possible to ensure that newcomers can acclimate themsevles as quickly as possible, so adding redundant ones is a bad idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • The problem is that our policies should also be clearly understood. Having to point people to three separate pages and have the same discussions over the possible loopholes time after time is wearying. Either the policies are held or we update them. People are already suggesting that a primary source is enough to base an article upon because no policy specifically dicates against it. Is that really the case? Is it better to crystallise the consensual view as clearly as possible to remove wikilawyering discussions. If something is not referenced or discussed in outside sources it shouldn't be in wikipedia, that seems simple enough to me, and yet there isn't one exact place which espouses the principle. Unless I've missed it, in which case I'll get me coat. Hiding The wikipedian meme 23:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The problem is that people misunderstand primary source. Not all primary sources are unpublished, nor are all unpublished sources primary. IMO, published primary sources from reliable and reputable publishers may be used to source opinions and first-hand reports, but it must be very clear that such are opinions or first-hand reports, and are not being presented as facts, or rather, present the fact that the author wrote such-and-such without presenting what the author wrote as fact. As an example, I point to Jonathan Dickinson, in which much of the material is taken from his journal, and therefore comes from a primary source, although I consulted an edition which includes secondary/tertiary source parts, as well. As Jonathan Dickinson's Journal has gone through some 20 editions in three centuries, including several in the 20th century, I think it qualifies as published, but the journal itself is still a primary source. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I see how your point negates my argument. Jonathan Dickinson has many mentions in sources outside of the journal itself. In fact, a quick google of turns up the following quote: the earliest record of the Indian cultures in eastern Florida --a very important work". That's what I'm here arguing for; that topics must have coverage in independent sources before wikipedia can cover them, since without such coverage we are asserting a point of view on a topic when including it, committing original research by asserting an encyclopaedic value and breaking the verifiability chain by not being able to source the claims we make by having an article. Wikipedia is intended as a tertiary source, not a primary source. Your example supports the point, it doesn't attack it. I fully agree that usage of sources is important, but again, it isn't enough for us to see something, we have to be able to point to someone who has seen it for us. Hiding The wikipedian meme 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • I was responding to your comment about "primary sources". I don't think we really disagree here. I do feel that whether or not a source is primary should not be an issue. What should be at issue on a source is whether it is published by reputable and reliable sources. The fact that reprints of Jonathan Dickinson's Journal have been issued by academic presses meets the published by reliable and reputable sources requirment even though the Journal itself remains a primary source. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

<carriage return>Okay, so what do you think of the idea in principle, that we equate notability on wikipedia with having coverage in third party sources? The issue of sourcing I was addressing is in articles like LUEshi and UGOPlayer. They don't satisfy my understanding of the policies, and yet they survive afd's. If the idea I'm outlining is common currency, then it should be delineated clearly and explicitly, for editors and administrators alike. That's the way I see it, at any rate. I'd rather move arguments on from this exists towhere has this been documented. The burden of proof seems to have been pushed onto the people asking for sources rather than those failing to provide them. Hiding The wikipedian meme 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not until "third party sources" is amended to include worthwhile internet resources. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an issue for WP:RS. Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and I oppose this until the issue at WP:RS is cleared up in that regard. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite clear that the burden of providing sources is on the editors who add and/or want to keep edits. I know what it's like in AfD discussions, and I now largely stay away from them because I got so frustrated over keep votes from editors who did not understand or did not care about policy overwhelming the discussions, and too many closing admins who just counted noses rather than considering what policy said. I don't think we need new policies and guidelines; I think we need to do a better job of sticking to the policies that exist. If we removed all the unsourced edits from the articles in Wikipedia, we would have a lot of empty articles that could be speedied. Of course, most attempts to remove unsourced items from articles generate revert wars and other unhealthy consequences, because too many editors are not really committed to making this a quality encyclopedia if it means their favorite subjects are gutted and/or deleted because they are not sourced properly. I have provided published sources for something like 98% of the content I have added to Wikipedia, so I don't feel much sympathy for those who argue against removing unsourced material. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as you, I think there's one article for which I haven't as yet provided a source, and I too have avoided afd for about a year now. That's the reason I'd like to get this through, and it's a little frustrating to hear it sums up what it's supposed to, but that it's crufting up the ruleset. Hmmm. What troubles me is that if Wikipedia moves in the direction it is heading, consensus will shift and the policies will be amended. If this does end up an essay, where is the best place for it? We've already got two notability essays, and I'd like this to be at least somewhat visible; it seems to have a fair consensus, in that it sums up policies and guidelines. Is it worth taking this further? Hiding The wikipedian meme 19:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that I don't think we need to add any new policy on, just live with the existing policy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Word shift from notability to significant

Many have mentioned that notability is a word of our craft as compiliers of encyclopedias and almanacs. It doesn't possess a common meaning. It's a way of representing that a list of buildings that contains some are not the tallest, largest, or oldest, but nonetheless are notable, i.e. they merit inclusion in a list of notable buildings. That quality of the notability is established (outside the obvious objective qualities) only by consensus of editors applying some non-objective criteria.

After the fact, it might be possible to discern what the criteria were for selection (i.e. perhaps a notable building appeared in an objectively famous film, or the building was one of few which survived an objectively well-known disaster) and then declare that these criteria apply to future inclusions to the notable buildings list.

• Notablity is a word that means we Wikipedia editors are not constrained to objective or even articulatable criteria.

• Significant is a word that informally means "intelligent people know this" or "people ought to know this".

So in 2006, Abraham Lincoln remains a significant president, and Millard Fillmore doesn't. However among the people who care about American history, any president is significant, in fact, any cabinet member is significant. However, there's a threshold for significance among the officers of government, who was the deputy to Fillmore's Secretary of War, Charles Magill Conrad? As a person with an interest in American history, I'd offer the editorial judgment that's not significant, even if one could verify the identity of that person. patsw 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) -

• It's not really a word shift, and both words have been used on Wikipedia for roughly the same amount of time. I just thought it was easier to start a fresh page here than another temp page of WP:N is all. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused. Hiding talk 20:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why it's not a word shift? For example, could you elaborate on what's notable but not significant and what's significant but not notable. patsw 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. Sorry. It's probably best if I just withdraw this suggestion then. Hiding talk 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a total waste of time

This has to be either:

• a) So vague that anyone can deem it to apply to an article or not, based simply on what they would have thought about the article anyway.
• b) A duplicate of other guidelines or a huge unwieldy substitute for new detailed guidelines.

Speedy delete Hawkestone 22:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Again, you seem to miss the point somewhat. We have a clean up template based on Importance which can't at present link to a specific policy, since we don't have one. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly hard to improve articles and discuss those articles with people who simply refuse to accept a concept for which we have no definition. Having to restate the same thing over and over in discussion is becoming annoying, this page would simply prevent that. Since everyone agrees that this present guidelines, I don't see what the problem is. This page would help elucidate a concept outlined over five pages and help build an encyclopedia. So far all objections seem to be, yes it summates existing policy, but, it seems rather pointless. Could people please consider the problem this page's creation attempts to address? Hiding talk 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability proposal

It has been suggested to me that this be reproposed as a notability proposal. Therefore I have moved the page and hope to restart discussions on that point. Hiding talk 08:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you propose to incorporate any new information or fresh view in to the existing guideline? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? It's a proposal, it's there to be edited and discussed. How do you mean? Hiding talk 22:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that you may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability and see if there is anything in your proposal that can be added to that guideline, rather than create another guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability isn't a guideline. The whole point is to get some sort of guideline established. Hiding talk 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary

It looks confusing, subjective and irrelevant. There are already guidelines in place to prevent the stupid examples from happening. For great justice. 16:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there aren't such guidelines. There is a vaguely-accepted idea that notability is a criterion for inclusion, but it's not a guideline, much less policy. John Reid 02:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty! And there is no concensus on notability. Take a read of verifiability, no original research, sources, WP:NOT, there are tons of policies. This new rulecruft is not needed! 67.109.101.226 22:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - masses of guidelines exist already, and they really need pruning. For great justice. 19:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs improvement

I strongly support notability as a guideline for inclusion. If it's not notable it should not be here. (I'm very open to creating a wiki expressly for non-notable content of all kinds -- but Wikipedia is not this.)

I think this proposal's wording needs a great deal of improvement:

• Notability must be defined as unambiguously as possible and in such a way that the definition can apply to articles on any type of subject.

• Notability must be justified objectively, by showing value derived from upholding the standard.

• Notability must be derived subjectively, by showing its relationship to existing policy.

Good to make a beginning. John Reid 02:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've defined notability as I see it: as the topic being mentioned in reliable sources independent of Wikipedia and the subject itself. I'm not sure you can get a consensus on any position beyond that, and I'm not sure I'd support it eithert. I think that is the key to notability on Wikipedia. I thought I had already addressed the other two points. Hiding talk 11:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hiding, I could argue the point, but I'd rather not -- I'd rather support the proposal. Instead, I'd like you to re-read comments above from those who object. They feel the proposal has shortcomings. Can't we address them?

Let the definition be less ambiguous, the justification stronger, and the derivation more compelling. John Reid 20:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys have just defined verifiability! You're too funy! Go read the existing policy! 67.109.101.226 22:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please! No More RuleCruft!

Enough already. There are plenty of guidelines, about guidelines about guidelines. There is virtually nothing that is verifiable that needs rules like this. Please stop. For great justice. 00:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No more of this bullshit. "Notability" can never be a criterion for an encyclopaedia that covers the sum of all human knowledge. Wisely, the founders chose "verifiability". No judgement needed; just see whether it really is a thing. Grace Note 05:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't dispute that in any way, it uses it as its cornerstone the verification principle. It seeks to define notability as being verifiable in an independent source. Wisely the founders chose "verifiability" and "no original research" as key policies; this is based entirely upon them. Note it is not enough to see that a thing is a thing; we must see that someone has seen the thing and documented its thingness. Hiding The wikipedian meme 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything useful to the concept of verifiability, it just makes that less clear and adds more harmful POV to it. The summary is useless! 'Notability = verifiablity + notability'?! Talk about confusing! I agree with Grace Note - no more is required! Please stop! If you bothered to READ the verifiability policy, you would see that it already contains the requirement that it should be verifiable from reliable sources, and not from orginal research! 67.109.101.226 22:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The idea is to finally define Notability as a concept on Wikipedia, and equate it with verifiability. What you accuse me of doing in that regard is not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. Notability as a concept needs to be defined in some way to stop all the arguments about it. As you haven't yet defined how this adds poinbt of view into the equation, I'm going to ignore it. The whole idea is that articles should not be written claiming notability, they should be written sourcing other people's claims of notability for the subject. It isn't enough to write "foo is a website which does this", you need to write "foo is a website which has been described as whatever, by so and so." That's what I'm seeking to quantify in one place. Hiding Talk 19:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah - Hiding - what you want is already there in existing policies. No need for more rulecruft! For great justice. 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does not aim to cover the sum of all human knowledge. I know Jimbo has used that phrase before, but it is just a marketing slogan, not an accurate reflection of what we are doing on wikipedia. Recipes, dic-defs, pure image photo galleries, phone-book listings, and many other things are barred here by WP:NOT. Even if you include other Wikimedia projects, we are not collecting phone-book listings. The phrase is not marketing and should not be cited as justification for a "keep all articles mantra". Johntex\^talk 00:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite. I know the inclusionists are driven nuts by the very concept of ever deleting anything verifiable, but the end result of Include Everything is an "encyclopedia" so sprawling that it will be impossible to police ... who exactly is going to verify everything, and are those putative hundreds of thousands of fact-checkers going to be any good at it? Far too many AfD editors as it is blindly swallow the bald assertions of notability of any article which is written grammatically and spelled properly, and I have little faith that the inclusionists are down with verifying a blizzard of obscure articles.

Another aspect we lose with the total-inclusionist approach is any hope of synthesis. When Wikipedia becomes a jackdaw's heap of anything and everything, how will we find anything genuinely important? Want to find rappers in New England, for instance? Well, once every 14-year-old wannabee who's loaded an MP3 off of his Myspace account or stuck a cockeyed vidblog on Youtube gets to chip in, who'll find squat in the hundreds and thousands of entries? Will Category: Battles in Gulf War II include every single firefight in Iraq? (Probably.) The "sum of human knowledge" needs something better than a waste treatment plant for trivia. RGTraynor 20:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Slowmover 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Another direction

Notabiity has long been a concern of mine, even before I began to edit in earnest. As a reader of Wikipedia, I often found myself not simply searching for particular information but browsing freely. I like to learn stuff. My favorite link on any page used to be Special:Random. But the bigger this project has grown, the more pages have been added on trivial or esoteric subjects and the less interesting a random article is likely to be. I was surprised to learn that Notability is not even a guideline, much less policy; it's an {{essay}}. Indeed, it does not have wide support.

As Lore Sjöberg writes in his perhaps tongue-in-cheek Wired column, The Wikipedia FAQK, non-notable may just mean "A subject you're not interested in." Editors who don't hesitate to flag this article or that as non-notable rush to the defense of their pet cruft. Everyone thinks his topic -- however specialized or obscure -- deserves a place here. So, I've reluctantly concluded, any general standard of notability is doomed. The problem is political; there is just no way to get wide acceptance of such a standard.

"Wikipedia is not paper" and in theory there is no limit to the number of pages we can store and serve. But each page does have costs associated with it, small as they may be per page. Storage and bandwidth are not issues but human time and energy certainly is. Some of us specialize, for instance, in fixing typos. Time spent fixing typos on a nearly worthless page is time not spent fixing notable pages. Or, for example, consider that almost any page has the potential to turn (as Sjöberg put it) into an argument nexus. Each such may or may not become a focus of contention, a battleground for two or three editors. These in turn must be counseled and perhaps sanctioned; all kinds of editors, from rank-and-file members through ArbCom may have to spend considerable time and energy dealing with a situation that might never have arisen if not for a trivial article. Yes, of course, those members might have fought over an edit to something notable -- but then, one might feel one's time was well spent defending neutrality or verifiability. I'm afraid I just can't get up very much enthusiasm to defend those principles as they might apply to an article that is pure cruft to begin with. Instead of a sense of satisfaction at a job well done, I tend to walk away thinking, "So what."

We can certainly fight cruft, trivia, and esoterica with the tools we already have; just not very effectively. And I've finally come to believe that we will never be able to pass any tougher policy. After all, if you deleted all but the truly notable articles, I imagine that 9 of 10 pages would have to go.

I am thinking about a solution that will be tolerable -- if not to everybody, to most editors. It will allow a wide range of content to remain but also allow editors who would rather avoid certain kinds of content to do so. It would be something like an extension of the filtering on watchlist. I don't have details now but editors who are interested in working with me on this should feel free to contact me. John Reid 06:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. Right now all Wikipedia articles have equal "status" (except for the few that are "FA" or "FA" candidates). It would be helpful to filter the database as suggested above, so that editors can work on a subset of articles that more closely match their concept of appropriate content. Otherwise, I'm afraid too much human time is being wasted going in so many directions at once that a majority of editors will simply give up (many already have). Slowmover 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So enable users to exclude categories that they don't think are 'notable' - users could filter out pop-culture, science fiction, or religion, anything that they did not want to read about, without removing it from people who wanted it. 67.109.101.226 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a really good idea - let users define what is notable themselves, and filter it from their page views. That way no body has to read something they're not interested in, and nobody gets things that they are interested in deleted. For great justice. 15:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability is a concern of mine as well. Why can we have a policy of articles being presented with a NPOV but then allow a removal guideline/policy/etc that is based on a subject so subjective that it is purely a matter of someones POV. The notability issues are also inconsistant. For example, people accept that selling 5000 books is enough to make one notable, but not textbooks. However, if a person receives 10000 votes in an election, that person is not notable in some peoples eyes (even though that person may be notable within their community while an author who sells 5000 books worldwide is hardly recognizable in any community. I would suggest removing notability as a guideline altogether and using policies like making sure an article is verifiable and the others that are objective creteria. DanielZimmerman 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If the notability standards have inconsistencies, then we should clean those up, not remove the notability requirements. Otherwise, we will have an article on every McDonald's that any small town newspaper ever mentioned. At AfD, the extremist-keepists would yell "The Small village monthly news reports in their Spring issue that the Small Village McDonalds opened in February". It is verified, so we must keep it! We need notability standards to prevent this sort of thing. Johntex\^talk 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Determining what is "notable" depends on the POV of that person. And that is ultimately the problem with notability. I would reject the assertion that removing notability “standards” would cause that scenario (or others like it) to happen. The other Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be more than enough to handle such concerns. While you might worry about extremist keepists, im worried about elitist deletists who dont feel that certain things belong on the site just because it is their POV. DanielZimmerman 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Deciding what is notable is a judgement call, but it is no more POV than deciding what image is informative/pleasing to-the-eye, what description of an event strikes the right neutral tone, deciding if an article is too-advanced or too-simple for our target readers, deciding if a source is reputable enough to cite, etc. We have guidelines to help us make these decisions, it should be the same with notability. If the broad community agrees to a guideline, then both the extremist-keepists and the extremest-deletists will have a check on their behaviour. The middle ground prevails. If we have no minimum notability guidelines, then the extreme keepist would be able to run amouk. Johntex\^talk 00:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability is more of a judgement call than those other things listed. If we COULD have reasonable guidelines that are consistent that establish when a person is "notable enough" for wikipedia then we should do so. The problem is that at this point we do not have guidelines that are reasonable or consistent. We allow an author who sells 5000 copies to be considered notable, but question that notability if it is an author of a textbook. 5000 book sales is enough for these authors but 5000 votes is not enough for a politician. Your concerns of estremist-keepists can be handled with all of the other policies and guidelines. DanielZimmerman 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the other policies all predate these guidelines. If those policies had been sufficient to handle these concerns, there would not have been such loud and frequent calls for these guidelines in the first place. These guidelines were created in response to a perceived need. You can argue that we found the wrong solution but it is unfair to deny the history that led to them. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the wrong solution, imo. Notability is something that is very subjective. On what scale should someone be considered notable? My congressman is very notable in my district. In New York, if you said his name I doubt many people whould know, or care, who he is. However, he is very notable in India. But if you then go to Israel, Russia, or France; I am sure he is again, not notable. Im sure there are other Congressmen who are only notable within their district. Take an author who writes on a very specific topic. He may be very notable within that educational community but anyone who doesnt care about that topic wouldnt know him and therefore wouldnt be notable to the majority of people. I cant see notability as something that should be included as a guideline here because of the subjectiveness that I have explained above. DanielZimmerman 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement.

I disagree with this idea of a notabiltiy guideline to begin with. It is stating NPOV, NOR, and verfiability, but it is only taking parts of each. It does not consider awkward cases of little outside evidence, yet the object itself is very popular. It also give undue weight to some of the more minor issues. That thing which you mentioned at the top, whatever it is, has little knowledge of it and is not widely understood. I do agree that there should be an article on it, if someone knew how to write it. Yet, I do not agree on the idea that should get an article, yet something widely popular and acclaimed does not get something. Like an internet meme, for instance. Those will not get a mention, unless it is from a source on the internet calling it the "Fad of the week". I think it is safe to say that internet websites with more than 1,000,000 hits are more notable than something less than a thousand people know about. I firmly disagree with this concept. I also disagree with the concept of 3rd party sources only in this guideline. WP:V already covered this as a policy, except it leaves a few exceptions. Disagreed on the entire policy.68.192.25.106 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree. Existing policy exists to deal with this that is clear, and does not introduce POV problems. This is harmful, and should stop. 67.109.101.226 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. You're on the money. Verifiability is the way to go. Simple, relevant, and NPOV. For great justice. 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is not NPOV. Deciding what is a reputable source involves POV. Johntex\^talk 02:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This proposal establishes, clearly and explicitly, that the criteria for notability must be established within each field, for exactly that reason. Obviously no one suggests -- and it's unconstructive to claim otherwise -- that a score of a thousand Google hits could be a stand-alone measure of notability, when that thousand would equally represent an accomplished academic in a specialized field and an unnoticed blip on the pop culture underbelly. RGTraynor 16:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It enshrines the POV of a small group. 'Notability' is by definition POV. Let's get back to basics. There is no real problem here. Verifiability deals with all of the real world problems, and does not introduce POVmongering. For great justice. 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and I disagree with that. 68.192.25.106 15:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with what? For great justice. 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the point that all things included in an article must be notable for inclusion.68.192.25.106 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Determining notability is no more POV than determiing whether one more image in an article is too many, whether the language of an article is the right neutral tone, whether profanity enhances or detracts from a certain article, determining if a new article is interesting enough for the Main Page Did You Know,.... In short, we each have to make many judgement calls on many issues on practically every article. Our policies and guidelines help us with this. Notability should be no different. Johntex\^talk 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Userfy?

Anyone object if I withdraw and userfy this? Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's useful as a consolidation point for a general discussion on these principles. It also prompted me to do a little analysis. I started to wonder if there is a correlation between a user's stated opinions on the topic of notability and their length of experience on Wikipedia. My hypothesis was that more experienced users might be more likely to favor proposals like this because they will have seen more vandalism and clearly inappropriate content - a perspective that newer users might not yet have had the opportunity to develop. My preliminary findings are at user:Rossami/Sandbox. I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the data yet but it's proving to be an interesting exercise. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm doubly fascinated because I feel, personally, that the longer I've been here, the more accepting I am of including more, and not less. Go figure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I object to withdrawing. We need notability standards to avoid articles on every McDonalds and every chair in every McDonalds. Johntex\^talk 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, userfy away! Existing verifiability guidelines aleady deal with the non-existant 'problem' of articles on every chair in every McDonalds. For great justice. 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not true, as I am pointing out to For great justice. in a discussion on my talk page. We desperately need notability guidelines/policies. Johntex\^talk 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of an article which should be deleted because the topic of the article is simply not notable: User:Johntex/Cruft Sample Unfortuantely, the event is verifiable and it cannot be tossed out except on notability grounds. Johntex\^talk 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a complete pain in the posterior, but why? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a fair question. Here are some reasons: (1) To be taken seriously as a reference work, we need to avoid coverage of completely frivolous topics. (2) To avoid violating WP:NOT, we are not creating an article on every non-notable person. (3) Too many articles that are of no consequence means too many articles to clean-up, watch-over for vandalism, etc. (4) Too mnay articles of no consequence makes Recent Changes virtually impossible to watch (5) Too many articles of no consequence makes it harder to policy for vandalism (6) Too many articles of no consequence makes it harder to avoid libel. (I could easily put in a libelous statemtn about Bill Gates at some random elementary school article or minor star trek character article or wherever. There is no rule that vandals have to only put libelous statement on the living person's article... These are just a few reasons why articles on frivolous topics are bad. Johntex\^talk 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll tell you that I'm not at all bothered with 3, 4, or 5. Limiting articles based on what can or cannot be done with them doesn't mesh well with me, and I fear the slippery slope. As for beign "taken seriously," I could counter with "To be taken seriously as a reference work, we must not discriminate against what may appear to some as frivolous topics." WP:NOT paper, etc. As for #2, perhaps so, but if there's verifiability guidelines in place, doesn't that kind of answer itself? #6 is the only one I can understand the concern about, but, again, as with 3, 4, and 5, we can do that now. I can list a number of articles I'm the only contributor to, and could very well remain that way and could add anything to. It's not a serious issue NOW. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's focus in on #2 and #6 for now. Verifyability does not solve number 2. I have been mentioned in newspaper articles, that makes my existence verifiable. My mother is in the phone book, her existence is verifiable. That is not sufficient justification for either of us to have our own articles. #6 would get worse if we have no notability hurdle. Today's internet meme or garage band single will not be on anyone's watchlist in 2050 when we have more than 100 million articles. It does not even necesarily stop with one article per person. Someone could write an article about PersonX's high school graduation ceremony - it was in the paper it was verifiable. Someone could write an article about PersonX's wedding, it was in the paper, it was verifiable. Oh sure, maybe someone would suggest those could be merged into PersonX's main non-notable article, but 10 or 20 of these non-notable events will make PersonX's non-notable article too long to keep merging stuff into it. Before long, PersonX has as many sub-articles to his bio as John Kerry does. I'm no radical deletionist. I've defended keeping a lot of stuff. We can set the bar for notability wherever we think it best, but we should definitely have a bar set. Johntex\^talk 01:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I've seen your "vandals using non-notables as libel targets in 2050" come up a few times on my watchlist tonight, and I honestly don't get it. Verifiability by a phone book? I dunno. But if you've been in some newspaper articles, why not? You've been covered for newsworthy events, you're notable. #6 could get worse, too, but, again, it's a risk now. Why stop article growth and let vandals win? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you would draw the line at verifiability by phone book at least that will be a start. I don't know when the first on-line phone-book became available - maybe 1990? - maybe 2000? By 2100 those will enter the public domain, and more following each and every year. As for an article on anyone who has been in a newspaper article, are you working to repeal WP:BIO? As to your final point, surely you can't think I want to stop article growth just because I want to protect minimum standards of notability? We'll still be creating 1,000's of articles a day on notable subjects. The vandals will more likely win in the "Rambot-all-phonebooks-into-Wikipedia-scenario". Johntex\^talk 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake. Please read existing policy. Phone book entries are already prohibited. Go to the back of the class, and don't try to make more rules until you've read the ones we have. For great justice. 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical tag

I've tagged this as historical, there hasn't been cogent editing or discussion of the proposal for over a week. Hiding Talk 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)