Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)/Archive 1

Inherent notability of places

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

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

• A division defined by the local or national government
• A mailing address to the location
• Notable landmarks in the area, such as schools or shopping centers, are given the name of the area
• Something else unusual that makes the area notable.

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

if each of the 15 bajillion articles like Sermaize-les-Bains that have no sources and only say "place_xyz is a village and commune in the XYZ département of region_xyz Country_xyz" with some unverified coordinates added something about "Notable landmarks in the area, such as schools or shopping centers, are given the name of the area" i don't think anyone would be having these discussions.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts

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

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

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

Update (based on above discussion)

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

Jurisdictions

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

Streets/Roads

The following types of streets and roads, numbered or not, can generally have notability demonstrated.

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

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

• A side street
• A short secondary road that plays no signifigance in connecting two or more notable locations
• A large but short road, often with no outlet, that is designed to serve a business park or equivalent, but has no other function.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebwite (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the claim of inherent notability for some of these types of streets and roads. Editors will take to ridiculous extremes the license given by the vagueness of "large commercial boulevard" and "The main street or road in a town or suburb that is above all the rest." Truly non-encyclopedic streets might seem to satisfy these descriptions if the editor is from a small town. The one lane dirt path connecting two hamlets somewhere in the world would satisfy "A non-limited access highway that is the main route connecting two or more cities or towns" but probably doesn't need an encyclopedia article. The hurdle is set very low and vaguely by "A non-limited access highway that backs up a limited access highway connecting two or more cities or towns, and is used by motorists for that purpose." Edison (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Public transportation

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

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

economic bit is not right IMHO

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

multiple atlases

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

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

Lombard Street

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

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

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

I find much of the guideline to be misguided, even if earnestly well-intentioned. In general Wikipedia describes notability in general terms as being worthy of note, as evidenced by coverage in secondary sources. We do not describe in detail the intrinsic characteristics of things that make them notable. For example, a sports team member is notable if he or she wins a major award, gets lots of press, etc. We don't say that basketball players who are taller than seven feet, or swimmers who can swim faster than X are notable. The effort to describe the physical characteristics of streets that make them notable is over-detailed and to a great extent misses the purpose of notability. Even within the United States there is a great variation in urban design and layout, so that something that could lead to a street being notable one place (connecting two dense centers, length, etc) could be different in another place. The encyclopedia covers villages all over the world, ancient, modern, with public or private transportation, planned cities, and so on. There is no way we can reasonably catalog, much less deal with, all of the different types of street systems. Better to simply fall back on the more general notability guideline. 70.7.27.28 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other sorts of places

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

Verbiage?

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

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

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

Inhabited places

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

From my point of view, and what I have tried to inject into this proposal, there have been several deletion of Mall related Articles that would have greatly benefited from this proposed guidelines existence. I do believe several Articles have lost the Notability argument when they should not have, to a select few that unchangeably feel 'Malls will never be notable'. Road related Articles don't so much get deleted, but merged "by consensus", then later edited out by well intentioned Editors. In essence a soft deletion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Malls, roads, schools, etc., are typically parts of inhabited places; this proposal fails to even recognize the inherent notability of all such inhabited places (cities, towns, villages) regardless of how many atlases they may appear in - noting the inherent WP:BIAS of such a requirement as blatantly disfavoring places in the 3rd world or not located on paved roads as would be found in road atlases. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Even unpaved roads are shown on some map somewhere. Just as long as a road is used by some members of civilization, someone will print a map of it. Sure, there may not be malls or schools in undeveloped areas, but such places, in general have fewer landmarks worthy of Wikipedia articles - fewer landmarks period. It's as simple as that.Sebwite (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that statements and views like "all inhabited places are inherently notable" is something we should specifically avoid in this kind of proposal because it is a view that some will argue on the "notability is not inhereted" point. We should aim for a balenced view, that has a likelyhood of gaining acceptance, even if it does not get in all that we would hope. It should be something that we can live with, even if not perfect. Critics and acclaimers alike. If we want to assure some items are in, we need to allow some items room to be left out. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And, notability is not inherited. We either have sufficient independent reliable secondary sources to write a real article about a subject, or we do not. There is no such thing as "inherently notable". Perhaps we could utilize "List of villages in Somewhere County" (replacing "county" with an appropriate designation for the particular country) for those who require "completeness", but 10-person villages, unless they are exceptional, should not have a full article. That is placing undue weight on that village's importance and significance, and that is a violation of one of our core principles, neutrality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best way to gain acceptance is to endorse the widely-supported status quo, which is essentially to include every inhabited place. A departure from existing practice, such as you propose, seems less likely to gain acceptance. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is the community's norm (and regardless of whether it is already done in other policies), I do not think it is a good idea to declare, merely by administrative fiat, that a broad class of topics is inherently notable. This amounts to an abdication of responsibility for the quality of the encyclopedia. Consider how notability can be proved absent such a declaration: given a topic, one consults first primary sources which document it, and then secondary sources which, in commenting on the primary sources, relate it to other ideas and provide the crucial aspect of notability: human commentary. This is why Wikipedia is a tertiary source, merely weaving together the contents of secondary sources as a unified testament to human interest in a subject. The insistence on secondary sources is at the core of two of our core policies: no original research, and notability. By requiring that we rely on secondary sources, we force our articles to incorporate only documented facts and opinions, preventing us from being what we can never successfully be: a forum for the original publication of new ideas. But it also ensures that we only write about topics which have been demonstrated to matter outside themselves: that's what the existence of secondary sources (commentary) proves. That's the basis for our notability criteria. By declaring something to have inherent notability, we give license to circumvent secondary sources and, therefore, sacrifice true notability. Essentially, a permissive notability policy is original research. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that there is obviously a community assumption of notability as there is discussion going on here on having a bot generate stub articles for all places which currently have no article - up to 2 million new articles. Suggest people on both sides of the fence join in there rather than try and create a guideline which this could effectively nullify. Keith D (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Ryan. Existing policies already cover his worry. Even when the place is notable the content must be verifiable/sourced. If we work from maps/census lists we have enough information to created a stub article that will have everything you need to quickly identify the place. Anything above and beyond can only be added if there is a source available. Yes you will always get people with local knowledge, residents or travelers. But those type edits will quickly get reverted. Agathoclea (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the content must be verifiable, then there is no need to declare inherent notability; the articles would follow the usual pathway. What you're saying is, however, that even before there is any real content, and when the article contains only geographic coordinates and possibly population data, this policy would protect it from notability complaints. This is the situation that I don't like; why defend articles with no encyclopedic content? This data alone is mere enumeration, essentially dictionary definition for locations. We should not condone turning Wikipedia into an atlas; in fact, sites with this particular geographic information already exist (indeed, the bot which is proposed to add all towns in the world would get its data from them). You seem to be suggesting, as I've heard before, that the presence of these stubs will encourage their growth; however, for most places there is little evidence that notable information exists in a reliably-sourced form. We do not grant clemency to articles on not-yet-notable people, though for such people there is often some indication that they may become notable; for places, a stub article with no sources and no distinguishing content, even this indication is lacking, yet we should enshrine in policy the presumption that every spot on at least two maps is worth talking about? Ryan Reich (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All places have a series of characterisitcs for example a location, a size, a history, a climate and a geology that may be recorded but, above all, every place has the possibilty that it will one day be notable. Who can say where the next hijacked plane will crash or where the next multiple killer will strike? - that is when the readers of Wikipedia will want the information, not later when Wikipedia editors react to the events by adding the place. The comparison with not-yet-notable people is false, people last for six or seven decades then vanish but places go on for ever and have a history going back centuries or, if not, have a reason for being created that itself is worthy of record. Obviously de minimis criteria will apply but placenames of tiny settlements in dispersed communities are easily handled by redirects to the nearest village or town. There has to be a presumption that all places are notable. Saga City (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What are we going to call this concept? Anticipatory notability? A place becomes notable because multiple independent sources have written about it directly and in detail, not because it has shown as a speck on multiple maps, or a line item in multiple lists. Even in your plane crash example, the city wouldn't become notable as a result of a plane hitting hit ... we might get an article about the crash, but no reason to have an article about the city.Kww (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is possible, though, that as a result of the plane crash, multiple independent sources become available about the city (eg., "Random City: an in-depth look at the city shaken by the crash"). But if that's the case, then the city is then notable, and an article is warranted. The important point, though, is that we shouldn't gaze into our crystal ball and speculate about the possibility that it might be notable in the future: we react to sources that exist, as and when they come into existence. Jakew (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I suggest stating somewhere that villages are inherently notable, since the community seems to already have a consensus about that per several AFDs including this one. -Samuel Tan 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd like to mention how I reconcile the concept of "inherent notability" with the demands of writing an encyclopedia. This hasn't been written into policy or anything, but it could be if others agree with it: my view is that any named geographic place, no matter how small, is valid as a potential article topic, but WP:V and WP:RS are still relevant in evaluating any article that actually gets written. That is, any village or neighbourhood, no matter how small, is a valid article topic if valid references are cited, but no place, not even New York City, is entitled to an unreferenced article.

As an example of how this works in practice, while I've occasionally been attacked by people who disagreed with this approach, many unreferenced stubs about settlements in Ontario have now been redirected to their parent municipality — if somebody comes along later and writes a real, properly referenced article about the individual community, then that article is entitled to stick around, but the fact that the community exists doesn't mean it's entitled to an unreferenced stub.

"Inherent notability", to me, refers to the validity of the subject as a potential topic, and is not an exemption from Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Suburbs or simialar

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

Commuter Train Stations

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

Rules & Guidelines Overload

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

N-American bias?

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

I thought along similar lines looking at the street maps. In most European countries for example it would make more sense to distinguish between local and state/country maintained roads. Agathoclea (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, the whole document reads as if written from a North America viewpoint. If an article were written in a similar manner, I'd be tempted to put a {{globalise}} tag on it. Bluap (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Being listed in an atlas is not enough to be notable

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

While I agree with this statement in principle (i.e., a listing in an atlas does not constitute notability), I am nevertheless curious as to where the statement that the information on settlements which no longer exist constitutes "worthless content" comes from. Data on patterns of geospatial distribution (modern and historical), with the ability to drill down to as small pieces as possible, are extremely useful in quite a number of applications (geography, economy, political structure and divisions, genealogy, etc.). And since the subject of populated places is clearly encyclopedic, how can it be "worthless"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject of populated places is encyclopedic, but each such place need not be. If the atlas doesn't make the analysis of "geospatial distribution", then for us to do it is original research, and for us to write an article about a possibly nonexistent location purely on the basis of it being mentioned in an atlas is indiscriminate. What you have said is precisely the point: the ability to "drill down" is useful; it is not, however, the goal. It furthers the goal of writing encyclopedic articles. Ryan Reich (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but now you kind of lost me :( You say that writing about a location based purely on the basis of it being mentioned in an atlas is "indiscriminate". But why single out just atlases? Having looked at my (quite extensive) collection of reference materials I pulled out one at random, I am now holding in my hands a book called Administrative and Territorial Division of Murmansk Oblast in 1920-1993 (it's in Russian). The book does not have a single map (so it is not an atlas), it does contain a lengthy history intro (so it's encyclopedic), and the bulk of the book is composed of the lists of oblast inhabited localities and their basic stats. All in all, it's a very descent reference material, which I hope to borrow from when working on the subject in future, and which most certainly qualifies as a high-quality secondary source. But in essence, all those tables with stats boil down to the same idea as atlases and maps do. Could you clarify your position on this, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Already, just about every place does have a Wikipedia article. Some are stubs, but they may get expanded one day, as Wikipedia is not complete. There are a small percentage of places that don't, but that is only because no one has created them yet. The bottom line is, no one has challenged these articles. Many small towns and villages with only a few square blocks of area and minute populations do indeed have articles.Sebwite (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am challenging them now (at least, on general grounds; I'm not going to AfD). The precedent set by their creation seems to me to have been based on a violation of our notability guidelines and no reason other than "potential for future expansion" has been asserted, which given the lack of notability claims in those articles, is the same as this bogus argument. Going by the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot, a lot of other people agree that "inherent notability" is not a principle here, so in fact, these place articles hardly represent a consensus. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at WP:PSTS, a book such as yours — some parts of which are quite encyclopedic, analytical, and secondary-source-like, but the bulk of which (though not an atlas) contains factual information alone, which is primary-source-like — is pretty clearly a tertiary source. According to WP:N, only secondary sources are suitable references for notability claims, presumably because they are (by definition) value added to the raw data of a primary source. It seems to me, especially going by the comments in footnote 1 there, that a book such as you describe, which is an archetypical directory, is a good example of why tertiary sources are not mentioned in WP:N, because although they combine elements of primary and secondary sources, they do not necessarily improve on either (aside from cataloguing them), and in particular, the primary material that's in them may be just as "raw" (see footnote 2 to WP:PSTS, the Reno definition) as it was in the primary source itself. (Just to clarify something that's implicit here: I am saying that although sources are "ranked" in what seems like a linear order, just because secondary sources suffice for notability claims doesn't mean that the "higher-ranked" tertiary sources do; they might, however, contain secondary-source elements that suffice.) In your book, the "bulk" information is of course quite useful, perhaps in combination with the historical introduction, but only if the commentary there supplements the raw statistics. Basically the same explanation holds for atlases not being notability sources. As for "indiscriminate"; well, a directory is by definition an indiscriminate collection of information, all of the same sort, about every single member of a particular cagetory; for example, oblasty. It gives no reason to value one over another, or even to distinguish two of them, because its purpose is not to distingish; it is to unify. That unification may well be a notable fact, but the particular items are still indiscriminately included. Ryan Reich (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was half-expecting to hear something like this. If you re-read your own reply, you'll see why a discussion such as this one will never have consensus (although it may have a majority skewed one way or another). The current inclusion criteria are just too complicated for most folks. I've been with Wikipedia for over four years now, and I am still occasionally having difficulties when notability criteria are involved—especially in situations involving sources which are, simultaneously, primary, secondary, and tertiary, and when the subject is in the "grey area of notability". We need to either dispose of the whole notability concept altogether (and go with reliable sources and verifiability alone), or to streamline the inclusion criteria so they make sense to the majority of people (i.e., narrow the grey area). But, of course, good luck reaching consensus if any such proposal ever takes off. Anyway, just ranting here. Thanks for your time and thoughtful responses!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notability is too important to dispose of, but you're right that if I have to go to such lengths to apply it, the standard is not clear enough. Hopefully, the standard is "use your common sense: do any of your sources care in particular about this subject?". But people get very defensive about their special interests; I can't promise that if someone like me came into a huge debate over mathematics articles that I wouldn't be as resistant to accepting that some things are sub-notable. Anyway, thanks for the rant! Ryan Reich (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Afd

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

Yes, and the afd for Blathur followed that. A guideline that requires multiple atlases is 1st-world biased; and the reliable sources are easily obtainable from governmental entities, without reliance on whether there is sufficient commercial interest in a particular area to produce atlases at such scales. Look at almost any atlas - they will go into varying scales in different places which make business sense for them: often 1:3,000,000 in the US in a world atlas, but often 1:300,000 for England and Wales. Moreover, nearly all rich, industrial countries have a mapping agency that maps the country at 1:25,000 or greater (e.g., the UK & Switzerland have some of these online). So, anyplace there will meet the 2 atlas requirement; but, I doubt that the DRCongo or Papua New Guinea or Brazil has maps at that scale over the whole of its territory. 1st world WP:BIAS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is a WikiProject, not even a guideline, and certainly not a policy. What is a guideline is WP:N, and what are policies are WP:OR and WP:V, and they should not be ignored in the name of a nebulous ideal such as countering systemic bias. Can you think of a standard less restrictive than requiring merely that a place be documented (simply as existing at a location!) in two or more atlases, but still requires any verifiable sources at all? My take on WP:N is that we should require more sources to establish notability, but in any case, at the moment the ultimate testing ground for these standards is WP:GEOBOT. Ryan Reich (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Contextualise

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

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

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

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

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

this guideline is far too demanding, and prevents notability of places that are appropriate to cover in the encyclopedia, if interpreted in the usual way we do for the more usual run of articles. Coverage in multiple sources such as books, newspapers or magazines in a significant way is not the least bit necessary for notability of anything. anything is notable that we think that people might want to look up reasonably in an encyclopedia, and that certainly includes any place name. An encyclopedia is more than a gazetteer, but it includes gazetteer information-- encyclopedias always have done so, and most have included atlases as well, and the general principle is hat as a minimum Wikipedia includes everything found in other encyclopedias. A line on a map is just as much evidence as as words in a book, and often better--the map is the basic documentation for geography. One has to read the map properly, as for any language--a mark with a name next to it in the UK Ordnance Survey may be a village, or it may be a house. Boundaries and places are not where words put them, but where the surveyor draws. Words of course count too: If LP describes a place it does not just count towards notability, it proves it. That it may fail too, does not count against it. We need Verifiable data-- v is the policy, not N. Verifiable data can perfectly well be a map. rue, not everything said to be a town actually is. We can decide for ourselves, as we have, that all villages are notable, but not all neighborhoods. Then we have to make the distinctions. notability is what we decide we want it to be we make our own guidelines, and we can make them whatever we agree on. The only way of avoiding quibbling over what counts as a "substantial" description is that a village that has ever been inhabited, found in an atlas, gazetteer, census, or any generally reliable source is notable, and we use whatever information we have to describe it. DGG (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When is a place a neighborhood and when is it a village? The lines are not always clear. --Polaron | Talk 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I do accept your general point that a map is a reliable source and is relevant for geographical locations - in some cases more relevant than a guide book entry. However, I dont think there's much basis for your assertions above that "Wikipedia includes everything found in other encyclopedias" or that "a village that has ever been inhabited, found in an atlas, gazetteer, census, or any generally reliable source is notable"AndrewRT(Talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ships

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

WP:N seems sufficient. On the surface, the article fails to demonstrate notability. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Human settlements

I've totally turned the human settlements section on its head to reflect the views of many contributors above and to bring in line with WP:N. I done this bold move as this page seems to have died a death. What do others think? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks better, but I think it should specifically make a mention of the multitude ofBot created Stubs, which do have consensus to be notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GEOBOT etc

"stubs on human settlements shown in atlases may be created...The sources that would render a settlement notable are not always easy for all to locate, so such an article shall remain marked as a stub"

I think we need to avoid encouraging people to create articles - even stub articles - which are later deleted as being un-notable. Editors should be sure of their notability before they are created.AndrewRT(Talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you added that text, and then commented here that you didn't like it. I pulled it. All articles need to have sufficient information to prove their notability at the time of creation ... there isn't a free ride for settlement stubs.
Kww (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, I didn't that was Sebwite here: [1]. My edit added a mentioned about PROD, AFD and CSD. I agree with your view, as I said above, but I'm not yet sure that's the consensus. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake ... I hadn't noticed his earlier edit. Removed it, too.
Kww (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Buildings and Structures

I would like to delete this section as:

(a) it seems to be covered by WP:ORG

(b) It doesn't seem to say much more than already mentioned in WP:N and related policies.AndrewRT(Talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I'm on a reversion spree with you, and I don't like that, because I suspect we agree on this stuff. The reason that material is in there is to specifically denigrate certain material as a source of notability. We have a real problem on Wikipedia with people using passing mentions as sources of notability, and that guideline lays out very clearly that certain types of mentions may be used as sources within an article, but cannot be used to justify the existence of one.
Kww (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed - although it turned out the first revert related to someone else entirely. I don't understand your objection on this one because the text itself adds nothing to guidelines that are stated elsewhere. If you think the guideline should mention particular types of sources on organisations(?), companies(?), buildings(?) that are insufficient to demonstrate notability, pleaes expand AndrewRT(Talk) 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Split

Note that I just split the former proposal Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) into two separate proposals: Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) and Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation). I did this because it has become clear over time that these are two somewhat related but otherwise separate entities. When I made this proposal a while back, I was inspired to include them together because there is an AfD category with that title. But the discussion here was getting overwhelming and confusing.

I am also considering a couple of new separate proposals called Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings and structures) and Wikipedia:Notability (Government agencies). They would incoporate some of the existing proposals, such as Wikipedia:Notability (Places of worship) and Wikipedia:Notability (Police departments). Sebwite (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what you've done. However, I would have preferred it if something as fundamental as this were proposed and discussed the talk page first, to give other an opportunity to comment - particularly the people who put the guideline together originally. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who are interested primarily in transportation and had the talk page on their watch lists will now only see this page on their watchlists, and may not be aware that transportation-related notability discussions are on another page. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a major reason why I announced this split here. I figured there would be little if any opposition. Anyone who has this page on their watchlist will be able to read what I wrote, and would therefore, mark the new page. Sebwite (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note that I have split buildings and structures from this one into Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks). This was formerly known as Notability (Places of worship), but since a place of worship is a type of building, as described by the proposal's creator, it makes more sense to include such a proposal in buildings, , structures, and landmarks. Sebwite (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Using an Atlas as a source for notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding the use of maps as a source for notability (as opposed to as a source for verifiability, the proposed guideline as I've written it currently states:

"Inclusion on an atlas ... is generally not sufficient to demonstrate notability, as the coverage in an atlas is unlikely to count as significant"

The alternative view I would presume is:

"Inclusion on [an/2 or more] atlas[es] ... is sufficient to demonstrate notability"

I recognise this is a contentious issue. Could I have people's views below on which they agree with? Thanks.

• Not sufficient An entry on an atlas is not "significant" coverage as required by WP:NAndrewRT(Talk) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sufficient An entry in an atlas for a geographic location is analogous to an entry in the phone book for a person ... it strongly indicates existence, but says nothing at all about notability.
  Kww (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• All an atlas does is prove existence and provides some general location details. I can get the address and phone number for thousands of local businesses from a couple paper phone books and some online directories. Its just not sufficient information for an article. Mr.Z-man 13:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sufficient as an initial reference for verificiation if other sources can be found -Remember that there is a great amount missing from many atlases and that many only really cover the main towns and villages. One instance is that the google maps of India only show 28,000 places. iN reality there are 638,000 settlements in India. Being featured in an atlas does illustrate to me it is a place worth mentioning but that certainly doesn't confirm "notability" and neither should an atlas reference be an only source. An atlas should be used as a reference for verification not to assert notability about a place. If possible we want government sources and text to expand stubs into full articles. Note I have only created articles in the past using maps with the belief that they will be expanded in the future when other sources become avilable. These days I'm refraining from creating articles where they aren't other sources to expand immediately, at present I;m tackling Mexican municipalities using government sources which can be fully translated from spanish into full articles. I believe a lot could be written about most places if the resources were found. Basically I try to look at the world from the the place the article deals with. To some guy in NYC, it might be "unnotable" but to the people who live in these places it is certainly "notable" and could probably write a lot about their area. We all know how much can be written about small villages and local history if people are resourceful enough. I fail to see why this isn't the case for most of the places in the world whatever the country or background. The only thing stopping the "claim to notability" is unneven access to the web and distribution of wealth, knowledge and language barriers. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Good to hear all you're doing with Mexico - sounds like great work. I'm confused about your answer, though. The question was, is an atlas ON ITS OWN sufficient to demonstrate notability. Your summary says yes (sufficient) but your words seem to say No. Could you clarify? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the source. Major atlases are often considered a reliable source as any for verification of a human settlement having existence. However you cannot write encyclopedia articles based on a map, and an atlas does nothing to identify the nature of that location in terms of vital information, meaning that an atlas reference should only ever be used as an initial indicator or external link rather than a primary source of notability. Once further information becomes avilabale should be replaced by more authoritive sources e.g government sources and publications. Unfortunately for many countries the only knowledge we have online as yet is indication on a map or atlas. If this is the case then we have to assume that the place is of note as google or whatever identified it as a human settlement of note. Google makes a decision of which places to include on a map, note the India example they are selective in their approach. SO we assume they have made a decision of what is "notable" when drawing up the map. However even Google is far from an authority and they have been known to document towns which no longer exist or have been abandoned or are so small, e.g nothing more than a hamlet (examples I can think of in the Reunion and the Philippines) that natives of these places have requested that they are deleted because they really are not worth documenting. But as I say an atlas is an indication of notability, it by no means confirms the status of a place and should be used as an initial step rather than an official source. So in answer to your question Andrew, an atlas cannot adequately confirm a place is notable without being backed up by other sources. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not sufficient. I agree with Kww's analogy. Ryan Reich (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sufficient with the same qualification as Blofeld. As long as we are not talking street atlases. It's well established that settlements are notable per se, so if an atlas shows a settlement as existing, then that's enough for notability.--Kotniski (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the qualification you're referring to? As I noted above, it seems (although I'm not 100% sure) that Blofeld is agreeing with the proposition that human settlements whose only source is a map are not notable.AndrewRT(Talk)
  • You mentioned: "It's well established that settlements are notable per se". This is the debate I wanted to draw out: Estalished by whom, where on what grounds? Are you saying that all human settlements are inherently notable (as others have done)? Even if the only source is a map? Even if there isn't even a map source? What's the rationale and how is this consistent with WP:N? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well there must be some kind of source, obviously. But I don't see that a reliable atlas is any worse a source than a reliable encyclopedia or website. --Kotniski (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• A major atlas is a published book, a RELIABLE SOURCE: As per general Wikipedia guidelines, we look at what is official versus what is not. Some named places have legal recognition in some form. Others were just named by a company, organization, or community group. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography) covers this, and though not a guideline, is good at making points we can use.

But the major brands of Atlases, like Hammond or Rand McNally, or some of the online mapping services, like Google Maps or MapQuest (all just to name a few) are from well-respected publishers who would only print a place there if it were officially recognized as a human settlement. Sebwite (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that anyone is denying that major atlases are reliable ... they certainly provide verifiable data. The question is whether being listed in an atlas confers notability.
Kww (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether it matters. If there is consensus that there should be articles about real communities, that would override any notability guideline. --NE2 00:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sufficient - enough to create a stub. Stubs are basically place markers in WP, and that is what a dot does in a Atlas. I personally have always said "2 or more" only to satisfy Verifiability. I would also consider Google Maps, LandSat images et al. as a Atlases. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• If an article needs more than just a passing mention in a single (type of) publication, then it is not sufficient. As Kww says, are people notable because they are tagged in the phone book or in a national census? I feel the same is true of locations, as this is a similar type of information database. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If you read the essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography), its author did a good job of pointing out what makes a populated place notable or not. Generally, under these criteria, any officially named populated place would be notable. As noted, AfDs for any such populated places have been overwhelmingly filled with keeps. I have participated in some myself and seen it firsthand. Sebwite (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• That essay does a good job of reflecting the status quo. What I think is being discussed are changes that would challenge that, and there are some good arguments to that effect. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

question - So what then are you saying if an Atlas does have more than "a passing mention" of a specific place? My Hammond does have quite the write-up about some places. Does that mean it confers Notability to some places? Must we then tag a ISBN onto every geo-stub to prove a write-up? What then is the threshold of a mere "passing mention" and a RS? Show us where a line is that you draw and we can work to pass it rather than constant disagreement. The current basic question is a loaded one. should it not be "When does a Atlas become a RS"? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tagging an ISBN onto every geo-stub would be an ideal way to reference them. Unless I misunderstand the result of the Fritzpoll bot debate, this is in fact how the articles created by that bot will be written. As for a threshold: I (being a biased party) like the one proposed in my comments up in #Inhabited places: mention in a source is proof of notability if it provides a measure of human commentary. That would make it "notable" under the most generous possible interpretation of the word's literal meaning, in that someone has noticed it. Of course, a blanket claim that "no atlas ever establishes notability" is bound to run into this kind of counterexample, but I still hold to my opinion that the sole fact that a place is in an atlas is not enough to grant notability. Opinions differ, but I think the "commentary" standard is one that is both easy to satisfy and works in favor of the encyclopedia's quality in all ways. Ryan Reich (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sufficient as noted above with the Indian data. There's not a ton of coverage in most atlases, but they generally show that it's a real community (which, as noted by Sebwite, is sufficient for generally accepted practice), as well as its connection by roads (or not!) to other nearby communities, what type of district or region or county it's in, the surrounding countryside or topography, and perhaps more. A dot and letters on a map may not immediately seem like much, but there's far more given by placement on a map than a name and a number in a telephone book: the map gives plenty of context for the community, while the telephone book gives nothing except perhaps a street address. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sufficient. Simply being listed in an altas is not sufficient information to create a Wikipedia article from. We should be able to list a town in a higher-level geographic article based on an atlas entry, but not create a separate article. To create a separate article, there needs to be more information avialable, both to prove sufficiently its existence and notability, but also so that Wikipedia doesn't become littered with thousands of permanent sub-stubs. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sufficient, per Nyttend, but also per NE2's reasoning.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sufficient. As can be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahammadkati, a stub created from an atlas entry is a recipe for disaster. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is what I find so confusing. Before we find lots of arguments saying that not every place is inherently notable, now all of a sudden we have many arguments to say the opposite is true. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not sufficient. Many atlases are filled with names of long-gone commuinities no longer in local use because cartographers don't like too much blank space. Many of these in the US take names from the USGS quads, which (in my area) are approaching 70 years since they were last updated. I came here from a recently-closed AfD on one such place in the county I live in that would not meet notability unless you presume that being on an atlas establishes it. The closing admin basically had to go with consensus; we need some more guidance and I'm happy to add it. Also, agree with Kww's phone-book analogy ... it's exactly perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Defunct does not mean not notable. On Wikipedia, we have a lot of article on things that are historic but no longer in existence. These include businesses, schools, hospitals, and places on the map. The only stipulation is that they should be placed into a separate category indicating they are defunct. Sebwite (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Using an atlas entry without any other source doesn't allow one to ascertain if the place is defunct or not. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sufficient' if the atlas is generally accepted as reliable. AZ well-edited atlas has as much reliable data as any other encyclopedia--that's what I'd compare it to--the difference between graphic and alphabetic format is irrelevant. Some of the above comments seem to assume that w are trying to report the absolute Truth about what constitutes a legitimate place--but we aren't and we can't--all we can do is follow the guiding principle of Verifiability. Yes, there will be mistakes in Wikipedia from doing this--just as in all other types of articles. There are inherent limitations of our editing philosophy. We can't make progress unless we accept the knowledge that there will be errors. We minimize them by using the most reliable sources available, and cross checking when possible, and we can do no more. DGG (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question Why is the use of an atlas only applied to "places"? If a reliable atlas shows things like a specific street, a specific geographic feature, a specific building, a specific bridge, a specific intersection of two roads, etc., would that be sufficient to establish notability? After all, only some of these things get listed in an atlas. --Polaron | Talk 02:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally, I think of roads as long thin places, and buildings as tall, skinny places. I don't think an atlas entry is sufficient for either of them, either.
    Kww (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What about the thousands and thousands of city parks, which generally have official names? Wikipedia is not a replacement for specialty resources, like atlases, it is a collection of encyclopedic information. Every other article type needs secondary sources demonstrating it's encyclopedia value, I fail to see why this should be different. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • For parks, we are trying to come up with a guideline on Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks). See also WP:MILL, which I am presently constructing. Sebwite (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sufficient obviously. Articles are kept at AFD with no citations to source material - if someplace is noticable enough to be placed on maps published by any reputable brand, it's notable enough for here. No doubt further sources could be found - local papers (usually considered reliable) discussing what's going on there, perhaps school/government services websites (even when the school's or fire dept's notability is not established, it can be a reliable source that there's a school/fire station, etc. at the locale.) But fundamentally, if Hammond, Google, Rand McNalley, or the government of the place puts a dot on a map that clinches notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the comments by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE. Deamon138 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sufficient. Well-groomed publications such as those from National Geographic, Rand McNally, and the Britannica, are limited in scope: some professional made a decision that a location is worthy of mention — above some other location that is not. But imagine a mammoth new atlas, making use of mechanization, that includes a thousand or a million times that much information — information that is not vetted by a professional. Unfortunately, for these purposes, there's nothing to stop National Geographic or the USGS from changing their policies in a non-obvious way. When a policy change is discovered that is *not* along the lines of the Wiki community decisions of notability, who will be responsible for going back to find, evaluate, and delete the (potentially millions) of stubs that were created under what have been discovered to be inadmissible criteria? Almost everything in the 2010 source is admissible, but major elements of the 2008 source turned out not to be? We'll have created a quagmire that there will be no easy way to fix. Better that we apply personal judgment in each case individually *before* something goes into Wiki. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sufficient. A uniquely named location found in an Atlas should easily qualify for its own wikipedia article as long as it can be verified. A well-established Atlas like Rand McNally should be sufficent verification. Google is a newcomer to the business but I like what I've seen so far. I would think either would be sufficient.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sufficient As others have said, this is the practice at AFD where the community has held ti to be sufficient for verfication and so that is what the guidelines should reflect. As currently worded I would oppose this guideline being accepted and would urge people not to quote this guideline in policy or AFD arguments at this time. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of views

I'll try to summarise the range of views here:

In answer to the question: What is sufficient for a human settlement to demonstrate notability and hence to exist as an article:

(a) An atlas entry* on its own is anaologous to a phone book entry - proving existence but not notability. (e.g. Kww, User:Mr.Z-man, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, User:Ryan Reich, User:NickPenguin, User:Kaldari, User:Ezhiki, User:Phlegm Rooster, User:Daniel Case, User:Deamon138, User:Alpha Ralpha Boulevard, )

(b) An major atlas is a reliable source sufficient to demonstrate notability because it shows that a real community exists and this is the accepted practice at WP:AFD (e.g. User:Sebwite, User:Nyttend, User:DGG, User:Carlossuarez46, User:Cdogsimmons, User:Davewild)

(c) Human settlements are inherently notable (e.g. User:RekishiEJ)

(*) This refers to a "dot on a map" atlas rather than an map with accompanying text.

Secondary vs primary sources

I think that more consideration should be given to whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary when creating an article on a geographic location. According to WP:PSTS, Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources. As an example, a Thomas Guide map showing a street in Los Angeles is a primary source and is therefore unsuitable to claim notability for that street. On the other hand, a description in a book describing Sunset and Wilshire as major is a secondary source, and this book on Olvera Street is a tertiary source. Secondary or tertiary sources are required for all Wikipedia articles.

If one extends this consideration of whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary to the more controversial populated places, it should help to reduce the controversy (and the rate of creation of stubs on non-notable populated places). For example, if a town appears in a database that attempts to list all populated places on Earth, I think that its entry in that database must be considered primary and therefore insufficient to claim notability for that place. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps going in the right direction. The point made above about some atlases having a write-up about the location would make it more than just an atlas (or a phone book, pick your analogy at will). --NickPenguin_(contribs) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is another valid aspect, but I don't necessarily think of atlases as primary sources ... they tend to be compiled from surveys, photographs, and other primary sources, making them a secondary source. It would be possible to have a primary source atlas. To me, the primary reason for rejecting an atlas is that it does not constitute a direct and detailed examination of the subject.
Kww (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If an atlas shows only twenty towns where hundreds really exist, its creators are using some sort of judgement in selecting those towns, making it a secondary source. An atlas that shows everything does not do any "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." (Quoting from Secondary source). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So an atlas is considered a secondary source when it is otherwise incomplete? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete? No, I'm saying if the creators selected the towns to display for reasons such as interest to tourists, size, placement on crossroads or the like, it's secondary. If a database is an attempt to list every street, or every populated place, it is a primary source. And all databases like GeoNames are incomplete; try to find Ringmo (an article I just created on a village in Nepal) in any one of them. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so a source that simply lists the location of a place is unacceptable. So any source with accompanying relevant data is an acceptable source. And so if an atlas-type source has some sort of accompanying writeup on the location, only then can the source be used for article creation, and no sources without a writeup can be used for article creation. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That sources are imperfect is no reason not to use them. Proper geographic atlases have specific criteria about what detail they include, based on accepted geography. A db listing streets --we've accepted we do not include every street. For a db including every village, I think its accepted we do include them, and their presence on the most reliable available sources is hardly a handicap. We can include what we want to include and decide by consensus, and I think the consensus remains that avoiding the expected thousands of afds if we try to discriminate what villages are or are not important is so highly desirable that it still holds. If its an exception to WP:GRC, so much the better--its good to have specific criteria. W have no problem removing mistakes when they're identified. I would suggest that a source selecting on the basis of purported interest to tourists and the like is probably selecting on commercial considerations, and I would be very reluctant indeed to accept such sources for notability over official ones. It's like using the entries in the Yellow Pages that have display advertisements. Even using the criteria suggested just above, if a name is included in an authoritative map or atlas that uses typography of symbols to indicate villages, as is usual, that too is sufficient additional information. But I do agree that if it is truly just a name and coordinates, and we have no way of finding out what it is, then it fails V, because we cant write an article unless we at least know if its a village, a building, a river, a field, a landmark, or what. DGG (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The kind of secondary source atlas I have in mind would have pages that look something like this.
• I understand the fear that allowing any crack in the dyke of "consensus" would unleash a flood of AfDs. But is there not a throttle on AfDs, where one cannot initiate too many at once, as "disruptive"? Would not the result be "Merge" anyway?
• I think that consensus is shifting away from having stubs on every "populated place" listed in a dubious government database. Denying that consensus is shifting will only increase resentment.
• Would not it be better to apply WP:V and WP:PSTS to articles on populated places while accepting that any populated place is notable?
• A while back I prodded a few stubs on the grounds that since they did not provide a population figure they could not claim to be populated places (remember?). I have softened this view down to "any evidence of human inhabitation". Let me give an example; near Ahammadkati is Dhamura. It exists and is populated; a Google News search provides evidence. Wikimapia tells me that the coordinates 22°53′00″N 90°12′00″E provided by GeoNames are only off by about 800 meters. So even if there was no inherent notability for populated places, Dhamura would be kept at AfD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it is essential that we eliminate the concept of inherent notability. It is a flawed concept, and isn't a case of "slippery slope", it's a sheer cliff. Nothing makes a populated place notable if no one chooses to write about it. As to a shift in consensus: I agree that consensus is shifting. Shifted might be too much to claim at this point. Even if it has, we certainly need to eliminate the kind of friction that occurred over television episodes and characters. If we can truly demonstrate that consensus has shifted, it would probably be better to specify and gain consensus on an anti-geobot: a bot that simply went through and, for example, deleted all bot-generated stubs that had never been touched by human hands. That way, we don't have one editor like TTN trying to take on the whole task, and bearing the brunt of rage from those that disagree.
Kww (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it the bot-generation that is the problem as much as the permastubby-ness. Perhaps an investigation would be appropriate. Randomly select 40-100 stubs created with only a Maplandia, Fallingrain or GeoNames citation. Check to see if there are secondary sources on those places. It would be interesting to see what percent of them would be candidates for deletion. Since (I suspect) it would be a tiny percentage, such a study would go a long way towards reducing the worry that a wave of AfDs would result if the inherent notability was revoked. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Perma-stubbiness" is what I was trying to detect by saying that they had never been touched by human hands. If the create a stub, and that will inspire someone to improve the article theory has any merit, than a large percentage of bot-created stubs that are actually notable will have been enhanced by human hands. I suspect the percentage of bot-created stubs that have inspired editors to greater heights is trivially low, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Kww (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for a wholesale undoing of the stubs. The notion of "inherent notability" for populated places is wrong, but once an article exists, you have to assert that it isn't notable, not that people haven't improved the article. At AfD, an article usually gets kept if people find some sources. The question is, how many of these stubs could be improved? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not necessarily oppose having a requirement for some evidence of population for present places in areas where this was plausibly obtainable. It wouldnt of course work for formerly inhabited places, where such figures that there are, are guesses. DGG (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody guessed, that would be a secondary source, wouldn't it? I say the easiest, fairest and least disruptive solution is to apply apply WP:V and WP:PSTS to articles on populated places. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If census results and surveys are considered primary sources (as the policy says), it seems clear to me that most maps including those that appear in atlases should also be considered primary sources. Atlases which include additional information besides maps, however, could probably be considered secondary sources. Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)